Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Guest nsplayr]

19 hours ago, Lawman said:

Reddit is a cesspool of all the things wrong with giving anyone access to everyone and granting that person complete anonymity at the same time.

Going there is like the social media equivalent walking into a gas station bathroom on some random middle of nowhere off-ramp in Mississippi. Even if it might look ok (and that’s a big if)… deep down you should probably take a shower afterward just to be safe.

Off topic, but parts of Reddit are amazing resources and communities. It all just varies wildly by r/ because they're all moderated differently and attract different people. Some are massive dumpster fires with the worst of humanity on the prowl, others are awesome niche communities where people share tons of helpful info that's hard to find elsewhere. I've had a great time in some EV, solar, DIY and hobby subreddits. Staying away from anything remotely political is probably good advice.

Truly, more than probably anywhere else, YMMV.

Edited February 28, 2023 by nsplayr

[TreeA10]

Good Ukraine pro/con debate on the Dan Crenshaw podcast.  It was a formal structured debate with each side able to present their argument. The con side was presented by a William Ruger.

[BashiChuni]

"WHAT! WE CANT HAVE DEBATE YOU ARE PRO-PUTIN!" - NSPLAYER/LAWMAN

[Lawman]

"WHAT! WE CANT HAVE DEBATE YOU ARE PRO-PUTIN!" - NSPLAYER/LAWMAN

You aren’t pro Putin, you’re just ignorant.

Quick go find us some more memes from Reddit to tell us how important it is we stop supporting Ukraine in any meaningful fashion or how this isn’t NATO’s concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

i can assure you i am not ignorant when it comes to this topic

but nice personal attack

trying to not escalate a regional conflict into WW3 is smart

[Lawman]

i can assure you i am not ignorant when it comes to this topic
but nice personal attack
trying to not escalate a regional conflict into WW3 is smart

You’ve been handed the material to educate yourself as best can be done in an unclass forum. And you’ve deliberately chosen to ignore that.

That by definition makes you ignorant if your sole screaming reason for wanting us to stop doing what we are doing is “Ukraine isn’t NATO” or whatever other talking point you’ve been handed. And you can’t be told the reality is something different.

Again, in about 6 minutes you could educate yourself on the reason the current status quo of exchange of support for US/NATO interest far outweighs not doing anything now and just waiting for an actual shooting war with NATO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

my opinion differs from yours. that doesn't make it ignorant.

[Guest nsplayr]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"WHAT! WE CANT HAVE DEBATE YOU ARE PRO-PUTIN!" - NSPLAYER/LAWMAN

Can't is not correct, won't is accurate for me at least. You haven't engaged in the topic like someone open to debate or nuance, but more like someone whose mind is made up regardless of the evidence. You think this will cause WWIII and we should not intervene and let Russia I guess just takeover Ukraine and so sorry, too bad, you're not NATO, enjoy your stay Vlad!

I've made my views clear, and I guess so have you. Nothing more to discuss!

[Lawman]

my opinion differs from yours. that doesn't make it ignorant.

It does when you deliberately ignore or flat out dismiss people with way more knowledge and access to the circles discussing the nuance of what is really going on there (causes/current situation/selective end-states).

Again, unclass forum. That dudes about as succinct as you’re gonna get while still staying in the green.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest nsplayr]

7 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

Good Ukraine pro/con debate on the Dan Crenshaw podcast.  It was a formal structured debate with each side able to present their argument. The con side was presented by a William Ruger.

Do you have a TL;DR for the 58min podcast? I might listen on my drive, but if you already did, any take-aways are appreciated!

[dream big]

Whether we should support Ukraine or not (we should, just not with a blank check), is less of a question than how this will impact the 2024 election, and the impact that will have on support as the election is essentially around the corner.

Let’s face it, most Americans couldn’t care less about foreign policy and Ukraine, much like Afghanistan. The fact that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine in a time where our economy is suffering is something the Democratic nominee will have to defend, and a fact that the Republican nominee will exploit.

Most Americans don’t get a hard-on from “killing Russians!” Nikki Haley is already exploiting this by criticizing our excessive foreign aid as a whole. I didn’t know we gave foreign aid to Belarus, a country that is very pro Russian. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by dream big

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

It does when you deliberately ignore or flat out dismiss people with way more knowledge and access to the circles discussing the nuance of what is really going on there (causes/current situation/selective end-states).

Again, unclass forum. That dudes about as succinct as you’re gonna get while still staying in the green.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no it doesn't.

we've already seen what "trusting the experts" gets us.

 

[Lawman]

no it doesn't.
we've already seen what "trusting the experts" gets us.
 

Great bro, do you own research.

Hey somebody let the DIA know we don’t need them anymore. Nothing to learn that can’t be found out on dubious YouTube/Reddit posts of some guy shouting from the cab of a truck.

Remember “experts” are the ones that told you gasoline is toxic to humans… better question that now because Covid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Do you have a TL;DR for the 58min podcast? I might listen on my drive, but if you already did, any take-aways are appreciated!

It wasn’t terrible, but it was kinda terribly moderated (in that it really wasn’t dude just kinda kept time).

There was a definite disconnect between parties on what was to be the subject of discussion, Crenshaw went in there prepared to defend specific Ukrainian intervention and aid and more broadly foreign policy. The other side wanted to discuss wider foreign intervention and spent very little time discussing Ukraine (or Thailand) outside saying “well it sucks for them but we don’t have an interest there.”

Crenshaw did a good effort in explaining that we have serious economic interest not just a moral one towards maintaining security and that “the two big moats” as his opposite put it are not sufficient protection to simply withdraw from the policies we’ve had since the late 1800s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

Great bro, do you own research.

Hey somebody let the DIA know we don’t need them anymore. Nothing to learn that can’t be found out on dubious YouTube/Reddit posts of some guy shouting from the cab of a truck.

Remember “experts” are the ones that told you gasoline is toxic to humans… better question that now because Covid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

love the tough guy talk

so what's the end game? regime change in russia? that strategy sure paid off for the united states during the last two decades

you willing to take this into WW3?

[Stoker]

14 hours ago, dream big said:

The fact that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine in a time where our economy is suffering is something the Democratic nominee will have to defend, and a fact that the Republican nominee will exploit.

We've sent $75 billion of aid total, and that includes near-expired or obsolete equipment and ammunition donated at book value. The war is almost certainly a net positive for the US economy - Europe is buying gas from us instead of the Russians, the developing world is getting their grain from Iowa instead of Ukraine, and the entire world is buying American military hardware instead of post Soviet crap or indigenously developed "better than nothing" gear.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

love the tough guy talk

so what's the end game? regime change in russia? that strategy sure paid off for the united states during the last two decades

you willing to take this into WW3?

WW3?

We haven't even taken it to combat in Ukraine. 

Is your assertion that we should never oppose dictators like Putin because we don't want to start WW3?

[BashiChuni]

Just now, pawnman said:

WW3?

We haven't even taken it to combat in Ukraine. 

Is your assertion that we should never oppose dictators like Putin because we don't want to start WW3?

what's your endgame in ukraine?

[pawnman]

Just now, BashiChuni said:

what's your endgame in ukraine?

We keep feeding them weapons until Russia decides their losses are unsustainable. 

[Lord Ratner]

On 3/7/2023 at 1:04 PM, BashiChuni said:

you willing to take this into WW3?

I'll take this one.

Yes.

 

If the Earth is to descend into a multi-polar world again, in which war is inescapable, then I'll "take" WWIII. But exactly who will be fighting in this scenario you're hyperventilating over?

 

Russia? The country that has wiped out half of their military capacity fighting a third-tier democracy? The country that is drafting the bottom of the bottom of the barrel to fight their failed conquest of a vastly out-gunned neighbor? It's going to be a pretty dull WWIII when one of the three key players can barely invade their neighbor. 

 

China? The belligerent dictatorship that has been almost entirely funded by the West? They might try to take Taiwan, but WWIII? You think the country with the worst demographics on Earth is going to risk conventional war with the West in order to defend the Russian campaign against Ukraine?

 

Or do you just mean that Russia will launch nukes? That's not really WWIII, but if they do in response to losing a pathetic war THEY chose to fight, so be it. That genie was let free 80 years ago. Thinking we wouldn't eventually have to confront the reality of nuclear proliferation was just one of many fairy tales we've been telling ourselves for the past 30 years. Though it would be interesting to see China and India forced into eschewing Russian oil for fear of getting pulled into the inevitable shit-show that will follow a Russian nuclear attack. China already smacked Russia down when they started to rattle the nuke sabre. 

 

We spent decades appeasing the bullshit Russia and China have been pulling, all while funding their countries' growth. Now that they've reached a point where they must split with the West in order to pursue their imperial ambitions, you want to show your belly in the hopes they will be satisfied with your humiliation. They won't. We are in the way of their goals, and they have finally shown their cards.

 

That isolationist nonsense failed spectacularly the last time the world hit an inflection point, and it will fail again. Either way we will be at war if the other near-peer countries decide the risk is worth it. It'll take one hypersonic missile hitting the US to wake up the blind patriotic fury that has accompanied every attack against this country. Personally, I think Ukraine will end up forestalling that inevitable confrontation. But not for more than a decade or so.

 

WWIII indeed. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[BashiChuni]

foolish

[BashiChuni]

2 minutes ago, pawnman said:

We keep feeding them weapons until Russia decides their losses are unsustainable. 

what if russia wins?

[Lawman]

love the tough guy talk
so what's the end game? regime change in russia? that strategy sure paid off for the united states during the last two decades
you willing to take this into WW3?

Again… as obvious that it is you still haven’t watched the provided information that explains why this phase of the war is actually about preventing WWIII, we don’t have to kill Putin to achieve that.

Demonstrating to him (in indirectly China) that wars of conquest will not be accepted by a unified group of western powers is done by what we are currently doing and that we (the west) don’t dither internally to the point of giving into compliant isolationist views that benefit the belligerent party. Putin can always go home and keep his shamble empire. The difference now is he does it without the ability to project or seriously threaten any of his neighbors a large group of which are Article 5 NATO powers which in case of hostilities we would be compelled to act to protect. And likewise Xi now has to look at what happened economically and physically and recalculate if he really thinks his first military foray should be to execute an apposed amphibious operation against an Island armed with all our modern weapons.

Sitting around on our asses, sending thoughts and prayers instead of arms and supplies, and watching him take Ukraine will do nothing but embolden a military which has lost the majority of its conventional arms capability. When they come out for the next war (because this isn’t their first) they won’t hesitate to take the nuclear weapons out the second they miscalculate western resolve, engage in an offense into Poland/Latvia/Lithuania/etc, and suddenly find themselves facing a United NATO conventional force they have no ability to stop. That becomes a far more dangerous scenario than the current one where despite our aid to Ukraine, western leaders up to and including the US president can literally land in the middle western capital of a war zone and disrupt/delay the Russian targeting cycle for fear of widening the conflict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pooter]

56 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Again… as obvious that it is you still haven’t watched the provided information that explains why this phase of the war is actually about preventing WWIII, we don’t have to kill Putin to achieve that.

Demonstrating to him (in indirectly China) that wars of conquest will not be accepted by a unified group of western powers is done by what we are currently doing and that we (the west) don’t dither internally to the point of giving into compliant isolationist views that benefit the belligerent party. Putin can always go home and keep his shamble empire. The difference now is he does it without the ability to project or seriously threaten any of his neighbors a large group of which are Article 5 NATO powers which in case of hostilities we would be compelled to act to protect. And likewise Xi now has to look at what happened economically and physically and recalculate if he really thinks his first military foray should be to execute an apposed amphibious operation against an Island armed with all our modern weapons.

Sitting around on our asses, sending thoughts and prayers instead of arms and supplies, and watching him take Ukraine will do nothing but embolden a military which has lost the majority of its conventional arms capability. When they come out for the next war (because this isn’t their first) they won’t hesitate to take the nuclear weapons out the second they miscalculate western resolve, engage in an offense into Poland/Latvia/Lithuania/etc, and suddenly find themselves facing a United NATO conventional force they have no ability to stop. That becomes a far more dangerous scenario than the current one where despite our aid to Ukraine, western leaders up to and including the US president can literally land in the middle western capital of a war zone and disrupt/delay the Russian targeting cycle for fear of widening the conflict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good post.  
 

To steel man the other side for a second, I think the big concerns are that we'll get sucked in to another prolonged conflict without a clear goal or end state.. it's kinda what we do. And we're dumping money and weapons in when we have lots of problems that need fixing at home. Seems like we repeat the same interventionist cycle over and over.

Steel man over. 
 

Bottom line here is we are tanking Russias hegemony, Putin's admin, and decimating their military without risking a single US military member's life. To me that is an objectively good trade off, and the fact that it deters China is a great bonus. 
 

And if you think the weapons bill is steep now.. try giving Ukraine to Putin, appeasing him for the next few years and see what the bill is like when he tries his luck on a FSU nato country next. What is it they say about an ounce of prevention..

[BashiChuni]

you guys are focused on the wrong threat.

it was never russia.

it has always been china.

and now china is buying russian oil and gas at a discount