Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Guest nsplayr]

16 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

We’re no longer definitively better, we’re moderately better if you’re going by capability. Thinking otherwise is some serious complacency or ignoring intel/open source. Our spending, while large, gets us less due to the waste in bureaucracy.

And Russia/China famously have no corruption, waste or bureaucracy 😅

As much as it sucks to see some Lockheed bean counter nonner get a fat paycheck knowing that the product could be better, capitalism still produces waaay less waste than bribing every party official from the manufacturing shop foreman up to the General Secretary.

Remember it's all relative, like some of y'all's marriages down there in lower Alabama.

Are we more or less corrupt/bureaucratic/wasteful than our likely opponents? Can we generate reliable combat power more often or less often than them? Can we bring coordinated fires and effects to bear in more or less key places than them? Can we communicate better up and down the chain or worse? Etc. etc. As always during my entire lifespan, I'm putting us ahead in almost every category.

No sane person would look at the world's balance of power, be it economic, military, cultural, technological, etc. and choose to be anyone other than the United States. "America! America. God shed his grace on thee."

Edited January 10, 2023 by nsplayr

[SurelySerious]

And Russia/China famously have no corruption, waste or bureaucracy 
As much as it sucks to see some Lockheed bean counter nonner get a fat paycheck knowing that the product could be better, capitalism still produces waaay less waste than bribing every party official from the manufacturing shop foreman up to the General Secretary.
Remember it's all relative, like some of y'all's marriages down there in lower Alabama.
Are we more or less corrupt/bureaucratic/wasteful than our likely opponents? Can we generate reliable combat power more often or less often than them? Can we bring coordinated fires and effects to bear in more or less key places than them? Can we communicate better up and down the chain or worse? Etc. etc. As always during my entire lifespan, I'm putting us ahead in almost every category.
No sane person would look at the world's balance of power, be it economic, military, cultural, technological, etc. and choose to be anyone other than the United States. "America! America. God shed his grace on thee."

They may not choose to be somewhere else, but our system is causing us to get less for more spending. Our ability to develop and field capabilities severely hampered, and our military capability is no longer as dominantly ahead of others no matter how much cheer leading you want to do. Probably want to Read some more intel.

[Guest nsplayr]

While I support the neat psychological trick of The Missile Gap in order to motivate our industry/leaders/people to stay sharp, I just don't actually believe in it myself.

There are indeed some areas where we are not dominant, or not as dominant as we used to be, or not or even ahead at all right now. I do work in a SCIF every day and have the benefit of a great cadre of intel professionals as colleagues as well as my own ability to read.

But when taken as a whole, again, there is absolutely zero chance a rational person would rather be Russia/China/etc. than the USA if this were all just a big game of Risk.

For all the doomsaying and whining/bitching/complaining that happens around here on every imaginable subject, I like to highlight the positive once in a while...so sue me.

America is great, the future is bright, hug your wife & your kids, bang your mistresses, and drink every last drop of good whiskey 🇺🇸

Edited January 10, 2023 by nsplayr

[dream big]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

And what effect, exactly, would cutting funding to Ukraine have on that clock? How ‘bout cutting half the current DOD budget? Or all of it? The vast majority of our debt problem stems from Social Security & Medicare, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon. Cutting aid to Ukraine in the name of stemming debt is laughable. 

Dude, no one is advocating eliminating aid to Ukraine. What we are asking for is to not give them a blank check, maybe an audit/accountability like any other major expenditure. Let’s not forget the corruption problems in Ukraine throughout recent history.  Also let’s not forget NATO…Britain and Germany have made several contributions but many nations are just strap hanging. 

[Prozac]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

You can call it BS…but we didn’t end up here by accident.  It all adds up.  And I’m for tackling all of it—everything should be heavily scrutinized.  Take a look at this from 2013…this way of thinking is why nothing will get dealt with until it’s way too late.  And the GOP is just as at fault.

"The cupboard is bare. There's no more cuts to make. It's really important that people understand that," Pelosi said in an interview on CNN. "We cannot have cuts just for the sake of cuts."

https://reason.com/2014/05/25/nothing-left-to-cut/

Here’s the overarching point you keep missing: the people in power who claim to care about the national debt….don’t.  It’s simply a talking point that they know their base likes to hear, so they repeat it over and over, knowing full well that they will do nothing meaningful to address the issue. So when they argue that debt is a reason to withhold aid to Ukraine, I’m sorry but they’re absolutely full of shit. 

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

Here’s the overarching point you keep missing: the people in power who claim to care about the national debt….don’t.  It’s simply a talking point that they know their base likes to hear, so they repeat it over and over, knowing full well that they will do nothing meaningful to address the issue. So when they argue that debt is a reason to withhold aid to Ukraine, I’m sorry but they’re absolutely full of shit. 

If they’re only arguing about Ukraine spending, then you’re right, they’re full of shit.  If they’re arguing that spending is a problem across the board then they’re not full of shit, and Ukraine spending is only adding to the problem.

As for politicians not caring about future problems due to what they’re doing today—call me shocked.  Funny, people worry more about “climate change” than an increasing massive debt…I’m sure one will cause us more problems in the next 10-20 years than the other.

 

[Prozac]

8 hours ago, dream big said:

Dude, no one is advocating eliminating aid to Ukraine. What we are asking for is to not give them a blank check, maybe an audit/accountability like any other major expenditure. Let’s not forget the corruption problems in Ukraine throughout recent history.  Also let’s not forget NATO…Britain and Germany have made several contributions but many nations are just strap hanging. 

Sorry. Didn’t realize we were just cutting blank checks. DOS seems to have some idea where things are going: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

Lets be honest for a minute..... we aren't talking about the US ever getting invaded. This is 100% about us being able to flex power on different continents. For the foreseeable future, at least several generations, the US is a fortress due to perfect oceanic terrain. 

Was already mentioned this above but by sheer force projection, spending, capability we do. If you are measuring raw manpower fine but its not a good measure. Also are you really worried about China invading the US? We are skeptical China can even invade Taiwan right now.... What is your concern here?

My concern is to not follow other great powers who could never be invaded or who had unprecedented military power. I don't want us to follow the road of the English Empire. 

[DSG]

On 1/8/2023 at 1:12 AM, JimNtexas said:

Someone please explain to me how it could possibly be in the best interest of the United States to not give Ukraine really significant military assistance.

They are killing Russians and blowing up their stuff.  Russia is one of our two near-peer adversaries.  The one that is run by a crazy man.

What’s the point of being in NATO if just fold our arms and say ‘not our problem, we need the money for dish washer rebates and drag queen shows’.    Yes, I know that Ukraine isn’t a member, but all their neighbors are.  What will we do if we see Putin dancing down main  street Kyiv while the FSB is going door to door kidnapping kids and sending Mom and Dad to Siberia?

 

And why are Republicans suddenly whining about defense spending?   Are we now in bizzaro world?

The military (and even more so, the foreign policy establishment as a whole) has been captured by their social and political adversaries.  It thus it no longer enjoys the unqualified, credulous support from Republicans it once did.  It's not terribly mysterious.

 

[DSG]

On 1/9/2023 at 8:57 PM, Prozac said:

And what effect, exactly, would cutting funding to Ukraine have on that clock? How ‘bout cutting half the current DOD budget? Or all of it? The vast majority of our debt problem stems from Social Security & Medicare, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon. Cutting aid to Ukraine in the name of stemming debt is laughable. 

The principal material problem in supporting Ukraine without bound relates to the depletion of material and munitions stocks that the defense industrial base lacks the capacity to readily replace.  This presents opportunity costs, particularly re the Taiwan situation.  Moreover, the perpetuation of the conflict prolongs global economic disruption that has knock-on effects at home.  Why so much of the right still defaults to talking about the debt, is a bit beyond me -- it's counterproductive.  

[Prozac]

37 minutes ago, DSG said:

The principal material problem in supporting Ukraine without bound relates to the depletion of material and munitions stocks that the defense industrial base lacks the capacity to readily replace.  This presents opportunity costs, particularly re the Taiwan situation.  Moreover, the perpetuation of the conflict prolongs global economic disruption that has knock-on effects at home.  Why so much of the right still defaults to talking about the debt, is a bit beyond me -- it's counterproductive.  

Good points all. If there’s a debate about supporting Ukraine, this is it. On the question of whether the fallout of a long war in Europe’s breadbasket are worth it, I think most Americans will say yes. We’re willing to live with some relatively minor inconveniences in order to support the Ukrainian people & bleed our adversary. Of course, people in places like sub Saharan Africa are suffering much more. Is it worth it to them? Should their suffering factor into our decisions? Is there a racial aspect to supporting Ukrainians while ignoring suffering in Africa? All questions we should be contemplating. Regarding depleting our own munitions stocks; I simply don’t have the information to have an informed opinion on the topic, & neither do the vast majority of Americans. Be nice to see some of our more so-called ‘serious’ media outlets covering this angle. Bottom line: there ARE some thorny issues to confront when deciding whether or not to support the Ukrainians. National debt? Not one of them. 

[HeloDude]

33 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Bottom line: there ARE some thorny issues to confront when deciding whether or not to support the Ukrainians. National debt? Not one of them. 

Should there ever be any limitations/concerns on federal spending, wrt to the national debt, to help a country in need?

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Should there ever be any limitations/concerns on federal spending, wrt to the national debt, to help a country in need?

See our previous discussion. I do not believe either party is remotely serious about tackling national debt. Conservatives like to rattle that cage, but watch what they do, not what they say. So, no, I do not believe national debt should play any meaningful role in this debate. 

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, Prozac said:

See our previous discussion. I do not believe either party is remotely serious about tackling national debt. Conservatives like to rattle that cage, but watch what they do, not what they say. So, no, I do not believe national debt should play any meaningful role in this debate. 

So why aren’t we spending hundreds of billions (or even trillions) more to help countries in need?  If the national debt is irrelevant when it comes to spending to help out countries, shouldn’t we be doing quite a bit more?

[Lord Ratner]

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

So why aren’t we spending hundreds of billions (or even trillions) more to help countries in need?  If the national debt is irrelevant when it comes to spending to help out countries, shouldn’t we be doing quite a bit more?

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.

Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. 

The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.

 

The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.

Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. 

The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.

 

The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

Edited January 11, 2023 by FLEA

[HeloDude]

24 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.

Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. 

The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.

 

The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize.  Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded.  So why not do much more across the globe?

As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly?  I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country.  And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it.  
 

[gearhog]

14 minutes ago, FLEA said:

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

 

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize.  Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded.  So why not do much more across the globe?

As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly?  I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country.  And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it. 

I believe humanitarian/moral concerns aren't a part of the calculus with regard to these types of foreign policy, economic, and conflict decisions. They're the justification, the fuel, and the propaganda used to emotionally manipulate the population, but they're not the reason we (our leadership) spend or fight. Superpower status is. None of us here are indifferent to human suffering, I'm sure, but that's not why we're supporting them. Not to help Ukraine, but weaken Russia.

Everyone knows unlimited debt spending ends tragically, and we're too far down the road to turn back. The United States and partner nations are attempting to prepare a landscape that when the devastation occurs, we just won't be devastated as badly as the rest of the world. We're the reserve currency, the dollar kicking ass, our military is unmatched. We can't maintain that forever, but once we fail, we hope to fail last, and be the best of what's left.

 

 

[Vetter]

Why am I paying taxes if .gov can just print money?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

I mean, if we're going to play shocked, pearl-clutching humanitarian, this conversation will be even less fruitful.

We judge the worth of a cause every day from the homeless panhandlers you drive by to the countries we send missiles to. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

The Nigerians aren't offering us the opportunity to decimate the military capacity and reputation of a geopolitical adversary.  

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize.  Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded.  So why not do much more across the globe?

As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly?  I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country.  And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it.  
 

Part A: That's MMT, which I certainly don't make arguments for. The spending increases matter, but they matter as part of an overall economic problem. They do not matter in regards to Ukraine, because the funding for Ukraine does not represent specific type of spending that, if halted, would solve our budgetary problems. 

A weak analogy: If you have hypertension because you only eat bacon and chocolate burritos three times a day, you have a heart condition that could kill you when you exert yourself. But when the neighbor's smoking-hot ex-wife is putting the last of her things into the U-Haul, and she offers you VIP tickets to the suck parade for helping her get the tailgate closed, one might argue that your heart-condition is going to be materially worsened by by accepting her offer of oral nirvana. But it wasn't MILF blowjobs that put your heart at risk, and this opportunity is about to drive away forever. So you do the math and take the risk, because at the end of the day it's your addiction to deep-fried butter that put your heart in danger. 

 

Part B: There is no "healthy for the country" solution; we are well past that. The disease is now a cancer, and the treatments are all going to be a whole lot more painful than life would have been if we had just put sunscreen (balanced budgets) on in the first place. But there are treatments, and they will still work in the future, though they will be more painful the longer we wait. A lot is going to depend on the attempted bifurcation of the world currency system by China and Russia. They might be able to accelerate the collapse of fiat to the point we see some solutions in the next decade as opposed to the second half of the century. 

With the worldwide decline in birthrates and the suicidal refusal to produce cheap energy, the grow-our-way-out-of-it solution that the entirety of the planet has been relying on seems completely unrealistic. So that leaves the really shitty solutions. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Why am I paying taxes if .gov can just print money?

gotta buy the printers

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

Let me know when a major global competitor starts getting their ass handed to them by Nigeria. 

We're not funding Ukraine because we love Ukraine. We're funding Ukraine because it is a unique opportunity to significantly degrade a major global competitor. 

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I mean, if we're going to play shocked, pearl-clutching humanitarian, this conversation will be even less fruitful.

We judge the worth of a cause every day from the homeless panhandlers you drive by to the countries we send missiles to. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

The Nigerians aren't offering us the opportunity to decimate the military capacity and reputation of a geopolitical adversary.  

Part A: That's MMT, which I certainly don't make arguments for. The spending increases matter, but they matter as part of an overall economic problem. They do not matter in regards to Ukraine, because the funding for Ukraine does not represent specific type of spending that, if halted, would solve our budgetary problems. 

A weak analogy: If you have hypertension because you only eat bacon and chocolate burritos three times a day, you have a heart condition that could kill you when you exert yourself. But when the neighbor's smoking-hot ex-wife is putting the last of her things into the U-Haul, and she offers you VIP tickets to the suck parade for helping her get the tailgate closed, one might argue that your heart-condition is going to be materially worsened by by accepting her offer of oral nirvana. But it wasn't MILF blowjobs that put your heart at risk, and this opportunity is about to drive away forever. So you do the math and take the risk, because at the end of the day it's your addiction to deep-fried butter that put your heart in danger. 

 

Part B: There is no "healthy for the country" solution; we are well past that. The disease is now a cancer, and the treatments are all going to be a whole lot more painful than life would have been if we had just put sunscreen (balanced budgets) on in the first place. But there are treatments, and they will still work in the future, though they will be more painful the longer we wait. A lot is going to depend on the attempted bifurcation of the world currency system by China and Russia. They might be able to accelerate the collapse of fiat to the point we see some solutions in the next decade as opposed to the second half of the century. 

With the worldwide decline in birthrates and the suicidal refusal to produce cheap energy, the grow-our-way-out-of-it solution that the entirety of the planet has been relying on seems completely unrealistic. So that leaves the really shitty solutions. 

This is probably the best response to this whole debacle I've read, so thanks for articulating as well as you did. I appreciate your understanding that this is not a humanitarian mission and is simply a state interest to remove Russia from the strings of power. 

Dont 100% agree that it should be a state interest but this explanation makes thousands of times more sense than the normally emotionally based "but the Ukrainians were invaded....." 

[Stoker]

I think there's a legitimate Arsenal of Democracy case to me made on top of the realpolitik aspect. It just feels damned nice, for once in the past seventy years or so, to be on the side of a no shit more or less democratic and free people who are more than willing to put their own asses in the firing line on behalf of their country. We've spent trillions and tens of thousands of American lives in defense of people who couldn't find the will to fight for their country with two hands and a map. What a cruel joke it would be if we gave the Afghans our support for twenty years but couldn't be bothered to help Ukraine.

[FLEA]

3 minutes ago, Stoker said:

I think there's a legitimate Arsenal of Democracy case to me made on top of the realpolitik aspect. It just feels damned nice, for once in the past seventy years or so, to be on the side of a no shit more or less democratic and free people who are more than willing to put their own asses in the firing line on behalf of their country. We've spent trillions and tens of thousands of American lives in defense of people who couldn't find the will to fight for their country with two hands and a map. What a cruel joke it would be if we gave the Afghans our support for twenty years but couldn't be bothered to help Ukraine.

I think a lot of people on this forum are going to have had diverse experiences with how close their interactions were with Afghan counterparts and their impression of those reactions. I understand why people believe what they believe but its not my experience there and I see a lot of apple and oranges comparisons. One thing Afghanistan missed sorely was a leader like Zelensky. Rather they got a corrupt president who fled before any fighting even got close to him and took a butt load of cash with him. That's a pretty damning action in war and one that almost guarantees the other side victory.