Any DMZ would have to be in Russia's territory, not Ukraine's. DMZ in Ukraine's territory would still be as good as occupied, and we Turkish Cypriots know how UN peacekeepers treat victims of aggression in such circumstances.
Any DMZ would have to be in Russia's territory, not Ukraine's. DMZ in Ukraine's territory would still be as good as occupied,
The real issue here is the breaks in training / equiping Ukrainians on / with all they need to push Russia out entirely. The majority of what the West has donated to this point has been defensive in nature. Only a small percentage of what has been donated is ideal for continuous, full scale offensives. We're approaching the point where air defense is going to be layered and capable enough to stop the majority of Russian missile attacks. Those attacks are starting to get costly, stress Russian stockpiles and above all else, they're becoming increasingly less effective.no i get that, but what i'm trying to say is that giving the Russians land will not lead to peace, it will lead to more wars. If you want peace you have to crush their armies that are attacking you. So anyone who suggests the Russians can have land, are basically ok'ing another war. Its the opposite of peace, if you want peace you need Ukraine to reclaim all her land back.
If Ukraine reclaims all her land back, the Russians will not be any rush to launch another war. But if she gets 15% of the country, she will say why not do another war and take another 15/20%.
We dealt with the Russians throughout history, but in the recent history we have dealt with them in syria and libya, outside of direct fighting they shit over all agreements and always look to undermine and harm you, these people don't believe in peace, they only believe in power and domination. No agreement ever held with them, the only lines that are holding are where the armies are face to face.
Its for good reason that i find the Russian political class as degenerate as they come.
And lets not forget how the entire Russian state at the start of this war was boasting about how they were going to invade half of Europe. Then the threats of nuclear war over their evil invasion, these people need to punished and punished hard.
There is no value to the West in a DMZ. The value to us is having Russia's economy crippled by the costs associated with the war, their currency devalued on the international stage, their army crippled for a generation, while the West has an excuse to fully modernize their own military power and to expand NATO to Russia's doorstep, so they're unable to bully their neighbour's anymore, without automatically triggering article 5 and having their shit pushed from their asses to their throats.Any DMZ would have to be in Russia's territory, not Ukraine's. DMZ in Ukraine's territory would still be as good as occupied, and we Turkish Cypriots know how UN peacekeepers treat victims of aggression in such circumstances.
honorable mention : Curtis Lemay (USAF)Air power 101 for dummies and why people should stop whinning about Russians bombing some cities.
While Douhet may sound narrow-minded, he was not just describing the benefits of airpower but also working to sway the public, civilian policymakers, and military leadership towards a wholly new line of thought regarding war. Douhet laid a foundation for employment doctrine with several major tenets that while not a guarantee for war, have influenced airpower and warfare ever since. The first tenet included the combination of high explosive, incendiary, and gas bombs with the utility of the latter coming from its ability to prevent emergency responders from assisting after an attack. Targeting has always been an essential element of airpower doctrine and Douhet felt that “In general, aerial offensives will be directed against such targets at peacetime industrial and commercial establishments; important buildings, private and public; transportation arteries and centers; and certain designated areas of civilian population as well.”==========Mitchell does not focus on the specifics of technology such as units of bombardment or Battleplanes in his major work as Douhet did, but his major concepts are:
- An independent air force, run by airmen, is a necessary component of airpower.
- Strategic bombardment of vital industrial and population centers will eliminate the enemy’s ability to make war
Douhet clearly knows something people don't and he's Italian, not Russian
Mitchell also knows something...something about the use of air power and he's American, not Russian
Both are father of modern air power.
In the the Balkan intervention, Iraq-Iran, Persian gulf 1.0 and 2.0 and even as recent as Armenia-Azerbaijan war, the use of airpower to "terrorize" the population has and always will remain the same.
Airpower is always about achieveing punishing blow in the tactical and strategic levels.
Gulf War air campaign - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.orgWar of the cities - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.orgSecond Nagorno-Karabakh War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Some can be fooled by by the sway of public opinion, I refuse to.
As I said, the difference between Russia and everyone else is just happens to be the Russians aren't as good as we used to think when it comes to the application of air power.
A lot More brutality happened after WW2while 75 years ago we were murdering each other like psychopaths.
Putin screwed up royally and made a major geopolitical miscalculation. This is the best chance the West is going to get to stick the knife into Russia, twist it really, really deep and watch them bleed out all over themselves. Putin thought we were soft and decadent. He's learning, the hard way, that we're as evil, selfish, cold blooded and merciless as anyone else, especially when you threaten our interests... And collectively, we're far more capable than Russia in every relative way.
I agree, I just think it's rich for the Indonesian peace initiative that a dmz should exist within Ukrainian territory. They're the victim hereThere is no value to the West in a DMZ. The value to us is having Russia's economy crippled by the costs associated with the war, their currency devalued on the international stage, their army crippled for a generation, while the West has an excuse to fully modernize their own military power and to expand NATO to Russia's doorstep, so they're unable to bully their neighbour's anymore, without automatically triggering article 5 and having their shit pushed from their asses to their throats.
Putin screwed up royally and made a major geopolitical miscalculation. This is the best chance the West is going to get to stick the knife into Russia, twist it really, really deep and watch them bleed out all over themselves. Putin thought we were soft and decadent. He's learning, the hard way, that we're as evil, selfish, cold blooded and merciless as anyone else, especially when you threaten our interests... And collectively, we're far more capable than Russia in every relative way.
A lot More brutality happened after WW2
, Violence by European states did not stop.
The attention and brutality was diverted to the anti-colonial movements.
The term 'civilized' in European terms maybe. The standard of civilized itself differs from civilizations, peoples. For example the civilized European entrenched and state enforced homosexualism, people on the other side of the world would find it disgusting and belongs to the jungle.
Do not equate your freedom of travel = civilized,
There is no way for anyone to make Russia Completely irrelevant. The idea is to ruin the standard of living enough for their people for them to consider political change, and force them to spend far more money than they want to on defense, with NATO along the entirety of their border.That is not the issue for now.
But ultimately the question is, how far West will go?
No matter how capable you are compared to Putin's army, Russia will continue to be a significant threat for contemporary global order.
1. It is not possible to strip it from its VETO. (And Russians will continue to use it to disrupt Western interest.)
2. It has world the largest natural resources. (So trade with emerging economies will continue)
3. It has world largest nuclear arsenal.
And for that, it is simply not possible to totally cut them off or defeat them completely.
Sooner or later, West will need to find an off-ramp solution to this conflcit.
There is no way for anyone to make Russia Completely irrelevant. The idea is to ruin the standard of living enough for their people for them to consider political change, and force them to spend far more money than they want to on defense, with NATO along the entirety of their border.
Russia has a declining population and this war is causing a brain drain of some its most capable people, who are fleeing the country to live somewhere with more freedoms and a better standard of living. Russia will naturally decline on its own and it will increasingly become a petro slave to India and China as they emerge. The West's land armies were largely created to blunt the Soviet / Russian threat. Right now we're getting the cheapest possible price to neuter Russia's ability to project power in Europe. We don't need Russia eliminated, we simply need them to be far inferior to NATO. This war is forcing them to burn through the arsenal that the Soviets and the Russians spent 40 years stockpiling. By the conclusion of the war their ability to invade any capable military power will be blunted for a generation. That's a win for NATO.
Remember, Russia has a smaller GDP than Canada. It's a huge country with 140,000+ million people (and declining) but it's seeing virtually no growth. It was counting on growing it's natural gas / oil relationships with the rest of Europe to help fund its growth. That's no more. Now it will increasingly rely on China and India to replace those exports and both of those countries will shrewedly exploit Russia, who needs them as buyers. Over the next decade, we're going to see Russia struggle, not thrive.
We're even starting to see the Russian pundits realize that this war is going horribly for them.
There is no doubt that that these segments are engineered by the the Russian State, but what's important to focus on is how the narrative evolves over time. As the Russian struggles in this conflict mount, the narrative shifts from confidence, to more of a conversation of "we can't actually compete". They're essentially planting the seeds of defeat in the minds of the population, preparing them for an eventual resolution to this conflict that isn't favorable to Russia. The narrative changes subtly, over time, so as not to be too obvious.When it comes to Russian TV sometimes i wonder if what were seeing is Russian social engineering. We know these people are hand picked and the state has the final say on the message and ive seen too many videos now where one panellist basically points out the obvious reality, only to be shut down by the irrationality of the majority. Is this no more then state training, to condition the russian people to see the obvious reality and reason of their fellow russians as false and wrong? Basically conditioning the Russian people to see white as black and black as white? And also to portray the reality opinion as a fringe minority opinion?
The guy points out that at the peak of soviet power, it couldn't compete economically with the west. Today economically Russia is nothing compared to the west so its impossible to out compete them in terms of pouring material into Ukraine. I can't believe that all the other panellists around him are that dumb not see what he's saying. I mean when the host says Russia is more flexible today as if to suggest its better economically and industrially today then it was at the peak of soviet power, is outlandish. These are grown men, surely this has to be an act?
Then the thing about giving a town back, the guy says so your saying we lost thousands of soldiers to what give the town back? Basically pointing out how outlandish the statement is.
But i would hate to be a russian today who sees the reality, he must imagine his entire country has gone mad.
Yeah I must admit, his statement are not well thought for diplomatic missions.Why don't you broker that deal by giving up roughly 15-17% of Indonesia to Ukraine to compensate them for their lost territory, shipping ports, coast line, natural resources, etc. That would be an example of fanatstic deal brokering.
While there are different standards of what “civilizied” means, there are some common concepts that are universal.
Living in peace, not stealing, murdering, raping, etc is the basis of being civilized. You ca’t call yourself civilized if you engage in such actions. These things are universal.
In the last few decades, Europeans started to live in a civilized way, in the sense that we no longer wage war against each other, try to steal territories or murder our neighbors.
Free travel is a sign of confidence in your neighbor. It means you trust him enough to be worthy of entering your country without additional checks.
Eureope has made huge progress when it comes to inter-country relations, and the Russian invasion is an insult to every sane European. This is why we will support Ukraine until it liberates its country and wins the war.
Then again Russians would not bother building or developing or using any kind of soft power.