So we decided to take the leash of the Ukrainians and let them fire ATACMS into Russia proper. Well, that's not entirely true. Since the Ukrainians can't do the job completely by themselves, we pushed some of the buttons, too. Oh well, if we have to get our hands a little dirty in pursuit of Glorious Victory, that's the way it goes. No price is too high to pay for winning.
Err, does anyone know what our definition of "winning" might be? Is it to drive the Russians from the river to the sea or am I confusing things? Maybe the job is to drive the Russian army back to the original borders. That sounds reasonable. Let's go for that.
Has anyone, like, I don't know, the Pentagon, maybe, done a military analysis of the troops, weapons, munitions, gasoline, beans and bandages necessary to do that? Do we have a rough idea of the order of battle required to dislodge and push back the Russians? Not that I've seen.
Me, I go back to the last time an army pushed the Russians backer and backer and backer. The Nazis. Dig this German newsreel from 1941. Feel free to move the scrub head around to get to the actual footage from the front and not spend so much time looking at various Nazi leaders. Notice how small the airplanes look over the Russian vastness. Look at how small the German units look relative to the Russian vastness. After that, think about how the Ukrainian army is about 1/20 the size of the Wehrmacht of 1941, if that.
Hopefully, DEI will make the Ukrainian army stronger because with so few troops and weapons, there is no way on planet Earth they are going to push the Russians anywhere.
Meet Air Force Lt General Kevin Schneider. He fully supports DEI in the military and wants DEI to be "part of our DNA.” He believes DEI will "make sure that we can have the best, most capable force.”
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 27, 2024
Cc @PeteHegseth pic.twitter.com/WnNBnB6iDO
Going back to one of the regular themes of this blog, the Coastal Elites don't seem to know how anything works any more. In war, you first need to define victory and then you need to assess your army to see if victory is even remotely possible. I know the Elites don't read the Bible these days, but Luke 28:14 31-32 has a few tips for them on the subject.
"Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms."
Well, maybe not. Let's just fire ATACMS into some random spot on the absolutely massive map of Russia and hope for the best.
If you're not pursuing realistic victory conditions, then all you're doing by dragging out the war is killing young men. Now I get that, in this case, the young men are straight and white so, in general, we want to kill as many of them as we possibly can, but do we have to make it so obvious?
 |
| Victory! Slava Ukraini! |
1 comment:
I am having trouble understanding your attitude here. This is Russia we are talking about, the core of the former Russian Empire. They have clearly decided to reconsitute the Empire, and so are invading their neighbors one at a time to put them back under the yoke. If they finish off Ukraine, they clearly intend to go for Moldova, and then if they are convinced that NATO is cowed they are eyeing the Baltics and Poland to get back their full access to the Baltic Sea. And after that, anybody else that looks tasty. And they clearly won't stop until someone steps up and stops them. Which, by that time, will not be anything that can be accomplished without slinging nukes.
At this point, everything I have seen from Ukraine is very clear on their war aims: They want the Russians to knock it off and go home. And the Russian war aim is equally clear: conquer Ukraine, followed by as much of Europe as they can get away with. Which one of those do you think are in our best long-term interest?
Post a Comment