Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

23 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

Aushwitz is morally wrong regardless of your moral compass.  True evil should be abhorrent to everyone.

If Russia invading Ukraine is the equivalent to Auschwitz, then why hasn’t Europe went to war with Russia to stop them?  Or were you just bringing up Auschwitz as an example of an atrocity that has nothing to do with what is going on currently in Eastern Europe?  I agree Auschwitz was horrendous, but likewise so was the Armenian genocide, Rwanda, slavery in the US, on and on.  I guess we should thank the Soviets and Stalin for liberating those death camps and doing the brunt of ending WW2 in Europe?  And as for the atrocities committed in the USSR…
 

I definitely don’t like what Russia is doing and I think Putin is a bad dude…but I think Xi in China is a bad dude, and I don’t like what they do either.  When China invades Taiwan I won’t like that either…but I won’t be calling for ending all economic activities with China.  Sorry man, but that’s just where I’m at.  We do business with a lot of countries with corrupt governments and that don’t really protect freedom.  Ever been deployed to the Middle East?

What I would like to think the majority of us on here agree on is that the US should severely cut regulations that hamper business (oil, manufacturing, etc) in the US.  If one good thing has come out of this horrible situation is that it has put the pro-big government regulation types on defense, especially the environmental leftists who the Dems can’t seem to upset.  
 

But just like Covid, when things start going worse for politicians in the US due to unpopular policies, they’ll quickly pivot away and find a new issue.  Politicians aren’t nearly as pro-Ukraine as they are anti-Russia, and when Americans get really upset with negative impacts here at home, the politicians will adjust.  This is why Biden won’t cut off the oil…it’s all political theater.  

[hockeydork]

Wtf are we even arguing about anymore? Everyone has a subjective opinion of how much they care about the current situation. About any situation. 

However society is a collection of all of these subjective opinions, and society moves as on the majority of those opinions, or at least it's supposed to.

Helodude you are free to not care about sanctioning Russia, buying Russian oil vodka, etc. But the vast majority of us on here do care. F*ck Putin, I dont care if gas goes to 6 a gallon. Go carpool.

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Ohhhhh…”we’re not there yet”.  Translation—you’re not willing to sacrifice more “yet”.  But you’re willing to call out others for their lack of morality if they don’t want to sacrifice what you’re willing to do so now. 

Sorry dude…you literally brought morality into this argument of what someone is willing to do vs not do, not me.  You also said we should not do business with those countries who do business with Russia…and yet you voluntarily engage in business with those countries.  I don’t care whether someone buys Russian vodka or not.   

And as for not wanting to buy chips made in China, are you saying you can’t live a life in the US without buying such items?  Or just that the hardship would be too uncomfortable for you/your family to bear?  What are you going to do when China invades Taiwan?

You’re free to walk back your original morality argument if you’d like…

Don't misunderstand me, I think you're wrong, still and going forward.

 

But you seem incapable of understanding nuance, if anything at all, so I don't see much of a point continuing. Your individual purchasing vs foreign policy arguments are now bordering on pathetic. You're either too emotional to engage usefully in the conversation, or intentionally constructing ridiculous arguments to cover for a lack of solid footing. Either way, it's boring.

 

If literally quoting what I said in the past is "walking it back" then I'm not sure you understand how conversations work in the first place... I'll try typing slower.

 

Here's the "if" statement:

40 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

when you tolerate evil that you have the capacity to impede

 

Here's the "then" statement:

39 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

you are being immoral yourself

And here are the *two* qualifying statements that indicate I, the person with an opinion on an opinion board, don't think we/you/people who want inaction are being immoral under the present circumstances.

41 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

At a certain point

 

42 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

We aren't there yet

Finally, this part of the sentence indicates that if things get worse and you maintain a position of "not my problem, let them die," then I will absolutely consider your preferred policy to be immoral: 

47 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

but we are getting closer.

 

If your skin is so thin that you can't handle the idea that you might be holding an immoral position or doing an immoral thing, which *every single one of us* does regularly, and hopefully we all struggle to do better through conversations and experience, just let me know and I'll stop burdening you with the unspeakable pain I've be haphazardly administering.

[fire4effect]

Good breakdown by Ward Carroll on No Fly Zones. Apologies if it's already been posted. 

 

[fire4effect]

And in a moment of levity sometimes we forget to get away from the emotion and remember it really is about the nail.

 

[HeloDude]

11 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Finally, this part of the sentence indicates that if things get worse and you maintain a position of "not my problem, let them die," then I will absolutely consider your preferred policy to be immoral: 

If your skin is so thin that you can't handle the idea that you might be holding an immoral position or doing an immoral thing, which *every single one of us* does regularly, and hopefully we all struggle to do better through conversations and experience, just let me know and I'll stop burdening you with the unspeakable pain I've be haphazardly administering.

Spin it however you need to man.  If you think I’m immoral for not wanting the US to get involved with a war on the other side of the globe, then so be it. 

[HeloDude]

18 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Helodude you are free to not care about sanctioning Russia, buying Russian oil vodka, etc. But the vast majority of us on here do care. F*ck Putin, I dont care if gas goes to 6 a gallon. Go carpool.

Give it a little time man. I remember when the vast majority were for invading Iraq, even after no WMDs were found (I was one of those back then btw).  I also remember when the vast majority were for forcing businesses to close 2 years ago due to a virus that the vast majority of people would survive without even needing hospital care.
 

When the recession hits, the vast majority will not be ok with $6+ a gallon.      

[goingkinetic]

10 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Give it a little time man. I remember when the vast majority were for invading Iraq, even after no WMDs were found (I was one of those back then btw).  I also remember when the vast majority were for forcing businesses to close 2 years ago due to a virus that the vast majority of people would survive without even needing hospital care.
 

When the recession hits, the vast majority will not be ok with $6+ a gallon.      

We could just tell Saudi to pump more or we’ll pull everyone out and they can deal with Iran.

[MCO]

18 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Spin it however you need to man.  If you think I’m immoral for not wanting the US to get involved with a war on the other side of the globe, then so be it. 

I don’t think it’s immoral. It’s just some people value American values and ideas, freedom etc. more. Some people value US interests, money, lives more. It doesn’t mean people value only one or the other, just what they value more. 
 

I don’t think either answer is right or wrong, but as a democracy we should go with the majority.

[hockeydork]

14 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Give it a little time man. I remember when the vast majority were for invading Iraq, even after no WMDs were found (I was one of those back then btw).  I also remember when the vast majority were for forcing businesses to close 2 years ago due to a virus that the vast majority of people would survive without even needing hospital care.
 

When the recession hits, the vast majority will not be ok with $6+ a gallon.      

Valid and you could be right. But I'd like to think the American people aren't that short sighted. That maybe we can use this moment as motivation to drive a new generation of hard working do gooders who are willing to sweat to ensure we remain the beacon of hope for people who dont wanna live under dictatorships.

[Prozac]

13 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Give it a little time man. I remember when the vast majority were for invading Iraq, even after no WMDs were found (I was one of those back then btw).  I also remember when the vast majority were for forcing businesses to close 2 years ago due to a virus that the vast majority of people would survive without even needing hospital care.
 

When the recession hits, the vast majority will not be ok with $6+ a gallon.      

I think this is where Western politicians need to be straightforward with their constituents right now. Moving forward, the world economy has likely changed permanently. Leaders need to be honest about this. Assuming the regime in Russia doesn’t undergo radical change very soon, there will be economic ripples for decades to come. Humans are adaptable and will adjust their lives when they have to. This is especially true if they believe the economic sacrifices they’re making will make life better for those directly affected by this horrific conflict. Note: this has nothing to do with whether we become involved militarily. The economic effects will be felt regardless. 

[hockeydork]

Michael McCaul interview on CNN was execllent. I still think putting Polish Migs with Ukranian pilots in the sky is a terrible idea do to the lopsided advantage the Russians have in the air. You've got Ukranian troops on the ground who have been operating under "shoot at anything in the air, probably ain't ours". You guys would know the answer, how likely is friendly fire going to be if the transfer occurs?

[HeloDude]

10 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Valid and you could be right. But I'd like to think the American people aren't that short sighted. 

You really don’t think that Americans are ‘that’ short sighted?  We’re impatient as hell and we agree on very little of the issues being made today in the political arena…and that’s probably mostly by design by the politicians on the left and the right, but it’s true all the same.

One of the few things that cuts across the majority of Americans is the economy.  The left is doubling down on “green energy” vs drilling more here at home and that argument might work during better economic times, but not when the economy isn’t doing so great.  Again, even Biden knows this…he wants to not completely piss off his support from green energy folks, but he’s not willing to speed up political suicide by calling for less oil/higher prices than necessary at the pump.  And asking Saudi Arabia (not really what I would call a strong democracy/proponent of freedom) to pump more is a joke. 
 

The argument that Americans will happily pay $6 a gallon of ask will destroy the left in November.  Unfortunately the Republicans at the federal level haven’t been that great on doing what is necessary—cutting at home spending, cutting the military, increasing personal freedom.

The situation in Ukraine, while horrible, is being mostly used as a distraction here in the US.  Either Russia will lose/largely leave with their tail between their legs (doubtful, at least anytime soon) or Americans will become a lot less interested come this summer.  

 

 

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You really don’t think that Americans are ‘that’ short sighted?  We’re impatient as hell and we agree on very little of the issues being made today in the political arena…and that’s probably mostly by design by the politicians on the left and the right, but it’s true all the same.

One of the few things that cuts across the majority of Americans is the economy.  The left is doubling down on “green energy” vs drilling more here at home and that argument might work during better economic times, but not when the economy isn’t doing so great.  Again, even Biden knows this…he wants to not completely piss off his support from green energy folks, but he’s not willing to speed up political suicide by calling for less oil/higher prices than necessary at the pump.  And asking Saudi Arabia (not really what I would call a strong democracy/proponent of freedom) to pump more is a joke. 
 

The argument that Americans will happily pay $6 a gallon of ask will destroy the left in November.  Unfortunately the Republicans at the federal level haven’t been that great on doing what is necessary—cutting at home spending, cutting the military, increasing personal freedom.

The situation in Ukraine, while horrible, is being mostly used as a distraction here in the US.  Either Russia will lose/largely leave with their tail between their legs (doubtful, at least anytime soon) or Americans will become a lot less interested come this summer.  

 

 

You might be right. I'm not gunna say you aren't calling it right. But my three engineering degrees make me approach problems from a non political view. We put dudes on the moon before we even had computers. Don't tell me we can't figure out how to make electricity without Russian natural gas. 

Maybe I'm the minority, maybe nobody will care in three months. But than thats how we got into this sitiation in the first place, isnt it? For me, what's right is right, the politics is just background noise. 

My sister is going to look at wood stoves this weekend, so the gen pop is still paying attention right now.

[FLEA]

I think this image captures everything you really need to know about US political priorities.....

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, hockeydork said:

Wtf are we even arguing about anymore?

Welcome to Base ops.  Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired, but not strictly required. It’s more fun with whiskey.

[brickhistory]

Soooo, the Russia/Ukraine war spreads and involves NATO to include the US.

How does that play out?  
How many ground divisions of various flavors will be required?  How long will it take for the US to bring in serious numbers?  How will the logistics flow?  For how long?

How about local ground and air defense of staging and flying bases needed to move/support kinetic ops inside Ukraine?  

How do the good guys tell the bad guys apart in an urban environment?  Shedding a uniform is easy.

Not everyone in Ukraine will welcome the intervention, particularly the further east the action might move.

Would the Russians fight better if it becomes a direct fight of defense for them as opposed to being the aggressor against a smaller state?  I.e., if this is NATO attacking Mother Russia, might the enthusiasm ramp up?

Barring a full-on WWII level of effort in industry, increased shipping capacity, etc, etc, etc, this ain't happening.

Which, by the way, would stretch us to the limit.  And we would then be unable to respond anywhere else.  Like Taiwan  or Korea.

Nor should it.

Do you really believe that Old Europe - Germany/France/Italy, etc - is going to risk thousands of troops for this?  Let alone the threat of catching airstrikes or a nuke if they are in the game?

Also, those proudly proclaiming "I'll pay $6-7 per gallon" are awfully generous with those who aren't on the government dime at decent wages.  Feeding any size family when the income is $20-30k or less becomes a no kidding fight to survive.  Think of your airman who, unfortunately, got married at 18 and now has 2 kids and a spouse to try and feed/clothe/house when real inflation is taking 20% or more of his purchasing power.

Another pretty immediate effect of this war is the supply of food - wheat/soy/etc - that has stopped.  Egypt, as only one example, is a ticking bomb since they get 60% of their food from Ukraine.  The Egyptian government subsidizes that purchase.  Prices are more than skyrocketing.  

People get pretty cranky when they are starving.  And that's just one country.  Plenty of others almost in as bad of shape for feeding their people.

Finally, this war going south for Russia (and I, again, hope it does), risks a nuke going off.  If the war spreads outside the current conflict, the risk of that increases as does the number of targets on both sides.  Blithely writing off those consequences as "meh" is dishonest.  

Go Ukraine; bleed Putin out, demoralize his forces, and the world should give you all the arms and supplies you can ever use, plus some.

Anyone else pulls a trigger and this gets ugly everywhere.

[arg]

3 hours ago, fire4effect said:

And in a moment of levity sometimes we forget to get away from the emotion and remember it really is about the nail.

 

I'd nail it

[FLEA]

22 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Soooo, the Russia/Ukraine war spreads and involves NATO to include the US.

How does that play out?  
How many ground divisions of various flavors will be required?  How long will it take for the US to bring in serious numbers?  How will the logistics flow?  For how long?

How about local ground and air defense of staging and flying bases needed to move/support kinetic ops inside Ukraine?  

How do the good guys tell the bad guys apart in an urban environment?  Shedding a uniform is easy.

Not everyone in Ukraine will welcome the intervention, particularly the further east the action might move.

Would the Russians fight better if it becomes a direct fight of defense for them as opposed to being the aggressor against a smaller state?  I.e., if this is NATO attacking Mother Russia, might the enthusiasm ramp up?

Barring a full-on WWII level of effort in industry, increased shipping capacity, etc, etc, etc, this ain't happening.

Which, by the way, would stretch us to the limit.  And we would then be unable to respond anywhere else.  Like Taiwan  or Korea.

Nor should it.

Do you really believe that Old Europe - Germany/France/Italy, etc - is going to risk thousands of troops for this?  Let alone the threat of catching airstrikes or a nuke if they are in the game?

Also, those proudly proclaiming "I'll pay $6-7 per gallon" are awfully generous with those who aren't on the government dime at decent wages.  Feeding any size family when the income is $20-30k or less becomes a no kidding fight to survive.  Think of your airman who, unfortunately, got married at 18 and now has 2 kids and a spouse to try and feed/clothe/house when real inflation is taking 20% or more of his purchasing power.

Another pretty immediate effect of this war is the supply of food - wheat/soy/etc - that has stopped.  Egypt, as only one example, is a ticking bomb since they get 60% of their food from Ukraine.  The Egyptian government subsidizes that purchase.  Prices are more than skyrocketing.  

People get pretty cranky when they are starving.  And that's just one country.  Plenty of others almost in as bad of shape for feeding their people.

Finally, this war going south for Russia (and I, again, hope it does), risks a nuke going off.  If the war spreads outside the current conflict, the risk of that increases as does the number of targets on both sides.  Blithely writing off those consequences as "meh" is dishonest.  

Go Ukraine; bleed Putin out, demoralize his forces, and the world should give you all the arms and supplies you can ever use, plus some.

Anyone else pulls a trigger and this gets ugly everywhere.

Also examine the possibility that the theater expands outside the Ukraine. Naval assets in the Black Sea clash and creates conflict in Turkey for access to the Dardainalles. Russia closes Suwalki gap to ensure it can resupply fleets from the Baltic to come around the other side. The Baltic states are now cut off and lose their capability to defend themselves in a matter of days. The opening of the Baltic drives the arctic counsel into chaos and brings the polar front into the war meanwhile heavy land fighting breaks out in Poland to defend the east front of NATO. And in all that time we expect China to not use the distraction to seize Taiwan or disputed islands in the Pacific, railing those partners into chaos without US leadership. 

Its really easy to see how this can spill into a global catastrophe REALLY REALLY quickly. 

We have a playbook for this conflict. We did it for 40 years. Its called a proxy war and it was super effective. We need to stick to the playbook and exercise political patience. 

[VigilanteNav]

Brickhistory and Flea: concur. The second and third order effects are surely worse for everyone then the current situation.  Yes, it's devastating as a human being to see these reports of children being killed by shelling, etc.  But, we can visualize how many more children would be impacted if we ramp up our military actions (NFZ, etc). This thread really has my research juices flowing on the economic piece of the DIME efforts. It seems like we (the US and the West) should be taking a whole of government/business/society approach to that effort to continue to squeeze Putin on that front.  Looking back at the gas crunch of the '70's is interesting (to me at least).  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1970s-gas-shortages-changed-america-180977726/   Takeaways that could be applied with the knowledge that short term pains can lead to long term benefits. Do we accept the increased gas prices if we went with a full blown sanctioning of Russian oil and gas?  How to mitigate that: maybe short term reductions/eliminations of federal and local gas taxes?  Heaven forbid lowering the speed limits to 55 again?  Businesses that can authorize more remote work (hey, we're ahead of the game due to that...thanks covid!).  My grandmother gave up her car during WW2.  Can't we expect the average US citizen to give up something for the effort to save Ukraine?  I'm hoping the US govt doesn't ask the US military alone to take one for the team...again.    

[kaputt]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

I think this image captures everything you really need to know about US political priorities.....

The sad thing is, a headline like that doesn’t even shock me these days. 

[M2]

 

[hockeydork]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Soooo, the Russia/Ukraine war spreads and involves NATO to include the US.

 

Would the Russians fight better if it becomes a direct fight of defense for them as opposed to being the aggressor against a smaller state?  I.e., if this is NATO attacking Mother Russia, might the enthusiasm ramp up?

 

100 percent, imperative US flag does not enter combat in Ukraine. Right now Russian soldiers feel like they are killing their neighbors, because they are. We do not need to excite them at the prospect of killing Americans. 

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Also, those proudly proclaiming "I'll pay $6-7 per gallon" are awfully generous with those who aren't on the government dime at decent wages.  Feeding any size family when the income is $20-30k or less becomes a no kidding fight to survive.  Think of your airman who, unfortunately, got married at 18 and now has 2 kids and a spouse to try and feed/clothe/house when real inflation is taking 20% or more of his purchasing power.

 

There are alternatives. What people fail to understand is that fossil fuels came first, thus they had zero barriers to entry and society was willing to bear whatever the required infrastructure cost was to get them going, because it was literally pay it or keep lighting your house with candles.  Anything after them has had to compete with the fact that there is an already an established market player. We all have different opinions on what should be done but:

* The US could tap more domestic fossil fuels, fact.

* The US could reassess building more modern nuclear plants, fact. This could be considered an act of national defense, no different that a nuclear submarine, an Abrams tank, or an Arleighburke . We're at economic war with Russia. 

* The US could leverage its production capacity to accelerate offshore wind development, which right now is hindered due to lack of large enough ships to install the turbine at sea. Again, this could be considered an act of national defense, no different that a nuclear submarine, and Abrams tank, or an Arleighburke . We're at economic war with Russia.

 

Take your pick, I don't care. But I'd rather suffer economic pain now than lose a limb in 20 years. Money is replaceable, you can work hard to make more. No amount of work will get your limb or life back.  If Russia gets Ukraine without having their economy collapsed, your son or daughter will end up fighting them 20 years down the road. It's like getting a college degree, crushing them now is a long term plan, med school loans suck at first but they do eventually pay out when your buying your brand new Cirrus. We need to go all in on isolating them from the Western economy, not half way. Half of a med school degree is useless.  

[waveshaper]

The WTI futures market opened at 18:00 EDT and in the first 28 minutes WTI hit a new high of $130.33 per BBL (up $15.00 since Fridays close). 

Crude Oil Price | WTI Price Chart - Investing.com

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, M2 said:

 

Good video, thanks for posting.