The Treaty of Versailles was punitive after the war was over with, and the terms of the treaty were humiliating.
I’m not so sure that the current sanctions are set up to work like that- I don’t think there’s a large demand for reparations or anything to Ukraine, or anything particularly punitive to the Russians once they withdraw.
Yes. I didn’t read the article I just assumed Macron was talking about after the war.
One of my old Navy shipmates has reportedly gone to Ukraine to join up.
Neville Chamberlain is alive and well and living in France. What a stupid mindset. If they don’t want to be humiliated then don’t do humiliating things that kill 10’s of thousands of people.
This could all be solved with a bullet in Putin’s brain.
No, the Chamberlaining was done by Henry Kissinger who said let Russia have SE Ukraine for the sake of ending the fighting.
No, please do not advocate foolish notions. Very likely, depending on who the attacker was, assassination of Uncle Vovo could well make the situation much worse.
Nothing foolish about suicide when the reality of your deeds sink in. He wants to kill neo-Nazis and they don’t get any worse then him.
The Russian’s are saying that they’ve destroyed 90% of Ukrainian forces in Severodonesk with the rest fleeing, whereas the Ukrainians are saying they’ve pushed the Russians out of the city. Totally differing accounts - proper fog of war stuff.
If anyone wants in depth detail about the military situation this guy does good daily update videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUnc496-PPmFZVKlYxUnToA/featured
Is this the first time Zelenskiy has acknowledged that Crimea is off the table? It could be an important concession from Ukraine.
It seems unlikely Ukraine would even try taking Crimea back by force. It’s important they finally acknowledged it publicly.
Guardian blog
Add another dead Russian General to the list.
ISW confirms the Ukrainian counterattack in Severodonetsk is gaining back territory. I think control of the city will go back and forth for awhile.
Site: Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 5 | Institute for the Study of War
It’s fun to keep count of dead Russian Generals…but has anybody ever done a serious analysis of whether losing senior officers affects the actual outcome of the battles?
The Russian army has shown a certain level of competence-- and mostly incompetence–which astonished us at first, since everybody “knew” that Russia was one of the biggest and best armies in the world.
Now we know the surprising truth, and have understood their poor organization and logistics. Yet the Russians continue with their tactics, and it’s working pretty well. They won’t conquer all of Ukraine, but they seem to have been pretty good at taking over the 20% of it which they currently control, and will continue to pummel everything within range of their gunsights for a long, long time.
No matter how many Generals they lose,
I would agree to a certain extent - when you have a military that’s as bad as Russia’s, the loss of expertise in the high-up ranks matters little because they made little difference to begin with.
By analogy: an NFL team that loses a head coach, such as if the Patriots losing Bill Belichick, might be severely affected. But when you have a bunch of elementary school kids playing football on their own in a backyard, what does it matter if they lose their “coach”? They were already playing whatever-ball to begin with.
Calvinball? Because, war has rules not unlike those of Calvinball.
Can we please, pretty please, drop sports analogies when discussing a brutal war where a ton of actual people are dying horrible deaths?
Unless they’ve abandon their doctrine it matters greatly if they lose high ranking people. They don’t do anything without instructions from above.
How soon are we going to be able to see Dead Russian Generals in concert?
As tactfully as I can ask this, what kind of non-war analogy would you prefer that I use for war? Any analogy that doesn’t involve death is going to sound bad when used as an analogy for war. Should I use…cooking? Working in the office? Chess?
I’m not using sports analogies arbitrarily; I’m using them because there are direct similarities between sports and war. Both involve victory or defeat outcomes, both involve planning, execution, require guidance from higher-ups, tactics, strategy, a time period by which point it will eventually become clear who has won, and both involve margin of victory - one can win big or win small.
Yes, exactly. Any time I see a post that starts to use a sports analogy, I just skip it because: (a) sports has no relationship to a war; and (b) people are dying.
Use a sports analogy and you lose my interest immediately.
Is it not possible for you to discuss something without using analogies?
More encouraging news for Ukraine. Ben Wallace said they’ll train the men in the UK.