Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

That was probably the biggest shortcoming with Obama as far as foreign policy. Putin tested him, validated where and how quickly he would back off any demand, and the rest of the world knew it too.

He was essentially sitting at the poker table with his cards backwards and everybody else knew dead to rights what he had to play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was worse than that but the liberals will never admit just how F'd up their messiah was.

"I will transmit this to Vladimir"

 

[uhhello]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

The loss numbers for Russia are staggering.  In my humble opinion as a knuckle dragging ham-fisted pilot we need to do the following:

1.  Continue to enable Ukraine to punish Russia.

2.  Provide Putin an off ramp.

3.  Think about a post-conflict Ukraine and what happens to all these weapons we have provided.

 

 

Agreed.  There are a fuck ton of manpads floating around out there.....

[ClearedHot]

Ukraine was not exactly a corruption free bastion of sunshine and roses before this thing started, but they are certainly the lesser of two evils.  Much has been made of the fighting spirit of their people, this video provides a glimpse of life after the Russians leave and some reflections of the Russians from the occupation.  At the end of the day the people in this this video were just rural people trying to live their lives likely without any concern for the world politics that surrounded them. 

 

[Blue]

On 8/9/2022 at 1:13 PM, BashiChuni said:

How many more BILLIONS are we gonna send our Ukrainian heroes?

However many billions it takes to get the end result we want.  Which, I'm not sure what that end result looks like, but I'm sure the people in charge know what they're doing, right?

Also, don't worry, we've got the printing presses running overtime, so no worry about running out of cash.

 

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, waveshaper said:

Something to think about, both Russia and the Ukraine can take some serious casualties. The top three countries with the most casualties during WW2 = China, Russia, and Ukraine. Note - broken down by country not USSR, etc/keep in mind all these countries had a much smaller population during WW2.

List of casualties from top 8 countries during WW2:

Country	Tot. Deaths	Military Deaths	Civ. Deaths via Military	Civ. Deaths via Famine/Disease
China	20,000,000	3,750,000	8,191,000	10,000,000
Russia	13,950,000	6,750,000	4,100,000	3,100,000
Ukraine	6,850,000	1,650,000	3,700,000	1,500,000
Poland	6,000,000	240,000	5,820,000
Germany	5,700,000	4,456,000	2,135,000
Japan	3,100,000	2,300,000	800,000
India	3,087,000	87,000		3,000,000
Belarus	2,290,000	620,000	1,360,000	310,000

Complete list: World War II Casualties by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)

 

Russia's demographic makeup in 2022 is very different than their demographic makeup in 1942. I think it's going to take a very long time for them to recover from the loss of this many people in prime working age. 

[busdriver]

11 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

1.  Continue to enable Ukraine to punish Russia.

2.  Provide Putin an off ramp.

3.  Think about a post-conflict Ukraine and what happens to all these weapons we have provided.

Agree.

If the Russian military is sufficiently beat down, they will then lack the ability to start another invasion.  The more beat they are, the longer it will take to re-constitute.  Hopefully Putin will be dead by then and they can have another chance to join the rest of the world.

Preventing Putin from starting an invasion in a NATO country is the important part.  They would lose badly.  Which makes for a risky proposition given the nuke thing.

[arg]

On 8/9/2022 at 12:13 PM, BashiChuni said:

How many more BILLIONS are we gonna send our Ukrainian heroes?

I'd like to know how much is coming back here.

[ClearedHot]

In a recent "incident" in Russian occupied Crimea, 9 Russian combat aircraft (SU-24's and SU-30's), were  destroyed on the ground at an airbase.  Pravda claims it was a "Violation of Fire Safety Requirements."   Yeah a bunch of well placed explosives will violate your fire safety requirements.

Before

 

After

[busdriver]

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

If the Russian military is sufficiently beat down,

And now I'm quoting myself.  Just to add, I don't think Ukraine winning is a pre-requisite of what I think needs to happen.  A pyrrhic victory for Russia would work.  At least for the rest of the world.

[Guest nsplayr]

Damn it’s such a shame when you illegally park combat aircraft in another country and your “hosts” can’t even keep up with the fire code standards! I bet Vlad wants to speak to a manager about a refund.

[Majestik Møøse]

Giving $5B to Ukraine has been the most cost-effective use of military money in recent history. Our military uses $800B/yr to essentially LARP.

[Lawman]

Giving $5B to Ukraine has been the most cost-effective use of military money in recent history. Our military uses $800B/yr to essentially LARP.

Considering the last 8 years of assistance and training, this whole thing should go down as the most effective FID mission ever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

Can you imagine the outcry if we lost 24 F-15EXs in six months of combat operations.

Russia has lost two squadrons of the latest Su-35 in Ukraine General Staff

$450M worth of Russian airpower destroyed in one attack.

Crimea explosions: Forbes calculates cost of destroyed Russian aircraft

[BashiChuni]

On 8/10/2022 at 8:21 AM, busdriver said:

Something to consider: 

-Would Russia stop with Ukraine?  There are geographic reasons to suspect they would not. 

This same logic got us involved in the Korean, Vietnam, and War on Terror (Iraq specifically). 

“IF WE DONT STOP THE COMMIES IN KOREA/VIETNAM….”

it’s flawed logic. Time to stop “what if-ing” our foreign policy decisions. Play the hand you’re dealt. 
 

and yes Russia would stop at Ukraine. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by BashiChuni

[Biff_T]

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Can you imagine the outcry if we lost 24 F-15EXs in six months of combat operations.

Russia has lost two squadrons of the latest Su-35 in Ukraine General Staff

$450M worth of Russian airpower destroyed in one attack.

Crimea explosions: Forbes calculates cost of destroyed 

This is the type of war I wouldn’t want to fight.  Knowing that your luck/skill would eventually not be enough to survive is not good way to live. One day we'll be involved in a near peer war and it is going to suck for a lot of people.  

[ThreeHoler]

Giving $5B to Ukraine has been the most cost-effective use of military money in recent history. Our military uses $800B/yr to essentially LARP.

“Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!”

[Guest nsplayr]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
 

and yes Russia would stop at Ukraine. 

“Just like they stopped with South Ossetia / Georgia and Crimea, amirite? After having secured that territory surely Putin wouldn’t attack other parts of Ukraine, especially not Kiev!”

-Bashi, a very smart man, circa anytime between summer 2008 and February 2022

Man, this has to be one of the clearest “who is bad & the aggressor vs who is good and defending their homeland” situations in my lifetime. If for some reason this war’s waters are muddled at all, you are in a much different place than I am.

Fuck Putin, fuck a new Russian Empire, slava Ukraini, and welcome to NATO Sweden and Finland.

Mil aid to Ukraine has been the most efficient DoD money spent in forever in terms of units of “US security objectives achieved” per dollar.

Ukraine, when you need a reload on HIMARS rounds, holla, we gotcha.

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

This same logic got us involved in the Korean, Vietnam, and War on Terror (Iraq specifically). 

“IF WE DONT STOP THE COMMIES IN KOREA/VIETNAM….”

This isn't domino theory, or some half baked idea about the spread of an ideology.  It is partly a realist (ie. Mearsheimer) perspective on great power competition.  Basically, states will seek to ensure their security, through border control and eventually regional hegemony.  Russia doesn't have naturally defendable borders (deserts, mountains, oceans).  So expansion to control terrain that allows a defendable border is needed.  And it has already done this recently (South Ossetia & Crimea).

That perspective is weird to Americans.  Our country has zero natural threats, an ocean on two of our four borders, and complete hegemony.  Hence Ron Paul's theory that all we need as a military is some boats/subs on each coast.

 

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Time to stop “what if-ing” our foreign policy decisions. Play the hand you’re dealt. 

This part is not without merit, but if we're going to step back with a mindset of "we suck at predicting what will happen" then we have to accept that there are trade offs and just because historical second/third order effects stunk, doesn't mean that there weren't worse potential outcomes.  Both war/death outcomes and economic outcomes.

[BashiChuni]

30 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

“Just like they stopped with South Ossetia / Georgia and Crimea, amirite? After having secured that territory surely Putin wouldn’t attack other parts of Ukraine, especially not Kiev!”

-Bashi, a very smart man, circa anytime between summer 2008 and February 2022

Man, this has to be one of the clearest “who is bad & the aggressor vs who is good and defending their homeland” situations in my lifetime. If for some reason this war’s waters are muddled at all, you are in a much different place than I am.

Fuck Putin, fuck a new Russian Empire, slava Ukraini, and welcome to NATO Sweden and Finland.

Mil aid to Ukraine has been the most efficient DoD money spent in forever in terms of units of “US security objectives achieved” per dollar.

Ukraine, when you need a reload on HIMARS rounds, holla, we gotcha.

With all due respect who gives a fuck about any of those territories? I don’t. You didn’t January 2022. 

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

With all due respect who gives a fuck about any of those territories? I don’t. You didn’t January 2022. 

You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s not about the territory. It’s ALL about the idea that there are rules in the modern world and one of those rules is respecting sovereignty. If we throw that out the window, we go back to the biggest, baddest dude on the block takes whatever he wants. If we go back to that, things like global trade and financial systems collapse. That would be devastating for countries like S. Korea, Japan, and Italy and would literally plunge much of the world into poverty and despair. But even if you say “fuck’em, why should I care?” you’d be in for some rude surprises. Think energy prices are high now? That’s cute. Imagine what happens when somebody closes the Straights of Hormuz just because they can. Or: How do you feel about paying $300 for a pair of sneakers once production collapses in S.E. Asia? Or: What happens to your 401K when the European and Asian markets collapse (hint: your money is not insulated from those markets)?
 

So, sure, you could say most Americans couldn’t find Crimea on a map and couldn’t care less about the plight of everyday Ukrainians until six months ago, and, callous and cynical as it is, you’d be mostly right. But it absolutely, positively IS in every American’s best interest to maintain and defend the global order that allows us (and much of the world) to enjoy the highest standard of living we’ve ever known along with the most peaceful era probably in history. 

[Guest nsplayr]

^^ 💯 to all that.

For everyone who’s an anti-globalist, my argument is always that we Americans especially and the world overall are immensely, measurably better off in almost every way in the modern era compared to any historical period. When/where would you rather live compared to post-WWII America?

Paraphrasing a Churchill quote, our global economic and rules-based governance system is the worst one…except all the alternatives we’ve tried!

Edited August 12, 2022 by nsplayr

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s not about the territory. It’s ALL about the idea that there are rules in the modern world and one of those rules is respecting sovereignty. If we throw that out the window, we go back to the biggest, baddest dude on the block takes whatever he wants. If we go back to that, things like global trade and financial systems collapse. That would be devastating for countries like S. Korea, Japan, and Italy and would literally plunge much of the world into poverty and despair. But even if you say “fuck’em, why should I care?” you’d be in for some rude surprises. Think energy prices are high now? That’s cute. Imagine what happens when somebody closes the Straights of Hormuz just because they can. Or: How do you feel about paying $300 for a pair of sneakers once production collapses in S.E. Asia? Or: What happens to your 401K when the European and Asian markets collapse (hint: your money is not insulated from those markets)?
 

So, sure, you could say most Americans couldn’t find Crimea on a map and couldn’t care less about the plight of everyday Ukrainians until six months ago, and, callous and cynical as it is, you’d be mostly right. But it absolutely, positively IS in every American’s best interest to maintain and defend the global order that allows us (and much of the world) to enjoy the highest standard of living we’ve ever known along with the most peaceful era probably in history. 

again with the "what if" games. we need to go back to TR diplomacy...speak softly and carry a big stick.

we have no interest in ukraine (other than biden and son's corrupt business dealings). ukraine is not a big player on the world stage and they aren't worth us defending them. maybe let the western european nations get spooked and let THEM pay for it.

[busdriver]

Everyone is going to pay for the war in Ukraine.  One way or another.  Goods are traded on an international market.

Ukraine exports global rankings: #5 wheat, #4 corn, #4 iron ore, #1 seed oils, 

Russia is the #1 exporter of fertilizers and wheat,

China is #2 fertilizer exporter and just reduced the max allowable export quota.

Shit is gonna get even more expensive.

[Clark Griswold]

You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s not about the territory. It’s ALL about the idea that there are rules in the modern world and one of those rules is respecting sovereignty. If we throw that out the window, we go back to the biggest, baddest dude on the block takes whatever he wants. If we go back to that, things like global trade and financial systems collapse. That would be devastating for countries like S. Korea, Japan, and Italy and would literally plunge much of the world into poverty and despair. But even if you say “’em, why should I care?” you’d be in for some rude surprises. Think energy prices are high now? That’s cute. Imagine what happens when somebody closes the Straights of Hormuz just because they can. Or: How do you feel about paying $300 for a pair of sneakers once production collapses in S.E. Asia? Or: What happens to your 401K when the European and Asian markets collapse (hint: your money is not insulated from those markets)?
 
So, sure, you could say most Americans couldn’t find Crimea on a map and couldn’t care less about the plight of everyday Ukrainians until six months ago, and, callous and cynical as it is, you’d be mostly right. But it absolutely, positively IS in every American’s best interest to maintain and defend the global order that allows us (and much of the world) to enjoy the highest standard of living we’ve ever known along with the most peaceful era probably in history. 

^^ to all that.
For everyone who’s an anti-globalist, my argument is always that we Americans especially and the world overall are immensely, measurably better off in almost every way in the modern era compared to any historical period. When/where would you rather live compared to post-WWII America?
Paraphrasing a Churchill quote, our global economic and rules-based governance system is the worst one…except all the alternatives we’ve tried!

The backlash against globalism / internationalism / multi-lateralism and all the other entangling alliances, obligations and other costs with a large part of the American people (and other Western nations) is that it has been done at the cost of the working / middle classes of those countries
All the “great ideas” from the unholy cabal of coastal elites, globalists, the permanent administrative state, corporatists - pointless wars in shitholes, unfair free trade, lax immigration enforcement or de facto open borders, cowing to China to save their investment in that country or to retain access to it, etc… all the negative ramifications of those policies and others are suffered by them but the limited benefits are all funneled to that unholy cabal, all while being told that they deserve it and to stop complaining, that’s why they hate it, hate the rich talking heads that promote it, the purple haired gender studies that extoll it while living in a sheltered subsidized academic bubble…
I can old man rant longer but you get the gist, the neo liberal world that the TED Talk crowd tell us is just around the corner if only open up a bit more is in reality if we screw over everyone except us in our own countries a lot more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

This same logic got us involved in the Korean, Vietnam, and War on Terror (Iraq specifically). 

“IF WE DONT STOP THE COMMIES IN KOREA/VIETNAM….”

it’s flawed logic. Time to stop “what if-ing” our foreign policy decisions. Play the hand you’re dealt. 
 

and yes Russia would stop at Ukraine. 

What on earth makes you think Russia would stop at Ukraine? 

And do you really think other adversaries aren't watching our response and gauging what they can get away with?