Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

oh great another agreement to defend a country we have no vital interest in. what could go wrong?

those lives are fighting a unwinnable war and are simply pawns in the cold, calculated neo-con game

[brwwg&b]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

those lives are fighting a unwinnable war and are simply pawns in the cold, calculated neo-con game

Let's skip over your assertion of "unwinnable" : assume that not everyone believes that (Ukrainians, most significantly)

If you believed in your nation, culture, freedoms, and independence, would you suggest that the people should fight to preserve those, possibly losing their lives? Or, would you suggest they roll over to tyranny and oppression of an invading nation?

 

I do agree that currently there is no vital interest in Ukraine - this is why we haven't gone to war there. However, what do you think the vital interests of the U.S. are in regards to Russia?

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, brwwg&b said:

Let's skip over your assertion of "unwinnable" : assume that not everyone believes that (Ukrainians, most significantly)

If you believed in your nation, culture, freedoms, and independence, would you suggest that the people should fight to preserve those, possibly losing their lives? Or, would you suggest they roll over to tyranny and oppression of an invading nation?

 

I do agree that currently there is no vital interest in Ukraine - this is why we haven't gone to war there. However, what do you think the vital interests of the U.S. are in regards to Russia?

no we can't skip that part. what is winning to you? do you think ukraine (at a 10:1 manpower/equipment disadvantage) can defeat Russia and push them out? i don't. the average age of a front line ukranian soldier is 43! there has been no evidence on the battlefield. so what's your win look like?

 

i have respect and admiration for ukraine fighting for their country. i'd do the same thing. but from my perspective as an American, we have nothing to gain entering this conflict. ukraine is not a north-atlantic treaty country. should we intervene in every conflict across the globe?

 

in respect to US interests to russia, i'd say we are harming our interests by "isolating" russia. it's not really isolating, in reality we are pushing them closer to the chinese. multi-polar world is here and continuing to ignore that reality won't change it. was russia a threat to us before ukraine? remember in 2012 when mitt romney was resoundingly mocked by the media/democrats when he said russia was our biggest threat? i do.

the side screaming putin is the next hitler certainly didn't fear putin 10 years ago. so what changed? now if you argue that putin will march on paris after ukraine i will simply disagree with you. he has shown no desire or capability to do that.

 

"the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, the cold war has been over for 20 years!" - obama 2012

 

Edited June 14 by BashiChuni

[brwwg&b]

Winning looks like conflict not spilling outside of the region of Ukraine, and end states negotiated (by politics or by power) with Ukraine in a position of influence over outcome, not Russia.

Can Ukraine win in a trench warfare slog? No! Can they outsize impact through leveraging technological asymmetry and prowess to overcome manpower disadvantage? Yes! Especially if they stop being artificially cuffed, which is the latest positive trend, and again where a lot of bang for our buck is occurring. As well, the less publicly discussed positive impact on our own industry and stockpiles being refreshed/renewed with modern tech versions.

Should we intervene if every conflict globally? Certainly not. However, you're a much more isolationist minded person than I am, and it's definitely not a one-size-fits-all answer to say "Not NATO? Good luck on your own!" Distinction between the N-K region, Sudan, variety of NW Africa, etc...vs Ukraine being invaded by our recognized #2 competitor is necessary. You are acting as though we are preparing sending troops to go slog it in the trenches alongside...a far cry from the positive benefit our $ and equipment is supporting the Ukrainians to fight on their own. If your primary argument is to penny-pinch a budget, I'd suggest you take a step back, take in the bigger picture on our own budget woes, and start elsewhere.

No problem with a multipolar world, it provides more opportunity for stability than a king of the hill unipolar or constant push-pull of a bipolar world. Russia alignment becoming more close with China will be an outcome of necessity and they certainly won't be the power end of that stick...not a result of our "isolation" of Russia, not directly at least. Remind me what curtailed Russia's status as a NATO Partnership for Peace member, and the NATO-Russia Council?

Cool throwback. Do you honestly believe in 2012 that Al Qaeda was a larger threat to the U.S. national interests than Russia? I'm not here to make political sides arguments. Were things handled perfectly in 2014? Certainly not, but it was an indicator of the longer term and put into motion many of the things that have ultimately helped Ukraine in their current conflict. Sure, Putin won't make it to Paris (nor desire to) - but how far will you let him go in attempting to restore Soviet Union borders before intervention is required? Again, much better to do it with $ and equipment doing literally what it was designed to, against the adversary it was designed for vice committing bodies. Unchecked behavior emboldens and repeats at larger scales.

 

[raimius]

In the end, Ukraine will likely have to either give up some territory or at least agree to not fight for their remaining claims (likely Crimea).  That can only happen after both Ukraine  and Putin decide the cost of further fighting isn't worth it.  As we have seen, Putin isn't afraid to have people die for him.  He might reconsider if further fighting is likely to reduce Russia's/his power.  That might happen if Ukraine can keep inflicting losses at a high rate for the foreseeable future.

[Smokin]

Putin isn't afraid to have people die for him, but he is afraid of losing power.  So far he has looked at this as a pride issue and won't back down because he might not look invincible.  Problem is, he invaded a smaller country and hasn't won, so his people are already seeing that maybe he isn't as powerful as he thinks he is. 

That is absolutely true of the west.  I don't think anyone thought that the war would last more than about six weeks, let alone multiple years.  And many have looked at Russia as a never ending horde of people to throw into the front lines.  Russia may have a population that is 4x that of Ukraine, but Russia started emptying prisons a long time ago and Ukraine just started.  Also, Russia is sending troops to war while Ukraine is fighting at home.  I would think that you'd have a much larger percentage of the population able and willing to fight on your home turf.  Then add in the casualty ratio and I'm not sure it's so certain that Russia will be able to hold out for years longer as some seem to think.  It will be interesting to see what happens inside Russia as this continues to drag out.  Even if Putin doesn't care, families do.  And even if that doesn't make it to his level, the economic cost of the shrinking population (was already shrinking before) has to be nearly crippling.

[raimius]

Depending on how bad the losses continue to be.  Russia might "win" itself into near irrelevance (not total, as they have a metric #$&@ ton of nukes).   China probably doesn't mind, though.

[brabus]

The PRC is loving our Ukraine gameplan…just saying. RUS hemorrhaged “treasure” for 10 years in AFG, what makes anyone think they’re not willing to do the same now? History shows they are a lot more willing to slug it out for years on end then people seem to be giving them credit for this round.

Initial actions made sense, and not saying zero support, but things are off the tracks…specifically financially.

Edited June 16 by brabus

[archer]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

The PRC is loving our Ukraine gameplan…just saying. RUS hemorrhaged “treasure” for 10 years in AFG, what makes anyone think they’re not willing to do the same now? History shows they are a lot more willing to slug it out for years on end then people seem to be giving them credit for this round.

Initial actions made sense, and not saying zero support, but things are off the tracks…specifically financially.

Pretty sure the US has Russia beat when it comes to willingness to hemorrhage treasure for decades in the Middle East. USA USA USA 🇺🇸 

[bfargin]

3 hours ago, archer said:

Pretty sure the US has Russia beat when it comes to willingness to hemorrhage treasure for decades in the Middle East. USA USA USA 🇺🇸 

sadly, truth

[BashiChuni]

[Smokin]

10 hours ago, brabus said:

The PRC is loving our Ukraine gameplan…just saying. RUS hemorrhaged “treasure” for 10 years in AFG, what makes anyone think they’re not willing to do the same now? History shows they are a lot more willing to slug it out for years on end then people seem to be giving them credit for this round.

Initial actions made sense, and not saying zero support, but things are off the tracks…specifically financially.

That may be, but the USSR had roughly twice the population available that Russia has now.  And Ukraine seems to be a far deadlier conflict.  If I recall correctly, the Soviets claimed roughly 15K dead in Afghanistan, so likely 2-3 times that number.  I've seen estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine pushing a half mil.  500k casualties might be too high, but I don't think there's any doubt that they're over 100k dead, which makes the war 2-5 times deadlier depending on the estimates in 1/3 the time with half the population to draw from.

[brabus]

@archer You are not wrong, unfortunately.

@Smokin Sure,  but I don’t think Putin gives a single fuck about those numbers. Unless someone with more GAS factor in the inner circle assassinates him and takes power, we’ll probably continue to see Putin drive on, body count be damned. 

[HeloDude]

33 minutes ago, Smokin said:

That may be, but the USSR had roughly twice the population available that Russia has now.  And Ukraine seems to be a far deadlier conflict.  If I recall correctly, the Soviets claimed roughly 15K dead in Afghanistan, so likely 2-3 times that number.  I've seen estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine pushing a half mil.  500k casualties might be too high, but I don't think there's any doubt that they're over 100k dead, which makes the war 2-5 times deadlier depending on the estimates in 1/3 the time with half the population to draw from.

I’m not a historian, but in basic terms (if memory serves), the USSR involvement in Afghanistan initially wasn’t an “invasion” per se, but at least originally an attempt to support the communist government of Afghanistan from failing/losing.  Whereas in Ukraine, it was straight up an invasion.  Plus technology has changed quite a bit compared to the 1980s, meaning you can do a lot more today with technology vs straight manpower/basic resources, compared to the 80s.  So it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges.

I have no doubt our massive amount of money is helping the Ukrainians slow down the Russian invasion and is definitely leading to more Russian casualties…my whole argument is that we’re F’ing broke and we have massive problems here (the border, for one), and that’s where I would like to see attention and resources spent before it’s spent on the other side of the globe.  And no, we can’t spend massive amounts on both (if either)—our debt is going to make our lives and the lives of our kids more painful than if Russia takes part, half, or all of Ukraine.

Side note—took the wife and kid to a pizza/bar place for a late lunch over the weekend.  It was a trendier place, but you still had to order at the counter, fill up our own water cups, etc.  For two 16” pizzas (we wanted some for leftovers and that was the only size they had since it was after lunch), one salad, a sprite bottle, and a small gelato dessert, it was around $90…I was like “WTF”?  Now we do very well, so I just paid it, but the startling factor of how expensive things are is no joke.  This is what happens when we have a massive money supply/spending/debt problem.

[Danger41]

I wonder how effective these modern Claymores are over there.

[O Face]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I’m not a historian, but in basic terms (if memory serves), the USSR involvement in Afghanistan initially wasn’t an “invasion” per se, but at least originally an attempt to support the communist government of Afghanistan from failing/losing.  Whereas in Ukraine, it was straight up an invasion.  Plus technology has changed quite a bit compared to the 1980s, meaning you can do a lot more today with technology vs straight manpower/basic resources, compared to the 80s.  So it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges.

I have no doubt our massive amount of money is helping the Ukrainians slow down the Russian invasion and is definitely leading to more Russian casualties…my whole argument is that we’re F’ing broke and we have massive problems here (the border, for one), and that’s where I would like to see attention and resources spent before it’s spent on the other side of the globe.  And no, we can’t spend massive amounts on both (if either)—our debt is going to make our lives and the lives of our kids more painful than if Russia takes part, half, or all of Ukraine.

Side note—took the wife and kid to a pizza/bar place for a late lunch over the weekend.  It was a trendier place, but you still had to order at the counter, fill up our own water cups, etc.  For two 16” pizzas (we wanted some for leftovers and that was the only size they had since it was after lunch), one salad, a sprite bottle, and a small gelato dessert, it was around $90…I was like “WTF”?  Now we do very well, so I just paid it, but the startling factor of how expensive things are is no joke.  This is what happens when we have a massive money supply/spending/debt problem.

I tried making this same point a few months ago, but Lawman and somebody else told me if we didn’t give all our money to Ukraine, Russia was gonna EMP our asses!  I had no clue that the only thing standing between us and certain destruction, was the Ukrainians.  

Edited June 17 by O Face

[ClearedHot]

The Ukrainians are taking out an S400 EVERYDAY...interesting to note the S400 we feared has some weaknesses afterall.

 

[Majestik Møøse]

On 6/7/2024 at 4:50 AM, BashiChuni said:

what does victory look like?

Very clearly: Russia goes back to Russia and gets out of the Ukraine. Zelensky says this includes Crimea, so back to pre-2014. Perhaps pre-2022 will be the eventual agreement, maybe with a DMZ.

[SurelySerious]

They could put up a wall.

[BashiChuni]

16 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Very clearly: Russia goes back to Russia and gets out of the Ukraine. Zelensky says this includes Crimea, so back to pre-2014. Perhaps pre-2022 will be the eventual agreement, maybe with a DMZ.

and you think that is realistic? russia giving up crimea?

good luck with that

[FourFans]

33 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

and you think that is realistic? russia giving up crimea?

good luck with that

You think the US can just leave Ukraine to fend for itself after we explicitly promising that we wouldn't?

Good luck with that

[BashiChuni]

25 minutes ago, FourFans said:

You think the US can just leave Ukraine to fend for itself after we explicitly promising that we wouldn't?

Good luck with that

yes.

no luck needed. ukraine isn't nato. good luck to them. i'd start negotiating if i were them.

[BashiChuni]

I am unwilling to fight WWIII for Ukraine. Simple as that. 

[uhhello]

19 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

I am unwilling to fight WWIII for Ukraine. Simple as that. 

Go look for the update to this....

[Prosuper]

On 6/17/2024 at 12:44 PM, ClearedHot said:

The Ukrainians are taking out an S400 EVERYDAY...interesting to note the S400 we feared has some weaknesses afterall.

 

I remember in the 90s during Southern Watch it was known as an AWACS killer. Just listened to Peter Zeihan this morning, the Russian space program took a hit with a failed Soyuz launch, the crew made it through. They are running out of old ICBM boosters to get them to the ISS and are losing their ability to maintain their satellites in orbit now.  With Boeing looking bad with Starliner after $4 billion spent with a fixed contract, inability to give cost overruns to the taxpayers, it was their business model for years. Space X same contract $2 billion and they have Dragon a super reliable platform. No wonder General Atomics got the contract for the new NEACPs using a Boeing platform.

Edited June 25 by Prosuper
content