You couldn't be more wrong and your views are clouded by the Apartheid-era regional proxy war experience.
In the contemporary case of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, public sentiment had absolutely zero effect on the course of events thus far.
You're also wrongly assuming that the West will conscript people to fight a prolonged hot war with Russia, which also is extremely unrealistic.
It's hypocritical too since you literally just argued that Russia might hit NATO, thus leading to a nuclear escalation, yet now you think it won't? I don't get it.
From what I gather thus far, your views are as follows:
* Russia might soon snap, say "to hell with it!", and bomb NATO
* Westerners might revolt against their governments support of the proxy war
* That same proxy war won't go nuclear even if Russia bombs NATO
* Hence the need to draft people for a prolonged hot conflict instead
* And all the while, Russia won't bomb bridges across the Dnieper
* Even though that could cripple Ukraine's logistics and create more "Krynkis"
Is this an accurate summary of what you've shared today under this thread?
So the public opinion in the Ukraine has had Zero affect on the war???by
So it hasn't led to a growing resistance, public strikes, the censorship, the banning of churches, the free press, and the arrest of "dissident, "the burning of conscription recruiters vehicles and overall morale collapse ???
If you think this was unique to Apartheid, think again you Dogmatic Fool, I'm seeing exactly what happened in South Africa being repeated in the Ukraine, and it will have the same effect!!!
Correct, public opinion hasn't stopped NATO from gradually escalating its involvement in the conflict through its "boiling frogs" approach, ergo the discussion over long-range weapons 2,5 years into the SMO.
"Growing resistance" and "public strikes" failed to stop the abovementioned trend as proven by that example and the others that preceded it (F-16s, ATACMS, HIMARS, etc.).
What I wrote above is indisputable: NATO has continued escalating its involvement in the conflict despite the examples you shared. To deny this is delusional and proof that you live in a wishful thinking fantasyland.
Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting for you as a special operations veteran to explain why pontoons are preferable to builds and rail for crossing rivers. If that was true, why do bridges and rail even still exist? It doesn't make sense.
So then tell me, is the West's failure to finally take out the Kersch Bridge or the newly established railway line from Russia into the Ukraine also a political one???
I'm curious and also asking for a friend.
The public opinion in South Africa didn't stop the government of the day from going to war in Angola, but it definitely helped to end it, and exactly the same will occur with NATO, which your Ineptitude seems to prevent you from seeing.
Talk about living in a Fantasy.
Are you that dumb, that you can't suddenly see Donald Tusks attitude change, since many of his soldiers and officers recently returned wounded or in body bags to Poland???
No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
As for RSA, again, that's not comparable to this conflict. They're two very different ones waged in totally different times.
On Tusk, it was always Sikorski who flirted with intervention, not him. I also don't rule out that scenario either but am not confident it'll happen.
Another point that you're dishonestly ignoring or forgot to consider due to getting carried away is that Russia hasn't even tried to destroy these bridges.
Ukraine has openly tried to destroy the Crimean Bridge and openly declares that this is one of its top goals, yet Russia never tried to destroy Dnieper bridges or declared that it's one of its goals.
Even after the SMO's initial push stalled around 1-2 months into the conflict, nothing was done to hit those bridges. Why? You imply that it's because pontoons are preferred to bridges and rail? Get real!
So if Russia won't even touch Ukrainian bridges with conventional arms, why would they suddenly escalate all the way to dropping nukes or whatever else?
Putin is hyper-rational, almost too rational in my view since he keeps getting "led by the nose" by the West, so it's hard to imagine him agreeing to jump up the escalation ladder instead of climb it.
Anyhow, can you please explain why you think keeping those bridges intact is better for Russia and worse for Ukraine than even just damaging them?
You're a special operations veteran, maybe (and I say this without sarcasm) you have some secret insight into this that you'd feel comfortable sharing?
Why do retreating forces sometimes blow up bridges if pontoons are preferable to them like you implied? Why not just keep them intact them? None of this makes sense.
Please provide the Political Reasoning and Kabuki Theatre that is supposedly behind Russia not attacking the bridges over the Dnieper, because you evidently don't understand the attrition of Ukrainian troops concept.
If you couldn't figure out my tone of sarcasm, then I really can't help you, and your desperate attempt to place the South African situation in a different silo to that of the EU/NATO or Ukraine in continuing a fight against Russia, is ridiculous to say the least, when "Apartheid" in name had nothing to do with it, but public resistance did, the very same public resistance growing in stature in the Ukraine and NATO countries.
A fact you should have been able to analyse if you had the skill.
I bet you're one of those fools who believes that it was black. revolutionary movements such as the ANC which toppled the white South African government, when in fact the resistance orchestrated and fueled by US clandestine regime change efforts, no different from those used in the Ukraine, attempted in Russia, Georgia and Belarus.
Yes, while we were assisting the West, by fighting the so called Communist Onslaught of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, we were being used by the US as a proxy against them, only to be stabbed in the back by the US, and them working behind the scenes to topple the unpliable white government and replace it with a pliable black revolutionary government whom they believed they could control, an exercise that backfired spectacularly, and again to the disadvantage of all South Africans, and now they're at it again, funding a predominantly white political party in the form of the DA, for a wash, rinse, repeat exercise.
Another question that I need answered for a friend, how is it that the Ukies couldn't hit the Kersch Bridge, yet they took out several Russian Naval ships in harbours with missiles in Crimea and hit and sank or severely damaged several Russian warships of the Black Sea fleet using sea drones???
Weren't Black Sea Fleet ships in harbours protected by very good air defences???
You couldn't be more wrong and your views are clouded by the Apartheid-era regional proxy war experience.
In the contemporary case of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, public sentiment had absolutely zero effect on the course of events thus far.
You're also wrongly assuming that the West will conscript people to fight a prolonged hot war with Russia, which also is extremely unrealistic.
It's hypocritical too since you literally just argued that Russia might hit NATO, thus leading to a nuclear escalation, yet now you think it won't? I don't get it.
From what I gather thus far, your views are as follows:
* Russia might soon snap, say "to hell with it!", and bomb NATO
* Westerners might revolt against their governments support of the proxy war
* That same proxy war won't go nuclear even if Russia bombs NATO
* Hence the need to draft people for a prolonged hot conflict instead
* And all the while, Russia won't bomb bridges across the Dnieper
* Even though that could cripple Ukraine's logistics and create more "Krynkis"
Is this an accurate summary of what you've shared today under this thread?
Ohh no???
So the public opinion in the Ukraine has had Zero affect on the war???by
So it hasn't led to a growing resistance, public strikes, the censorship, the banning of churches, the free press, and the arrest of "dissident, "the burning of conscription recruiters vehicles and overall morale collapse ???
If you think this was unique to Apartheid, think again you Dogmatic Fool, I'm seeing exactly what happened in South Africa being repeated in the Ukraine, and it will have the same effect!!!
Correct, public opinion hasn't stopped NATO from gradually escalating its involvement in the conflict through its "boiling frogs" approach, ergo the discussion over long-range weapons 2,5 years into the SMO.
"Growing resistance" and "public strikes" failed to stop the abovementioned trend as proven by that example and the others that preceded it (F-16s, ATACMS, HIMARS, etc.).
What I wrote above is indisputable: NATO has continued escalating its involvement in the conflict despite the examples you shared. To deny this is delusional and proof that you live in a wishful thinking fantasyland.
Anyhow, I'm eagerly waiting for you as a special operations veteran to explain why pontoons are preferable to builds and rail for crossing rivers. If that was true, why do bridges and rail even still exist? It doesn't make sense.
So then tell me, is the West's failure to finally take out the Kersch Bridge or the newly established railway line from Russia into the Ukraine also a political one???
I'm curious and also asking for a friend.
The public opinion in South Africa didn't stop the government of the day from going to war in Angola, but it definitely helped to end it, and exactly the same will occur with NATO, which your Ineptitude seems to prevent you from seeing.
Talk about living in a Fantasy.
Are you that dumb, that you can't suddenly see Donald Tusks attitude change, since many of his soldiers and officers recently returned wounded or in body bags to Poland???
No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
As for RSA, again, that's not comparable to this conflict. They're two very different ones waged in totally different times.
On Tusk, it was always Sikorski who flirted with intervention, not him. I also don't rule out that scenario either but am not confident it'll happen.
Will you at least please elaborate on what you so confidently implied about pontoons being preferable to bridges and rail for crossing rivers?
Of all the things you wrote, that's the most ridiculous by far. It's difficult to imagine that you were serious but you don't seem to be trolling.
If pontoons are preferable, then why do we even have bridges and rail? Why not move everything by pontoons from here on out?
Is there some global conspiracy against pontoons? lol For real, what were you thinking by implying that's the reason why Russia hasn't bombed them!?
Another point that you're dishonestly ignoring or forgot to consider due to getting carried away is that Russia hasn't even tried to destroy these bridges.
Ukraine has openly tried to destroy the Crimean Bridge and openly declares that this is one of its top goals, yet Russia never tried to destroy Dnieper bridges or declared that it's one of its goals.
Even after the SMO's initial push stalled around 1-2 months into the conflict, nothing was done to hit those bridges. Why? You imply that it's because pontoons are preferred to bridges and rail? Get real!
So if Russia won't even touch Ukrainian bridges with conventional arms, why would they suddenly escalate all the way to dropping nukes or whatever else?
Putin is hyper-rational, almost too rational in my view since he keeps getting "led by the nose" by the West, so it's hard to imagine him agreeing to jump up the escalation ladder instead of climb it.
Anyhow, can you please explain why you think keeping those bridges intact is better for Russia and worse for Ukraine than even just damaging them?
You're a special operations veteran, maybe (and I say this without sarcasm) you have some secret insight into this that you'd feel comfortable sharing?
Why do retreating forces sometimes blow up bridges if pontoons are preferable to them like you implied? Why not just keep them intact them? None of this makes sense.
Please provide the Political Reasoning and Kabuki Theatre that is supposedly behind Russia not attacking the bridges over the Dnieper, because you evidently don't understand the attrition of Ukrainian troops concept.
Epic exchange.
If you couldn't figure out my tone of sarcasm, then I really can't help you, and your desperate attempt to place the South African situation in a different silo to that of the EU/NATO or Ukraine in continuing a fight against Russia, is ridiculous to say the least, when "Apartheid" in name had nothing to do with it, but public resistance did, the very same public resistance growing in stature in the Ukraine and NATO countries.
A fact you should have been able to analyse if you had the skill.
I bet you're one of those fools who believes that it was black. revolutionary movements such as the ANC which toppled the white South African government, when in fact the resistance orchestrated and fueled by US clandestine regime change efforts, no different from those used in the Ukraine, attempted in Russia, Georgia and Belarus.
Yes, while we were assisting the West, by fighting the so called Communist Onslaught of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, we were being used by the US as a proxy against them, only to be stabbed in the back by the US, and them working behind the scenes to topple the unpliable white government and replace it with a pliable black revolutionary government whom they believed they could control, an exercise that backfired spectacularly, and again to the disadvantage of all South Africans, and now they're at it again, funding a predominantly white political party in the form of the DA, for a wash, rinse, repeat exercise.
Another question that I need answered for a friend, how is it that the Ukies couldn't hit the Kersch Bridge, yet they took out several Russian Naval ships in harbours with missiles in Crimea and hit and sank or severely damaged several Russian warships of the Black Sea fleet using sea drones???
Weren't Black Sea Fleet ships in harbours protected by very good air defences???