gearhog

Reuters: Russia is ready to end the conflict. Will we continue to push the Ukrainians to fight on?

Taiwan inaugurated its new President, Lai Ching-te, who says he will assert Taiwan's sovereignty. China has apparently encircled Taiwan earlier today in a "surprise" military drill called "Joint Sword". Just now reading some WH Press Briefing notes and trying to coalesce a big picture view of what's happening. - Jake Sullivan was asked about the UK's assessment that China is giving aid to Russia. He says we haven't seen that and looks forward to talking to the UK to find out why they're claiming this. I thought this was a foregone conclusion. He goes on to say, "What I would point out is that just recently we have been articulating, in quite urgent terms, our concern about what China is doing to fuel Russia’s war machine — not giving weapons directly, but providing inputs to Russia’s defense industrial base. That is happening. That is something we’re concerned about. " - China sent a delegation to attend the funeral of the Iranian President. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil. India's Minister of External Affairs has expressed his frustration with the US over a port India and Iran are partnering on. India has surpassed $50 Billion in trade with Russia for the first time and looking to sign a long term oil deal with Russia. - China is accelerating its record breaking US bond selloff and piling into gold. - The interests of Russia, China, Iran, India are becoming more aligned. Anyone who looks at a map can see why this is a problem for us. BRICS nation economic growth is double that of the G7. None of these developments are new. But the rate of change and scope is increasing. We have major players constituting a huge part of the global population, and the trends: diplomatically, militarily, and economically are away from the United States. Each challenge to US dominance, be it Taiwanese airspace incursions, getting kicked out of Niger, etc lowers the threshold for the next one to occur and our leadership only instills confidence in our adversaries. Perhaps we have an opportunity to change things somewhat during the next election, but I personally doubt it. I think the probability is high our adversaries realize their best opportunity to create the most destabilization in the US is during the next 6 months.

I kinda disagree with ya, but I understand where you're coming from. I don't want to annoy you, so I'll try harder to keep the conversation relevant and be more succinct in my posts. Cheers.

So's your wife. You either stick with it or find another. I'm loyal to the bitter end. I was here in the beginning and I'll be here at 404 Not Found. Its the same as its ever been. Anyone remember the "Savage Forums" sister forum to this one when they were both at dynamictruth.com? Those folks would eat everyone's lunch here today in the Social/Political forum. 😂

You are incorrect. Could possibly be because you don't understand what "quote" means. I've either used the quote link below your post to quote your words verbatim, or used one or two of your words in quotations marks. If it doesn't appear that way on your end, it's either a problem with your device or comprehension. I actually paid you a complement initially by saying your post was logical and made sense before you went off the rails. You're welcome. I never said that you implied that this drone technology was the end all replacement. I just made an effort to make your off-topic ramblings relevant to the conversation everyone else is having about Ukraine. You're welcome again. Since I'm explaining what the word "quote" means, allow me to direct your attention to the fact that you used quotation marks to quote me as saying "we can't afford and therefore". Nowhere in my previous posts have I used those words, and that makes you a blatant hypocrite for lying when you said, and I quote, "You’re deliberately misquoting..." What I have said is that we should not be spending the money. That's different than not being able to afford something, and leads me to believe you don't understand basic economics. Now, to steer the conversation back onto course: There are countless vids of these relatively cheap FPV/drones being used by both sides and having a tremendous effect on a conventional battlefield, not just COIN. It stands to reason that if we truly wanted to multiply that effect, we would be absolutely flooding the battlefield with this technology. We could do so today, but we are not, because our DIB cannot yet capitalize on it. What we are doing, is funding a complex development program called "Replicator Initiative" for another $Billion dollars that will not be fielded for at least 18-24 months. That's just for the initial iteration, after that the intent is to ramp up spending after FY26. Once we have that system, do you really think we would just hand it to the Ukrainians? Not going to happen. "The department ultimately wants a total of $1 billion to fully fund the program, officials have stated." - That's what a quote looks like.

False claim. I haven't misrepresented anything. Take a moment and look at the top of the page. It reads "Russian Ukraine shenanigans". This discussion is about the Ukraine conflict, which I do have an opinion. The video you responded to is titled "Darwin’s War | Inside the secret bunker of Ukraine’s ace FPV drone pilot." Therefore, the thread, the discussion, and the video pertain to the conflict in Ukraine. Confused yet? You assert that this is an effective low-cost solution to killing the bad guys. I assert that in the context of the thread, the discussion, and the video, an effective low-cost solution isn't what we are seeking as evidenced by the things we are purchasing for the Ukrainians. I'm not screaming, I'm merely typing my perspective and informing you of the flaws in yours. Who is making the deliberate misrepresentations? That would be you. Enjoy.

It's unlikely that I can type this in a way that is elementary enough for you to understand, but I'm going to try anyway. 1. The "Replicator Initiative" that you brought up is an "initiative", or program in development for future use. The word "future" means not today. 2. The drone capabilities you mentioned exist at this moment. They are being used in this moment. 3. The $Billions of our money that has been committed for the Ukraine Appropriations bills are not for the "Replicator Initiative". 4. The $Billions of our money that has been committed ARE for the more expensive conventional war-fighting that you were bitching about. 5. Nearly 80% of the Ukraine Appropriations are going not to Ukraine so they can acquire their own war-fighting capabilities, but directly to the manufacturers of the $100 anti-tank missiles you were bitching about. 6. It is logical to assume there is little interest in your combat-effective and cost effective solution that currently exists. Again, these are some highly advanced concepts, but if you need me to break it down even further for you, I don't mind trying.

An "initiative" implies an intent to field a capability at some point in the future that is currently in an earlier stage of development. It's a little late, but it would be nice. Where is it budgeted? Who cares, right? The conversation we're having now is about a capability that currently exists and is being employed. The vast majority of the nearing $200 Billion we have committed to spending now and into the future, that is not part of the "Replicator Initiative", for this specific conflict in Ukraine, are for the other more expensive capabilities that you were complaining about in your earlier post.

Your post is logical and makes complete and perfect sense ...if we lived in a magical fairy tale world where the major aspects of modern conflict are to 1. Win and 2. Not transfer countless billions out of our pockets and into those that manufacture 100K dollar anti tank missiles. The economical and practical solutions are so obvious that even you have spotted one. So why are we not using your idea?

False. I didn't ignore the examples. I explicitly acknowledged them in an earlier post when I said history is full of examples of the tide of war changing, but there are also examples of more-recent conflicts progressing in one direction. Asymmetry is not an accurate predictor of outcome one way or another. In all of the examples cited, geography would seem to have more correlation. Of course we have an incredible military. But they aren't a factor in this. We could end the war in a week, but we're choosing not to. The USA is not committed to a decisive victory. Yes, our military is superior. But the USA is not the military. Our "feckless" political class is conducting this war effort, not our military. Money, technology, and advice only gets you so far. What is your definition of success? You've established that a net gain in territory controlled is not a measure of success, but no one can say what it is. A military victory requires military manpower. Ukraine cannot do it themselves. A Ukrainian victory requires foreign boots on the ground. I'll ask again in the deafening silence: Do you want to send your kids there? "Should we?" and "Can we?" are two meaningless bullshit questions. The real question is "Are we?". We are not.

Two patriots, a series of "tactical retreats", and a strategy of "mobile defense" are the keys to victory. Who knew?

No, I ask a fair questions and Lawman can’t answer them, nor do I really expect him to be able to. It’s all questionable. But I tend to place more weight on things that are happening and trending over things we are hopeful to happen down the road. If we’re witnessing Fabian strategies by both sides, and the line moves, it would indicate there is more support capability behind the line. Russia can simply throw more bodies and equipment into the fight. What is their production capability when backstopped by China and NK? I’d like to see a time/cost comparison for an equivalent NATO equipment to arrive on the front lines. Not sure how touting America losses gives credence to our effort in this one. Ukr can’t fight this on their own. Give them our war-fighting package and they still can’t do it. To win, they need US boots on the ground. Do you want to send your kids?

And Ukraine has? You avoided the question again. What is the other factor that turns the tide in the war? So losing ground isn't losing ground, it's "mobile defense". lol. I'm not the one making the claim. You tell me the strategic effect. Yeah, Russia does enjoy a 10 tp 1. That's exactly my point. We are dicking away. You're admitting Russia has an advantage while simultaneously arguing that it's our fault that Ukr can't make progress. Yes. You. Are. Correct. Singling out Greene as the reason Ukr is losing ground is a bit of a stretch. Your left is showing again. Do you not think it possible for an invasion to last 20+ years? Where have you been lately? lol Do you want to pay $100 Billion a year for the next 20 years to fund someone else's war?

There are countless videos of the Ukrainian military fist-fighting and kidnapping citizens from its streets to be sent to the front lines. Ukraine has to continuously beg for outside help. Even when they get it, they can't make progress. How exactly does your Will x Means equation predict a Ukr victory? You presented the equation, shouldn't you at least attempt to estimate the variables? Remember, "Hope" is not one of the factors. You're actually arguing that a continuous enemy advancement has no bearing on the outcome of war because strategic depth is being traded for "some other factor." What exactly is this mysterious "other factor" that you have faith in, but can't identify? More money? US troops on the ground? I'm open to the possibility, but it has to be identifiable and realistic. History is full of examples of the tide of war changing, but there are also countless examples of more-recent conflicts progressing in one direction. What is the Ukrainian path to victory?

Who's bent out of shape? There's a whole spectrum of concern between being apathetic and being bent out of shape. I believe acknowledging a problem exists is the lowest level of concern one should have. I'd rather debate a room full of Marxists than one apathetic individual. "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." - Albert Einstein.

Agreed. I find it extremely odd. One would think over $200 Billion in aid from NATO for the war effort wouldn't result in a shortage of one of the most basic, fundamental requirements for defending against a ground invasion. Does the ammunition simply not exist or is it being withheld? Hyperbole. No one is saying it is the end of the world. If the objective is to secure Ukrainian land, our massive investment is yielding negative returns. Russia is consistently making positive gains, be it measured in inches or km. You don't bet on a losing team and you don't invest in a failing company. "Ukraine isn't hemorrhaging as fast as it would without our help" isn't a viable long term strategy. NY Times: Ukraine just needs training in how to fight a war. We're carefully considering giving it to them.

We're spending tens of billions, Russia keeps advancing. Both Russian and Ukrainian sources report Russia continues to gain ground, but the reports differ as to how much. Looks like around 100 square km the last few days based on this report from yesterday: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-15-2024 On the same day, our Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken performed "Keep on Rocking in the Free World" at a bar in Kiev. Ukrainian elections have been suspended. It's all a lie. https://x.com/TIME/status/1790770441545556010

US national security advisor Jake Sullivan says there won't be a Ukrainian counteroffensive until 2025. The current funding bill was to stop Russia from making additional gains, but he still expects Russian advances in the coming period. huh?? "Any new offensive in 2025 by Ukraine would be dependent on more funding from Congress, and approval by the White House. " What a joke. https://www.ft.com/content/6fd11006-01db-4548-96d6-76343f38aea8

The number of Bird Flu news articles have exploded the last few days. https://news.google.com/search?q=H5n1 when%3A1d&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen COVID created a lot of debate and consternation. No matter how you feel about it, it moved or created, at a minimum, $4.5 Trillion dollars in the US economy. Mostly upward. It happened during an election year, and it affected how people voted. Chaos yields opportunity. There have been virtually no real consequences for anyone who happened to be in a position of authority or benefit, for bad decisions or actions pertaining to COVID. It simply worked. Why would anyone not repeat a successful play?

"If I'm lucky, someone will have banged my wife when I get home"