Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

Yes because we have no historical examples of proxy wars with an opposing “great power” that led to not-a-nuclear-exchange…

Jesus Christ we are giving them munitions to fight a war they aren’t the aggressors in.

When we start flying strike sorties out of Spang to blunt Russian logistics or putting regular Army troops on the ground in Kiev maybe you have substantiated examples and a point to make. Until then vague warnings about WWIII is just grand standing to make a point in an argument. Given the anecdotal evidence it seems that is entirely politically aligned and not actually based on some form of strategic analysis of the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

It was an RAF airplane and from what I hear they would have responded in kind...

Meh, Russian weapons shot down an airliner in 2014 with zero European response….I have little faith that Europeans have any stomach for war or escalation. Even the Brits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

Yes because we have no historical examples of proxy wars with an opposing “great power” that led to not-a-nuclear-exchange…

Jesus Christ we are giving them munitions to fight a war they aren’t the aggressors in.

When we start flying strike sorties out of Spang to blunt Russian logistics or putting regular Army troops on the ground in Kiev maybe you have substantiated examples and a point to make. Until then vague warnings about WWIII is just grand standing to make a point in an argument. Given the anecdotal evidence it seems that is entirely politically aligned and not actually based on some form of strategic analysis of the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You missed the point, which isn't surprising.  I'll try once more and see if you can stay on target: in the USA the opinion of the people is supposed to impact government policy.  Polls show the people do not support further escalation in Ukraine.  Question: Do you think we should continue supporting the war despite our population mostly opposing it?  

Yes yes, Russia bad, got it.  I don't want a moral lecture, I'm curious if you think we should be doing things that get us closer to an actual war when the population doesn't want it.  Please be smarter than implying we're just giving them weapons.... there's literally a post on the last page about how close the UK came to exchanging blows, which would drag us in.  Don't even reply if you can't control your emotions enough to engage maturely.

[pawnman]

6 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

You missed the point, which isn't surprising.  I'll try once more and see if you can stay on target: in the USA the opinion of the people is supposed to impact government policy.  Polls show the people do not support further escalation in Ukraine.  Question: Do you think we should continue supporting the war despite our population mostly opposing it?  

Yes yes, Russia bad, got it.  I don't want a moral lecture, I'm curious if you think we should be doing things that get us closer to an actual war when the population doesn't want it.  Please be smarter than implying we're just giving them weapons.... there's literally a post on the last page about how close the UK came to exchanging blows, which would drag us in.  Don't even reply if you can't control your emotions enough to engage maturely.

In your mind, is there a difference between keeping the current level of support and escalation? 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

In your mind, is there a difference between keeping the current level of support and escalation? 

Great question.  No, but let me explain: the current level of support is escalating not remaining static.  From types of weapons (cluster bombs, F-16s) to amount of funding to real-time tactical intelligence used for lethal targeting, it’s continued up up up with no end in sight or coherent vision of an upper limit.  I would answer yes if anyone had a cogent articulated strategy with self-imposed limitations (example: containment, MAD, etc.), but we don’t.  
I’ve had GOs summarize our strategy as “continuing to dial it up as the Ukrainians need, to bleed Russia dry.”  This seems open-ended and risky, but my question is how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?  

Edited September 15, 2023 by tac airlifter

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?

100% of the say.  Unfortunately 'the people' largely can't or won't effectively communicate their opinion to Congress.  We are a republic 'by the people, for the people' where 'the people' have had physical barriers placed between them and the governing body (note the new security fence around The Hill).   

Decisions about this conflict are being made behind closed door by people who are not responsible for those decisions.    Anyone who thinks that the Joe is setting the policy for our engagement there (which he's not responsible for), or that the Congress is actively involved in determining the direction of our grand strategy, is simply ignorant.  Want proof?  Try having a coherent and factual conversation about the Ukraine war with anyone over the age of 65.  There are some bright and sage exceptions, but the majority of those conversations will rapidly devolve into inaccurate assumptions and unfounded preconceived notions.  

That demographic is largely who are supposed to be responsible for setting policy in this conflict, because that's the demographic nominally in charge of our government right now.

To be blunt, they clearly aren't the ones setting policy for that conflict.  THAT should concern everyone.

[tac airlifter]

24 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Decisions about this conflict are being made behind closed door by people who are not responsible for those decisions.  

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, di1630 said:

Meh, Russian weapons shot down an airliner in 2014 with zero European response….I have little faith that Europeans have any stomach for war or escalation. Even the Brits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

RAF Airplane with RAF service members is not an airliner (not sure if any Brits were on that flight....and BREXIT has changed a few things. I've been in London all week and there you can feel it in the air when this story hit BBC.

[Lawman]

Great question.  No, but let me explain: the current level of support is escalating not remaining static.  From types of weapons (cluster bombs, F-16s) to amount of funding to real-time tactical intelligence used for lethal targeting, it’s continued up up up with no end in sight or coherent vision of an upper limit.  I would answer yes if anyone had a cogent articulated strategy with self-imposed limitations (example: containment, MAD, etc.), but we don’t.  
I’ve had GOs summarize our strategy as “continuing to dial it up as the Ukrainians need, to bleed Russia dry.”  This seems open-ended and risky, but my question is how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?  

They “had their say” at the ballot box.

We are a representative democracy specifically to avoid the sways of the populist mob which does act in ignorance.

Does John Q Public have a firm understanding of why you need X number of aircraft on a flight line or ships in dock to make effective combat power? How about assault weapon bans? You can pick any number of loud polarizing topics that general public ignorance wants in a given space of immediate time.

A good chunk of the public has isolationist desires to walk away from NATO. Hypothetically: Should we let the mob slow down or loudly call to stop the process of mobilizing and responding to direct aggression to an Article 5 member? You know just a recheck by show of hands on policy they were happy to live with when it was convenient for the last 70 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

15 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

RAF Airplane with RAF service members is not an airliner (not sure if any Brits were on that flight....and BREXIT has changed a few things. I've been in London all week and there you can feel it in the air when this story hit BBC.

You're there, and your work puts you in a much better position to know, but it's very hard to imagine the response you suggest. Especially considering the history.

 

This is a real question: Are there still reputable groups that believe the pipelines were blown up by Russia? The public narrative seems to have settled on Ukraine-assisted-by-the-US/UK and then the story kinda faded. I'd expect the pro-Ukraine-support crowd (myself as one) to be talking about that more if there was still a credible argument that Russia did it.

 

I remember you implied you saw or were told of very definitive evidence that it was Russia.

[Day Man]

On 9/14/2023 at 3:57 PM, tac airlifter said:

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

'more aid' ≠ boots on the ground

also, 1/3 > 1/4

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

You're there, and your work puts you in a much better position to know, but it's very hard to imagine the response you suggest. Especially considering the history.

 

This is a real question: Are there still reputable groups that believe the pipelines were blown up by Russia? The public narrative seems to have settled on Ukraine-assisted-by-the-US/UK and then the story kinda faded. I'd expect the pro-Ukraine-support crowd (myself as one) to be talking about that more if there was still a credible argument that Russia did it.

 

I remember you implied you saw or were told of very definitive evidence that it was Russia.

I've worked with the Brits for years on many things and I have never seen this reaction.  I was with them after the Tube bombings in 2005 and was stunned at their reaction...more than put on a brave face, it simply FU terrorists as we press forward with life...we saw far worse during the blitz. 

By chance I was with a very senior recently RAF pilot traveling through one of the heavily bombed areas from WWII when he showed me the article about the almost shootdown.  He shared some other details I won't publish and I said I was surprised the truth leaked out, he was not surprised at all given the underlying anger and contempt for what almost happened. 

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, Day Man said:

'more aid' ≠ boots on the ground

also, 1/3 > 1/4

Boots on the ground = not required to start WW3.  

also, I'm a pilot and therefore unfamiliar with your odd numbers and symbols above.

[Day Man]

9 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Boots on the ground = not required to start WW3.  

also, I'm a pilot and therefore unfamiliar with your odd numbers and symbols above.

perfection 

[Danger41]

I’ll take a Royale with cheese, thank you very much.

[ecugringo]

Zelenskyy was on 60 mins tonight.  They said the front averages 40k artillery rounds a day.  That’s insane!

[BashiChuni]

ukraine is losing. the western media won't tell you that.

you can poo poo me all you want but it doesn't change the facts.

[ecugringo]

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

ukraine is losing. the western media won't tell you that.

you can poo poo me all you want but it doesn't change the facts.

I’m not sure anyone thinks they’re winning.  At best they’re surviving.  I think the 60mins story said something that their professional military is basically gone at this point.  Relying on volunteers, militia, foreigners.  Failed to mention conscripts.

[BashiChuni]

the casualty rate is horrific. WW1 style.

there is no way they can win.

unless we want to escalate and commit NATO ground troops the US should be pushing for a negotiated settlement.

[nsplayr]

21 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

unless we want to escalate and commit NATO ground troops the US should be pushing for a negotiated settlement.

Which pieces of your hometown / state / etc. would you be willing to negotiate away after you've been invaded by your belligerent neighbor? Please be specific.

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Which pieces of your hometown / state / etc. would you be willing to negotiate away after you've been invaded by your belligerent neighbor? Please be specific.

Yeah copy not a nice option but neither is losing your entire military aged male demographic to a war of attrition. I feel like people are looking for a good option when all that exists are bad or less bad options. 

[LookieRookie]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Which pieces of your hometown / state / etc. would you be willing to negotiate away after you've been invaded by your belligerent neighbor? Please be specific.

Better than loosing everyone in those towns and then slowly losing those towns.

[pawnman]

9 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Better than loosing everyone in those towns and then slowly losing those towns.

So, which American cities are you willing to give up again?

If these are losses, I'll take it over the constant "winning" we did in Iraq and Afghanistan...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/13/ukrainian-bombers-firing-western-cruise-missiles-have-destroyed-a-russian-submarine/

Edited September 18, 2023 by pawnman

[SocialD]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Which pieces of your hometown / state / etc. would you be willing to negotiate away after you've been invaded by your belligerent neighbor? Please be specific.

 

Specific you say?  I could probably negotiate away the following; 

 

My hometown:  Wayne street east of Main st., and all of Patterson street.

Current town:  pretty much everything downtown, east of the river.

My state:  Ironton...all of it!

United States...San Francisco.  

[LookieRookie]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

So, which American cities are you willing to give up again?

If these are losses, I'll take it over the constant "winning" we did in Iraq and Afghanistan...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/13/ukrainian-bombers-firing-western-cruise-missiles-have-destroyed-a-russian-submarine/

That’s a strawman, there isn’t an active invasion in the US leading to a total decimation of the American male.