You were lucky 
However WW2 was a different scenario.
Peter wrote:
However WW2 was a different scenario.
For now.
An interesting thing which has emerged is that Western weapons are supplied on the condition that the stuff is not used outside Ukraine’s borders.
We already knew this explicitly regarding the MLRS / HIMARS kit but it seems to apply to everything.
This is why Ukraine was able to attack some Russian fuel facilities using their helicopters 
They still denied it, of course…
I don’t like comparisons with Vietnam because they are usually banal, uninformed and irrelevant in detail, but the most fundamental reason often cited for the US failure to make any progress there against the communists was its inability to invade any part of N Vietnam to block the arms supply route, due to the desire to avoid a nuclear escalation with the USSR. In the Ukraine war, Russia has an unlimited arms supply route via its long shared border, which Ukraine is not allowed to cross by 1 metre, and Ukraine’s chance of driving Russia out hangs purely on exhausting the finite Russian resources.
My post above may turn out to be right.
LeSving wrote:
The US would certainly not “allow” Russia to take Finland, and the UK would follow in the footsteps
The UK has already signed a defence pact with Finland.
One of the main reasons that the USA did not win I Vietnam was that it did not win " hearts and minds" of the Vietnamise population
One of the reasons that Russia will never fully take Ukraine is that it is not winning the “hearts and minds” of the Ukranien people, in fact, quite the opposite.
It’s a story that goes back as long and there have been invaders.
Putin could have saved Russia a great deal of money , if instead of invading, it had used the half the amount it is spending to better the lives of Ukraniens.
gallois wrote:
One of the main reasons that the USA did not win I Vietnam was that it did not win " hearts and minds" of the Vietnamise population
Another way of putting it was that the USA did not understand that the (North) Vietnamese were nationalists first and communists second. It didn’t take more than 3 years after the end of the Vietnam war before Vietnam was in a war with China.
Peter asked: !which countries do you think would want to block Ukraine into NATO?!
That was a really good question. As far as I imagine to understand history, nato was created exactly to protect the civilized world against Russia. If I’m wrong, go ahead and explain it to me.
But if that is true, Ukraine has already proved that for Nato Ukraine would be worth much more than most other countries even combined. But of course Nato has at least one dictator (in Turkey), who is a friend of Putin and would block it..
Perhaps the biggest problem would be that Nato can not accept countries which happen to be in war or under occupation at the moment – and for Ukraine that may continue for some decades (Krim) if they will not get enough weapons from the west in the near future. It sure would be wonderful to throw Russians away from all Ukraine but does not look very likely to happen in the short run.
And about the USA you never know if they will get a dictator back as well. Trump would make even much more damage than he did before if he happens to win the next election. He might not do anything against his hero Putin’s will. That’s how I see it – hopefully I’m wrong.
anski wrote:
nato was created exactly to protect the civilized world against Russia.
I think NATO was formed so as to allow a political mechanism for the US to protect western Europe against the Russians, and eventually liberate eastern Europe, while limiting the rearmament of Europe until it was stable and at least adequately unified post WWII. Many people including former President Trump, correctly, believe that time has come and gone and that Europe needs to step up in its own defense. That was made clear to Europe over a number of years and largely ignored, along with the message that being reliant of Russian oil and gas was not a good idea, and that looking to renewables was not a realistic solution in the required time frame. Perhaps it would be better to look inward and organize yourselves in your own defense versus criticizing those who even now continue to protect you, although fairly obviously not as effectively as they might have done a few years ago.
I personally think the current situation in Europe is the direct result of the current federal executive administration being elected. Putin is acting when he sees a clear opportunity, this is not a new idea but it is one that former US administrations would have countered much more forcefully and effectively. He knows he can get away with it now, at least for the moment, and is taking his opportunity when he can. The current US president and his staff are generally arrogant, undemocratic and somehow at the same time weakly ineffective in their roles to the point to the point where I cannot think of any positive aspect to their job performance. Perhaps if I think harder I can come with something
