Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

51 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is an ironic thing to say considering they have been starved of the weaponry required to fight. If I were a bit more cynical I would say you are being intentionally disingenuous.

 

We shouldn't be sending them money or weapons!

*We stop sending them money and weapons.*

See!? They are losing, so there's no point in sending the money or weaponry!

they have not been starved of the weaponry.

you could give ukraine 600b and it wouldn't matter. it's a numbers game. russia has far more men to fight ukraine.

and the russian industrial base is ramping up to full speed. russian army is 15% larger now than when the war began. some of you guys need to brush up on your history about how the russian bear conducts war.

let me repeat: there is ZERO chance ukraine will win this war. it's a losing proposition. what we SHOULD be doing is working towards a negotiated settlement.

Edited April 19 by BashiChuni

[HeloDude]

53 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is an ironic thing to say considering they have been starved of the weaponry required to fight. If I were a bit more cynical I would say you are being intentionally disingenuous.

 

We shouldn't be sending them money or weapons!

*We stop sending them money and weapons.*

See!? They are losing, so there's no point in sending the money or weaponry!

“Starved of the weaponry”?  Is Ukraine trying to produce their own weapons that the rest of the world is keeping them from producing?  Or is Ukraine trying to purchase weapons from the rest of the world, with the rest of the world saying they will not sell?  
 

This is the same argument I’ve heard that goes something like this:  “If you stop giving welfare to X people then you’re starving them”.  

[ClearedHot]

36 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

“Starved of the weaponry”?  Is Ukraine trying to produce their own weapons that the rest of the world is keeping them from producing?  Or is Ukraine trying to purchase weapons from the rest of the world, with the rest of the world saying they will not sell?  
 

This is the same argument I’ve heard that goes something like this:  “If you stop giving welfare to X people then you’re starving them”.  

The you have to teach them how to fish...It is not like they know how to make the Javelin, ATACM, and M-1 Abrams...and maybe in the long run you don't want them to know how.

[BashiChuni]

24 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The you have to teach them how to fish...It is not like they know how to make the Javelin, ATACM, and M-1 Abrams...and maybe in the long run you don't want them to know how.

CH you're a reasonable poster on here.

do you honestly think ukraine could defeat russia on the battlefield with unlimited weaponry?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

they have not been starved of the weaponry.

you could give ukraine 600b and it wouldn't matter. it's a numbers game. russia has far more men to fight ukraine.

and the russian industrial base is ramping up to full speed. russian army is 15% larger now than when the war began. some of you guys need to brush up on your history about how the russian bear conducts war.

let me repeat: there is ZERO chance ukraine will win this war. it's a losing proposition. what we SHOULD be doing is working towards a negotiated settlement.

Sure they have. Artillery is how this war is being fought, and they are out of shells. We are the resupply. Obviously there's a debate over whether we should, but we made Ukraine our proxy in this war, and now we are withholding. 

I've said it many, many times before, I don't care what their odds are if they want to fight. And for now, they still do. So arm them up. 

I'm a big fan of the negotiated settlement, but neither Russia nor Ukraine seems interested at the moment. And Russia will not be interested until we resupply Ukraine, at which point they may find a newfound interest in peace. 

 

Actually that's another paradox in your reasoning. We should be negotiating a settlement, but not give any motivation to Russia to settle.

[ClearedHot]

2 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

CH you're a reasonable poster on here.

Many would disagree.

8 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

do you honestly think ukraine could defeat russia on the battlefield with unlimited weaponry?

Judging by the damage inflicted with limited resources AND the semi-paper Tiger Russia appears to be, yes absolutely.

In some ways they have defeated Russia, Ukraine remains as a country two years after being attacked by a Super-Power. 

But, as always in conflict, you have to define what defeat (victory), means. 

Our feckless politicians have let a very tired Ukrainian Army suffer in the field much like the Continental Army did at Valley Forge.  If they had more resources earlier this would be a very different conflict.  Russia has been rebuilding and without our help and equipment, the Spring offensive could be very bad for Ukraine.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

“Starved of the weaponry”?  Is Ukraine trying to produce their own weapons that the rest of the world is keeping them from producing?  Or is Ukraine trying to purchase weapons from the rest of the world, with the rest of the world saying they will not sell?  
 

This is the same argument I’ve heard that goes something like this:  “If you stop giving welfare to X people then you’re starving them”.  

If you establish that you are going to feed someone, then stop feeding them without sufficient time or opportunity to feed themselves, then yes, you are starving them. You can argue whether you should have fed them in the first place, but once you establish a relationship, what you do in that relationship matters. 

 

We could have let them fend for themselves from the beginning, but we didn't. Maybe we should have, though I disagree. Doesn't matter, we did. And you now have to operate from that reality. 

 

For everyone calling for a negotiated settlement, that's not going to happen unless Russia has something to lose by refusing. And that's not going to happen without a re-armed Ukraine. I agree with all of the complaints about a feckless administration with no strategy and no goals. That's the hand we've been dealt. 

12 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

do you honestly think ukraine could defeat russia on the battlefield with unlimited weaponry?

The North Vietnamese couldn't defeat us with unlimited weaponry. They didn't need to. This is unidimensional thinking. 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you establish that you are going to feed someone, then stop feeding them without sufficient time or opportunity to feed themselves, then yes, you are starving them. You can argue whether you should have fed them in the first place, but once you establish a relationship, what you do in that relationship matters. 

 

i would like to thank you for proving my point about post WWII foreign policy being a disaster.

we constantly do what you just described above to "allies". i'm not sure why anyone is surprised we're doing it to ukraine.

and yes, i do argue that we should stop feeding

[FourFans]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

i would like to thank you for proving my point about post WWII foreign policy being a disaster.

we constantly do what you just described above to "allies". i'm not sure why anyone is surprised we're doing it to ukraine.

and yes, i do argue that we should stop feeding

Have you done any international assignments?

Edited April 19 by FourFans

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, FourFans said:

Have you done any international assignments?

i never deployed

[Standby]

40 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

i never deployed

Can confirm. As General Chang’s protege, his talents were best utilized on staff and as back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back HOLIDAY party planner of the year for his unit. 

[BashiChuni]

GC was an amazing boss and leader 

[nsplayr]

Y’all keep responding to this dude on all his burners and I’m still wondering why…

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Y’all keep responding to this dude on all his burners and I’m still wondering why…

Well....we've responded to you for many years. 🥃

[BashiChuni]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html

 

excellent article

[ClearedHot]

23 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html

 

excellent article

Paywall and I will NEVER subscribe to that fishwrap.

[BashiChuni]

hmm strange i was able to see it without a subscription.

BL: the math doesnt add up i.e. we can produce about 5-10% of required ammunition

[ClearedHot]

14 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

hmm strange i was able to see it without a subscription.

BL: the math doesnt add up i.e. we can produce about 5-10% of required ammunition

In short, the Ruskies SUCK at combined arms so they are of course relying on the WWII proven tactic of mass artillery strikes.  The Russians want this to be ground and pound with mass artillery strikes before an assault but weapons like Javelin have blunted those efforts. 

The U.S. is currently producing approximately 28,000 155 mm rounds per month, with a ramp-up plan to produce 70,000-80,000 rounds per month by the end of 2024. 

Perfect video to demonstrate what I was saying above.  Look at the ground, artillery impact craters everywhere yet the Ukrainians using technology and asymmetric tactics are stopping Russian advances and making them pay a horrific toll for simple operations.

 

 

[BashiChuni]

two points:

1. they are not blunting anything

2. they are not stopping russian advances.

 

russia is clearly advancing, capturing territory, and clearly winning this war. and they will win regardless of how much money/ammo we give them.

 

[HeloDude]

[raimius]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

two points:

1. they are not blunting anything

2. they are not stopping russian advances.

 

russia is clearly advancing, capturing territory, and clearly winning this war. and they will win regardless of how much money/ammo we give them.

 

The lines have shifted several times.  You seem to only recognize one direction.

The initial thrust of the invasion stopped, followed by counter-attacks by both sides...doesn't sound like the one-sided war you seem to be describing.

Edited April 21 by raimius
Autocorrect

[ViperMan]

Technically speaking @BashiChuni is correct on point one. It's not possible to re-blunt something that is already as blunt as it can be. They (Russia) are more than two years into this mess after having had 8 years of pre-combat battlefield shaping operations. Two years! For an operation that would have taken us a long weekend. Russia is most certainly blunt.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

The lines have shifted several times.  You seem to only recognize one direction.

The initial thrust of the invasion stopped, followed by counter-attacks by both sides...doesn't sound like the one-sided war you seem to be describing.

what direction is it going in now?

we can all want ukraine to win, that doesn't change the facts on the battlefield. nor the calculus to make a victory happen.

ukraine can only defeat russia with direct NATO intervention.

[Danger41]

Where do you guys look for all this info? Genuinely curious.

[BashiChuni]

20 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Where do you guys look for all this info? Genuinely curious.

The Duran podcast. Highly recommend