politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It was US General Mark Milley who said that it would be 3 days/72 hours to Kyiv.
That does not mean that Putin thought that this war would last for years as he expected Ukraine to capitulate to his demands (which was almost accomplished) which is why the SMO was so half-assed.
Russia did not expect any resistance during the initial invasion of Ukraine. Russia had 170 BTGs fully composed of professional soldiers at the start of the war. Only 64-69 of these BTGs took part according to Ukraine and at half strength. Since these forces did not expect any resistance, they went in without their material technical support brigades which meant they had to rely on ad hoc supply units and looting. The material technical support brigades were only sent into Ukraine around a month after the invasion but Russian units had already sustained heavy losses by then due to the lack of ammunition and supplies. This was too little too late which eventually led to the Russian Armed Forces withdrawing from Ukraine and mostly being replaced by irregulars. For example, when Russian forces withdrew from the Kharkov region, they got replaced by 3rd Army Corps which was thrown into enemy lines to stem the tide.
If it was not half assed, Russia would likely have utilized lessons learned from when they sent in units during the Donbas War, meaning that they would have sent in drones to map out positions, bomb said positions to hell destroying entire Ukrainian brigades in minutes like what happened in 2014, then send forward units with their material technical support brigades actually attached and they would locate surviving Ukrainian units, and smash them into pieces forcing Ukraine to send in their reserves to the front to seal up openings which without reservists back at Kiev, would allow the Hostomel operation to succeed in its entirety by giving the VDV time to prepare the airfield in order to create an air bridge. Ukraine then quickly capitulates to Russia's demands.
Putin in my opinion, probably regrets half assing the initial invasion. Now it has turned into a war of attrition. This means that Russia has to look for alternatives outside of the military such as private military contractors or volunteers to fight in Ukraine. This is because preparing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight in Ukraine would cause a large amount of unrest at home and would destabalize the economy. This is also why I think that Russia might be preparing to use a larger portion of its military this year in the spring. Zelenskyy seems to agree as he has been talking about Russia launching an offensive into Sumy from Russia and another one into Kyiv from Belarus. The economy has since adapted to the Special Military Operation meaning it would be less destabilized from a full-scale war. The population is suffering from war exhaustion despite attempts by Russia to prevent war exhaustion by using private military contractors and volunteers but Kursk might have increased public support for a full-scale war.
Not as desperately as you tried to rewrite history regarding WW2 above using the same nonsense that neo-nazis used.
If it wasn’t obvious, I don’t think the invasion was particularly stellar. But without action, it would only embolden Zelenskyy to keep stamping down on the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s right to self determination.
Was invasion the best choice? No.
No you don't, that is obvious since you spouted the viagra nonsense which is easily debunked, the two gun 1 man myth which is debunked by many western historians, etc.
How do you know? You yourself admit to not even looking at anything I send.
Nope that is indeed true.
I however was referring to this: Stalin wouldn’t sign the agreements for reciprocal good treatment of prisoners.
Which is propagated by post-war Nazis: "After the war, the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Soviet leadership, which has not signed the Geneva Convention of 1929 on the treatment of prisoners of war"
And is shown as nonsense here:
“In 1929, a new Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was concluded, which provided prisoners with an even greater degree of protection than previous agreements. Germany, like most European countries, signed this document. Moscow did not sign the convention, but ratified the convention on the treatment of the wounded and sick in war that was concluded at the same time. The USSR demonstrated that it intended to act within the framework of international law. Thus, this meant that the USSR and Germany were bound by common international legal norms of warfare, which were binding on all states, regardless of whether they had joined the relevant agreements or not. Even without any conventions, it was unacceptable to exterminate prisoners of war, as the Nazis did. The USSR’s agreement and refusal to ratify the Geneva Convention did not change the situation.”
“It should also be noted that the rights of Soviet soldiers were guaranteed not only by general international legal norms, but also fell under the Hague Convention, which Russia signed. The provisions of this convention remained in force after the signing of the Geneva Convention, which all parties, including German lawyers, were aware of. The German collection of international legal acts of 1940 indicated that the Hague Agreement on the Laws and Rules of War was valid even without the Geneva Convention. In addition, it should be noted that the states that signed the Geneva Convention assumed the obligation to treat prisoners normally, regardless of whether their countries signed the convention or not. In the case of a German-Soviet war, the situation of German prisoners of war should have been a concern - the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention.”
“Moscow also tried to provide its prisoners with maximum legal protection. Already 27 June 1941 of the USSR expressed readiness to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross. On July 1, the “Regulation on Prisoners of War” was approved, which strictly complied with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. German prisoners of war were guaranteed decent treatment, personal safety and medical assistance. This “Regulations” acted throughout the war, its violators were prosecuted in disciplinary and criminal proceedings. Moscow, recognizing the Geneva Convention, apparently hoped for an adequate response from Berlin. However, the military and political leadership of the Third Reich had already crossed the line between good and evil and was not going to apply to the Soviet “subhumans” neither the Hague nor the Geneva Convention, nor the generally accepted norms and customs of war.”
A bit shorter: the Soviets did not sign Geneva as it would require them to separate prisoners by race which went against the USSR’s anti-racist beliefs but that didn't matter as they signed Hague convention which acts as a agreement for reciprocal good treatment of prisoners, were bound by common international legal norms of warfare, the USSR expressed readiness to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the “Regulation on Prisoners of War” was approved which strictly complied with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
It is clear that continued conversation won't convince anyone of anything, we are clearly at an impasse.