[Authoritarianism Can Conquer Territories, The Failure of the Cauldron, Don't Believe Kadyrov, Kharkiv - a Neo-Nazi Stronghold, Kholomoisky's HQ on the Dniepr, What Will Russia Do Next?, MFA vs MOD!]
You had it right the first time - pyrrhic is "peer-hic".
The history of the term is interesting. Pyrrhus was renowned as the greatest general of his age; Hannibal is said to have considered him second only to Alexander. He was believed to be able to heal with a touch. His eponymous term is due to his quip after defeating the Romans in a costly battle that one more such victory and he should be utterly ruined. He was essentially the last real resistance to Roman domination of the Hellenistic world.
So many Ukrainians, Russians (?) queued up in front of Louis Vuitton shop in Southern France to spend thousands of euros on a handbag. Are only the poor, the disabled and the elderly left behind.
Another issue in your interesting analysis is your claim that Russia intended to invade Kiev, for which you provide no evidence. As you are surely aware, the counter hypothesis is that, apart from the capture of the airport, the goal of early moves to the outskirts of Kiev was to prevent major Ukrainiean military forces from the capital from reinforcing the Donbass army. The description of the Russian operation around Kiev as a failed attack on the city is what the Western mass media are repeating ad nauseum, so unless you can provide evidence that invasion was the Russian plan, your claim is in effect acting like controlled opposition, however unintentional. As you acknowledge, taking cities like Kharkov or Dniepro require major battles, operations far more costly than Russian military actions so far, as the Mariupol affair has demonstrated. Would the Russian professional forces in the field or in reserve have been capable of taking Kiev at the outset, without calling up the conscript army? And what about protecting Russian populations in these cities, which is a stated goal of the war?
My pro-Russian sources are Russian Americans like yourself. Some, Martyanov and Andrei Raevsky alias Saker for example, argue that the Russian military involvement that you advocate starting in 2014 would have been risky and premature, because the Russian military was until recently not technologically nor industrially capable to directly fight the US. Also, there is the demographic weakness, which you acknowledge as well, which has military implications. This is not a political failure, but just a fact of life. Hence, they say the safe solution is to go slow and let the collapse of the West do most of the work of liberation of Russian populations that were stranded in the demise of the USSR. Please address these arguments.
You had it right the first time - pyrrhic is "peer-hic".
The history of the term is interesting. Pyrrhus was renowned as the greatest general of his age; Hannibal is said to have considered him second only to Alexander. He was believed to be able to heal with a touch. His eponymous term is due to his quip after defeating the Romans in a costly battle that one more such victory and he should be utterly ruined. He was essentially the last real resistance to Roman domination of the Hellenistic world.
So many Ukrainians, Russians (?) queued up in front of Louis Vuitton shop in Southern France to spend thousands of euros on a handbag. Are only the poor, the disabled and the elderly left behind.
Another issue in your interesting analysis is your claim that Russia intended to invade Kiev, for which you provide no evidence. As you are surely aware, the counter hypothesis is that, apart from the capture of the airport, the goal of early moves to the outskirts of Kiev was to prevent major Ukrainiean military forces from the capital from reinforcing the Donbass army. The description of the Russian operation around Kiev as a failed attack on the city is what the Western mass media are repeating ad nauseum, so unless you can provide evidence that invasion was the Russian plan, your claim is in effect acting like controlled opposition, however unintentional. As you acknowledge, taking cities like Kharkov or Dniepro require major battles, operations far more costly than Russian military actions so far, as the Mariupol affair has demonstrated. Would the Russian professional forces in the field or in reserve have been capable of taking Kiev at the outset, without calling up the conscript army? And what about protecting Russian populations in these cities, which is a stated goal of the war?
My pro-Russian sources are Russian Americans like yourself. Some, Martyanov and Andrei Raevsky alias Saker for example, argue that the Russian military involvement that you advocate starting in 2014 would have been risky and premature, because the Russian military was until recently not technologically nor industrially capable to directly fight the US. Also, there is the demographic weakness, which you acknowledge as well, which has military implications. This is not a political failure, but just a fact of life. Hence, they say the safe solution is to go slow and let the collapse of the West do most of the work of liberation of Russian populations that were stranded in the demise of the USSR. Please address these arguments.
Looking forward to hearing what the Russian officials have to say. They will come around.
Oh and I’m American and you don’t come off as pessimistic to me. More like logical, realistic...
Thanks for the great info Rolo and keep up the good work please .
Can you explain what brown people are?