Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[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.

[DSG]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

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

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

Looking at the expenditure of arms in fiscal terms is misleading.  The excessively streamlined defense industrial base is unable to cope with current outlays and will remain so for the foreseeable future.  There's ample documentation of this, such as this report out today: https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

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.

It's possible Russia's difficulties could dissuade Chinese action, it's true.  They may also come out ahead in the end.  Only time will tell.  

[filthy_liar]

21 hours 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.

Illegal immigration.

[filthy_liar]

21 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.

I'll try to boil it down so that you can understand.  The fact that I drink coffee, wear clothes, drive a car, or use the internet would not be impacted if we did not intervene in Ukraine.  The fact that I drive a car would not have been impacted if we did not start OIF.  I guess some folks take longer than others to realize they've been had.

[Lawman]

I'll try to boil it down so that you can understand.  The fact that I drink coffee, wear clothes, drive a car, or use the internet would not be impacted if we did not intervene in Ukraine.  The fact that I drive a car would not have been impacted if we did not start OIF.  I guess some folks take longer than others to realize they've been had.

The system of life you enjoy is build around the framework that for the last 70+ years a developed country could not annex another developed country by force of arms without global repercussions (See Desert Storm).

Failing to get off our collective asses and do something about Russia attempting to upend that system absolutely impacts your ability to “do normal stuff.” Because right now the accepted global norm is at the near bank of the Rubicon in what the accepted global status quo is. Throwing up the isolationist “not our problem,” is crossing that to the other bank which would be an entire new paradigm in the global status quo. One that will very well likely require us to get directly involved in a conflict of arms vs what is now a relatively simple matter of giving a somewhat friend the ability to hobble a definite opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[filthy_liar]

So lawman, we did the same thing we're doing now with Ukraine that we did with Afghanistan in the 80s/90s.  But you already know that.  So how do you explain that what we did in Afghanistan in the 80s/90s had zero impact on what Russia was going to do in Georgia and now Ukraine?

It sure made a lot of people a lot of money.  In this country.  Not in Afghanistan.

[filthy_liar]

21 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

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.

lol.  ok, you've had some decent posts.  this is not one of them.

[Prozac]

32 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

So lawman, we did the same thing we're doing now with Ukraine that we did with Afghanistan in the 80s/90s.  But you already know that.  So how do you explain that what we did in Afghanistan in the 80s/90s had zero impact on what Russia was going to do in Georgia and now Ukraine?

It sure made a lot of people a lot of money.  In this country.  Not in Afghanistan.

What we did in Afghanistan had a direct impact on the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union which absolutely affected all of our lives. Yeah, sometimes we get the global power game wrong. Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind. But guess what? Sometimes we get it right. You can’t just say “well we fucked up Afghanistan so that means we will fuck up every foreign policy decision going forward from now to eternity”. That’s just not the case & while I agree that our fuckups sometimes do seem pretty spectacular, if you look at the course of modern history, we’ve probably gotten more things right than wrong. We’ve avoided nuclear Armageddon, vanquished our ideological enemy & the only other superpower on the planet, turned our former enemies into staunch allies & reliable trading partners, have ensured the security of global trade, and will hold the world’s reserve currency for the foreseeable future, amongst other successes. Your life & the lives of much of the planet’s population are undoubtedly better because of decisions the United States has made to stay engaged abroad. 

[Lawman]

So lawman, we did the same thing we're doing now with Ukraine that we did with Afghanistan in the 80s/90s.  But you already know that.  So how do you explain that what we did in Afghanistan in the 80s/90s had zero impact on what Russia was going to do in Georgia and now Ukraine?
It sure made a lot of people a lot of money.  In this country.  Not in Afghanistan.

How many years passed between the Russia attempt to annex anything in Georgia and their bleeding in Afghanistan?

Never mind the ridiculousness of comparing Afghanistan and Georgia with the conflict going on in Ukraine or the potential one in other Soviet Satellites like Poland/Czech etc.

How many years did it take for the Old Bear to come out of its cave with teeth borne and attempt to seize territory? Because if this conflict in Ukraine resets the clock to even half that before the Russians can restore any sort of actionable conventional combat power we are getting off stupid cheap. We are also setting a very fine reminder to any other global leaders with ambitions of glory that maybe we aren’t going to just roll over and let you have country X, Sea Y, Straights of Wherever the hell….


And yes letting them off the hook in Georgia and Crimea (which some of us were screaming about then) did nothing but embolden them into the conflict you see today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

M1 Abrams and Leopard tanks to UKR, let's fucking go. Finally.

EABOD Vlad, feel free to give up and slink home to your shitty, corrupt petrostate and fall out of a window already.

[The TRON]

33 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

M1 Abrams and Leopard tanks to UKR, let's ing go. Finally.

EABOD Vlad, feel free to give up and slink home to your shitty, corrupt petrostate and fall out of a window already.

Except they don’t have the logistical capability to employ them.  The Abrams and Leopard both come with huge logistics bills, one of which for the Abrams is a huge thirst for a fuel that isn't diesel like every other tank the Ukrainians have.  Much more we are risking and more than likely giving the Russians a few of our tanks that the Ukranians will inevitably abandon when they break down.  Hell the Brits giving 14 Challenger IIs creates a huge logistics bill for what amounts to 4 platoons worth of tanks.  It sounds great from the talking heads to just give the Ukrainians all this kit, but it has to be sustainable.  We’re making the Ukranian army into a logistics mess with so many different systems only the Germans in World War 2 could dream this up.  On top of all that the West isn't even gearing up to produce what is already being given up...  

Edited January 25, 2023 by The TRON

[Lord Ratner]

Listen to Dan Crenshaw's latest podcast for a fascinating (and horrifying) look at the war from an American operator who joined the Ukrainians. Reminds me of much earlier in the thread when some of us were simply content to spend a few billion fighting evil. A much better use of my tax dollars than keeping old fat people alive until they're 100, bailing out the banking mafia, funding the university indoctrination apparatus, attacking the basis for advanced civilization (energy production), or funding virus research that fist-fucked the global economy for a few years.

 

It's also lost on some of the isolationists that we don't need some sort of additional justification to "meddle" in this war. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Whatever reasons we decide to involve ourselves, our "right" to interfere was granted when an innocent ally was attacked and called for help.

 

If you see someone being mugged, and you beat the shit out of the mugger, no one cares why you did it. Maybe you saw evil and felt compelled to act. Maybe you have a hero complex. Maybe you just wanted to feel someone's life end in your hands. Doesn't matter; motive is only important when you're doing the wrong thing.

 

There are all sorts of reasons we might not participate. The budget is one. But I hate hearing people start dancing around the relativist cry of what right do we have to decide what happens there? We have every right.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[Day Man]

26 minutes ago, The TRON said:

The Abrams and Leopard both come with huge logistics bills, one of which for the Abrams is a huge thirst for a fuel that isn't diesel like every other tank the Ukrainians have.

is wikipedia wrong?

Quote

The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and marine diesel.^[2]

 

[Lawman]

Except they don’t have the logistical capability to employ them.  The Abrams and Leopard both come with huge logistics bills, one of which for the Abrams is a huge thirst for a fuel that isn't diesel like every other tank the Ukrainians have.  Much more we are risking and more than likely giving the Russians a few of our tanks that the Ukranians will inevitably abandon when they break down.  Hell the Brits giving 14 Challenger IIs creates a huge logistics bill for what amounts to 4 platoons worth of tanks.  It sounds great from the talking heads to just give the Ukrainians all this kit, but it has to be sustainable.  We’re making the Ukranian army into a logistics mess with so many different systems only the Germans in World War 2 could dream this up.  On top of all that the West isn't even gearing up to produce what is already being given up...  

Who told you this bullshit…?

JP8 is low sulfur diesel. We run our gators, helicopters, generators, and tanks off the same fuel. I’ve literally watched fuelers use our FARP to also service the generators and Humvees from the same truck that has the single point running to the aircraft.

It’s literally a fundamental requirement of our entire logistical model for ground forces in NATO. It’s been that way before my dad was in the Air Force.

You can also run a number of non specific fuels similar to our cocktail in the M1. There are power pack inspections and different maintenance checks that have to be done, but it was literally built to fight a ground war in Europe. One where logistics would be limited and the primary Armor would need to be able to scavenge as well as use what was planned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arg]

12 minutes ago, Day Man said:

is wikipedia wrong?

 

Turbine, will run on anything that will burn, WD40, moonshine, used motor oil, etc. It might not like it but if you can get the fire lit it'll run

Edited January 25, 2023 by arg
Lawman beat me to it

[Lawman]

Turbine, will run on anything that will burn, WD40, moonshine, used motor oil, etc. It might not like it but if you can get the fire lit it'll run

I think people are missing the point he was rightly making. The people saying “it uses a chinook engine!” Or “it runs on jet fuel” don’t know what they hell they are talking about.

Yes it’s a turbine, but it runs on the NATO common air ground fuel (F24) same as every other piece of equipment we own. It’s not unique like we have separate fuel trucks for it amongst every other vehicle in an Armor unit. You fill the M88 and Bradley off the very same trucks. Those are both conventional diesel engines.

And it’s not a god damned chinook engine like so often parroted on the history channel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DSG]

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Whatever reasons we decide to involve ourselves, our "right" to interfere was granted when an innocent ally was attacked and called for help.

I tend to sympathize with your realist take on things, but calling a chauvinistic kleptocracy and vector of hostile (to Russia) foreign influence "innocent" is quite a reach.  There's certainly a strategic and economic case for supporting Ukraine, but the moral one, I find unimpressive.  The U.S. is happy to support ethnic separatism when it suits it (Kosovo) -- presently, its Ukrainian client is violating the tenants of self-determination by forcing the Russophone southeast back under its writ.  And needless to say, America has stepped on far more than its share of weak states.  You can bet that if (say) Texas were to secede and invite Chinese and Russian troops onto its soil, the reaction of Washington would be apocalyptic.  I find the moral outrage to be empty and self-serving, frankly.  

[FLEA]

13 minutes ago, arg said:

Turbine, will run on anything that will burn, WD40, moonshine, used motor oil, etc. It might not like it but if you can get the fire lit it'll run

I mean the C-130 technically runs on a lot of this crap too but you're going to give your crew chief a nightmare if you actually do it. It doesn't stop Lockheed from marketing it as a major selling feature though. I presume the circumstances are similar. Its fine in a "get out of dodge" pinch but not something for continuous operations. 

 

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

The system of life you enjoy is build around the framework that for the last 70+ years a developed country could not annex another developed country by force of arms without global repercussions (See Desert Storm).

Failing to get off our collective asses and do something about Russia attempting to upend that system absolutely impacts your ability to “do normal stuff.” Because right now the accepted global norm is at the near bank of the Rubicon in what the accepted global status quo is. Throwing up the isolationist “not our problem,” is crossing that to the other bank which would be an entire new paradigm in the global status quo. One that will very well likely require us to get directly involved in a conflict of arms vs what is now a relatively simple matter of giving a somewhat friend the ability to hobble a definite opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You lose a lot of people here because this is largely an opinion and not a fact and it is going to come down a lot to ideology and world view. Its an ok opinion supported by evidence but there is also significant evidence that this isn't the case and fundamentally this could be a large part of your disagreement with people on the topic.

I for one don't buy the concept of sovereignty as it is vocalized by NATO or the US. Its a nice talking point and we certainly love to throw it out there when countries we don't like break rules, but in actuality, as a state actor, we don't seem overly concerned with it when we are continuously violating the sovereignty of over 2 dozen countries during the Cold War to institute regime changes, or illegally invading Iraq without proper jus ad bellum or entering Syria without even trying to justify it.... Hell, under the rules that govern sovereignty we didn't even have the cause to enter Afghanistan. At the time terrorist organizations were regarded as criminal and the proper expectation would have been to report AQ to its functioning state and allow them to administer criminal justice. When we realized the Taliban government had no interest in doing that because it would upend tribal contracts we said "F it, we'll just do it ourselves then" and came up with this "with us or against us" tag line that international lawyers warned would set significant precedence on how sovereignty would be governed in future conflict. 

I'm not knocking your opinion its a perfectly valid opinion to have, but its difficult to say that our world order is built off this and support it when there are so many instances our world order was built off of breaking that concept as well. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by FLEA

[The TRON]

18 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You told you this bullshit…

JP8 is low sulfur diesel. We run our gators, helicopters, generators, and tanks off the same fuel. I’ve literally watched fuelers use our FARP to also service the generators and Humvees from the same truck that has the single point running to the aircraft.

It’s literally a fundamental requirement of our entire logistical model for ground forces in NATO.

You can also run a number of non specific fuels similar to our cocktail in the M1. There are power pack inspections and different maintenance checks that have to be done, but it was literally built to fight a ground war in Europe. One where logistics would be limited and the primary Armor would need to be able to scavenge as well as use what was planned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes the Abrams can run on Diesel.  However, while the AGT1500 will run on pretty much any kerosene mixture just like any of our jet engines that does not mean it runs well.  If you want the peak power you run it on JP8, the Army doesn't run it on diesel for a reason.  No matter what it is a humongous fuel hog either way and requires a massive logistics chain to keep it moving not even considering parts.  In the Gulf War we faced a tactical pause if the war had gone any longer just so logistics could keep up with armors demands.  In ‘03 it was the same, but we were even better at sustaining movement based on lessons learned in the Gulf War.  None of this even talks about the maintenance requirements to keep the tanks running and the fact the Ukrainians have zero experience with any of these tanks.  They use 120mm shells that are not common to anything the Ukrainians have and in the case of the Challenger not common with the Leopard or Abrams despite the NATO commonality piece you mentioned.  

 

If you don't see how much of a logistics problem this is all creating your head must be buried in the sand.  We’d be better off at least for the near term focusing on providing T-72s than giving the Ukrainians tanks they’ll barely be able to use.

Edited January 25, 2023 by The TRON

[Prozac]

4 minutes ago, DSG said:

You can bet that if (say) Texas were to secede and invite Chinese and Russian troops onto its soil, the reaction of Washington would be apocalyptic.  I find the moral outrage to be empty and self-serving, frankly.

Not sure how you can use this analogy with a straight face. Ukraine is not a part of Russia. It was part of the Soviet Union, an empire that imploded three decades ago. It didn’t secede & invite the West in. It’s been a sovereign nation with control of its own destiny since the fall of Soviet rule, just like the Czechs, Poles, Latvians, and all the other former Warsaw Pact nations that are now free of the shackles of a totalitarian communist oppressor. The Russians seemed to be fine with this when the Ukrainians had a corrupt government that tended to align more with Moscow than the west. It was when that government started to reform that Putin started annexing territory (again-from an internationally recognized sovereign nation). There is most definitely a moral argument to be made here: do we abandon a country that, the moment it starts moving in the positive direction we’ve been actively encouraging, is invaded by its neighbor? Or do we show some backbone and support them?  Easy decision made even easier by the fact we get to wreck the Russian war machine in the process. To your point, no, this is nothing like Texas seceding with help from our adversaries. 

[Lawman]

Yes the Abrams can run on Diesel.  However, while the AGT1500 will run on pretty much any kerosene mixture just like any of our jet engines that does not mean it runs well.  If you want the peak power you run it on JP8, the Army doesn't run it on diesel for a reason.  No matter what it is a humongous fuel hog either way and requires a massive logistics chain to keep it moving not even considering parts.  In the Gulf War we faced a tactical pause if the war had gone any longer just so logistics could keep up with armors demands.  In ‘03 it was the same, but we were even better at sustaining movement based on lessons learned in the Gulf War.  None of this even talks about the maintenance requirements to keep the tanks running and the fact the Ukrainians have zero experience with any of these tanks.  They use 120mm shells that are not common to anything the Ukrainians have and in the case of the Challenger not common with the Leopard or Abrams despite the NATO commonality piece you mentioned.  
 
If you don't see how much of a logistics problem this is all creating your head must be buried in the sand.  We’d be better off at least for the near term focusing on providing T-72s than giving the Ukrainians tanks they’ll barely be able to use.

You know what’s a lot more important than the tank…. The people you spent umpteen man hours training to effectively use a tank.

If you don’t understand the massive survivability advantage Leo/Challenger/Abrams enjoy over the old Soviet designs and the logistical component of people actually familiar with and able to use the system you are hopeless in understanding it is well worth the logistical impact on needing more fuel or track pads or being heavier and putting more strain on recovery/engineering/bridges/route planning…. Oh no it’s got a new shell…. One that has to be loaded and comes in a single contained piece vs the multi piece shells for the carousel auto loader…. Oh and we can battle carry a fuel load of them instead of going with only the 20-24 in the floor because we are concerned about cooking off a wet stored round in the T64/72 turret…. Do you realize how much of an improvement that would be?

About 6 ish months ago the big comment was “why are we sending them HIMARs what could they possibly do with it.” Those same critics are now telling us how they can’t use a “jet fuel powered” tank because of their vast experience working with Armor. And this isn’t about getting this capability to them tomorrow, which guess what we are doing sourcing T72 and 64s from NATO stocks. This is getting the ball rolling on a capability issue that will give the Russians absolute fits in the 6-9 months from now it takes to start fielding it. It’s not the one or the other option you’re calling it.

The Russians have absolutely nothing comparable in parity to an Abrams or a LEOA5 or later. They’ve expended the best of their Armor. They are pulling 55s out to put them into service. Putting a Battalion of modern western armor anywhere is a serious problem for them they can’t easily solve, same as a half dozen GMLRs are giving them fits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

18 minutes ago, The TRON said:

Yes the Abrams can run on Diesel.  However, while the AGT1500 will run on pretty much any kerosene mixture just like any of our jet engines that does not mean it runs well.  If you want the peak power you run it on JP8, the Army doesn't run it on diesel for a reason.  No matter what it is a humongous fuel hog either way and requires a massive logistics chain to keep it moving not even considering parts.  In the Gulf War we faced a tactical pause if the war had gone any longer just so logistics could keep up with armors demands.  In ‘03 it was the same, but we were even better at sustaining movement based on lessons learned in the Gulf War.  None of this even talks about the maintenance requirements to keep the tanks running and the fact the Ukrainians have zero experience with any of these tanks.  They use 120mm shells that are not common to anything the Ukrainians have and in the case of the Challenger not common with the Leopard or Abrams despite the NATO commonality piece you mentioned.  

 

If you don't see how much of a logistics problem this is all creating your head must be buried in the sand.  We’d be better off at least for the near term focusing on providing T-72s than giving the Ukrainians tanks they’ll barely be able to use.

These aren’t showing up overnight. It will be many months at a minimum. This is more of another sign to Russia that the future isn’t getting easier for you.  Gen heartling has a great twitter thread about the stuff you talk about. 

[arg]

18 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I mean the C-130 technically runs on a lot of this crap too but you're going to give your crew chief a nightmare if you actually do it. It doesn't stop Lockheed from marketing it as a major selling feature though. I presume the circumstances are similar. Its fine in a "get out of dodge" pinch but not something for continuous operations. 

Got some fuel off some pretty sketchy looking trucks over in the Pacific. That was when we did a fuel systems check prior to take off instead of finding out later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arg]

10 minutes ago, uhhello said:

These aren’t showing up overnight. It will be many months at a minimum. This is more of another sign to Russia that the future isn’t getting easier for you.  Gen heartling has a great twitter thread about the stuff you talk about. 

We might have the fuel issue solved by then.

[Lord Ratner]

43 minutes ago, DSG said:

I tend to sympathize with your realist take on things, but calling a chauvinistic kleptocracy and vector of hostile (to Russia) foreign influence "innocent" is quite a reach.  There's certainly a strategic and economic case for supporting Ukraine, but the moral one, I find unimpressive.  The U.S. is happy to support ethnic separatism when it suits it (Kosovo) -- presently, its Ukrainian client is violating the tenants of self-determination by forcing the Russophone southeast back under its writ.  And needless to say, America has stepped on far more than its share of weak states.  You can bet that if (say) Texas were to secede and invite Chinese and Russian troops onto its soil, the reaction of Washington would be apocalyptic.  I find the moral outrage to be empty and self-serving, frankly.  

I'm not entirely following here. Reductionism is useful in theoretical conversation, but it can't be confused for a framework for viewing the real world. 

 

There are no relevant hypotheticals, the real world has already created the scenario. Is Russia being evil in their actions? Is Ukraine to blame for the invasion? Who is right and who is wrong in this conflict?

The world is not black and white, but the many shades of gray do fall on a spectrum that are either more black or more white. Arguing that Ukraine has done something wrong, and therefore a moral judgment cannot be weighed against Russia, is the geopolitical version of saying well she shouldn't have cheated on him if she didn't want to be beaten to death.

 

It really is amazing to me how many people are using other conflicts as some sort of basis for minimizing the obvious moral dilemmas we face in Ukraine. Past acts do not impact the moral characteristics of present conflicts. Right and wrong are not relative. To argue otherwise is too close to post-modernism, which is thoroughly deviod of intellectual substance.

 

It is also remarkable to me that conservatives are now using the same twisted logic that progressives have used for the past decade or two. Well the United States had slaves, so who are we to judge? It's nonsense. Did the chauvinistic kleptocracy deserve to be invaded or not?

 

A fundamental basis for our nation is that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. Ultimately, there is no United States of America, there are only the people who make it up and the decisions that they make. I don't give two flying fucks if other people made the wrong decision in the past. My job, my duty as a moral being, is to make the right decision in the scenarios I am faced with. And when I fail, as I have before, I do not get to use that failure as some sort of justification for future inaction.

 

Now, I would not say that the moral nature of international activity binds us to any course, but the Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican party seems hell bent on disputing the moral nature of this particular war, rather than just the appropriate national response, and I find that to be almost laughably obtuse.