Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, frog said:

The U.S. has no authority and little ability to “end” this war without military engagement.

bull. fucking. shit.

we're paying the god damn salaries of the Ukrainian government FFS! don't tell me we have no leverage to end it.

[tac airlifter]

15 hours ago, pawnman said:

Do you think Ukraine should exist as a country? Because where I see a negotiation that gives up a bunch of Ukrainian territory is another invasion in a few years (like they already did to Crimea). Then another one a few years after that. Then Russia's in Kyiv and there's no Ukrainian government anymore.

In my mind, it's not just about Ukraine. It's about whether we want to set the precedent that bigger nations can just seize territory from smaller ones at will, because we don't think we should get involved in territorial disputes.

I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.
 

As a practical matter, I do not think we should continue supporting Ukraine financially at the scale we are because I believe it is a bad investment.  Germany is the richest country in Europe, why are we doing so much more than them despite them being closer to the threat?  The simple answer is they don't feel threatened by Putin which should cause us to reconsider our own conclusions.
 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is terrible. It has created massive human suffering and death.  They are brutal.  However, I am personally unconvinced it is more than a regional dispute, and I don't think it's good policy for us to get involved in every regional dispute. Also, there is value in being able to understand your adversaries position.  99% of people blathering about Russian misinformation every time grown-ups try have a serious discussion are simply retarded.  "The first casualty in war is truth" is an ancient concept.  I get it, there's bullshit on every side, words are weapons, etc.  But if you cannot hear a different perspective because you are convinced it is acidic enemy propaganda that will poison your resolve, you are an idiot and your opinion is unworthy of further consideration.  We have those people posting here, who claim a self-righteous halo for their willful blindness.  People who don't question their own assumptions while being sure other positions are wrong, who insist there's a morale obligation to act regardless of consequences because it's worth the risk even though we don't fully understand the risk, certainly we don't owe citizens a COA analysis but of course we're doing this for democracy, and if it doesn't appear to be working just shut up and keep doing it!

Eerily similar to what our country saw during Covid, BLM, climate "crisis" .... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not an indication we are being manipulated for political reasons. 

[pawnman]

36 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.
 

As a practical matter, I do not think we should continue supporting Ukraine financially at the scale we are because I believe it is a bad investment.  Germany is the richest country in Europe, why are we doing so much more than them despite them being closer to the threat?  The simple answer is they don't feel threatened by Putin which should cause us to reconsider our own conclusions.
 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is terrible. It has created massive human suffering and death.  They are brutal.  However, I am personally unconvinced it is more than a regional dispute, and I don't think it's good policy for us to get involved in every regional dispute. Also, there is value in being able to understand your adversaries position.  99% of people blathering about Russian misinformation every time grown-ups try have a serious discussion are simply retarded.  "The first casualty in war is truth" is an ancient concept.  I get it, there's bullshit on every side, words are weapons, etc.  But if you cannot hear a different perspective because you are convinced it is acidic enemy propaganda that will poison your resolve, you are an idiot and your opinion is unworthy of further consideration.  We have those people posting here, who claim a self-righteous halo for their willful blindness.  People who don't question their own assumptions while being sure other positions are wrong, who insist there's a morale obligation to act regardless of consequences because it's worth the risk even though we don't fully understand the risk, certainly we don't owe citizens a COA analysis but of course we're doing this for democracy, and if it doesn't appear to be working just shut up and keep doing it!

Eerily similar to what our country saw during Covid, BLM, climate "crisis" .... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not an indication we are being manipulated for political reasons. 

Pretty sure Germany isn't paying as much because, despite being the richest country in Europe, they're way behind the US. And then there's also the fact that seems overlooked in all these conversations...most of what we're giving them is weapons and ammo, something we have WAY more of than Germany.

Ironically, the reason most of NATO has so little to give is because NATO never expected to fight Russia, let alone invade them. Most of Europe was winding down military spending in favor of social spending, and getting into business with Russia...something Romney and Trump saw, and got ridiculed for at the time.

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.

Uh, what? 

 

You think Cuba resisted us successfully without the financial and military support of the USSR? Or is relying on a superpower benefactor to resist another vastly powerful invader only ok for some countries?

 

Our entire system of modern geopolitics is predicated on the idea that we do not simply allow for the strong taking the weak. Your life has been incredible because of this, and a whole lot of people like us got to serve in the military with a remarkably low chance of dying because the world stopped the practice of empire building through force. Sovereignty matters.

 

"It's fine because the Aztec are gone too" is a hot take.

[tac airlifter]

50 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Uh, what? 

 

You think Cuba resisted us successfully without the financial and military support of the USSR? Or is relying on a superpower benefactor to resist another vastly powerful invader only ok for some countries?

 

Our entire system of modern geopolitics is predicated on the idea that we do not simply allow for the strong taking the weak. Your life has been incredible because of this, and a whole lot of people like us got to serve in the military with a remarkably low chance of dying because the world stopped the practice of empire building through force. Sovereignty matters.

 

"It's fine because the Aztec are gone too" is a hot take.

Cuba has resisted us well after the USSR fell.  Like them or not (I don't) they've earned it.
 

and I'm not saying it's "fine" that Russia invaded, I'm saying there's a limit to how much I'm willing to help the Ukrainians.  A financial limit but certainly I'm unwilling to send my son to die there (which is not unthinkable).  Sure sovereignty matters, but why is the US always doing heavy lifting while making ourselves broke?  
 

this is more nuanced than your characterization implies, and that's what's frustrating about this (and many) political debates nowadays.

[pawnman]

22 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Cuba has resisted us well after the USSR fell.  Like them or not (I don't) they've earned it.
 

and I'm not saying it's "fine" that Russia invaded, I'm saying there's a limit to how much I'm willing to help the Ukrainians.  A financial limit but certainly I'm unwilling to send my son to die there (which is not unthinkable).  Sure sovereignty matters, but why is the US always doing heavy lifting while making ourselves broke?  
 

this is more nuanced than your characterization implies, and that's what's frustrating about this (and many) political debates nowadays.

Resisted...what? Some sanctions? Pretty sure we haven't tried an armed invasion since the 60s.

[ecugringo]

I think some are against supporting UK because without US support Russia rolls over them.  We are simply delaying the inevitable and causing more damage/death in the process.  

There are some that say its partly our fault for expanding NATO east and being involved in the 14 elections.

I know a lot that want all that money being spent on UK, spent in the US.  But that's not a reality.

I dont know the right answer, I see the benefit of weakening Russias military in the process.  But I also dont think this ends in Ukraine.  I cant see Putin packing up and heading home or just settling for the east.  There had been fighting there since 14 anyway so I dont think that changes anything.

 

[BashiChuni]

Looks like CNN has been compromised by Putin stooges /s

[Day Man]

for some context, A&W's 1/3 lb burger failed because Americans thought it was smaller than the 1/4 lb burger

 

[Boomer6]

Reports saying Ukraine sank a Russian submarine at port in Sevastopol.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-navy-worst-day-moskva-sinking-sevastopol-strike-1826666?amp=1

[StoleIt]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Reports saying Ukraine sank a Russian submarine at port in Sevastopol.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-navy-worst-day-moskva-sinking-sevastopol-strike-1826666?amp=1

And, while not as sexy of a headline, more importantly took out one of the few dry docks that support the entire black sea fleet.

[uhhello]

23 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

And, while not as sexy of a headline, more importantly took out one of the few dry docks that support the entire black sea fleet.

Seems like there possibly could be some more actual high value targets to be hit with such limited precision assets they have.  The Russian Navy isn't doing a whole lot to affect the war effort as far as I can tell.  It looks good on the news so maybe that's a boost for the people I guess.  

[StoleIt]

9 hours ago, uhhello said:

Seems like there possibly could be some more actual high value targets to be hit with such limited precision assets they have.  The Russian Navy isn't doing a whole lot to affect the war effort as far as I can tell.  It looks good on the news so maybe that's a boost for the people I guess.  

True, where else can Ukraine trade "10 cruise missiles and three unmanned boats" and destroy an asset worth $300M (Improved Kilo list price)? And the landing ship and the dock. So definitely a big PR win.

Perhaps this will help their grain export, but that seems like a stretch. Instead, probably more to prevent arms running/resupply of Russian forces.

[ClearedHot]

Full story of the Rivet Joint incident finally coming out.  We came EPICALLY close to Article Five thanks to incompetence.  Crazy that both missiles failed thankfully saving the 30 man crew.  This could have been FUGLEY!

Rogue Russian pilot tried to shoot down RAF aircraft in 2022

[McJay Pilot]

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Full story of the Rivet Joint incident finally coming out.  We came EPICALLY close to Article Five thanks to incompetence.  Crazy that both missiles failed thankfully saving the 30 man crew.  This could have been FUGLEY!

Rogue Russian pilot tried to shoot down RAF aircraft in 2022

I doubt Article 5 would’ve been invoked, but thankfully we won’t know thanks to Ivan’s incompetence. Historically speaking, the Soviet’s shot down 15 of our aircraft during the Cold War outside of combat zones and we never invoked Article 5.

[ClearedHot]

24 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

I doubt Article 5 would’ve been invoked, but thankfully we won’t know thanks to Ivan’s incompetence. Historically speaking, the Soviet’s shot down 15 of our aircraft during the Cold War outside of combat zones and we never invoked Article 5.

It was an RAF airplane and from what I hear they would have responded in kind...

[McJay Pilot]

3 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It was an RAF airplane and from what I hear they would have responded in kind...

Based on your connections, that’s ing terrifying.

[tac airlifter]

On 9/6/2023 at 12:12 PM, Day Man said:

for some context, A&W's 1/3 lb burger failed because Americans thought it was smaller than the 1/4 lb burger

 

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

[Lawman]

Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

Yes because we have no historical examples of proxy wars with an opposing “great power” that led to not-a-nuclear-exchange…

Jesus Christ we are giving them munitions to fight a war they aren’t the aggressors in.

When we start flying strike sorties out of Spang to blunt Russian logistics or putting regular Army troops on the ground in Kiev maybe you have substantiated examples and a point to make. Until then vague warnings about WWIII is just grand standing to make a point in an argument. Given the anecdotal evidence it seems that is entirely politically aligned and not actually based on some form of strategic analysis of the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

It was an RAF airplane and from what I hear they would have responded in kind...

Meh, Russian weapons shot down an airliner in 2014 with zero European response….I have little faith that Europeans have any stomach for war or escalation. Even the Brits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

Yes because we have no historical examples of proxy wars with an opposing “great power” that led to not-a-nuclear-exchange…

Jesus Christ we are giving them munitions to fight a war they aren’t the aggressors in.

When we start flying strike sorties out of Spang to blunt Russian logistics or putting regular Army troops on the ground in Kiev maybe you have substantiated examples and a point to make. Until then vague warnings about WWIII is just grand standing to make a point in an argument. Given the anecdotal evidence it seems that is entirely politically aligned and not actually based on some form of strategic analysis of the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You missed the point, which isn't surprising.  I'll try once more and see if you can stay on target: in the USA the opinion of the people is supposed to impact government policy.  Polls show the people do not support further escalation in Ukraine.  Question: Do you think we should continue supporting the war despite our population mostly opposing it?  

Yes yes, Russia bad, got it.  I don't want a moral lecture, I'm curious if you think we should be doing things that get us closer to an actual war when the population doesn't want it.  Please be smarter than implying we're just giving them weapons.... there's literally a post on the last page about how close the UK came to exchanging blows, which would drag us in.  Don't even reply if you can't control your emotions enough to engage maturely.

[pawnman]

6 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

You missed the point, which isn't surprising.  I'll try once more and see if you can stay on target: in the USA the opinion of the people is supposed to impact government policy.  Polls show the people do not support further escalation in Ukraine.  Question: Do you think we should continue supporting the war despite our population mostly opposing it?  

Yes yes, Russia bad, got it.  I don't want a moral lecture, I'm curious if you think we should be doing things that get us closer to an actual war when the population doesn't want it.  Please be smarter than implying we're just giving them weapons.... there's literally a post on the last page about how close the UK came to exchanging blows, which would drag us in.  Don't even reply if you can't control your emotions enough to engage maturely.

In your mind, is there a difference between keeping the current level of support and escalation? 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

In your mind, is there a difference between keeping the current level of support and escalation? 

Great question.  No, but let me explain: the current level of support is escalating not remaining static.  From types of weapons (cluster bombs, F-16s) to amount of funding to real-time tactical intelligence used for lethal targeting, it’s continued up up up with no end in sight or coherent vision of an upper limit.  I would answer yes if anyone had a cogent articulated strategy with self-imposed limitations (example: containment, MAD, etc.), but we don’t.  
I’ve had GOs summarize our strategy as “continuing to dial it up as the Ukrainians need, to bleed Russia dry.”  This seems open-ended and risky, but my question is how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?  

Edited September 15, 2023 by tac airlifter

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?

100% of the say.  Unfortunately 'the people' largely can't or won't effectively communicate their opinion to Congress.  We are a republic 'by the people, for the people' where 'the people' have had physical barriers placed between them and the governing body (note the new security fence around The Hill).   

Decisions about this conflict are being made behind closed door by people who are not responsible for those decisions.    Anyone who thinks that the Joe is setting the policy for our engagement there (which he's not responsible for), or that the Congress is actively involved in determining the direction of our grand strategy, is simply ignorant.  Want proof?  Try having a coherent and factual conversation about the Ukraine war with anyone over the age of 65.  There are some bright and sage exceptions, but the majority of those conversations will rapidly devolve into inaccurate assumptions and unfounded preconceived notions.  

That demographic is largely who are supposed to be responsible for setting policy in this conflict, because that's the demographic nominally in charge of our government right now.

To be blunt, they clearly aren't the ones setting policy for that conflict.  THAT should concern everyone.

[tac airlifter]

24 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Decisions about this conflict are being made behind closed door by people who are not responsible for those decisions.