Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lord Ratner]

20 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Underestimate the Russian bear at your own risk. How many more hundreds of billions should we be willing to invest in the most corrupt country in Europe? 

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far?

Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right? 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far?

Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right? 

At least 100b. We’ve given Ukraine more than we gave South Vietnam from the 50s to 1975. 
 

when I say europe I’m not including Russia. There is zero doubt Ukraine is wildly corrupt. If you think otherwise I’d love to see evidence to change my mind. 

[Lord Ratner]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

You may not be allowed to make the decisions, but you are allowed to have an opinion with regards to the immediate best interests of yourself and those around you. Can I not ask how this is making your life better?

Sorry for the delay.

 

Sure, though it's the same generalized answer for most of the government actions that are broad-based. I benefit immensely from a peaceful world. My paycheck is larger and my goods and services are cheaper. I'm healthier because a world that isn't spending on war is usually spending on medical progress, as well as the discounts gained from the scale offered by a global customer base. 

 

I believe there are now several countries that are realizing they won't win the globalized world, so if we go back to polarized they can at least be king of their corner. That's going to be bad for all of us. While I do think it is inevitable, delaying it will prolong human flourishing. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

Do you really think this conflict would be happening if Ukraine were acting in a vaccum? Not only is it easy to create a situation in which a leader can be compelled to send his people to war for the benefit of another, it's happened countless times throughout history.

Conspiracies are only needed when the obvious answer isn't apparent. Who needs a puppet master? Russia and the West have been jockeying for alliance with the old Soviet countries for years, and Russia is losing that battle mightily. Add a wannabe-conqueror to the mix (Putin) and it shouldn't be surprising that this is happening. Did the other 100% of human history need excuses to invade and conquer?

 

Russia would be occupying Ukraine if not for the US and the West. You might consider that more desirable, but I do not. The option where Ukraine is Ukraine and Russia is content with what they have and the rest of the world stops meddling is a hypothetical fantasy. I believe it was a misstep to rush the NATO courtship with Ukraine. Personally, I think NATO is useless, but a generalized alliance of Western-style countries is not a bad thing. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

I don't understand your analogy. In it, we're the seller, and Ukr is the buyer. What are they making purchases with? This is not a decision as to whether or not to buy a luxury item. As long as we are providing them with a means to survive in exchange for killing Russians, do you really think it's a choice?

Right now they seems to be getting a huge discount, though I suspect we are preventing them from any attacks within Russia. A seller can give away their product for free, until they decide not to. Either way, of course it's a choice. You are suggesting they surrender their land through negotiations. 

 

And stop trying to word everything others say to suit your narrative. "In exchange for killing Russians." What a bunch of nonsense. Russia is the one making a choice that is wiping out Russians. We are providing them a means to survive and defend. Whether or not that results in dead Russians is Russia's decision, not ours. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

Again, when you have created a situation where you have the means to provide or deny survival, you can't pass it off as a choice. I wholeheartedly agree that all the atrocities committed by both sides is ugly. We such an environment should never have been created in the first for the earlier claimed reasons of weakening a percieved threat, increase the availability of energy, and sustain economic development. Sorry your kids got disemboweled, but we just couldn't have Europe running on Russian natgas.

They are two modes of survival here. Get Western weapons and fight back (on western terms), accept Russian rule, or die fighting Russia to the last person without help. That is a fucking choice, and like the rest of life, some of the choices are fucked. 

 

Interestingly, your position offers only the latter two choices, which I agree, makes it much less of a choice.

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

Apparently not. But I don't think I could allow myself to tell anyone to do that.

Yeah, you get over that once you stop accepting the false choice they are offering you.

Do what I say OR I will kill myself. But really it was always: Participate in my delusion OR don't. Often the threat suggested in the false choice is unrelated to the path you choose in the real choice anyways. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

As for the rest of it: Uh.. YEAH. Debts are bad. Debts have created the mess. Debts get paid. This is going South. It's gonna be bad. Yet you spend a lot of your time trying to convince me that we should just continue debt spending and exacerbating the end result. It makes no sense. LOL.

It's as if you're saying you don't like drugs, but you're going to increase your habit in hopes that you finally overdose, get hospitalized and rehabed.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I believe it has been finalized for around 15 years now. Once the central banks unleashed QE, we lost. I like your analogy, because it fits pretty well with similar misconceptions people have about drugs. You don't just quit heroin or meth. Sure, there are a few much-ballyhooed examples of someone just quitting one day, but that's the exception, not the rule. We wouldn't have the "homeless" (i.e. drug abuse) problem if it were. Once you're hooked, there are only a few ways out:

1. Something so damaging happens to you, at a point where you just happen to be sober enough to comprehend it, that you are scared into kicking the addiction. Very, very high rate of relapse.
2. You are forced into sobriety by people with the power to force your actions through:
   1. Financial incentives (weak)
   2. Threat of disassociation (better, but weak)
   3. Physically overpowering you and forcing you into treatment (best, but only with very costly follow-through by the enforcer)
3. You die. 

Now I've spent most of my life seeing option 3 as the best answer. I don't want anyone to die for the sake of it, but I'm not interested in helping people that don't want to be helped. But that was my false choice. Go broke helping them or let them die. But we were never going to let them die, it's just not what western societies do, so the true choice was

• Help them now (with force, if necessary) at great cost but with a better chance of recovery -or-
• Be their custodians for life later (also with force, and more often) at an even greater cost. 

So extrapolating that to global finances, the same options apply from above. But we are the top dog, for now, so no one can force us. But we are still hopelessly addicted, both the politicians and the voters. We are not going to kick this habit on our own.

Option one from above would be the Global Financial Crisis. Didn't last long, and we ended up being less responsible in the aftermath. 

Option two would be the collapse of the fiat system, and the associated chaos that will follow. 

Option three would be us spending into oblivion, then being conquered. 

 

Option two is my bet, with three being unchoosable and one being a fantasy. So if two is the only option, positioning ourselves for that reality is the best course, shitty though it may be. 

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far?

Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right? 

We've given them something like $20b so far, but it's really all about the accounting. If an artillery shell costs $500 and has a shelf life of 20 years, does giving an artillery shell that's twenty years old to Ukraine count as a $500 cost? IIRC virtually all of the early equipment we gave to Ukraine was either obsolete already or due to be replaced in a couple years. Stingers, humvees, MRAPs... I can write a report about how these cost X to produce and we gave them to Ukraine but that doesn't account for the fact that they were destined for the scrapheap.

If you were king of defense appropriations, how much would it be worth to you if you could buy a magic button that crippled the Russian military for a decade or three?

[uhhello]

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-ammunition-csg/restocking-western-ammunition-after-arming-ukraine-will-take-years-producer-idINL8N32R4T9

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-scrambling-for-artillery-shells-ukraine-can-use-against-russia-2023-1

 

In World War I and II, artillery ammunition wouldn't have been such a problem. The US, Germany, Britain, and Russia eventually developed enough manufacturing capacity to keep their big guns in action. During the Soviet offensive against the Seelow Heights in April 1945, Red Army gunners fired 500,000 shells in 30 minutes.

Unfortunately for the Russian soldiers, their generals followed Soviet military doctrine nearly to the letter, and the Germans had grown used to their tactics. Anticipating a Soviet bombardment, the German generals had pulled most of their men back from the first defensive lines and reduced the number of men in the second lines.

 

Holy hell

Edited February 6, 2023 by uhhello

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

We've given them something like $20b so far, but it's really all about the accounting. If an artillery shell costs $500 and has a shelf life of 20 years, does giving an artillery shell that's twenty years old to Ukraine count as a $500 cost? IIRC virtually all of the early equipment we gave to Ukraine was either obsolete already or due to be replaced in a couple years. Stingers, humvees, MRAPs... I can write a report about how these cost X to produce and we gave them to Ukraine but that doesn't account for the fact that they were destined for the scrapheap.

If you were king of defense appropriations, how much would it be worth to you if you could buy a magic button that crippled the Russian military for a decade or three?

Different of ways to look at this. The Public Accounting view is definitely valid. A munition has a shelf life and without renewed investment it supposedly retires. That is how corporate world works but the government often reevaluates assets to extend their life, hence why we are flying B-52s and KC-135s still. If the asset has to be replaced and an expense needs to be generated to replace the asset then yes, you can count it as a cost. But you can also possibly say we are modernizing the force as well. Different ways to go about it. Also worth noting, the depreciated value of an asset is not the market value. Those are two different things. 

[BashiChuni]

I never viewed Russia as this all powerful threat that some of you do. the real threat is China. 

[Blue]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

If you were king of defense appropriations, how much would it be worth to you if you could buy a magic button that crippled the Russian military for a decade or three?

 

1 minute ago, BashiChuni said:

I never viewed Russia as this all powerful threat that some of you do. the real threat is China. 

Yeah, this.

I get it, the Bear is not necessarily our friend.  But there are a hell of a lot of people out there in the US who've bought into the propaganda that Russia is some kind of arch enemy.  It's mind boggling.

[pawnman]

4 minutes ago, Blue said:

 

Yeah, this.

I get it, the Bear is not necessarily our friend.  But there are a hell of a lot of people out there in the US who've bought into the propaganda that Russia is some kind of arch enemy.  It's mind boggling.

Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now. 

[Blue]

1 hour ago, uhhello said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-ammunition-csg/restocking-western-ammunition-after-arming-ukraine-will-take-years-producer-idINL8N32R4T9

It will take 10-15 years to refill Western stocks of artillery ammunition depleted to support Ukraine’s army as it battles Russia’s invasion, according to the owner of major arms manufacturer Czechoslovak Group.

I bet Uncle Sam ponies up the dough to replenish stocks in a lot quicker than 10-15 years.  I'd guess more like 24-48 months.

I remember hanging out with some of the old timers at the depot in the early 2000s.  They talked about how the bomb dumps in CONUS were emptied out for Gulf War I; using up a lot of the stuff that had been left over from Vietnam, along with everything built-up during the Reagan years.

The current war in Ukraine is a boon to the weapons makers.  This is a problem.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Blue

[Lord Ratner]

33 minutes ago, Blue said:

 

Yeah, this.

I get it, the Bear is not necessarily our friend.  But there are a hell of a lot of people out there in the US who've bought into the propaganda that Russia is some kind of arch enemy.  It's mind boggling.

They don't have to be an arch enemy. Life doesn't have to be that cartoonish. They are an adversary, and they are a bad actor.

 

That doesn't mean I want to send the marines into storm the beaches of Russia, but it also doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on the opportunity of a lifetime to severely weaken an adversary, who has brought this pain on themselves entirely, at bargain basement prices.

 

Just look at how much money we spent blowing up primitive terrorists in the Middle East, and compared to the damage being done here at a fraction of the cost. And we don't have to worry about spawning an insurgency that hates Americans, we don't have to worry about Americans coming home in boxes (volunteers notwithstanding), and incidentally, it's a righteous cause.

Further, we don't even have to worry about adopting a failed aggressor like we did with Japan and Germany, funding their rehabilitation. The only thing being destroyed in Russia, other than a couple of pipelines, is the military. Which is completely unnecessary to operate in a globalized world. They are losing the very thing that destabilizes the world we always wish they would just participate in. Nothing is perfect, but it is hard to imagine a more favorable set of circumstances for the United States.

 

Getting ahead is about identifying opportunity and seizing it. This one fell into our lap.

[FLEA]

49 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

They don't have to be an arch enemy. Life doesn't have to be that cartoonish. They are an adversary, and they are a bad actor.

 

That doesn't mean I want to send the marines into storm the beaches of Russia, but it also doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on the opportunity of a lifetime to severely weaken an adversary, who has brought this pain on themselves entirely, at bargain basement prices.

 

Just look at how much money we spent blowing up primitive terrorists in the Middle East, and compared to the damage being done here at a fraction of the cost. And we don't have to worry about spawning an insurgency that hates Americans, we don't have to worry about Americans coming home in boxes (volunteers notwithstanding), and incidentally, it's a righteous cause.

Further, we don't even have to worry about adopting a failed aggressor like we did with Japan and Germany, funding their rehabilitation. The only thing being destroyed in Russia, other than a couple of pipelines, is the military. Which is completely unnecessary to operate in a globalized world. They are losing the very thing that destabilizes the world we always wish they would just participate in. Nothing is perfect, but it is hard to imagine a more favorable set of circumstances for the United States.

 

Getting ahead is about identifying opportunity and seizing it. This one fell into our lap.

If a military is completely unnecssary to operate in a globalized world--why do we have one?

[ClearedHot]

 

16 hours ago, uhhello said:

In World War I and II, artillery ammunition wouldn't have been such a problem. The US, Germany, Britain, and Russia eventually developed enough manufacturing capacity to keep their big guns in action. During the Soviet offensive against the Seelow Heights in April 1945, Red Army gunners fired 500,000 shells in 30 minutes.

 

Unfortunately for the Russian soldiers, their generals followed Soviet military doctrine nearly to the letter, and the Germans had grown used to their tactics. Anticipating a Soviet bombardment, the German generals had pulled most of their men back from the first defensive lines and reduced the number of men in the second lines.

 

Holy hell

Ever been to Verdun?  Mass artillery is horrific and what happened at Verdun is sickening.  The sole purpose of the battle was not to take territory, rather it was to "bleed them white", a horrific battle of attrition meant to consume human life.  It will take your breath away, I wept.

This building is the memorial and it frames the cemetery.  The center is meant to represent an artillery shell.  You can see the people in the center for scale...now the sickening part.  As you go around to the back it becomes obvious the memorial is built into the hill and it has a large basement that runs the length of the building.  Every time it rains they find more bones and skulls from WWI.  They collect the bones and deposit them in the basement.  There are windows you can look in and see the bones and skulls stacked 20' high.  The enormity of loss overwhelmed me. 

Over 100 year ago and the earth is still scarred from millions of artillery shells.

 

[Prozac]

29 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

 

Ever been to Verdun?  Mass artillery is horrific and what happened at Verdun is sickening.  The sole purpose of the battle was not to take territory, rather it was to "bleed them white", a horrific battle of attrition meant to consume human life.  It will take your breath away, I wept.

This building is the memorial and it frames the cemetery.  The center is meant to represent an artillery shell.  You can see the people in the center for scale...now the sickening part.  As you go around to the back it becomes obvious the memorial is built into the hill and it has a large basement that runs the length of the building.  Every time it rains they find more bones and skulls from WWI.  They collect the bones and deposit them in the basement.  There are windows you can look in and see the bones and skulls stacked 20' high.  The enormity of loss overwhelmed me. 

Over 100 year ago and the earth is still scared from millions of artillery shells.

 

A sobering reminder of what humans are capable of doing to one another. Never been to Verdun but I’ll be putting it on my list of places to visit. 

[filthy_liar]

For those who are claiming Russia and China are such horrible threats to the US, I'm curious - what is causing you to think that?  Mexico is causing a great deal of harm to the US.  Right now.  Drug cartels are causing harm to the US.  Right now.  Gang bangers are causing a great deal of harm to the US.  

What causes military people to downplay the actual live threats and always point at an overseas nation?  Are Raytheon/Boeing/Lockmart really that good?  I guess they are.

[pawnman]

11 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

For those who are claiming Russia and China are such horrible threats to the US, I'm curious - what is causing you to think that?  Mexico is causing a great deal of harm to the US.  Right now.  Drug cartels are causing harm to the US.  Right now.  Gang bangers are causing a great deal of harm to the US.  

What causes military people to downplay the actual live threats and always point at an overseas nation?  Are Raytheon/Boeing/Lockmart really that good?  I guess they are.

Where do you think the cartels are getting the drugs? 

[filthy_liar]

24 minutes ago, Prozac said:

A sobering reminder of what humans are capable of doing to one another. Never been to Verdun but I’ll be putting it on my list of places to visit. 

Do visit.  It's sad as hell, I teared up too.  There's a museum I think in Belgium that was built to commemorate the battle for verdun.  Very sobering.

[filthy_liar]

10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Where do you think the cartels are getting the drugs?

Is it a trick question?  Mexico.  Guatemala.  Nicaragua.  Costa Rica.  Panama. Of course fentanyl and opiods are coming from the east.  But where are they coming to that directly affects this country?  Mexico.  Guatemala.  Nicaragua.  Costa Rica.  Panama.

[gearhog]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Sorry for the delay.

Sure, though it's the same generalized answer for most of the government actions that are broad-based. I benefit immensely from a peaceful world. My paycheck is larger and my goods and services are cheaper. I'm healthier because a world that isn't spending on war is usually spending on medical progress, as well as the discounts gained from the scale offered by a global customer base.

Wow. Great post. A few pointed barbs in there, but I don't mind. 😄 I appreciate the time and effort. I think you're misplacing a large part of the responsibility for all the positive things we've enjoyed. We've enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity in spite of our government actions the last 80 years, not because of them. You and I came along at a period in time where humans have stumbled onto a vast amount of energy resources. An incredible exponential increase in energy available per person has lifted most of the planet out of poverty. More energy = more prosperity = more peace. It's the reason for everything. But exponential growth curves can't stay exponential. (Fusion or any other magic free energy isn't going to save us) "Tragedy of the Commons". Whatever the reasons given for supporting war, this is ultimately the reason. You don't want your standard of living threatened. What lengths are you willing to go to protect it? The determination has already been made to reduce your prosperity through back-door taxes, eliminate the competition (Russia, then China, then ?), while those who have the power to do both actually increase their share of wealth and resources. You're being tricked into believing you're only going to retain these things you value if only Russia didn't exist. Not true. They are fighting to exist. Don't discount the effect of desperation on the will to fight.

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I believe there are now several countries that are realizing they won't win the globalized world, so if we go back to polarized they can at least be king of their corner. That's going to be bad for all of us. While I do think it is inevitable, delaying it will prolong human flourishing. 

Conspiracies are only needed when the obvious answer isn't apparent. Who needs a puppet master? Russia and the West have been jockeying for alliance with the old Soviet countries for years, and Russia is losing that battle mightily. Add a wannabe-conqueror to the mix (Putin) and it shouldn't be surprising that this is happening. Did the other 100% of human history need excuses to invade and conquer?

I'm about halfway through the second volume of Edmond Morris's Roosevelt biography, Theodore Rex. It's amazing how history repeats itself. If you're advocating for a globalized world, you're advocating for monopolistic behavior. With the industrialization of the early 1900s, there was massive increases in wealth and with that came monopolies. Big banks, Big Coal, Big Railroad. Whenever competition is eliminated, people like you and I suffer because there are no disincentives for greed. Thank goodness he was able to break up many of these trusts or we could have seen another civil war. Globalization will need a governing body, and they'll fear no one. Do you really want the type of people currently running our government also running the world?

You and I both love the USA, but do you really think our leadership does? They'd sell us down the river for a whiff of a chance to keep themselves in a position of power. They've jedi mind trick-fucked you into believing Russia is the greater threat.

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Russia would be occupying Ukraine if not for the US and the West. You might consider that more desirable, but I do not. The option where Ukraine is Ukraine and Russia is content with what they have and the rest of the world stops meddling is a hypothetical fantasy. I believe it was a misstep to rush the NATO courtship with Ukraine. Personally, I think NATO is useless, but a generalized alliance of Western-style countries is not a bad thing. 

Right now they seems to be getting a huge discount, though I suspect we are preventing them from any attacks within Russia. A seller can give away their product for free, until they decide not to. Either way, of course it's a choice. You are suggesting they surrender their land through negotiations.

Again, the history of this conflict didn't start when Russia crossed the border. You're a reasonable guy, but you seem willfully blind to the obvious bullshit that was happening in the years leading up to 2022. Half of Ukraine elected a pro-Russian government and it was overthrown by a western backed violent coup. Eastern Ukraine was getting shelled by the new government while NATO influence and missile "defenses" aimed at Russia poured in with the intent of making it a NATO state when the population was staunchly divided. Yet you're led to believe that all of Ukraine was the victim here. Ukrainian territory was always intended to be the sacrificial bait. This will be another "nation-building" failure.

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And stop trying to word everything others say to suit your narrative. "In exchange for killing Russians." What a bunch of nonsense. Russia is the one making a choice that is wiping out Russians. We are providing them a means to survive and defend. Whether or not that results in dead Russians is Russia's decision, not ours. 

They are two modes of survival here. Get Western weapons and fight back (on western terms), accept Russian rule, or die fighting Russia to the last person without help. That is a fucking choice, and like the rest of life, some of the choices are fucked.

You apparently had to deal with a psycho bitch. That sucks sorry to hear. I haven't so I can't really say what I'd do, but I imagine you were put in a position multiple times to choose from one of many bad choices. Instead of lamenting the choices, you may have asked why you were put in that dilemma in the first place? Because she wanted to manipulate you to do something that harmed you and benefited her. I'm sure there's a lot of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians asking the same.

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I believe it has been finalized for around 15 years now. Once the central banks unleashed QE, we lost. I like your analogy, because it fits pretty well with similar misconceptions people have about drugs. You don't just quit heroin or meth. Sure, there are a few much-ballyhooed examples of someone just quitting one day, but that's the exception, not the rule. We wouldn't have the "homeless" (i.e. drug abuse) problem if it were. Once you're hooked, there are only a few ways out:

1. Something so damaging happens to you, at a point where you just happen to be sober enough to comprehend it, that you are scared into kicking the addiction. Very, very high rate of relapse.
2. You are forced into sobriety by people with the power to force your actions through:
   1. Financial incentives (weak)
   2. Threat of disassociation (better, but weak)
   3. Physically overpowering you and forcing you into treatment (best, but only with very costly follow-through by the enforcer)
3. You die. 

Now I've spent most of my life seeing option 3 as the best answer. I don't want anyone to die for the sake of it, but I'm not interested in helping people that don't want to be helped. But that was my false choice. Go broke helping them or let them die. But we were never going to let them die, it's just not what western societies do, so the true choice was

• Help them now (with force, if necessary) at great cost but with a better chance of recovery -or-
• Be their custodians for life later (also with force, and more often) at an even greater cost. 

So extrapolating that to global finances, the same options apply from above. But we are the top dog, for now, so no one can force us. But we are still hopelessly addicted, both the politicians and the voters. We are not going to kick this habit on our own.

Option one from above would be the Global Financial Crisis. Didn't last long, and we ended up being less responsible in the aftermath. 

Option two would be the collapse of the fiat system, and the associated chaos that will follow. 

Option three would be us spending into oblivion, then being conquered.

Option two is my bet, with three being unchoosable and one being a fantasy. So if two is the only option, positioning ourselves for that reality is the best course, shitty though it may be. 

I agree with most all of this. I think there is a fourth option. Have you noticed there is a never-ending supply of boogeymen outside our borders the last 20 years? We're constantly distracted by imaginary threats on the horizon while the wolf is already in the sheep's pen. Think about it, what is the ratio to the amount of words you've used trying to convince me of foreign dangers and solutions compared to your concerns over the innumerable self-inflicted dangers. Sure, there are bad people doing bad things on the other side of the planet and they may need to be dealt with eventually, but why is that taking priority over the obvious threats here? You've been tricked. Just realize it.

[Blue]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That doesn't mean I want to send the marines into storm the beaches of Russia, but it also doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on the opportunity of a lifetime to severely weaken an adversary, who has brought this pain on themselves entirely, at bargain basement prices.

You know, I'd maybe give you and the US government the benefit of the doubt, had I been living in a cave for the last 22 years.

However, I haven't been in a cave.  I've watched us squander blood and treasure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and other places.  None of those places seem better off after our intervention.  I watched Bush Jr declare "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.  We were there for eight more years.  Some of our forces are still there.

I watched us chase Bin Laden to Tora Bora in 2001, only to fuck it all away.  We eventually got him 10 years later.  We stuck around for another 10 years (for who knows what fucking reason), before leaving  in disgrace with the country in shambles.

We've proven that when we get involved, we're there for decades.  It's concerning that people unquestioningly support our efforts in Ukraine, without acknowledging our track record.

Also, I keep hearing things like "we're beating Russia at bargain basement prices!"  "Look how well we're doing!"  In a couple weeks, we're going to mark the first anniversary of the invasion.  Is Ukraine really doing better today than they were a year ago?

According to the mainstream press, we were winning in Vietnam, right up until the point Tet happened.  And we were winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, right up to the point that we weren't.

Maybe next week, Putin will capitulate.  Maybe he'll be overthrown by moderates who will make piece with Ukraine, and open up free trade with the West.  That would be a good deal.  I'd love for the US and Russia to have completely open relations.  In the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, some Russian Mig-29s came over to the US to participate in airshows.  I went to an airshow outside Chicago, and got one of the pilots to sign my windbreaker.  It was a cool event, and even at my young age, I sensed the promise of the time.

But given our track record, the above seems unlikely.  Given our track record, it seems much more likely that we're going to keep pouring money down the rat hole, in our attempt to topple Putin.  At this point, we've pretty much declared that getting rid of Putin is the only "off ramp" here.  How long are we going to support Ukraine?  How long is it really going to take?

Also, as a side note, we want to have our cake and eat it too.  We want to give Ukraine support, but not support.  Tanks, but not F-16s.  How has this kind of "limited war" worked out for us in the past?

Our history has shown something else, too.  When our economy gets good and proper fucked up, when we run out of rabbits to pull out of our hat, we go to war.  That's what's happening now.  Bought groceries lately?  I have decent resources, and I'm astounded at the price increases.  I don't know how anyone on limited incomes affords to eat anymore.

Honestly, I know I'm wasting my keystrokes here.  We're on the path, and ain't nothing going to stop us at this point.  Bureaucratic inertia and all that.  Those with the money benefit from a good long war, so a good long war is what we're gonna get.  Sucks for the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia, and the people of the US.

 

[Blue]

6 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Again, the history of this conflict didn't start when Russia crossed the border. You're a reasonable guy, but you seem willfully blind to the obvious bullshit that was happening in the years leading up to 2022. Half of Ukraine elected a pro-Russian government and it was overthrown by a western backed violent coup. Eastern Ukraine was getting shelled by the new government while NATO influence and missile "defenses" aimed at Russia poured in with the intent of making it a NATO state when the population was staunchly divided. Yet you're led to believe that all of Ukraine was the victim here. Ukrainian territory was always intended to be the sacrificial bait. This will be another "nation-building" failure.

Yeah, this bit in particular.  It's amazing how many people don't recognize this.  It's not like it's some big secret or anything; it's well documented.

[filthy_liar]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

They don't have to be an arch enemy. Life doesn't have to be that cartoonish. They are an adversary, and they are a bad actor.

Rat can you dumb this down for someone who is intellectually challenged.  You type crazy logical replies and generally beat the shit out of anyone who challenges you.  Can you tell me why Russia is an adversary?  I'm an Alabama boy, I have chickens (Maserati) and two goats.  Why is Russia a threat to me?  Dumb it down.  I already told you I'm in Bama.

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Again, the history of this conflict didn't start when Russia crossed the border. You're a reasonable guy, but you seem willfully blind to the obvious bullshit that was happening in the years leading up to 2022. Half of Ukraine elected a pro-Russian government and it was overthrown by a western backed violent coup. Eastern Ukraine was getting shelled by the new government while NATO influence and missile "defenses" aimed at Russia poured in with the intent of making it a NATO state when the population was staunchly divided. Yet you're led to believe that all of Ukraine was the victim here. Ukrainian territory was always intended to be the sacrificial bait. This will be another "nation-building" failure.

Glossing over a lot here. The Maidan protests started over the pro-Russian government backing out of a pro-western Europe trade agreement, bowing to heavy pressure from Putin. It’s not like the CIA just jumped in there and tried to overthrow this dude like we have history of doing in South America. There was legitimate anger from the Ukrainian population. Sure western support came when the protests started making actual waves, but this was not some random decision by the CIA. This was a continuing trend of all of Eastern European counties that are looking west for future ties and not east to a place and nation that has raked them over the coals countless times. 
 

Eastern Ukraine also didn’t start getting shelled until Russia took Crimea and some of the eastern areas with their little green men and installed puppet separatists with a small faction of local militia that was mostly supported by actual Russian military. 

Also, the theory of an intensely divided Ukraine has proven to not be so true. Yes, elections pre-2014 should an even split in terms of east vs west preference, but most of this seems to have come from corruption, voter suppression, and voter intimidation under Russian influence. After Russia took Crimea elections have shown a strongly western leaning voting pattern across all regions of Ukraine. Ukraine military gains in the east also haven’t stirred up a hornets nest of angry citizens mad that Russian soldiers are gone. They’ve come across people desperately glad that the Ukrainian military has removed Russian occupation. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by kaputt

[filthy_liar]

Ok somebody dumb this down.  Why is Russia a threat?

[uhhello]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

 

Ever been to Verdun?  Mass artillery is horrific and what happened at Verdun is sickening.  The sole purpose of the battle was not to take territory, rather it was to "bleed them white", a horrific battle of attrition meant to consume human life.  It will take your breath away, I wept.

This building is the memorial and it frames the cemetery.  The center is meant to represent an artillery shell.  You can see the people in the center for scale...now the sickening part.  As you go around to the back it becomes obvious the memorial is built into the hill and it has a large basement that runs the length of the building.  Every time it rains they find more bones and skulls from WWI.  They collect the bones and deposit them in the basement.  There are windows you can look in and see the bones and skulls stacked 20' high.  The enormity of loss overwhelmed me. 

Over 100 year ago and the earth is still scared from millions of artillery shells.

 

Dan Carlin's WW1 podcasts are amazing