Vergennes
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,576
- Reaction score
- 61
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bennet is one weird guy. He told Zelensky to surrender flatout. Dude Russia seeks the territory to create novorossiya and push out the Ukrainian ethnics. It is like telling the British to surrender to the germans back in 1939
Ukrainian defense official: We appreciate Bennett’s mediation
Lubkivskyi was positive about Jerusalem and showed understanding of its delicate situation with Moscow, which is the dominant force over Israel’s northern border with Syria.www.jpost.com
Some strong Baghdad Bob vibes there!
seems that a certain self proclaimed 100% western liberal capitalist democracy in South Asia also has this problem."The Fifth Service was responsible for providing Putin with intelligence on political developments in Ukraine on the eve of the invasion. And it looks like two weeks into the war, it finally dawned on Putin that he was completely misled. The department, fearful of his responses, seems to have told Putin what he wanted to hear."
.... This is the problem with most draconian authoritarian leaders.... They are often told everything is fine by yes men because honest feedback is feared as there may be reprisal by the dictator who can't hear the critical truth...
You are mature and better than this, my friend. This was in poor taste.Your parents are South Vietnam refugee, relocated to Hong Kong?
Well, it depends on what kind of Battlefield Information Support you have. General goes up front is not at all a valid option because General is the person who stand behind the entire operation. When you are in that particular Part of Battlefield, you only able to see how that part of battlefield doing, if you are the guy who plan the whole thing, you need to look at the Big Picture. Which is something you will not get when you are standing at the frontline.
It may make sense for Iranian Army or Hezbollah to have the General to be as close to the front as possible because their Battlespace Awareness is most certainly lower than Russia or US or even non-existence, you don't have a lot of Satellite, ISTAR asset, Joint Intelligence Service asset to provide you with the latest movement on the ground within your AO, maybe you need to move closer to the front, but Russia are very much in a matured state of all those, General Staff don't really need to go up to the front line and risk getting shot for information.
Professional Force in the East (Russia, China) and West (US UK, France) do not depend on "Morale" factor the general give you, we are not fighting in medieval time when leading up front and charge is one of the valid strategy to attack your enemy. In fact, when a general come into the frontline and started to kick your ***, that's where you know your advance is not going anywhere.
Think of it like this, there are generally 10-20 Theater General deployed with the troop in battle, that's 20 brains at most to all battle related decision, they lost 4 (or 25-40%) of that brain. That's a big lost in case you are wondering.
Then why did Russia not create a successor to the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO?Find myself in agreement with Meirsheimer. My only objection would be the use of the "West". It seems that France, Germany and other European countries had enough sense to foresee what further eastward expansion would entail. It's the reckless and arrogant push from the US that caused this mess. Merkel, Sarkozy knew European history and the balance of power order.