Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[ViperMan]

36 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

ViperMan did you come up with that moral choice on you own?  If you did, you would certainly have come up with that prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  You would certainly be morally opposed to Russia's involvement in Georgia yes? And going back further, Russia's involvement in Afghanistan yes?  Russia is doing what Russia does.  I'm good with the argument of nuke em, they are evil.  But this johnny come lately oh dear god they are picking on Ukraine?  Get the out of here.  Where have you been since 1989?

Nope. I am morally opposed to all those things Russia did. That's not the point though.

The unstated assumption supporting the logic in your argument is that because I haven't intervened in every conflict where a moral case can be made to intervene, I cannot, therefore, ever intervene upon moral grounds. You don't get to simultaneously deride someone's moral justification for war on that basis, and then immediately turn around and cast moral judgement upon those who wish to intervene on those grounds. At least not using that formulation. Morality isn't our reason for going to war. Morality is our justification. You're looking at morality in warfare in reverse, and just because we don't intervene in every conflict where we could morally justify it, doesn't mean you can wholesale discard morality's role in warfare.

The proper way morality figures into this is as a check on our interests and actions. We first have to ask ourselves if it is in our interest to kill Russians. Check? If so, then you have to ask if it is moral to do so in this case. Presumably the answer to question #1 is always yes. The answer to question #2 is contingent. The role the "moral question" plays in any given conflict is to serve as a check and balance on keeping us from going to war with everyone who has different interests from us.

Look at it this way. Is it in Russia's interest to take over Ukraine (let's take their word for it)? Yes. Question 1, check. Question 2? Is it moral for Russia to take over Ukraine? Nope. Hence, they have no justification for war. If you want to go on a moral crusade and fight every immoral thing in the world, go ahead, but you're going to be pretty busy.

Edited January 26, 2023 by ViperMan
Grammar

[filthy_liar]

Viper - great post and well said.  Going through your fodder, no, we should not spend a friggin nickel on the ed up dictatorship that is Ukraine.  Like I've said before, Ukraine.  Ask your desk officer how reliable those people are.  Why are we spending a nickel on these corrupt s?

 

[filthy_liar]

57 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

Huh? You're a bot, right? Not even General Chang was this good 😂🤣

Chang didn't make that statement, you did.

 

[filthy_liar]

55 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Is it moral for Russia to take over Ukraine?

No, it isn't.  Dear god that's my point.  And if it isn't, nuke those ers into oblivion.  If it is a study of let's just see how much we can do, then again, nuke them.  

We won't nuke them.  I don't like what we're doing now with Ukraine.  Ukraine. Corrupt ing assholes costing me money.  Definitely ukraine.

[Lord Ratner]

40 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

Chang didn't make that statement, you did.

 

 

I only have one question for you... What's does this say?

[M2]

On 1/23/2023 at 8:27 PM, 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.

Quantum computing.

[Prozac]

19 hours ago, DSG said:

It was part of the Russian Empire (among others) for centuries before the USSR existed, and shares a great deal of heritage.

I thought I was fairly clear in my last response but I’ll remind you that the breakup of the Soviet Union happened over three decades ago. Ukraine did not secede from Russia. They became a sovereign nation thirty years ago.
 

The better analogy would be the United States granting Puerto Rico independence in 1991, and then ruthlessly invading it in the spring of 2022, deliberately targeting the civilian populace, and unleashing our hardest criminals to rape, pillage, and do god knows whatever else to the people there. Ask yourself if you could see that scenario unfolding for the United States anytime soon?
 

There is no comparison. Get outta here with your secession assclownery. 

[pawnman]

14 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

ViperMan did you come up with that moral choice on you own?  If you did, you would certainly have come up with that prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  You would certainly be morally opposed to Russia's involvement in Georgia yes? And going back further, Russia's involvement in Afghanistan yes?  Russia is doing what Russia does.  I'm good with the argument of nuke em, they are evil.  But this johnny come lately oh dear god they are picking on Ukraine?  Get the out of here.  Where have you been since 1989?

 

I mean...I was against all those things. And we spent a fair amount in Afghanistan to fight the Russians for the same reasons we're now sending weapons to Ukraine. 

If anything, I'm disappointed it took this long to mount a response. We should have done sanctions and sent weapons when Russia took Crimea. And invaded Georgia. 

 

[filthy_liar]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

If anything, I'm disappointed it took this long to mount a response. We should have done sanctions and sent weapons when Russia took Crimea. And invaded Georgia.

Well at least that's consistent.  I think we're something like #4 or 5 down the list of Russia's top trade partners.  China is their #1 with about $50B/yr and the US is about $15B.  So not insignificant, but I don't know how much sanctions will persuade Putin to behave.  If you could get Germany on board, maybe.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

Well at least that's consistent.  I think we're something like #4 or 5 down the list of Russia's top trade partners.  China is their #1 with about $50B/yr and the US is about $15B.  So not insignificant, but I don't know how much sanctions will persuade Putin to behave.  If you could get Germany on board, maybe.

If you get all of Western Europe, you mean? And cut them out of SWIFT so they have no access to western banking systems? Yeah, that has an impact. 

So does seizing the mansions, condos, and yachts of the ruling elite in places like NYC and London. 

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

If you could get Germany on board, maybe.

Uhhh…they are already on board. And yes, before you ask, that includes gas now as well.

This kind of stuff has been both widely reported for months and is easily googleable. We’ve got to improve education re: how to find and filter information…

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/eu-sanctions-2008438

Edited January 27, 2023 by nsplayr

[filthy_liar]

6 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Uhhh…they are already on board. And yes, before you ask, that includes gas now as well.

This kind of stuff has been both widely reported for months and is easily googleable. We’ve got to improve education re: how to find and filter information…

Damn dude.  I thought you were better than that.  Googleable isn't truth.  Germany and everyone else side steps the shit out of all agreed upon contracts.  Have you lived in Europe?  Or Asia?

[filthy_liar]

18 minutes ago, pawnman said:

If you get all of Western Europe, you mean? And cut them out of SWIFT so they have no access to western banking systems? Yeah, that has an impact. 

So does seizing the mansions, condos, and yachts of the ruling elite in places like NYC and London.

Yes all of western europe would be better.  I'm not smart on the SWIFT banking system details, but yea, I would imagine if you could isolate them from that system that would be devastating.  I think.  Sanctions cut both ways to some degree.

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

Yes all of western europe would be better.  I'm not smart on the SWIFT banking system details, but yea, I would imagine if you could isolate them from that system that would be devastating.  I think.  Sanctions cut both ways to some degree.

Hopefully they figure out how to lock them out of SWIFT....................................................

[filthy_liar]

So if they do that, how does that work exactly?  Can't JRCC or any other chinese banking company sidestep SWIFT?

[filthy_liar]

Doesn't the blockchain sidestep SWIFT or at least is capable of sidestepping it?

 

[FLEA]

Ok a few things. 1.) Generally sanctions don't alter Russian behavior. This is because they are a large producer of energy and a large producer of agriculture. No matter how hard you economically sanction them, no matter how much you isolate them from the global community, the lights stay on, the homes stay heated in winter, and food stays on the table. So this is not the same situation as say North Korea, that has to import petroleum and coal (illegally from China) and doesnt have enough fertile land for its population. Its hard to economically crush and oppress a population into submission when they can generally meet the baseline comfort needed for survival. Often times, sanctions have the opposite effect which is they entrench resolve in the population and shift blame for the crises on the sanctioning country. Its all mushy and unpredictable. 

2.) Yes, block chain can technically side step SWIFT, but only in so much as you can find a party that trades in crypto. Crypto is not regulated, and cannot be regulated. Trading crypto for fiat currency though can be regulated. The effect of locking Russia out of SWIFT is that they can no longer exchange fiat currencies with European partners. However, they 100% could exchange crypto if they could find an exchange willing to purchase Ruble. Laws like the Bank Security Act make that very difficult though as all banks that have any sort of connection to the US are required to adopt internal controls that monitor AML transactions. What's more problematic is that Russia, China, Iran, and a few other countries have now been trading interculturally in their own currencies. For example, Russia sells product to China in Yuan now. 

3.) The wider effect this is having on the Russian population is people no longer see Putin as the icon of stability he used to be. Putin was incredibly popular pre-war. Like, 70% approval rating popular. (Our last two POTUS can't even get above 45%) Those polls conducted by the Levada institute are conducted with enough human ethical integrity that those numbers were pretty trustworthy. However, there are enormous indicators that public opinion may be on shaky ground. The flight of nearly 100,000 men from Russia during the September draft recall is pretty insightful. Putin called them "good-riddance" and order their Russian passports be confiscated if every they tried to return to Russia. He was happy to have them exiled. Its hard to say if that means the people that remain are a solid base or if opinion as a whole is on unstable ground. 

[Pooter]

Question, because I am not smart on tanks.

We've seen Russian and Ukrainian tanks repeatedly dumpstered by anti tank weapons throughout this conflict, so is there any reason to think the same won't happen to the abrams and leopards getting sent over there? 
 

Do western tanks have vastly superior countermeasures or something?  Just not really seeing how a few dozen western tanks are going to last long out there or honestly make that much of a difference. 

[Lawman]

Question, because I am not smart on tanks.
We've seen Russian and Ukrainian tanks repeatedly dumpstered by anti tank weapons throughout this conflict, so is there any reason to think the same won't happen to the abrams and leopards getting sent over there? 
 
Do western tanks have vastly superior countermeasures or something?  Just not really seeing how a few dozen western tanks are going to last long out there or honestly make that much of a difference. 

FLIR and an independent commanders sight for one… The best T90s the Russians had were still woefully lacking in capabilities like that across the force. T80s almost entirely across their fleet only have a single first generation FLIR for the Gunner to sight with. A tank that can potentially move and shoot at night will be a serious problem for them to deal with.

Designed survivability considerations for another. Again… the most critical piece to having a viable Armor force in this attritional fight they are in is keeping the crews alive. Abrams forgoes the storage issues that an auto loading tank like T72/90 can’t adjust for. The only solution for the Russian tanks to enhance survivability is to only go with the ammo in the carousel and get all the stowed rounds out of the top turret. That cuts their total combat load in half. Abrams may only have 6 rounds in the ready rack, but if they penetrate the ammo and cook it off, you don’t lose the crew most importantly and the tank can be recovered and fixed much more easily than one whose turret blew off and burned with a belly full of molten copper/magnesium.

Anti tank missiles and small ambush tactics with infantry will give Armor fits. It’s supposed to be Combined Arms for a reason. However a weapon like Javelin doesn’t really exist in a Russian formation. They’ve got a good collection of small portable anti tank guided missile systems, but again the old quantity over quality. And that’s where the fact we are also giving IFV/APCs over as well. Stuff more survivable to get the dismounted forces forward with that mobile protected firepower to take and hold objectives through mutual fire and maneuver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrndPndr]

8 hours ago, Pooter said:

Question, because I am not smart on tanks.

We've seen Russian and Ukrainian tanks repeatedly dumpstered by anti tank weapons throughout this conflict, so is there any reason to think the same won't happen to the abrams and leopards getting sent over there? 
 

Do western tanks have vastly superior countermeasures or something?  Just not really seeing how a few dozen western tanks are going to last long out there or honestly make that much of a difference. 

We won't be providing M1's with current ceramic (or other fancy) armor.  These have to be removed, and an older technology needs to be put in place.  Don't know if these will come from our own inventory, or we steal them from the export line (which already lack the fancy and more capable armor).  So then, how does one make a comparison?  

[BashiChuni]

we are making a huge strategic mistake escalating this conflict

the biden administration needs to be providing off ramps for both sides and not stoking the flames of war with russia.

my hope is cooler heads are prevailing behind the scenes that we aren't privy to.

[nsplayr]

The off-ramp remains open any time the Russians want to take it! Either get rid of Putin and stop the invasion or convince him to do so if that’s possible. That’s it, that’s the basis for peace in Ukraine. The Ukrainians will never back down from defending their country from an unjust invasion, nor should they 🇺🇦

[pawnman]

16 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

Damn dude.  I thought you were better than that.  Googleable isn't truth.  Germany and everyone else side steps the shit out of all agreed upon contracts.  Have you lived in Europe?  Or Asia?

If you distrust everything reported so much, I don't know why you even think there is a conflict in Ukraine right now. 

Pretty much all of NATO and a lot of countries not in NATO have had sanctions against Russia for almost a year. 

[waveshaper]

10 hours ago, Pooter said:

Question, because I am not smart on tanks.

We've seen Russian and Ukrainian tanks repeatedly dumpstered by anti tank weapons throughout this conflict, so is there any reason to think the same won't happen to the abrams and leopards getting sent over there? 
 

Do western tanks have vastly superior countermeasures or something?  Just not really seeing how a few dozen western tanks are going to last long out there or honestly make that much of a difference. 

 Today IMHO - I don't believe any tank is anything but a rolling coffin. Are we going to provide these Ukraine gifted M1 tanks with modern DU 120mm rounds (120mm APFSDS-T) M829A3 and A4 Carts?

 

We've done this a few times in the recent past/here's just one example and the results: 'Between 2010 and 2012 the U.S. supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq. In mid-2014, they saw action when the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant launched the June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. During three months, about one-third of the Iraqi Army's M1 tanks had been damaged or destroyed by ISIL and some were captured by opposing forces. By December 2014, the Iraqi Army only had about 40 operational Abrams left. That month, the U.S. Department of State approved the sale of another 175 Abrams to Iraq.'

 

[uhhello]

30 minutes ago, waveshaper said:

 Today IMHO - I don't believe any tank is anything but a rolling coffin. Are we going to provide these Ukraine gifted M1 tanks with modern DU 120mm rounds (120mm APFSDS-T) M829A3 and A4 Carts?

 

We've done this a few times in the recent past/here's just one example and the results: 'Between 2010 and 2012 the U.S. supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq. In mid-2014, they saw action when the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant launched the June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. During three months, about one-third of the Iraqi Army's M1 tanks had been damaged or destroyed by ISIL and some were captured by opposing forces. By December 2014, the Iraqi Army only had about 40 operational Abrams left. That month, the U.S. Department of State approved the sale of another 175 Abrams to Iraq.'

 

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume the Ukrainian tankers are a bit more experienced/educated on utilizing tanks properly.