Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[gearhog]

5 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No I’m saying you inserted an article which builds on a Bullshit premise as to why it’s necessary to “prove our support” with a modern fighter so that the Ukrainians can support their armor in the field.

Now why you did that is your own reasons, but it’s absolutely BS to say we are somehow halfhearted in our support for Ukraine this many billions of dollars and months into the fight.

Given that we are now facing calls to limit the amount of dollars we can give from within our own countries it’s more important than ever to achieve the maximum dollar value for the assistance we are given and dismiss bullshit like that article for what it is. If somebody is trying imply the Uke’s haven’t received aid in achieving or even achieved some form of air superiority with the equipment on hand (to include the very best ground based systems we own) than please explain why the Russian Air isn’t running around their country wholesale the way we would be in the same place. Why are we see them deliberately choosing to adopt toss bombing in salvos to achieve little in actual accurate effects and expend all the effort and ordnance for a sortie that does little to effect the ground. Surely if air superiority didn’t favor the ground and survivability isn’t in question they wouldn’t adopt such tactics right?

Again, I still get the impression you think we're on opposite sides of the issue. The article makes the very same justifications as Ukrainian President Zelensky, Ukrainian gov't officials, and Ukrainian military leadership, and other world leaders have been making for Ukr getting Vipers. You think it's bullshit, and I've already said I agree. But that's the argument being made by those who think we're not doing enough. Why did I include it? So someone like yourself could call out the BS better than I could. Well done.

[arg]

Can the M-1 do this

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=546114157471898

Edited February 1, 2023 by arg
Apologies to non-facebookers

[GrndPndr]

37 minutes ago, arg said:

Can the M-1 do this

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=546114157471898

Yes

[arg]

1 hour ago, GrndPndr said:

Yes

Lets get some beer and prove it.

But can it RUN on beer!

 

[Prozac]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Some of us don't value that very high. And thinking Europe will ever get behind a US banner is laughable. They generally do not have high opinions of Americans or American culture. 

If you don’t value European security, you’re a fool. Reference two world wars starting there. Also reference some of our best allies & trading partners being there. You’re also a fool if you don’t believe Europe is very much under the US banner already. Just because Hans told you he doesn’t like American imperialism, it doesn’t mean Herr Scholz isn’t down with a US led Western world. It makes his job easier in many, many ways. 

[Prozac]

3 hours ago, torqued said:

Again, I still get the impression you think we're on opposite sides of the issue. The article makes the very same justifications as Ukrainian President Zelensky, Ukrainian gov't officials, and Ukrainian military leadership, and other world leaders have been making for Ukr getting Vipers. You think it's bullshit, and I've already said I agree. But that's the argument being made by those who think we're not doing enough. Why did I include it? So someone like yourself could call out the BS better than I could. Well done.

Uhhh, no dude. You’ve made it clear that your position is that our support for the Ukes must not be genuine because we’re not giving them Vipers. As others have alluded, that’s a pretty weak argument considering the level of support given so far. It’s like saying you don’t love your wife unless you buy her that $3K Hermes bag that she really, really wants. 

[gearhog]

48 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Uhhh, no dude. You’ve made it clear that your position is that our support for the Ukes must not be genuine because we’re not giving them Vipers. As others have alluded, that’s a pretty weak argument considering the level of support given so far. It’s like saying you don’t love your wife unless you buy her that $3K Hermes bag that she really, really wants. 

Could I trouble you to quote the text where I made it clear that was my position and not the author’s? I’m trying to understand where your confusion lies. I don’t think it was you, but someone also recently fabricated another position and attributed it to me, just so they could attack it. 

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying you’re intentionally trying to escalate a conflict by knowingly making untrue claims then dunking on them with an air of moral superiority.

So did you give your wife a fake Michael Kors from Chinatown or what? Oddly specific. Careful, if you don’t give your wife what she wants, someone else might.

Edited February 1, 2023 by torqued

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

If you don’t value European security, you’re a fool. Reference two world wars starting there. Also reference some of our best allies & trading partners being there. You’re also a fool if you don’t believe Europe is very much under the US banner already. Just because Hans told you he doesn’t like American imperialism, it doesn’t mean Herr Scholz isn’t down with a US led Western world. It makes his job easier in many, many ways. 

Am I the fool? They are the ones living highly on free medical care, social safety nets, 2 years unemployment benefits at 75% salary even if you leave your job voluntarily..... and we are the ones paying nearly 20% of our annual budget each year on defense and national security architecture to ensure their security while they lift their noses snobbishly at us and demean our culture, values and ideals. Not sure about you man but I didn't join the service to go spread the good message of "European" identity all over earth, and praise their values and ideals. I did it to show the good will and generosity of Americans.... within reason.

Secondly..... Two WORLD wars. Key word there being WORLD. We tend to frame WW1 and WW2 as being primarily European affairs. They were not. In WW2 50% of the casualties in that war happened on the Asian continent. JAPAN attacked the US, not Germany.

8/10 of the largest world military powers are in the Pacific trade hemisphere. Only 2/10 are West European. Over 50% of the world's GDP is generated by just 5 Pacific region countries. 2/3 of every R&D dollar spent on new technology is spent in either Asia or North America. Am I missing the point here or are you?

You are clinging to decades old ideology that generals who fought and won WW2 ingrained into our service--dogmas that are generations old without willingness to pivot or realize that the global playing field is changing, the rules are being rewrote, and the geographic center of Global Power is now as far away from Europe as you can get. 

Yes, Europe used to be the center of global power and dominance--largely because of colonialism. That was a 200 year hiccup in 5000 years of written history that said 80% of Global Wealth was in the hands of just two societies--India, and China--since agriculture began. If anything, WW2 and the prolonged Cold War was an indicator of their global relevance dyeing out. 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by FLEA

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

Some of us don't value that very high.

Well I guess that's why we have elections. The "keep helping people kill Russians" party did historically well during the last midterms. 

[dream big]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

Well I guess that's why we have elections. The "keep helping people kill Russians" party got extremely lucky during the last midterms. 

Fixed it for you 

[GrndPndr]

12 hours ago, arg said:

Lets get some beer and prove it.

But can it RUN on beer!

 

You know, I can't actually think if a better way to prove that!

[Lawman]

Could I trouble you to quote the text where I made it clear that was my position and not the author’s? I’m trying to understand where your confusion lies. I don’t think it was you, but someone also recently fabricated another position and attributed it to me, just so they could attack it. 
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying you’re intentionally trying to escalate a conflict by knowingly making untrue claims then dunking on them with an air of moral superiority.
So did you give your wife a fake Michael Kors from Chinatown or what? Oddly specific. Careful, if you don’t give your wife what she wants, someone else might.

Except we can simply go back over the history of your participation with this conversation and infer exactly what you’re trying to sideward advance of the point you want to make.

You’ve reminded us about government debt, inferred the Ukrainian government is somehow uniquely dishonest, advanced the idea that somehow our aid packages could be targeted in the open seas, questioned whether our actions would widen the conflict… Look just come out and say you don’t think we should be supporting Ukraine in this. At least that would be intellectually honest.

Zelenskyy and his supporters are going to advocate to get every piece of aid and advantage available. Somewhere right now is a guy arguing we should give them TLAMs and B1s if we look hard enough as absurd as that idea is. That’s their job… ask for the moon and get a good ways too it. But don’t sit here and pretend mine or others acknowledgement that those are politically driven arguments for the point of getting some aid as saying we all think that we should now be questioning the expense of any aid to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Except we can simply go back over the history of your participation with this conversation and infer exactly what you’re trying to sideward advance of the point you want to make.

You’ve reminded us about government debt, inferred the Ukrainian government is somehow uniquely dishonest, advanced the idea that somehow our aid packages could be targeted in the open seas, questioned whether our actions would widen the conflict… Look just come out and say you don’t think we should be supporting Ukraine in this. At least that would be intellectually honest.

Zelenskyy and his supporters are going to advocate to get every piece of aid and advantage available. Somewhere right now is a guy arguing we should give them TLAMs and B1s if we look hard enough as absurd as that idea is. That’s their job… ask for the moon and get a good ways too it. But don’t sit here and pretend mine or others acknowledgement that those are politically driven arguments for the point of getting some aid as saying we all think that we should now be questioning the expense of any aid to them.

Me trying to sideward advancing of the point I want to make isn't, you do.

Huh?

I just offered a question about giving F-16s to Ukraine. You answered and I agree. It appears that's not satisfactory. Not only need I agree, I must agree for the same reasons. However.. as you requested: I will finally come out and admit that I believe that there is a limit to the amount of military aid and debt obligations we as Americans, should assign ourselves for this conflict. Quite the revelation. Perhaps you also have a limit, I but think it's likely that you're going to defend every dollar of every forthcoming aid package up to and including aircraft because you don't want to draw a line and have it exceeded.

Perhaps we could agree that there is, in fact, a monetary and material limit but we'll likely not agree what it is. There is another aspect. As many here have pointed out, NATO benefits massively from having a strategic enemy engaged in a prolonged quagmire conflict and weakened as a result. All we have to do is print the money and provide the fighting equipment, but not too much. And as others here have argued, it's quite the bargain. But who is doing the fighting? You're not. Millions of Ukrainians killed, displaced, and plunged into poverty. Ukr soldiers likely being killed at the same rate as the Russians while Rus continues to make minor advances. An economy, society, and countryside destroyed. And not a single NATO casualty. You might call that a bargain, but you shouldn't call me intellectually dishonest.

 

 

[Lawman]

Me trying to sideward advancing of the point I want to make isn't, you do.
Huh?
I just offered a question about giving F-16s to Ukraine. You answered and I agree. It appears that's not satisfactory. Not only need I agree, I must agree for the same reasons. However.. as you requested: I will finally come out and admit that I believe that there is a limit to the amount of military aid and debt obligations we as Americans, should assign ourselves for this conflict. Quite the revelation. Perhaps you also have a limit, I but think it's likely that you're going to defend every dollar of every forthcoming aid package up to and including aircraft because you don't want to draw a line and have it exceeded.
Perhaps we could agree that there is, in fact, a monetary and material limit but we'll likely not agree what it is. There is another aspect. As many here have pointed out, NATO benefits massively from having a strategic enemy engaged in a prolonged quagmire conflict and weakened as a result. All we have to do is print the money and provide the fighting equipment, but not too much. And as others here have argued, it's quite the bargain. But who is doing the fighting? You're not. Millions of Ukrainians killed, displaced, and plunged into poverty. Ukr soldiers likely being killed at the same rate as the Russians while Rus continues to make minor advances. An economy, society, and countryside destroyed. And not a single NATO casualty. You might call that a bargain, but you shouldn't call me intellectually dishonest.
 
 

You’re getting called out directly for your side-walking point attempting subterfuge to your intent because the Tucker Carlson “I’m just asking questions” BS is transparent to anybody paying attention.

“There is a limit” ignores this was neither NATO nor Ukraines fight in escalating this to an actual military conflict nor is the continued presence of NATO and international aid “prolonging the conflict” somehow a bad thing. I’ll remind you when this started people were against the aid we’d sent before the conflict, much less the javelins and other immediate means we kicked forward to give them a chance. Had we simply admitted openly to the limits you and others are now saying we should respect or inferring we passed Ukraine would currently be a protectorate of the Russian federation and Zelenskyy would likely be facing a public show trial within Russia accusing him of a range of things from Nazism to crimes against humanity.


It’s not costing NATO lives or it’s costing NATO to absorb this conflict is blindly ignorant to the volunteers that have gone across the border to aid or the work of all those nations who are absorbing the refugee crisis. Or the ongoing efforts of our own military with actions like Atlantic Resolve which exist entirely to respond to the last decade of Russian aggression.

As to why we shouldn’t be openly stating the limits of our assistance in any way is that telegraphing where the finish line is to Russia right now is stupid. Our (US, NATO, Uke, etc) unified resolve is something to calculate in the Kremlin as same as their casualty figures or the presence of equipment on the battlefield. To say nothing of the wider message it sends to both our ally’s and opponents around the world that we are willing to back the non nuclear power in a territorial conflict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

52 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You’re getting called out directly for your side-walking point attempting subterfuge to your intent because the Tucker Carlson “I’m just asking questions” BS is transparent to anybody paying attention.

So I'm getting called out for my side-walking point attempting subterfuge to my intent?  Noted.

52 minutes ago, Lawman said:

There is a limit” ignores this was neither NATO nor Ukraines fight in escalating this to an actual military conflict nor is the continued presence of NATO and international aid “prolonging the conflict” somehow a bad thing. I’ll remind you when this started people were against the aid we’d sent before the conflict, much less the javelins and other immediate means we kicked forward to give them a chance. Had we simply admitted openly to the limits you and others are now saying we should respect or inferring we passed Ukraine would currently be a protectorate of the Russian federation and Zelenskyy would likely be facing a public show trial within Russia accusing him of a range of things from Nazism to crimes against humanity.

I don't like it when people make fun of grammar when engaged in a friendly debate, but I honestly can't decipher what you're trying to say here with this stream of consciousness word salad. It's probably my fault. My best guess is that you're saying there is in fact, a limit, but we should keep it secret. Good point.

52 minutes ago, Lawman said:

it’s not costing NATO lives or it’s costing NATO to absorb this conflict is blindly ignorant to the volunteers that have gone across the border to aid or the work of all those nations who are absorbing the refugee crisis. Or the ongoing efforts of our own military with actions like Atlantic Resolve which exist entirely to respond to the last decade of Russian aggression.

As to why we shouldn’t be openly stating the limits of our assistance in any way is that telegraphing where the finish line is to Russia right now is stupid. Our (US, NATO, Uke, etc) unified resolve is something to calculate in the Kremlin as same as their casualty figures or the presence of equipment on the battlefield. To say nothing of the wider message it sends to both our ally’s and opponents around the world that we are willing to back the non nuclear power in a territorial conflict.

So if you individually volunteered to go to Ukraine, that's a cost to America? Who does your taxes? LOL No sense.

You don't want to disclose your opinion as to how much or how little we should be giving them because you don't want the Russians to know. Got it.

Here ya go: https://bank.gov.ua/en/news/all/natsionalniy-bank-vidkriv-spetsrahunok-dlya-zboru-koshtiv-na-potrebi-armiyi

DM me your receipt.

Edited February 2, 2023 by torqued

[Lawman]

So if you individually volunteered to go to Ukraine, that's a cost to America? Who does your taxes? LOL No sense.
You don't want to disclose your opinion as to how much or how little we should be giving them because you don't want the Russians to know. Got it.
Here ya go: https://bank.gov.ua/en/news/all/natsionalniy-bank-vidkriv-spetsrahunok-dlya-zboru-koshtiv-na-potrebi-armiyi
DM me your receipt.

Oh so now you can’t read English or understand my meaning.

1. You’re deliberately hiding behind some feigned concern for money or widening risk of war when reality is you’re afraid to just publicly state what you mean. You don’t think we should be supporting the Ukrainian government/military. You hide behind concerns or pretend to just be bringing up talking points for discussion. Your participation in this thread seems entirely built in trying to lessen the validity of the cause we are supporting or hollow out the value of the support others are calling for.

2. Now you want to play the bullshit “if you think we should help why don’t you go volunteer” card. Really you are recognizing you’ve had to show some of your hand and are losing ground on the argument that somehow you and I are both agreeing to limits. We’re not even in the same library much less the same page when my argument is make real effects that translate to dollars spent and Russian combat power eroded and you’re masking an argument in the belief we never should have been giving them this kind of serious assistance in the first place. Not to mention it’s completely silent to that huge apparatus of military power we keep moving making bold political noise to the Russians like Atlantic Resolve. I’ll let you take a guess what I’ll be doing with my brigade in the near future…

3. To be more succinct, stop dancing around and being a tool and just say what you mean.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

On 1/31/2023 at 1:55 PM, torqued said:

I'm just curious as to the logical gynmastics required by those who want to "help" Ukraine, but not that much.

I want to help Ukraine stop and reverse a Russian invasion. Nukes would help towards that goal. Yet somehow I manage to justify not sending Ukraine nukes, because they would do more than simply help return Ukraine to the Ukrainians.

 

Do you really have a hard time imagining a world that isn't black and white, because I don't, and I don't think any of the "pro-Ukrainian" posters here do either

[gearhog]

27 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh so now you can’t read English or understand my meaning.

1. You’re deliberately hiding behind some feigned concern for money or widening risk of war when reality is you’re afraid to just publicly state what you mean. You don’t think we should be supporting the Ukrainian government/military. You hide behind concerns or pretend to just be bringing up talking points for discussion. Your participation in this thread seems entirely built in trying to lessen the validity of the cause we are supporting or hollow out the value of the support others are calling for.

2. Now you want to play the bullshit “if you think we should help why don’t you go volunteer” card. Really you are recognizing you’ve had to show some of your hand and are losing ground on the argument that somehow you and I are both agreeing to limits. We’re not even in the same library much less the same page when my argument is make real effects that translate to dollars spent and Russian combat power eroded and you’re masking an argument in the belief we never should have been giving them this kind of serious assistance in the first place. Not to mention it’s completely silent to that huge apparatus of military power we keep moving making bold political noise to the Russians like Atlantic Resolve. I’ll let you take a guess what I’ll be doing with my brigade in the near future…

3. To be more succinct, stop dancing around and being a twat and just say what you mean.

It's the latter. You weren't communicating clearly with your run on sentences and all. How am I hiding behind a "feigned concern" for money? What other concern do you think I have? I think it's an incredibly complex issue obfuscated with fake moral indignations. You have this incredibly naive idea that our leadership are the clearly good guys and Russia is clearly evil. Good soldier. I've said it before, I don't like Russia, I don't like Putin, and I wouldn't want to live under Russian rule. But there was zero chance of that although I'm sure you'll disagree. Everyone paying attention has known for 20 years that picking off former Soviet States and satellite states for NATO membership would eventually draw a confrontation. Ukraine was a trap and Russia fell for it. This play for wealth, land, and resources. You and I are paying with our wallets and the Ukrs are paying with their lives.

I didn't say you should volunteer. I'm asking how you're conflating someone volunteering with a cost burdened by NATO countries. It's as if you don't know the definition of volunteering. I've continuously asked you one question "Is there a limit?" and you simply will not answer, hiding behind accusations and dancing around the question.

I won't be losing ground until I resort to petty name-calling and childish insults.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by torqued

[gearhog]

18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I want to help Ukraine stop and reverse a Russian invasion. Nukes would help towards that goal. Yet somehow I manage to justify not sending Ukraine nukes, because they would do more than simply help return Ukraine to the Ukrainians.

Do you really have a hard time imagining a world that isn't black and white, because I don't, and I don't think any of the "pro-Ukrainian" posters here do either

Ever heard of an "Appeal to Extremes" logical fallacy? No one advocated for nukes.

As for the second part, if anything, that's the point I'm trying to make. This is not black and white, good vs. evil. This is a game of empires, power, and profit and it's naive to believe that any of us stand to gain from it.

 

 

[gearhog]

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1617786634606628865?s=20&t=WNdiJiR3BP7FJ9fPF38eEQSuckers.

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, torqued said:

Ever heard of an "Appeal to Extremes" logical fallacy? No one advocated for nukes.

As for the second part, if anything, that's the point I'm trying to make. This is not black and white, good vs. evil. This is a game of empires, power, and profit and it's naive to believe that any of us stand to gain from it.

 

 

Extremes are useful for lots of hypothetical conversations. They're not good for the ultimate making of a decision.

If you're incapable of seeing how one could support you crane without supporting anything and everything that might help them, I'm not sure I have the capacity to make you understand.

That was your question, and I answered it. If you have a different question, let's hear it.

[Lawman]

It's the latter. You weren't communicating clearly with your run on sentences and all. How am I hiding behind a "feigned concern" for money? What other concern do you think I have? I think it's an incredibly complex issue obfuscated with fake moral indignations. You have this incredibly naive idea that our leadership are the clearly good guys and Russia is clearly evil. Good soldier. I've said it before, I don't like Russia, I don't like Putin, and I wouldn't want to live under Russian rule. But there was zero chance of that although I'm sure you'll disagree. Everyone paying attention has known for 20 years that picking off former Soviet States and satellite states for NATO membership would eventually draw a confrontation. Ukraine was a trap and Russia fell for it. This play for wealth, land, and resources. You and I are paying with our wallets and the Ukrs are paying with their lives.
I didn't say you should volunteer. I'm asking how you're conflating someone volunteering with a cost burdened by NATO countries. It's as if you don't know the definition of volunteering. I've continuously asked you one question "Is there a limit?" and you simply will not answer, hiding behind accusations and dancing around the question.
I won't be losing ground until I resort to petty name-calling and childish insults.
 

I think you’re new wave rebranded isolationist BS is no less dangerous than the “it’ll all be ok” crowd that was laughingly dismissing Romney in the debates when he suggested Russia is our #1 geopolitical foe.

I think your entire presence in this thread is to do little more than try to play at being some sort of omnipresent intellectual when really you don’t realize your misgivings being the guiding beacon of what we should do (cut them off and let’s see) is more likely to result in a wider conflict not head it off at the regional level it currently resides in. Your apologist sentiment/statements for former exploited Russian satellites recognizing the reality and running to NATO because never again being a great example of that. Oh how dare the Czechs and Poles or Latvians want to actually stay sovereign. What a god damned crime. They should recognize they have old ties to respect and be more Hungarian in their outlook.

I would rather back Ukraine despite all their rotten apples in the cart than see yet another example of Russian aggression go unchecked and be successful in its results for their end goals. And you and others are flatly getting in the way of that with your “yeah but what if they attack our transport ship” bullshit from earlier.

We tried isolationism or rather “that’s a Europe problem” before. The end result was us getting into wider conflicts both unprepared and more expensively than smaller sooner conflicts would have cost. That was the reason we changed our mindset the last 70 years. Turns out just having nukes and oceans between us and conflict isn’t enough.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Extremes are useful for lots of hypothetical conversations. They're not good for the ultimate making of a decision.

If you're incapable of seeing how one could support you crane without supporting anything and everything that might help them, I'm not sure I have the capacity to make you understand.

That was your question, and I answered it. If you have a different question, let's hear it.

I think the word you’re looking for is “limit”. Has that not been the central theme of my posts since this conversation began? 
 

I do have a question “Do you support negotiations to end the conflict?”

[Lord Ratner]

25 minutes ago, torqued said:

I think the word you’re looking for is “limit”. Has that not been the central theme of my posts since this conversation began? 
 

I do have a question “Do you support negotiations to end the conflict?”

That's an easy one. Yes

[Prozac]

52 minutes ago, torqued said:

it's naive to believe that any of us stand to gain from it.

We stand nothing to gain? From taking most of Russia’s pieces off the chessboard? From showing the Chinese how high invasion costs can be? From gaining valuable intelligence on how Russian supplied war machines work? From coalescing Western allies in ways we haven’t seen in decades? From taking the Russians out of the European energy game? Etcetera. Etcetera.

Curious as to what you think are more worthwhile foreign policy goals?