LOL. Typical. Instead of focusing on the content of what was leaked they go after the messenger with personal attacks... did they learn from the leftists on this site?Redbrickbear said:The fact that some zoomer was posting classified docs online for clout is extremely 2023 https://t.co/IpBLsVGukl
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) April 13, 2023
Russia mobilizes
260,965 Views |
4259 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
The AID packages are derivative of the Camp David Accords.......and came during the Cold War when a nation like Egypt switching from Soviet aligned to US aligned was an enormous win on the Risk board.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:we don't send aid to Egypt to make Egyptians love us.KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:JUST IN - President of Egypt, one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East and a major recipient of U.S. aid, recently ordered subordinates to produce up to 40,000 rockets to be covertly shipped to Russia, according to a leaked US intelligence doc, Washington Post reports
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) April 10, 2023
The US has been sending billions of dollars in aid to Egypt since the Camp David Accord .
Yet the vast majority of Egyptians still hate our guts.
Stop ALL US aid to Egypt NOW.
we send aid to Egypt to induce them not to invade Israel, among other things.
Israel has nuclear weapons and a army far more capable than Egypt.
The Egyptian government knows that any invasion of Israel means they get turned to nuclear ash.
At this point if that is why we are paying them than we are suckers.
p.s.
Israel and Egypt have also been at peace since 1979 when Israel withdrew its forces from occupied Sinai.
The possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood might even consider breaking the treaty is one of the reasons (one of many) that the Egyptian military removed them from power in 2013
No one in Egypt is gonna break that treaty...USA bribes or no USA bribes.
There are only three reasons to give aid:
1) humanitarian assistance
2) strategic interest in supporting something
3) to gain leverage over the recipient.
(the first two also generate #3 effect). That is particularly true with the Egypt. We can shut off their military if we want to by denying technical assistance or replacement parts & upgrades. So they can't go to war without our support.
Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran are the dominant powers in the region. Good relations with three of them (which we have historically had) means you have tremendous influence in the region. A lot of good things flow from that, not the least of which is regional tolerance of Israel, regional curbs on Russian influence in Syria, regional curbs on Iranian power, proxies for management of smaller problems, etc.........
Yesterday in Hungary, the US Ambassador held a press conference to announce new sanctions on a Budapest-based Russian bank, and three of its senior executives. People here were worried that it would be a bigger deal when the ambassador called the press conference. Even so, conservatives in Hungary are accustomed to Washington slapping this country around for failing to be sufficiently progressive and on board with the American agenda.
When I first arrived here in 2021, I was really put out by PM Viktor Orban's outreach to China. I still don't like it, and wish Hungary would keep its distance from Beijing, but I understand better why he's open to China. Both Brussels and Washington are so imperialistic and intolerant in their militant liberalism that some countries feel they have little choice but to explore their options.
Ross Douthat explores that theme in his column today. He writes about a study by the Bennett Centre at the University of Cambridge, finding that outside the Anglosphere and Europe, the Ukraine war has made the world less enamored of America, and more open to China and Russia. Douthat:
Quote:
It's not clear that the Biden administration has a grand strategy calibrated to this reality. While the White House has resisted some hawkish calls for escalating brinkmanship with Moscow, it has tended to accept the hawkish portrait of a geopolitical landscape increasingly divided between democracy and autocracy, liberalism and authoritarianism. (Witness, for instance, Biden's recently convened Summit for Democracy, which deliberately excluded two NATO allies, Hungary and Turkey, because they're considered worrisome examples of democratic backsliding.)
As Walter Russell Mead noted in The Wall Street Journal, this framing clearly describes international reality to some degree. It also fits with Biden's domestic political message, which conflates an "international fight for liberal democracy" with an "internal struggle against the populist G.O.P."
But as Mead went on to argue, this crusade-for-democracy vision risks being strategically self-defeating. Abroad, you simply cannot build the alliances required to contain China or Russia if you can't work with countries that don't embrace Anglo-American liberalism or Eurocrat proceduralism. You need a way to deal constructively not just with monarchies and military rulers but also with the political models variously described as populism or illiberal democracy or soft authoritarianism, with leaders in the style of Narendra Modi of India and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, if you don't want the world to belong to the harder authoritarianism of Moscow or the techno-totalitarianism of Beijing.
Likewise at home, you cannot rally sustained bipartisan support for a pro-democracy grand strategy if you're constantly linking this strategy to your conflict with your domestic political opponents. Or, for that matter, if you're constantly linking it to values that are the province of only your own political coalition. A grand strategy that equates democracy simplistically with social liberalism or progressivism is never going to get sustained buy-in from Republicans, and it will always be hostage to the next election cycle.
Douthat goes on to point out the Bennett report's finding that in the WEIRD countries (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), social liberalism accelerated after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But outside the WEIRD zone, there is "no sign that social liberalism is taking hold outside of countries where in 1990 it was powerful already.
Quote:
This creates a challenge for anyone intent on organizing U.S. foreign policy around current progressive values. Maybe you can unite our closest allies, our liberal imperium's rich and aging core, around that kind of ideological vision. But you run a real and growing risk of alienating everybody else.
If you read my old TAC blog, you might remember my telling you a couple of years ago about a conversation I had with several Christian female legislators from Uganda that I met at a conference. They complained about the inroads China was making in their country, and in Africa more generally. But they said the West was unnecessarily alienating Africans by all of a sudden making aid contingent on the Africans turning themselves into progressives.
So NATO troops have been in the Ukraine war zone for months already .
Shocking
Of course there are those who won't believe it......or try to defend it.
Probably the same types who insist Russia blew up their own gas pipeline.
Meanwhile our army can't meet their recruiting numbers and China is threatening our Navy in the eastern Pacific .
Even the Saudis are bailing on us.....they know a loser when they smell one.
Shocking
Of course there are those who won't believe it......or try to defend it.
Probably the same types who insist Russia blew up their own gas pipeline.
Meanwhile our army can't meet their recruiting numbers and China is threatening our Navy in the eastern Pacific .
Even the Saudis are bailing on us.....they know a loser when they smell one.
You see running thru that article the philosophical schizophrenia of Democrat foreign policy, reflecting the differences between the old-school liberals of the Democrat Party establishment (and particularly the reasonably clear eyed foreign policy clerisy) and the rising progressive ideologues demanding rainbow flags everywhere. But they have one piece of common ground: Democrats reflexively beat up on Hungary, because it dares to remain Hungarian.Redbrickbear said:
Yesterday in Hungary, the US Ambassador held a press conference to announce new sanctions on a Budapest-based Russian bank, and three of its senior executives. People here were worried that it would be a bigger deal when the ambassador called the press conference. Even so, conservatives in Hungary are accustomed to Washington slapping this country around for failing to be sufficiently progressive and on board with the American agenda.
When I first arrived here in 2021, I was really put out by PM Viktor Orban's outreach to China. I still don't like it, and wish Hungary would keep its distance from Beijing, but I understand better why he's open to China. Both Brussels and Washington are so imperialistic and intolerant in their militant liberalism that some countries feel they have little choice but to explore their options.
Ross Douthat explores that theme in his column today. He writes about a study by the Bennett Centre at the University of Cambridge, finding that outside the Anglosphere and Europe, the Ukraine war has made the world less enamored of America, and more open to China and Russia. Douthat:Quote:
It's not clear that the Biden administration has a grand strategy calibrated to this reality. While the White House has resisted some hawkish calls for escalating brinkmanship with Moscow, it has tended to accept the hawkish portrait of a geopolitical landscape increasingly divided between democracy and autocracy, liberalism and authoritarianism. (Witness, for instance, Biden's recently convened Summit for Democracy, which deliberately excluded two NATO allies, Hungary and Turkey, because they're considered worrisome examples of democratic backsliding.)
As Walter Russell Mead noted in The Wall Street Journal, this framing clearly describes international reality to some degree. It also fits with Biden's domestic political message, which conflates an "international fight for liberal democracy" with an "internal struggle against the populist G.O.P."
But as Mead went on to argue, this crusade-for-democracy vision risks being strategically self-defeating. Abroad, you simply cannot build the alliances required to contain China or Russia if you can't work with countries that don't embrace Anglo-American liberalism or Eurocrat proceduralism. You need a way to deal constructively not just with monarchies and military rulers but also with the political models variously described as populism or illiberal democracy or soft authoritarianism, with leaders in the style of Narendra Modi of India and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, if you don't want the world to belong to the harder authoritarianism of Moscow or the techno-totalitarianism of Beijing.
Likewise at home, you cannot rally sustained bipartisan support for a pro-democracy grand strategy if you're constantly linking this strategy to your conflict with your domestic political opponents. Or, for that matter, if you're constantly linking it to values that are the province of only your own political coalition. A grand strategy that equates democracy simplistically with social liberalism or progressivism is never going to get sustained buy-in from Republicans, and it will always be hostage to the next election cycle.
Douthat goes on to point out the Bennett report's finding that in the WEIRD countries (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), social liberalism accelerated after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But outside the WEIRD zone, there is "no sign that social liberalism is taking hold outside of countries where in 1990 it was powerful already.Quote:
This creates a challenge for anyone intent on organizing U.S. foreign policy around current progressive values. Maybe you can unite our closest allies, our liberal imperium's rich and aging core, around that kind of ideological vision. But you run a real and growing risk of alienating everybody else.
If you read my old TAC blog, you might remember my telling you a couple of years ago about a conversation I had with several Christian female legislators from Uganda that I met at a conference. They complained about the inroads China was making in their country, and in Africa more generally. But they said the West was unnecessarily alienating Africans by all of a sudden making aid contingent on the Africans turning themselves into progressives.
Hungary has a unique perspective on China - Chinese armies have invaded Hungary before. We are a young nation, and young nations often fail to appreciate the burdens & benefits of a long memory. You can see that at play in the difference between cultures in Southern Africa versus the Sahel. Southern African nations are quite young, rising from diasporas moving southwards only a few centuries old. The Boers actually landed in Capetown years before the Zulus & Xhosas crossed into what is now South Africa. None of the nations of peoples in Southern Africa had long histories before they were colonialized, and the experience made them profoundly distant to foreign observers, afraid to get too close. How did so few whites manage to colonize us for so long? Be careful....their instincts tell them....be polite, but keep your distance. Travel north to Khartoum, and you're talking to societies that are mentioned in the Bible. Old civilizations. Very old. Peoples who have interacted with the world and participated in major world events for millennia. They know themselves, their past, and have a sense of their place in a future. They look you in the eye, and discuss world events just as if you were talking to a native in Tokyo, or Delhi, or London. Few civilizations are as storied as the Hungarians, and they intend to remain Magyar. Such is highly offensive to people who are preoccupied with pronouns and live their lives demanding the affirmation from others.
Democrats have landed in a place where all races are intrinsically virtuous, except your own.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/u-s-intel-leak-suggests-ukraine-ship-is-sinking/
[A leak that originated in a Discord chat room is sending shockwaves across the Atlantic.
A leak of classified documents, some labeled "top secret," from U.S. intelligence agencies allege that Ukraine could fall "well short" of its ambitions with the much anticipated counteroffensive it plans to mount this spring. The U.S. intelligence assessment warns that difficulties for Ukraine massing troops (Ukraine is basically operating with a conscripted fighting force), as well as mustering enough ammunition and equipment (almost completely provided by Western nations), could lead to "force generation and sustainment shortfalls," that result in only "modest territorial gains."
...If the leaked documents are accurate, Center for Renewing American Vice President Dan Caldwell told TAC via email that they "seem to confirm what has already been widely reported: there is no clear path towards a decisive victory for either Russia or Ukraine."
"In addition, the documents also provide more evidence that the United States cannot continue to sustain its current level of military support for Ukraine for much longer we are simply running out of ammunition to give them and our industrial base cannot keep up with current levels of munition expenditures," Caldwell added. "All of this makes it especially foolish for the United States and NATO to continue pursuing policies that prolong the war while raising the risk of a direct conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia."
American policy makers should take Benjamin Franklin's wisdom to heart. This is no small leak, and Ukraine is no great ship. And they should pay extra attention to the line that precedes Franklin's famous idiom. All those "little expenses" in Ukraine are adding up as of January, more than $75 billion has been dispensed to Ukraine, and much more appropriated, for the war effort. Yet, the leak suggests that American politicians, military leaders, and spooks all acknowledge in private what they refuse to say in public: A Ukrainian victory is anything but certain, and increasingly becoming unlikely.]
[A leak that originated in a Discord chat room is sending shockwaves across the Atlantic.
A leak of classified documents, some labeled "top secret," from U.S. intelligence agencies allege that Ukraine could fall "well short" of its ambitions with the much anticipated counteroffensive it plans to mount this spring. The U.S. intelligence assessment warns that difficulties for Ukraine massing troops (Ukraine is basically operating with a conscripted fighting force), as well as mustering enough ammunition and equipment (almost completely provided by Western nations), could lead to "force generation and sustainment shortfalls," that result in only "modest territorial gains."
...If the leaked documents are accurate, Center for Renewing American Vice President Dan Caldwell told TAC via email that they "seem to confirm what has already been widely reported: there is no clear path towards a decisive victory for either Russia or Ukraine."
"In addition, the documents also provide more evidence that the United States cannot continue to sustain its current level of military support for Ukraine for much longer we are simply running out of ammunition to give them and our industrial base cannot keep up with current levels of munition expenditures," Caldwell added. "All of this makes it especially foolish for the United States and NATO to continue pursuing policies that prolong the war while raising the risk of a direct conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia."
American policy makers should take Benjamin Franklin's wisdom to heart. This is no small leak, and Ukraine is no great ship. And they should pay extra attention to the line that precedes Franklin's famous idiom. All those "little expenses" in Ukraine are adding up as of January, more than $75 billion has been dispensed to Ukraine, and much more appropriated, for the war effort. Yet, the leak suggests that American politicians, military leaders, and spooks all acknowledge in private what they refuse to say in public: A Ukrainian victory is anything but certain, and increasingly becoming unlikely.]
Remember the purpose of intelligence assessments is to inform policymakers, so that policymakers can make policy. In this case, the policymaker could either choose to withdraw funding altogether to avoid investing in poor outcomes, or to increase funding to cover the identified short-comings. Pretty sure this admin will chose the latter (and probably already has), if somewhat belatedly.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/u-s-intel-leak-suggests-ukraine-ship-is-sinking/
[A leak that originated in a Discord chat room is sending shockwaves across the Atlantic.
A leak of classified documents, some labeled "top secret," from U.S. intelligence agencies allege that Ukraine could fall "well short" of its ambitions with the much anticipated counteroffensive it plans to mount this spring. The U.S. intelligence assessment warns that difficulties for Ukraine massing troops (Ukraine is basically operating with a conscripted fighting force), as well as mustering enough ammunition and equipment (almost completely provided by Western nations), could lead to "force generation and sustainment shortfalls," that result in only "modest territorial gains."
...If the leaked documents are accurate, Center for Renewing American Vice President Dan Caldwell told TAC via email that they "seem to confirm what has already been widely reported: there is no clear path towards a decisive victory for either Russia or Ukraine."
"In addition, the documents also provide more evidence that the United States cannot continue to sustain its current level of military support for Ukraine for much longer we are simply running out of ammunition to give them and our industrial base cannot keep up with current levels of munition expenditures," Caldwell added. "All of this makes it especially foolish for the United States and NATO to continue pursuing policies that prolong the war while raising the risk of a direct conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia."
American policy makers should take Benjamin Franklin's wisdom to heart. This is no small leak, and Ukraine is no great ship. And they should pay extra attention to the line that precedes Franklin's famous idiom. All those "little expenses" in Ukraine are adding up as of January, more than $75 billion has been dispensed to Ukraine, and much more appropriated, for the war effort. Yet, the leak suggests that American politicians, military leaders, and spooks all acknowledge in private what they refuse to say in public: A Ukrainian victory is anything but certain, and increasingly becoming unlikely.]
That is to say: beware the temptation to use the above assessments as determinative of outcome, as Caldwell has done.
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
When the nation’s (formerly) most important newspaper, The New York Times, now believes that the truth is in “no one’s interest” we know now that it has been replaced with deception and (government) lies. https://t.co/xWZdkUCcly
— Rob Schneider (@RobSchneider) April 19, 2023
KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
100,000 Ukrainians killed . . . what?!?!Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
And Ukraine decided to defend itself, bravely so. We have not gotten any killed. Quite the opposite. We helped stop a depraved invader.
Washington war mongers?" Virtually the entire free world supports Ukraine.
Once again, what is the alternative (and not some mythical peace deal that Ukraine can sign anytime)?
Nothing to show? We have thus far stopped our enemy from unlawfully taking over a free country.
I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
It's not that they're not maintaining it, they are using the absolute hell out of it. They are using monumentally greater amount of artillery than we would use in a conventional war....because there's little safety in the skies.Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
We use our Air Force as our main source of "artillery".
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
What it means is war decision making is directed by profit motive first before anything else.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
1. Yes at least 100,000 Ukrainians have been killed so far...probably 200,000 to 250,000+ Russians have also died. More die every day.sombear said:100,000 Ukrainians killed . . . what?!?!Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
And Ukraine decided to defend itself, bravely so. We have not gotten any killed. Quite the opposite. We helped stop a depraved invader.
Washington war mongers?" Virtually the entire free world supports Ukraine.
Once again, what is the alternative (and not some mythical peace deal that Ukraine can sign anytime)?
Nothing to show? We have thus far stopped our enemy from unlawfully taking over a free country.
2. Yes Ukraine has right to defend itself....but Washington rooting on their quest to retake Crimea and Donbass and fight a 7 year war in the east was a foolish act. Sparked off this invasion of the whole country.
3. Are there people in Washington who are active war mongers? We just spend 20 years in perpetual war in the middle east...that should have answered that question.
4. What is the alternative? Good question. Probably none right now. Its a bloody stalemate and a quagmire that shows no signs of ending. And the powers that be in D.C. don't seem particularity interested in finding any solution that does not involve a total Russian military defeat (something that is unlikely).
Demonstrable nonsense that presumes there is no such thing as national interest.Doc Holliday said:What it means is war decision making is directed by profit motive first before anything else.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
National interest drives war making decisions. Yes, profits are made on military policy during and between wars. But that is a necessity, is it not? How can we build, maintain, and use armies & navies if no one makes a profit? Disarm and sing cumbaya to keep the invaders away? Who has ever built a successful model of social contract on that?
Profits are made building federal highways.
Profits are made selling uniforms to park rangers.
Profits are made selling text books to schools.
Profits are made selling homes to government employees.
etc.......
Government spending is about a quarter of GDP. Do profits made on transactions with government mean that all of government is driven solely by profit motive rather than the needs of basic social contract like fire, police, water systems, judiciaries, etc.....?
Massive cause-effect problem with such reasoning.
trey3216 said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
There are certainly a lot of Russians getting killed...but also a lot of Ukrainians dying as well.
And as the war in 1861 taught us...if one side is smaller than the other... it can't keep going on forever losing men and fighting the entire war on its physical territory against a much larger enemy.
It might take Russia 4 years to grind down the Ukraine, but just like the Union against the South, this will eventually take place unless there is foreign intervention.
1. National interest most certainly does NOT ALWAYS drive war making decisions.whiterock said:Demonstrable nonsense that presumes there is no such thing as national interest.Doc Holliday said:What it means is war decision making is directed by profit motive first before anything else.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
National interest drives war making decisions. Yes, profits are made on military policy during and between wars. But that is a necessity, is it not? How can we build, maintain, and use armies & navies if no one makes a profit? Disarm and sing cumbaya to keep the invaders away? Who has ever built a successful model of social contract on that?
Profits are made building federal highways.
Profits are made selling uniforms to park rangers.
Profits are made selling text books to schools.
Profits are made selling homes to government employees.
etc.......
Government spending is about a quarter of GDP. Do profits made on transactions with government mean that all of government is driven solely by profit motive rather than the needs of basic social contract like fire, police, water systems, judiciaries, etc.....?
Massive cause-effect problem with such reasoning.
Indeed we can point to many instances throughout history when the decision to make war was done by small cliques in power, foolish Kings, tyrannical dictators, and directly opposed to the interests of the nation and the people at large.
2. And if all government spending drives positive economic growth...then why not just have the Federal government spend us into a utopia of growth and endless prosperity?
Milton Friedman would tell you why this does not work.
3. [FRIEDMAN: Well, carry that logic on and you're saying that having the government take over the whole economy would be a good way of increasing productivity. That's an argument for socialism. We have quasi-socialism now, where the economy is 50 percent socialist. If you take
ROBINSON: Fifty percent socialist? You don't mean the government already owns the means of production?
FRIEDMAN: Yes, of course I do. What does ownership of the means of production mean? It means you're entitled to the proceeds of the income that they generate.
Take a look at federal, state, and local spending. It amounts to 40 percent of the national income. Then add in all the mandates that government imposes on private spending for instance, when the government insists that you have anti-pollution devices on your car that might as well be on the budget. If you add those costs, plus all the regulations and restrictions on enterprises, that accounts for about another 10 percent. So about 50 percent of the output of the country is controlled by the government, which is equivalent to saying that the government owns 50 percent of the means of production.
FRIEDMAN: There's no doubt that the Pentagon funding has led to research, but you don't know what would have been done with that money if the government hadn't been spending it.
To judge the efficacy of government spending, we have to look at a much broader range. How is it that a place like Hong Kong can have nearly the same average income per person as the United States? Surely it's not because of Hong Kong's plethora of resources? No, it's because government spending in Hong Kong has been about 10 or 15 percent of the national income.
ROBINSON: What is it that is less productive about government spending? When money is spent through the political mechanism, why is that inherently inferior?
FRIEDMAN: Because nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. That's a fundamental principle. All government spending is spending somebody else's money. It's Ms. A taking money from Mr. B to give to Mr. C.]
This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
Ukraine is in a war for survival because its reasonable national aspirations are in conflict with the reasonable national aspirations of a much larger neighbor. A pliable Ukraine affords Russia over 1000 miles of strategic depth, which historically has been what saves Russia every time it's invaded. Napoleon and Hitler launched summer offensives that stalled at the gates of Moscow, and then the Russian winter destroyed their victorious armies. But a hostile Ukraine allows foreign armies a short 200+ mile dash to Moscow, a easy chance to win and consolidate before winter. To Russia, a hostile Ukraine is not a fire ant mound next to the porch. It's like fire ants inside your underwear.
None of that obligates the rest of the world to attend to Russia's concerns and obligate Ukraine to subjugate the rights that peoples all over the world have to forge their own destiny, identity, future. Ukraine as a member of the EU is no threat to Russia. A Ukraine with friendly relations with NATO is no threat to Russia. Finland and Sweden were neutral EU members with formal partnership status with NATO, and Russia never felt a need to invade them because of it.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it mishandled, and then misjudged Ukraine. It considers Ukraine to be proto-Russia, and Ukrainian nationalism to be a completely unserious thing. Russia therefore treated Ukraine as a puppet state rather than with respect. When that didn't work out, it thought Ukraine would collapse the moment Russian armies crossed the border. Didn't turnout that way, did it? Turns out Ukraine is a real thing which does not want to be dictated to by Russia, and has the ability and will to defend itself against Russia.
And NATO nations have rights & interests too. They are under no obligation to attend to every concern of Russia. Matter of fact, they might reasonably conclude that Russia needs to join the modern age and learn to build positive relationships with its neighbors, rather than making them puppet states that threaten western Europe.
the idea that USA instigated the whole thing......conjured up Ukrainian nationalism out of whole cloth, then manipulated it to goad Russia into invading.....is quite self-serving nonsense. Russian worldview hasn't worked out well for Russia in Ukraine. I would advise not paying so much attention to it.
Ludicrous on its face.whiterock said:This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
An example of that kind of thinking would be some Marxist academic in Guatemala telling us how a 3% import tariff on coffee by the USA in 1888 ruined their economy and caused all their problems (economic, social, political) to this very day.
Instead of the simple answer that Central America states have always been unstable **** holes ruled by corrupt ruling classes that exploit their lower classes.
Now....Pointing out the since the Obama administration the USA has been directly involved in Ukrainian internal politics...has been a key policy maker there...and directly involved in training Ukrainian soldiers, funding the war, and if reports are to be believed actually directing some of the military attacks...then its very reasonable to discuss the overwhelming impact the USA is having in Ukraine right now.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.whiterock said:Demonstrable nonsense that presumes there is no such thing as national interest.Doc Holliday said:What it means is war decision making is directed by profit motive first before anything else.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
National interest drives war making decisions. Yes, profits are made on military policy during and between wars. But that is a necessity, is it not? How can we build, maintain, and use armies & navies if no one makes a profit? Disarm and sing cumbaya to keep the invaders away? Who has ever built a successful model of social contract on that?
Profits are made building federal highways.
Profits are made selling uniforms to park rangers.
Profits are made selling text books to schools.
Profits are made selling homes to government employees.
etc.......
Government spending is about a quarter of GDP. Do profits made on transactions with government mean that all of government is driven solely by profit motive rather than the needs of basic social contract like fire, police, water systems, judiciaries, etc.....?
Massive cause-effect problem with such reasoning.
The concept is taxes are being spent on services provided by contractors. Those contractors then kickback the money. Giant military industrial megacorps are collectively acquiring billions upon billions in of taxpayer dollars and kicking back money for electoral/political support. This means elected officials are more likely to make UNWARRANTED war decisions for their own person gain.
This happens in ALL government spending. Especially services. You can bet your ass that your local city is hiring contractors that return the favor. They're adding in unnecessary regulations that increase the capital going to contractors.
It's fu cking over taxpayers.
Yes, the USG has been directly involved in diplomacy and aid to help Ukraine to emerge from the terrible legacy of the USSR and become a real country with properly functioning social contract that can effectively exploit its abundant national resources for the benefit of its own people rather than a kleptocratic Russian oligarchy state. That is what diplomacy is all about. Seeking one's own national interest. Fostering stability on the borders of NATO, to prevent an 800 mile westward advance of Russian army bases that would seriously degrade the security position of member states, is definitely in the US national interest.Redbrickbear said:Ludicrous on its face.whiterock said:This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
An example of that kind of thinking would be some Marxist academic in Guatemala telling us how a 3% import tariff on coffee by the USA in 1888 ruined their economy and caused all their problems (economic, social, political) to this very day.
If you'd lived in the third world, you'd understand how pervasive this thinking is. It's a how they deal with the consequences of their bad decisions.
Instead of the simple answer that Central America states have always been unstable **** holes ruled by corrupt ruling classes that exploit their lower classes.
Now....Pointing out the since the Obama administration the USA has been directly involved in Ukrainian internal politics...has been a key policy maker there...and directly involved in training Ukrainian soldiers, funding the war, and if reports are to be believed actually directing some of the military attacks...then its very reasonable to discuss the overwhelming impact the USA is having in Ukraine right now.
A pro-West government in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia.
Period.
A pro-Russian government in Ukraine is not a threat to Nato.
Period.
But Russian armies stationed on the Polish and Romanian borders is just as unacceptable to Nato as would be Nato armies stationed on the border of Russia.
Period.
USA/Nato policy toward Ukraine did not cause the Russo/Ukraine War.
Russia caused the war by sending its armies into Ukraine. That is unacceptable in any modern context. Even Russia's "ally" China abstained on the UN condemnation vote.
Ukraine had not even applied to Nato at the time of the Russian invasion.
Ukraine did not have the votes to enter Nato at the time of the Russian invasion.
Quite sure Ukraine STILL does not have the votes to enter Nato. (I oppose it.)
Your whole analysis is premised on the notion that Nato policy in Ukraine caused the war.
That is the Russian excuse for the Russian invasion.
Such is risible.
Doc Holliday said:I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.whiterock said:Demonstrable nonsense that presumes there is no such thing as national interest.Doc Holliday said:What it means is war decision making is directed by profit motive first before anything else.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
National interest drives war making decisions. Yes, profits are made on military policy during and between wars. But that is a necessity, is it not? How can we build, maintain, and use armies & navies if no one makes a profit? Disarm and sing cumbaya to keep the invaders away? Who has ever built a successful model of social contract on that?
Profits are made building federal highways.
Profits are made selling uniforms to park rangers.
Profits are made selling text books to schools.
Profits are made selling homes to government employees.
etc.......
Government spending is about a quarter of GDP. Do profits made on transactions with government mean that all of government is driven solely by profit motive rather than the needs of basic social contract like fire, police, water systems, judiciaries, etc.....?
Massive cause-effect problem with such reasoning.
The concept is taxes are being spent on services provided by contractors. Those contractors then kickback the money. Giant military industrial megacorps are collectively acquiring billions upon billions in of taxpayer dollars and kicking back money for electoral/political support. This means elected officials are more likely to make UNWARRANTED war decisions for their own person gain.
This happens in ALL government spending. Especially services. You can bet your ass that your local city is hiring contractors that return the favor. They're adding in unnecessary regulations that increase the capital going to contractors.
It's fu cking over taxpayers.
Exactly
Facebook is censoring Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s story about US involvement in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines using a ‘fact checker’ with links to the Norwegian government in what represents a clear conflict of interest.…
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 20, 2023
You're looking at lines on the map without paying enough attention to what's happening on the ground. Russia generally hasn't bothered to overrun cities with infantry. They're doing so now only because the cities on the front line, from Bakhmut in the north to Marinka in the south and west to Vuldehar, have spent years building underground fortifications that are invulnerable to light artillery. Zelensky, against our advice, has made holding Bakhmut his main priority and a rallying cry for the public. Meanwhile the Russians have surrounded the city and are steadily funneling Ukrainian forces into the grinder. It's a similar situation in Avdiivka to the south. While the US bleeds out the Russian army in Ukraine, Russia is doing the same to the Ukrainian army at key points along the front line. The longer it goes, the more the numbers favor Russia.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
We don't have to attend to every concern of Russia, but we are obligated to consider its security interests, particularly in the former Soviet republics. NATO has never had an absolute right to enlarge its membership anywhere and everywhere.whiterock said:This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
Ukraine is in a war for survival because its reasonable national aspirations are in conflict with the reasonable national aspirations of a much larger neighbor. A pliable Ukraine affords Russia over 1000 miles of strategic depth, which historically has been what saves Russia every time it's invaded. Napoleon and Hitler launched summer offensives that stalled at the gates of Moscow, and then the Russian winter destroyed their victorious armies. But a hostile Ukraine allows foreign armies a short 200+ mile dash to Moscow, a easy chance to win and consolidate before winter. To Russia, a hostile Ukraine is not a fire ant mound next to the porch. It's like fire ants inside your underwear.
None of that obligates the rest of the world to attend to Russia's concerns and obligate Ukraine to subjugate the rights that peoples all over the world have to forge their own destiny, identity, future. Ukraine as a member of the EU is no threat to Russia. A Ukraine with friendly relations with NATO is no threat to Russia. Finland and Sweden were neutral EU members with formal partnership status with NATO, and Russia never felt a need to invade them because of it.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it mishandled, and then misjudged Ukraine. It considers Ukraine to be proto-Russia, and Ukrainian nationalism to be a completely unserious thing. Russia therefore treated Ukraine as a puppet state rather than with respect. When that didn't work out, it thought Ukraine would collapse the moment Russian armies crossed the border. Didn't turnout that way, did it? Turns out Ukraine is a real thing which does not want to be dictated to by Russia, and has the ability and will to defend itself against Russia.
And NATO nations have rights & interests too. They are under no obligation to attend to every concern of Russia. Matter of fact, they might reasonably conclude that Russia needs to join the modern age and learn to build positive relationships with its neighbors, rather than making them puppet states that threaten western Europe.
the idea that USA instigated the whole thing......conjured up Ukrainian nationalism out of whole cloth, then manipulated it to goad Russia into invading.....is quite self-serving nonsense. Russian worldview hasn't worked out well for Russia in Ukraine. I would advise not paying so much attention to it.
Sam Lowry said:We don't have to attend to every concern of Russia, but we are obligated to consider its security interests, particularly in the former Soviet republics. NATO has never had an absolute right to enlarge its membership anywhere and everywhere.whiterock said:This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
Ukraine is in a war for survival because its reasonable national aspirations are in conflict with the reasonable national aspirations of a much larger neighbor. A pliable Ukraine affords Russia over 1000 miles of strategic depth, which historically has been what saves Russia every time it's invaded. Napoleon and Hitler launched summer offensives that stalled at the gates of Moscow, and then the Russian winter destroyed their victorious armies. But a hostile Ukraine allows foreign armies a short 200+ mile dash to Moscow, a easy chance to win and consolidate before winter. To Russia, a hostile Ukraine is not a fire ant mound next to the porch. It's like fire ants inside your underwear.
None of that obligates the rest of the world to attend to Russia's concerns and obligate Ukraine to subjugate the rights that peoples all over the world have to forge their own destiny, identity, future. Ukraine as a member of the EU is no threat to Russia. A Ukraine with friendly relations with NATO is no threat to Russia. Finland and Sweden were neutral EU members with formal partnership status with NATO, and Russia never felt a need to invade them because of it.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it mishandled, and then misjudged Ukraine. It considers Ukraine to be proto-Russia, and Ukrainian nationalism to be a completely unserious thing. Russia therefore treated Ukraine as a puppet state rather than with respect. When that didn't work out, it thought Ukraine would collapse the moment Russian armies crossed the border. Didn't turnout that way, did it? Turns out Ukraine is a real thing which does not want to be dictated to by Russia, and has the ability and will to defend itself against Russia.
And NATO nations have rights & interests too. They are under no obligation to attend to every concern of Russia. Matter of fact, they might reasonably conclude that Russia needs to join the modern age and learn to build positive relationships with its neighbors, rather than making them puppet states that threaten western Europe.
the idea that USA instigated the whole thing......conjured up Ukrainian nationalism out of whole cloth, then manipulated it to goad Russia into invading.....is quite self-serving nonsense. Russian worldview hasn't worked out well for Russia in Ukraine. I would advise not paying so much attention to it.
Yep.
There are people in D.C. and on this thread...who think we have an absolute right to expand our military alliance network everywhere and anywhere across the world.
And more than that...but also that any violent reaction by Russia, Iran, or China to that expansion is a total affront and outside the pale.
If Russia, Iran, or China were expanding into Mexico or Canada we would be in a war....period.
If only we could accept that, we wouldn't be in this situation.whiterock said:A pro-Russian government in Ukraine is not a threat to Nato.Redbrickbear said:Ludicrous on its face.whiterock said:This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
An example of that kind of thinking would be some Marxist academic in Guatemala telling us how a 3% import tariff on coffee by the USA in 1888 ruined their economy and caused all their problems (economic, social, political) to this very day.
If you'd lived in the third world, you'd understand how pervasive this thinking is. It's a how they deal with the consequences of their bad decisions.
Instead of the simple answer that Central America states have always been unstable **** holes ruled by corrupt ruling classes that exploit their lower classes.
Now....Pointing out the since the Obama administration the USA has been directly involved in Ukrainian internal politics...has been a key policy maker there...and directly involved in training Ukrainian soldiers, funding the war, and if reports are to be believed actually directing some of the military attacks...then its very reasonable to discuss the overwhelming impact the USA is having in Ukraine right now.
Period.
And what about Russia's exponentially larger involvement in Ukraine, from rigging elections, assassinating local leaders, poisoning Presidents, sabotaging trade deals, to now a third invasion of its territory? I mean, what about that?Redbrickbear said:Ludicrous on its face.whiterock said:This line of reasoning is garden-variety 3rd world "omnipotent USA." Everything that happens is caused or approved by USA. USA can do or cause to happen whatever it wants. etc....Redbrickbear said:You sound like you work for the Pentagon or NPR.whiterock said:I feel great that we have helped highly motivated people defend their country. The idea that we foisted it all on them is bull***** People make money on wars. That does not mean wars never need to be fought.Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:A. Russia has the advantage in troop numbers ,sombear said:Never say never but highly doubtful. Why do you think that will be the case?KaiBear said:Redbrickbear said:I'm in the middle of moderate Republican territory...not MAGA country...more like George H. Bush country.KaiBear said:
Strange how the war doesn't get the news coverage it once did .
Maybe the illusions are finally falling away .
The kind that think Trump is a vulgar barbarian (but better him than a far leftist) and are always down to wave the Flag and support the military almost without question.
And I have not heard a single person say how they like us endlessly funding this Ukraine war or how we should trust the increasingly politically captured Pentagon and top brass.
This new anti-Russian war is gonna be hard to fight with just coastal liberals.
p.s.
I have a buddy (an Officer) who is stationed at a base in Tennessee...says that no one he talks to on base wants to fight a war with Russia and most think Ukraine is gonna lose eventually. Said they are sending back artillery to be repaired and its been shot to hell...so they are using it but not maintaining it.
War will be over within 14 months ....on Putin's terms .
B. Air superiority
C. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed week by week.
D. Western Europeans are tired of the war's disruption in their daily lives.
E. Americans are tired of paying billions of dollars to Ukraine when they can barely afford their gas/rent/medical bills.
F. The NATO 'alliance' is a sham. France, Germany, Turkey and Italy all want to go back to 'business as usual'.
People on this site feel great that Washington war mongers have gotten 100,000 Ukrainians killed and most of the country ruined… $1 trillion dollars in damages.
And just like our utter failures in Afghanistan and Iraq…we won't have much to show for this new military adventure in Eastern Europe.
But hey a bunch of Lobbyists in DC and at the Pentagon got rich right?
Kaibears list is alternate reality. Russia has not been able to take advantage of its superior population and gain a material advantage in troop numbers where it matters - on the battlefield. Neither do they have air superiority. There's actually not a lot going on in the air war on either side (meaning neither side has superiority) which is a win for Ukraine. Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed on the front lines, but not elsewhere. Yes, Europeans are tired of the war, but they are not out in the streets demanding it be stopped either. Quite the opposite. Americans are growing frustrated with what appears to be a never-ending conflict (thanks to poor leadership by the admin), but still on balance support the war. Nato not only remains committed (large amounts of aid still in pipeline), they are adding members. Reality is, Russia launched a big winter offensive with 300k new troops. It made such a splash that it took the world three weeks to realize the slight elevation in intensity was, in fact, the big offensive. That "big offensive" bogged down at the first town it came to and has been mired there ever since. Ukraine totally stymied the big offensive, which has clearly culminated. That has allowed Ukraine to keep troops in reserve and prepare for the big counteroffensive.
We can speculate that the Russian "big offensive" which actually did nothing at all might be a diversion, and most of the deployments were defensive, to protect the approaches to Crimea. I've seen some deployment maps prepared by inveterate bloggers which would be consistent with that. And those deployments clearly seem to anticipate exactly the kind of Ukrainian counter-offensive I've suggested.....a push toward the Sea of Azov and Crimean approaches which would threaten to cut off the entire Russian army along the Kherson front. If Ukraine can do that.....(and it's hardly impossible for them)......then this war will end quite a bit differently than you imagine. But regardless what Ukraine does, Russia is a spent force. Done. They can feed more troops into the maw, but their tactics and strategy and logistics and (the whole ball of wax) is not capable of winning the fight they're in. All Nato has to do is "not lose" and Russia will have no option but to sue for peace. Right now Ukraine is well ahead of benchmarks and has reasonable chances of regaining some/all of pre-2014 positions, assuming their offensive outperforms the Russian one we've been watching, which should be the case.
we will know a lot more in 60 days.
Ukraine is being destroyed by this war....all because the USA ruling class was determined to overthrow the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv back in Feb of 2014.
Then not being satisfied with the victory of installing a pro-Western regime in Kyiv they decided to support the Ukrainian government's Don Quixote like quest to retake Crimea and Donbass. War in the Donbass went on for 7 years! And of course directly sparked off the wider Russo-Ukrainian war and outright Russian invasion.
The D.C. political class is now pouring weapons & cash into a conflict that has no foreseeable end. Not to mention our State Department is actively working to throw cold water on any attempts by our European allies to find a diplomatic solution and bring about a cease fire.
So Ukraine (already poor and rapidly depopulating in normal times) gets to become a European Afghanistan...GREAT
An example of that kind of thinking would be some Marxist academic in Guatemala telling us how a 3% import tariff on coffee by the USA in 1888 ruined their economy and caused all their problems (economic, social, political) to this very day.
Instead of the simple answer that Central America states have always been unstable **** holes ruled by corrupt ruling classes that exploit their lower classes.
Now....Pointing out the since the Obama administration the USA has been directly involved in Ukrainian internal politics...has been a key policy maker there...and directly involved in training Ukrainian soldiers, funding the war, and if reports are to be believed actually directing some of the military attacks...then its very reasonable to discuss the overwhelming impact the USA is having in Ukraine right now.