Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Do you sincerely think this war would still be raging if Russia could win? Like, for real? Dude, come on. No. This "war" is now about Putin's pride and him being able to save face. Russia ain't winning shit.

Flip the script. 1991. It's taken us a year and a month and we're still not all the way to Baghdad. We've lost a 100,000 troops. Untold more have been maimed. Would you still think our victory was right around the corner if the shoe was on the other foot? It sounds like you would be quite the cheer leader. Victory is right around the corner!

Get real. Putin has lost. I mean holy shit, it hasn't even devolved into a state of insurgency yet. Putin doesn't have a guaranteed victory. It is far more likely that this war ends in a stalemate ala the Korean War.

I’m sure Germany thought exactly how you do back in 1942. Foolish. 

[Lawman]

Not what I predicted. 
 
Where did the O vs. E come from!? Happy you’re a W. And impressed you know classified information! Keep it “in the green” “bro”

“The arrogance of the officer corps…”

Though your general hostility viewed in that particular lens makes more sense.

Now you need to know you are amongst friends here. So please show us on the doll where the bad Major touched you. It’ll be ok.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

Yeah. The officer corps is arrogant. That’s not a “O vs E thing”. It’s on display in this thread. 
 

military officers arrogantly wanting to poke the Russian bear in the eyes and arrogantly advocating to fight WW3 (lord ratner). This is the same professional officer class who pussied out the last 20 years in the GWOT and constantly told congress were “almost there” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never had the balls to say “we are losing”. Never had the balls to put your (that’s a general “your”) careers on the line to call a spade a spade. Just happy to pass the buck and make the next rank. The same pussy officers who tout the “diversity is our strength” woke bull shit trope. 
 

 And now you mother fuckers think you’re so smart and can defeat a nuclear armed Russia? you think you’re so fucking smart to win at a geopolitical chess game with a country (Ukraine) no one gave two fucks about just a few years ago? Jesus Christ man. Talk about some unbridled arrogance.
 

Edited March 8, 2023 by BashiChuni

[Lawman]

Yeah. The officer corps is arrogant. That’s not a “O vs E thing”. It’s on display in this thread. 
 
military officers arrogantly wanting to poke the Russian bear in the eyes and arrogantly advocating to fight WW3 (lord ratner). This is the same professional officer class who pussied out the last 20 years in the GWOT and constantly told congress were “almost there” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never had the balls to say “we are losing”. Never had the balls to put your (that’s a general “your”) careers on the line to call a spade a spade. Just happy to pass the buck and make the next rank. The same officers who tout the “diversity is our strength” woke bull shit trope. 
 
 And now you mother ers think you’re so smart and can defeat a nuclear armed Russia? you think you’re so ing smart to win at a geopolitical chess game with a country (Ukraine) no one gave two s about just a few years ago? Jesus Christ man. Talk about some unbridled arrogance.
 

….. k




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperStud]

35 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

And now you mother fuckers think you’re so smart and can defeat a nuclear armed Russia? you think you’re so fucking smart to win at a geopolitical chess game with a country (Ukraine) no one gave two fucks about just a few years ago? Jesus Christ man. Talk about some unbridled arrogance.

1 - We, the officers of the USAF who choose to post on BODN, aren’t defeating anyone. Our country, the one you swore allegiance to, has collectively chosen to stand up to a strategic enemy as they fail. You should support that if your allegiance is to the USA rather than to some failed politician.

2 - the results of AFG and Iraq don’t rest on our shoulders. Bush, Obama and their secretaries aren’t posting here. You know damn well that if we had a say the policies involved in prosecuting those wars would have been different. 
 

3 - Everything you argue for amounts to appeasement. Read a Fvcking book about the first half of the 20th century. Educate yourself. 

Edited March 8, 2023 by ViperStud

[dream big]

10 hours ago, Stoker said:

We've sent $75 billion of aid total, and that includes near-expired or obsolete equipment and ammunition donated at book value. The war is almost certainly a net positive for the US economy - Europe is buying gas from us instead of the Russians, the developing world is getting their grain from Iowa instead of Ukraine, and the entire world is buying American military hardware instead of post Soviet crap or indigenously developed "better than nothing" gear.

All valid points, my point is try explaining that to your average struggling American voter. 

[Boomer6]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

 

Never had the balls to say “we are losing”. Never had the balls to put your (that’s a general “your”) careers on the line to call a spade a spade. Just happy to pass the buck and make the next rank. The same pussy officers who tout the “diversity is our strength” woke bull shit trope. 
 

You’re mad that senior officers were pussies during Iraq and Afghanistan, so now when they’re recommending our gov back Ukraine you’re pissed they’re not bending over to the will of Russia. You want them to double down on being pussies? 🤔

[FourFans]

@BashiChuni

You sound like both a whiny Boomer and an I-don't-understand-why-the-biden-voted-for-isn't-working liberal.    

Child.  Wake up and taste the suck.   You OBVIOUSLY didn't grow up in the 70's...which we're currently re-entering...

It's ok.  You talk about geo-politics like it never existed before you were born in 1991. It's cool bruh.   Chill.   

Read a book maybe.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "know your enemy" to the level that some others here do.  

Was Ukraine a problem before Russia invaded?  YUP.   Is it a problem we have to contend with now?  YUP.

Your solution offers?>>>>NOTHING

That checks

 

Your are ignorant of the facts of the debate you've chose to wade into.

Stop now.  Don't respond.  The end.  

- cluebird

[FourFans]

@BashiChuni

Perhaps I was a little harsh.  So we can understand the context of your masculinity...when was the last time you caught a fist to the face?

Fair, this was weird.  Allow me to rephase it: You sound like a weakling who doesn't understand the need for, or purpose of the use of force.  Inter-personally or internationally.

Edited March 8, 2023 by FourFans130

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, FourFans130 said:

@BashiChuni

You sound like both a whiny Boomer and an I-don't-understand-why-the-biden-voted-for-isn't-working liberal.    

Child.  Wake up and taste the suck.   You OBVIOUSLY didn't grow up in the 70's...which we're currently re-entering...

It's ok.  You talk about geo-politics like it never existed before you were born in 1991. It's cool bruh.   Chill.   

Read a book maybe.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "know your enemy" to the level that some others here do.  

Was Ukraine a problem before Russia invaded?  YUP.   Is it a problem we have to contend with now?  YUP.

Your solution offers?>>>>NOTHING

That checks

 

Your are ignorant of the facts of the debate you've chose to wade into.

Stop now.  Don't respond.  The end.  

- cluebird

I rest my case. 
 

“read a book” “educate yourself”

you guys are foolish. And arrogant. 
 

ukraine isn’t worth starting WW3. Never was. And now you military industrial complex simpletons are foaming at the mouth for it. 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, FourFans130 said:

@BashiChuni

Perhaps I was a little harsh.  So we can understand the context of your masculinity...when was the last time you caught a fist to the face?

This is a strange post. 

[nsplayr]

6 hours ago, dream big said:

All valid points, my point is try explaining that to your average struggling American voter. 

I mean I think @Stoker did a pretty good job! "Vladimir Putin is being defeated in Ukraine and America's economy is stronger because of his failed war." Put that on a bumper sticker, and also continue the policies that are making that come true.

[nsplayr]

Guys, y'all arguing with @BashiChuni on this is as pointless as Putin throwing away too many young Russian men against the hard rocks and advanced weapons in Ukraine. Probably time to quit.

[pawnman]

17 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

what if russia wins?

Then I guess we re-evaluate our strategy and shore up Poland's borders.

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

you know i'll tell ya....the arrogance coming from this officer corps is stunning

we took the 'L' in iraq and afg, but sure let's talk tough to russia and china. you guys wanting to stick our nose in a situation with no clear resolution other than escalation and world war.

totally foolish. and not in the interest of the united states.

The simping for Putin and willingness to cede global leadership from an officer in the Air Force is stunning to me, so...

[pawnman]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

I’m sure Germany thought exactly how you do back in 1942. Foolish. 

Interesting comparison given you're advocating for us to appease Russia like Neville Chamberlain. 

[jonlbs]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

I rest my case. 
 

“read a book” “educate yourself”

you guys are foolish. And arrogant. 
 

ukraine isn’t worth starting WW3. Never was. And now you military industrial complex simpletons are foaming at the mouth for it. 

I’m with ya, this thread feels like I’m sitting in a GWOT strategy briefing and you are the only one saying GTFO and everyone else is “stick with it we will win this war”

really didn’t want to join in on this mess but it was like 1v10 lol

i agree with points on their side cause this is nuanced but I also agree very much so that your points are extremely valid after watching our global strategy fail for the last 50 years. And if/when he drops a nuke cause of our meddling, everyone will accept NO responsibility and say he was going to anyways. Not that maybe he felt backed into a corner by the US and felt like this was his last resort. At this point it may be too late to turn back though.

I still am for supporting this little proxy war, as the positives are there, but doing so damn aggressively and publicly doesn’t seem warranted. Aka poking the bear is the dumbest thing you could do when the bear is unstable and has nukes. Doing it in a more clandestine way seems much smarter. Not thinking about those adverse affects is hands down the arrogance that has cost us greatly in the past.

so I guess in summary, keep up the dissenting. Little bit of diversity of thought is needed in the military strategy echelons. We def need more of it. And I’m ready to take my beatings for joining you lol.

[filthy_liar]

13 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

you know i'll tell ya....the arrogance coming from this officer corps is stunning

we took the 'L' in iraq and afg, but sure let's talk tough to russia and china. you guys wanting to stick our nose in a situation with no clear resolution other than escalation and world war.

totally foolish. and not in the interest of the united states.

Bashi the folks you are arguing with have been unwittingly convinced by the industrial military complex that the US must be involved in conflict at some level all the time.  As long as $$$ is moving into the defense contractors' coffers there will be no shortage of "strategy experts" defending such.  And the DoD will move out smartly.  If it wasn't Ukraine/Russia, these folks would be arguing that we should be involved somewhere else and that if we weren't, it would be a strategic disaster.

Its the same syndrome of MSM convincing someone that something is a problem, and that someone eats that shit up instead of focusing on actual real problems.

Ukraine is and probably always will be - a corrupt, backstabbing nation that takes what it can from who it can.  Personally, I'd focus more on Mexico and further south.  They seem to be having a more disastrous effect on our day to day than Russia.  But that's not where the $$$ is for the machine.

[Stoker]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean I think @Stoker did a pretty good job! "Vladimir Putin is being defeated in Ukraine and America's economy is stronger because of his failed war." Put that on a bumper sticker, and also continue the policies that are making that come true.

Aww, shucks...

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, jonlbs said:

I’m with ya, this thread feels like I’m sitting in a GWOT strategy briefing and you are the only one saying GTFO and everyone else is “stick with it we will win this war”

really didn’t want to join in on this mess but it was like 1v10 lol

i agree with points on their side cause this is nuanced but I also agree very much so that your points are extremely valid after watching our global strategy fail for the last 50 years. And if/when he drops a nuke cause of our meddling, everyone will accept NO responsibility and say he was going to anyways. Not that maybe he felt backed into a corner by the US and felt like this was his last resort. At this point it may be too late to turn back though.

I still am for supporting this little proxy war, as the positives are there, but doing so damn aggressively and publicly doesn’t seem warranted. Aka poking the bear is the dumbest thing you could do when the bear is unstable and has nukes. Doing it in a more clandestine way seems much smarter. Not thinking about those adverse affects is hands down the arrogance that has cost us greatly in the past.

so I guess in summary, keep up the dissenting. Little bit of diversity of thought is needed in the military strategy echelons. We def need more of it. And I’m ready to take my beatings for joining you lol.

Diversity of thought & debate is fine, but "dis gonna coz WWIII" isn't an appropriate retort to every counterpoint.

A) Despite numerous foreign policy mistakes, America is the unquestioned global economic, military and cultural superpower, and we are closely allied with most of the other key players (EU/NATO/AUS/JAP/SK/etc.). If the last 50 years are a "strategy failure" please sign me up for 50 more years of similar failures so I can live out the rest of my days in relative peace and prosperity!

B) Putin has agency. He personally controls Russia's nuclear arsenal. No one is forcing his hand to push the button. NATO expansion may be legitimately threatening to him, but he has choices and can choose to use nuclear weapons or not. It's not unreasonable to blame him if he chooses to do that in response to anything other than a nuclear first-strike conducted by the West, which isn't going to happen. Invading your neighbor, failing to win the conventional war, feeling "backed into a corner" because you suck at war and are losing, and escalating to a nuclear first strike are all choices, and at every step along that shitty path, Putin can and should choose otherwise. He's not a victim here or an automaton who "can't" choose to do anything else.

C) I don't understand the arguments that "we aren't thinking of adverse effects" or "we are giving Ukraine a blank check." I haven't found that to be the case at all! A cost-benefit analysis & moral argument has been made that supporting Ukraine with lethal aid has been the right thing to do. Congress has allocated money in an orderly process, the President is supportive and has signed appropriations into law, and a coalition of democratically elected leaders across party lines supports our efforts so far. I happen to agree with the analysis and our actions so far, but even if you don't, it's kinda weird to just claim that no analysis was done. Like I'm pretty sure a pre-invasion cost-benefit analysis was done for invading Iraq in 2003...they sure screwed the pooch but like, there's no shortage of evidence that the administration didn't just trip & fall their way into massive coordinated military action! Same with this conflict, we're not doing this by accident, it's a strategic decision and you can feel free to disagree, but our involvement is not an unplanned accident that can be magnanimously corrected by some genius internet strategerizing by a handful of crack Air Force FGOs.

No beatings needed though...righteous mockery is only reserved for those not willing to engage in good faith. I'm legitimately open to discussions of a desired end-state and what the US & Europe should accept if/when Russia decides to slap a tourniquet on the whole thing and negotiate with words rather than guns 🍺

Edited March 8, 2023 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

Why wasn’t Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 treated the same way as in 2022?  Is it because Ukraine didn’t fight back in 2014 as they did in 2022?  Is it because shots weren’t fired in 2014?  Or is it because of something else?  Because last I checked, an invasion is an invasion…

[Lawman]

Why wasn’t Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 treated the same way as in 2022?  Is it because Ukraine didn’t fight back in 2014 as they did in 2022?  Is it because shots weren’t fired in 2014?  Or is it because of something else?  Because last I checked, an invasion is an invasion…

A whole lot of us in Eucom at the time we’re waiting while one of our poorest foreign policy leaders dithered and conducted poll’ing. The media narrative of “little green men” paralyzed us resolve combined with an IO campaign that it was a populist revolt by locals, because we couldn’t prove to the average person what the smart people in the room knew, that those were Russian troops from VDV and Spetz units. By the time our administration got off its ass to “do something” the Russians had all the key terrain and the Ukrainian military of them was not the military of today (a decade of FID/training saw to that). Also geographically Crimea is a much smaller operation than trying to take a region the size of Massachusetts (vs a country of 40+ million people that is the size of Texas).

If we had responded militarily to it we would have been executing a joint forcible entry scenario to restore Crimea. And we’d have largely been doing it alone considering how Merkle ran her seat at the NATO table.

We thought repositioning rotational troops and throwing some sanctions on the Russians would be enough to deter further aggression, but the whole time we prepared the Uke’s in case it failed. And yes failing to act then was one of our dumber mistakes and another big show of why Obama was a pretty awful leader in the form of foreign policy, and we all owe Mitt a public apology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoker]

20 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Why wasn’t Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 treated the same way as in 2022?  Is it because Ukraine didn’t fight back in 2014 as they did in 2022?  Is it because shots weren’t fired in 2014?  Or is it because of something else?  Because last I checked, an invasion is an invasion…

In my mind, it's pretty much because they didn't fight back in 2014. There is a plausible (if not legally legitimate) argument for Russia to own Crimea - it was the least Ukrainian part of Ukraine (thanks to successful ethnic cleansing on the part of the Soviets). Within Ukraine, there wasn't nearly as much appetite for conflict with Russia - a good chunk of the country thought they should be oriented towards Russia, not the West.

I've read a couple of the opinion polls done in Ukraine now about the war - the country is united to a level you wouldn't believe if someone told you the poll was done in the US. Something like 90% of the population is convinced they'll win the war, and virtually all of the pro-Russian sentiment is gone (not least because the people with pro-Russian sentiment were likely drafted by the Russians and sent to their deaths).

[FourFans]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Guys, y'all arguing with @BashiChuni on this is as pointless as Putin throwing away too many young Russian men against the hard rocks and advanced weapons in Ukraine. Probably time to quit.

You're right, my bad.

[filthy_liar]

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

A cost-benefit analysis & moral argument has been made that supporting Ukraine with lethal aid has been the right thing to do

For the cost benefit analysis part...I take it you haven't spent much time with congressional liaisons and the pissant officers who are selected for those positions.  I used to think that a truckload of thought went into decisions before a programming decision was submitted.  I was wrong.  Very wrong.  There is not a lot of thought going into "analysis" in the building. Or the other building for that matter.

For the moral argument part - sorry, who made that decision for you?