Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[brabus]

[Clark Griswold]

Let's arm our foes with new US military equipment, and send Ukraine their old shit equipment. Another brilliant idea.
"The US intends to take Soviet weapons for Ukraine from Latin American countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua or Venezuela, as long as these countries replace Soviet weapons with American ones. -US Army General Laura Richardson"
https://twitter.com/PadreEmerito/status/1616755950819618822?s=20&t=KG0N9myLOcCIPwWjZ0Nttg
 
 

I’m guessing they want that old broke Soviet shit for the spare parts / ammo but that’s giving the benefit of the doubt generously
But considering the customers of Soviet now Russian gear, which of these countries are gonna burn that bridge with Russia when they don’t really like us that much?
Does she expect Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc..really to cozy up to the Yankees after they piss off the Russians
#2dimensionalthinking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McJay Pilot]

This seems familiar… can’t quite place it… nahh, we didn’t ever experience this while deployed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-new-ukraine-general-focused-on-soldiers-shaving-uk-intel-2023-1?amp

[filthy_liar]

On 1/13/2023 at 8:00 AM, FourFans130 said:

Beyond that, I study facts and history.  The American way of international relations since WWII has been to make sure other country's problems stay in other countries.  You call Ukraine a quagmire for Russia.  It wouldn't be a quagmire without US involvement.  If you don't understand that, go read about Chinese involvement in Vietnam, or US involvement in 1980's Afghanistan, or the French Foreign Legion, or how Rome ran it's empire.  History is littered with precedent.  The reason America is what it is today is because we (typically) refuse to wait until the fight comes to us.

I cherry picked a quote from your post, which overall I thought was outstanding and I agree with.  But read that right up there.  Since WWII other country's problems have not stayed in other countries.  Heck, they've directly come to this country.  And the last sentence of that quote...well, America sure as hell isn't what it is today what it was before 9/11.  

This thought will be wildly unpopular among fire breathing military folks, but what if we just stay the out of other country's problems to the extent possible?  Not to the extent that the military industrial machine is telling us, which is everyone on the planet is a threat and we need to build a bigger military and all the drippings that come with that, but to the extent that it affects our daily lives.  Russia doesn't impact my life at all.  Neither does Ukraine.  em both.  Let them fight it out and let the western Europeans worry about that "crisis."

And to the "well if you don't know that Russia is an existential threat and its all over JWICS so I don't know what to tell you" crowd...yea, there are so many existential threats in every domain on JWICS that we would need the world's GDP to fund a defense against it all.  Its a good thing intel troops don't make it to the rank of CSAF.  At least not yet.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

I cherry picked a quote from your post, which overall I thought was outstanding and I agree with.  But read that right up there.  Since WWII other country's problems have not stayed in other countries.  Heck, they've directly come to this country.  And the last sentence of that quote...well, America sure as hell isn't what it is today what it was before 9/11.  

This thought will be wildly unpopular among fire breathing military folks, but what if we just stay the out of other country's problems to the extent possible?  Not to the extent that the military industrial machine is telling us, which is everyone on the planet is a threat and we need to build a bigger military and all the drippings that come with that, but to the extent that it affects our daily lives.  Russia doesn't impact my life at all.  Neither does Ukraine.  em both.  Let them fight it out and let the western Europeans worry about that "crisis."

And to the "well if you don't know that Russia is an existential threat and its all over JWICS so I don't know what to tell you" crowd...yea, there are so many existential threats in every domain on JWICS that we would need the world's GDP to fund a defense against it all.  Its a good thing intel troops don't make it to the rank of CSAF.  At least not yet.

What do you consider a current international threat to the USA? Something that, if not addressed, will result in a weaker America.

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

Russia doesn't impact my life at all.  Neither does Ukraine.  em both.  Let them fight it out and let the western Europeans worry about that "crisis."

Let me boil this down.  Russia, Ukraine, and Europe DO impact your life.  You not realizing that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Apparently I don't have the right verbiage to explain the 'how' in a way that you'll choose to hear, but let me put it this way: If you drink coffee, wear clothes, drive a car, or use the internet, those countries impact your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse and it's certainly not a defense.

Edited January 24, 2023 by FourFans130

[Lord Ratner]

4 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Let me boil this down.  Russia, Ukraine, and Europe DO impact your life.  You not realizing that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Apparently I don't have the right verbiage to explain the 'how' in a way that you'll choose to hear, but let me put it this way: If you drink coffee, wear clothes, drive a car, or use the internet, those countries impact your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse and it's certainly not a defense.

Don't forget semiconductors. Ukraine produces a ton of helium.

[FLEA]

51 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

What do you consider a current international threat to the USA? Something that, if not addressed, will result in a weaker America.

Does there have to be one? Is it impossible for you to accept that for the moment it's possible the US may not be on the brink of extermination? 

50 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Let me boil this down.  Russia, Ukraine, and Europe DO impact your life.  You not realizing that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Apparently I don't have the right verbiage to explain the 'how' in a way that you'll choose to hear, but let me put it this way: If you drink coffee, wear clothes, drive a car, or use the internet, those countries impact your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse and it's certainly not a defense.

Coffee... You're willing to war with countries because you want good coffee? Lol. 

[FourFans]

30 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Coffee... You're willing to war with countries because you want good coffee? Lol. 

Um, no...and I never said I would.  There's a boomer in the crowd that seems to think the world doesn't touch our daily life, so I gave him a daily life example.

[Lord Ratner]

34 minutes ago, FLEA said:

the US may not be on the brink of extermination? 

Straw man

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

Um, no...and I never said I would.  There's a boomer in the crowd that seems to think the world doesn't touch our daily life, so I gave him a daily life example.

I think you're quibbling with him to be honest. It's clear by his language he meant that prosperity is possible without conflict. 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Straw man

Actually, no, the implication of your question is false choice fallacy. There doesn't have to be a current threat. It is logically possible for there to not be one, and therefore should be presented as a choice. 

[Lord Ratner]

29 minutes ago, FLEA said:

There doesn't have to be a current threat

The above is not in the same universe as:

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Is it impossible for you to accept that for the moment it's possible the US may not be on the brink of extermination? 

If you are arguing that only existential threats merit intervention, then we can have that conversation. But you're not, just like I'm not arguing we are on the brink of extinction.

 

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."

 

There are plenty of economic reasons I'd consider justification for blowing up our enemies. We can use any threats to our access to advanced semiconductors as one example. 

 

He doesn't need your help making bad arguments.

[FLEA]

9 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The above is not in the same universe as:

If you are arguing that only existential threats merit intervention, then we can have that conversation. But you're not, just like I'm not arguing we are on the brink of extinction.

 

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."

 

There are plenty of economic reasons I'd consider justification for blowing up our enemies. We can use any threats to our access to advanced semiconductors as one example. 

 

He doesn't need your help making bad arguments.

And I think its fair to say that there are plenty of people who would not advocate blowing up people for access to semiconductors. You aren't entitled to violate a nation's sovereignty because you want semiconductors. You aren't entitled semiconductors at all. You have to make a new supply chain, produce your own. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by FLEA

[Majestik Møøse]

Military action is always tied to economics. Or at least it should be from a realism perspective. When we don’t tie them together as part of a combined objective, we fail. Our security action in Afghanistan had no synced economic effort, so no one (including us) had any financial incentive to see it through.  Postwar Germany and Japan were successful because of massive economic investment tied to a permanent security presence.

In a sort of reverse case, massive economic investment that isn’t backed up by military security will eventually fail, like when Iraq rolled into Kuwait uncontested. At that point, a military action by an outsider is needed to restore the previous situation, because our Allies didn’t want Kuwait’s oil to be controlled by Saddam. Nor did they want Saddam to conquer them also, which seemed like a legitimate threat in 1990. In Ukraine’s case, our European Allies don’t want Ukraine’s resources to be controlled by Russia, and a Russian expansion also seemed like a legitimate threat in 2021.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

And I think its fair to say that there are plenty of people who would not advocate blowing up people for access to semiconductors. You aren't entitled to violate a nation's sovereignty because you want semiconductors. You aren't entitled semiconductors at all. You have to make a new supply chain, produce your own. 

Neat. Next time let's have the conversation people are actually having, like that, instead of using straw men to... Honestly I have no idea why you feel the need.

 

We can get into your hyper simplistic view of international trade tomorrow, but we did create a supply chain, in Taiwan. And Ukraine, actually. Now other nations seek to threaten that. And with the blessing of Taiwan and Ukraine, we abso-fucking-lutely are entitled to blow up some enemies to protect those supply chains, should they be attacked. Doesn't mean we should, we have to balance other interests, but we certainly are entitled to the decision.

 

When you say "violate sovereignty" I have to imagine you mean the idea of attacking China for semiconductors that are produced in China? Another straw man.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Neat. Next time let's have the conversation people are actually having, like that, instead of using straw men to... Honestly I have no idea why you feel the need.

We can get into your hyper simplistic view of international trade tomorrow, but we did create a supply chain, in Taiwan. And Ukraine, actually. Now other nations seek to threaten that. And with the blessing of Taiwan and Ukraine, we abso-fucking-lutely are entitled to blow up some enemies to protect those supply chains, should they be attacked. Doesn't mean we should, we have to balance other interests, but we certainly are entitled to the decision.

When you say "violate sovereignty" I have to imagine you mean the idea of attacking China for semiconductors that are produced in China? Another straw man.

I'm not going to get drawn into a bait on this. I already made a comment earlier in this thread I would be less hostile and offered a professional reset. Your recent comments not only come off as rude but also incredibly weak. You may not realize it but starting with the fact that your facts are not all straight about the semi-conductor supply chain in Ukraine (helium is not the concern, neon is)--shows you're not as confident in your knowledge about this topic as you present yourself and you probably aren't ready to debate it at the high level you are attesting you are.

Suggest you hit your research again and come back with a better laid out analysis of the supply chain--how refined neon is manufactured (or more correctly "captured") and why the average citizen should care beyond cheaper iPhones and Teslas. I am willing to hear your case as well as your case for just how far the US should go to protect that resource and why you believe that product can't be manufactured elsewhere--or why is the cost of doing so, so great, that it justifies the cost of military adventurism. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by FLEA

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm not going to get drawn into a bait on this. I already made a comment earlier in this thread I would be less hostile and offered a professional reset. Your recent comments not only come off as rude but also incredibly weak. You may not realize it but starting with the fact that your facts are not all straight about the semi-conductor supply chain in Ukraine (helium is not the concern, neon is)--shows you're not as confident in your knowledge about this topic as you present yourself and you probably aren't ready to debate it at the high level you are attesting you are.

Suggest you hit your research again and come back with a better laid out analysis of the supply chain--how refined neon is manufactured (or more correctly "captured") and why the average citizen should care beyond cheaper iPhones and Teslas. I am willing to hear your case as well as your case for just how far the US should go to protect that resource and why you believe that product can't be manufactured elsewhere--or why is the cost of doing so, so great, that it justifies the cost of military adventurism. 

Fair hit on the periodic table, but that just means my point is correct, my detail wasn't. I'll own that slip. It also wasn't anything more than a small example to refute your very weak (or very poorly made) point that international supply chain security are economic factors that aren't worthy of killing people over. 

 

Usually I try not to come off as rude on the internet, since the internet biases us towards that type of behavior. But now you're playing the victim, and it's boring and disingenuous. I called you out on a very (very) obvious straw man, and now you're doubling down, which which is a type of internet debate I have less time for. 

 

So when you can read someone's opinion without mischaracterizing it to buttress your own (or weaken theirs), maybe we can have that talk. Otherwise it's the same pointless team-ism that's crushing the national dialog in all parts of life, and I get enough of that in the real world. No thanks

Edited January 24, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Usually I try not to come off as rude on the internet...

[Lord Ratner]

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Haha, and I usually fail. You shouldn't have much trouble relating😂🤣

[ClearedHot]

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Haha, and I usually fail. You shouldn't have much trouble relating😂🤣

🥃

[DSG]

11 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Military action is always tied to economics. Or at least it should be from a realism perspective. When we don’t tie them together as part of a combined objective, we fail. Our security action in Afghanistan had no synced economic effort, so no one (including us) had any financial incentive to see it through.  Postwar Germany and Japan were successful because of massive economic investment tied to a permanent security presence.

In a sort of reverse case, massive economic investment that isn’t backed up by military security will eventually fail, like when Iraq rolled into Kuwait uncontested. At that point, a military action by an outsider is needed to restore the previous situation, because our Allies didn’t want Kuwait’s oil to be controlled by Saddam. Nor did they want Saddam to conquer them also, which seemed like a legitimate threat in 1990. In Ukraine’s case, our European Allies don’t want Ukraine’s resources to be controlled by Russia, and a Russian expansion also seemed like a legitimate threat in 2021.

Ukraine's economic importance pales in comparison to Taiwan's.  Yet, scare resources continue to be funneled to its defense.  My distinct impression is that U.S. intervention in Ukraine is motivated less by such cold calculus as the above and more by the ideological animus and atavistic prejudices of the liberal internationalist foreign policy establishment.  I'd be less skeptical of U.S. policy there were it otherwise.

[Prozac]

13 hours ago, FLEA said:

You aren't entitled to violate a nation's sovereignty because you want semiconductors.

Wait, wait….You believe that the United States is violating somebody’s sovereignty? For the record, your statement is absolutely correct. You just (somehow) seem to be confused about who the aggressors are here. 

[pawnman]

17 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Let me boil this down.  Russia, Ukraine, and Europe DO impact your life.  You not realizing that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Apparently I don't have the right verbiage to explain the 'how' in a way that you'll choose to hear, but let me put it this way: If you drink coffee, wear clothes, drive a car, or use the internet, those countries impact your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse and it's certainly not a defense.

And, as people so often seem to forget, oil.  Oil is a global market.  Diminishing supplies in Europe drive up prices in the US, even if we're drilling for that oil here in the US.  And higher prices on oil drive prices up on pretty much everything else, because it's all carried by trucks and planes.

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, DSG said:

Ukraine's economic importance pales in comparison to Taiwan's.  Yet, scare resources continue to be funneled to its defense.  My distinct impression is that U.S. intervention in Ukraine is motivated less by such cold calculus as the above and more by the ideological animus and atavistic prejudices of the liberal internationalist foreign policy establishment.  I'd be less skeptical of U.S. policy there were it otherwise.

Scarce resources, as in, less than 1% of the DoD budget?

Cheapest and most effective military spending we've ever invested in.  

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, DSG said:

Ukraine's economic importance pales in comparison to Taiwan's.  Yet, scare resources continue to be funneled to its defense.  My distinct impression is that U.S. intervention in Ukraine is motivated less by such cold calculus as the above and more by the ideological animus and atavistic prejudices of the liberal internationalist foreign policy establishment.  I'd be less skeptical of U.S. policy there were it otherwise.

Don't forget the example it sets for China. While I'm skeptical the current batch of global leaders are capable of such forward-thinking policy, the Ukraine-Russia-West dynamic is very similar to (while smaller than) the Taiwan-China-West dynamic. I have no doubt China is paying close attention.