Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

David Sacks is quoting Huge Dixon? Gotta be fake news.

I have family in state level politics, and I'm a little involved in this year's campaign. I know my State Rep to the US Congress personally through various events. Legit good dude. He had been staunchly anti-Ukraine funding since the beginning. About 2 months ago, his campaign had an online poll asking what his constituents thought. The poll results weren't published, but the hundreds of comments underneath were greater than 80% against. He flipped on this supplemental aid bill. I called his office twice in the last week. The staffer said he hasn't made any public comment yet and when he does, they'll get back to me. Word on the street he's been compromised and coerced. Not scheduled to attend any events when he returns from DC.

Bear in mind that 79% of the funding for Ukraine isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to defense contractors, and not one of us here knows exactly what we're getting for that amount.  They spent almost $67 million in lobbying Congress in the just the first half of 2023. Most of it going to PACs and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Everyone has a price. Imagine the lobbying they can do with an influx of $49 Billion. It's a massive reward for unethical behavior and if they could overcome the resistance to this last supplemental aid bill, they're going to do it again, and more frequently.

$1 Trillion in wealth is being transferred upwards every 100 days in your name. You are being robbed.

 

I think at this point it's safe to say that all sides are paranoid beyond reason.

Speaker Johnson made a really interesting comment in an interview, saying that most of the loudest voices against the Ukraine bill had not yet been in the scif to receive a single classified briefing. Yeah yeah, I know, we can't trust the surveillance State. But anybody who says that is just being reflexively stupid. You can't trust anything outright, but if you really believe that us intelligence is corrupted so thoroughly that it produces no viable information, then you were just as guilty of living in an alternate reality as those who claim the absolute righteousness of funding the Ukraine fight.

I am very open to the counter arguments for supporting Ukraine at this point. But I am not at all interested in hearing it from someone who has gone out of their way to avoid briefings that would give them a full picture.

As to your point about the funding going to defense contractors, that was under the impression that the incredible corruption in Ukraine, which I do believe exists, was such that we could not risk sending them money outright to trust they would use it appropriately. Sending the munitions directly will obviously not completely eliminate corruption, but it's a hell of a lot harder to launder 155 mm shells than it is a pallet of cash.

[Biff_T]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

Huge Dixon

What a name!   Kinda like Bigus Dickus. 

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think at this point it's safe to say that all sides are paranoid beyond reason.

Speaker Johnson made a really interesting comment in an interview, saying that most of the loudest voices against the Ukraine bill had not yet been in the scif to receive a single classified briefing. Yeah yeah, I know, we can't trust the surveillance State. But anybody who says that is just being reflexively stupid. You can't trust anything outright, but if you really believe that us intelligence is corrupted so thoroughly that it produces no viable information, then you were just as guilty of living in an alternate reality as those who claim the absolute righteousness of funding the Ukraine fight.

I am very open to the counter arguments for supporting Ukraine at this point. But I am not at all interested in hearing it from someone who has gone out of their way to avoid briefings that would give them a full picture.

As to your point about the funding going to defense contractors, that was under the impression that the incredible corruption in Ukraine, which I do believe exists, was such that we could not risk sending them money outright to trust they would use it appropriately. Sending the munitions directly will obviously not completely eliminate corruption, but it's a hell of a lot harder to launder 155 mm shells than it is a pallet of cash.

I believe the intelligence service does produce viable information. It is required to. It has to produce some viable and objectively truthful information to protect its existence. But it can also use its implied credibility to lean on the scale. They could call Speaker Johnson in, scare the shit out of him, and he would never be able to refute contents of the classified briefing. If he tried, they'd label him a clown. That's an enormous amount of power. And temptation.

"If you only knew what I knew, you'd be praising me for spending public money and intensifying these conflicts."

Well.. if the threat is that dire, don't I have a right to be briefed on it? After all, it is I who am being indebted and my friends and family who may be ultimately fighting these conflicts?

"Sources and methods. If you were to know, then our enemies would know. Then they might know how we know, and that would threaten our ability to produce the viable, but secret information needed to ensure our continued ability to steer the country's leadership."

How long do they get to use that excuse?

Whatever small amount of blind implicit trust you have left in our intelligence and leadership is being monetized. It's like giving these people your credit card and telling them to charge whatever they want, as long as it keeps you safe. No explanation required. At some point, they gotta look us and say, "Caveat Emptor. These people are morons, they don't deserve to keep their wealth."

 

Edited April 30, 2024 by gearhog

[gearhog]

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

[Clark Griswold]

Commute worthy listening

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

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

[Clayton Bigsby]

Yeah, odd that an army that has been starved of ammunition has been unable to stop hordes of convicts and conscripts and turtle tanks being thrown at them. 

[Lawman]

Yeah, odd that an army that has been starved of ammunition has been unable to stop hordes of convicts and conscripts and turtle tanks being thrown at them. 

I like how over an 800km front they’ve taken to the choice of saying “square kilometers seized” and other such nonsense to try and doomsday the plight of the Ukrainians.

The Russians can literally see the line of departure their offensives started from in their current positions after 6 months and this is the end of the world. Imagine what they’d have “achieved” had the Ukrainians actually had the back supply of shells to spend on them.

“Da! 86 square KM seized this week for our glorious soldiers! Only 600,000 to go! Onward to victory comrades.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Yeah, odd that an army that has been starved of ammunition has been unable to stop hordes of convicts and conscripts and turtle tanks being thrown at them. 

Post of the day!

[BashiChuni]

here come the excuses

let me guess the ukranian offensive last year failed because they were out of shells.

Edited May 16, 2024 by BashiChuni

[Lawman]

here come the excuses
let me guess the ukranian offensive last year failed because they were out of shells.

Because people actually familiar with ground warfare are aware of the magnitudes of higher difficulty in conducting offense vs conducting defense.

And also because most of the assets that one would use to conduct and exploit a breach weren’t given to them until later in the summer thanks largely to objections by Germany. Artillery shells don’t cross minefields for you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

here come the excuses

let me guess the ukranian offensive last year failed because they were out of shells.

Did you write that article a while back about the F-22 pilot not being able to fly because he was distracted by not being able to breath?  Classic Chang

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Yeah, odd that an army that has been starved of ammunition has been unable to stop hordes of convicts and conscripts and turtle tanks being thrown at them. 

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?

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

I like how over an 800km front they’ve taken to the choice of saying “square kilometers seized” and other such nonsense to try and doomsday the plight of the Ukrainians.

The Russians can literally see the line of departure their offensives started from in their current positions after 6 months and this is the end of the world. Imagine what they’d have “achieved” had the Ukrainians actually had the back supply of shells to spend on them.

“Da! 86 square KM seized this week for our glorious soldiers! Only 600,000 to go! Onward to victory comrades.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by gearhog

[Lawman]

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.
 
 

Capacity to make war is Will x Means, with successful victory being chosen by the capitulation of whichever side zero’s out in that math. That’s been the same for centuries.

The temporary matter of Position means nothing, by your conflict calculus Germany was “winning” WWI…… all the way up to the point it lost. Same could be said for the Revolutionary war.

At no point does the Russian movement on the ground (especially given the exchange they’ve given for it) change the equation to that especially since from your previous posts you don’t understand mobile defense or why a ground force would chose to trade strategic depth for some other factor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

28 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Capacity to make war is Will x Means, with successful victory being chosen by the capitulation of whichever side zero’s out in that math. That’s been the same for centuries.

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.

28 minutes ago, Lawman said:

The temporary matter of Position means nothing, by your conflict calculus Germany was “winning” WWI…… all the way up to the point it lost. Same could be said for the Revolutionary war.

At no point does the Russian movement on the ground (especially given the exchange they’ve given for it) change the equation to that especially since from your previous posts you don’t understand mobile defense or why a ground force would chose to trade strategic depth for some other factor.

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?

Edited May 17, 2024 by gearhog

[Lawman]

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?

Russia has neither the demonstrated competency nor the troop trained and equipped to actual attempt a war of maneuver.

Again, since you’re apparently so smart on the subject of the ground domain why don’t you tell me and the wider room why Ukraine actively chose to execute a mobile defense and what that would grant them in producing actual strategic effect for the hundreds to at most single digit kilometer gains in a country the size of Texas. Be sure to factor in that part where the Russians enjoy a 10 to 1 fires ratio advantage because we spent 6 months dicking away time in Congress for the sake of idiots like Greene.

Again according to you Ukraine is now “losing the war.” At the current pace of the Russian Army they will be “losing the war” until some time in 2036.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

24 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Russia has neither the demonstrated competency nor the troop trained and equipped to actual attempt a war of maneuver.

Again, since you’re apparently so smart on the subject of the ground domain why don’t you tell me and the wider room why Ukraine actively chose to execute a mobile defense and what that would grant them in producing actual strategic effect for the hundreds to at most single digit kilometer gains in a country the size of Texas. Be sure to factor in that part where the Russians enjoy a 10 to 1 fires ratio advantage because we spent 6 months dicking away time in Congress for the sake of idiots like Greene.

Again according to you Ukraine is now “losing the war.” At the current pace of the Russian Army they will be “losing the war” until some time in 2036.

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?

 

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by gearhog

[HeloDude]

Does anyone actually believe that Russia will be defeated and/or Ukraine will regain all its territory, to include the Crimea?  Honest question.

[Lord Ratner]

17 minutes ago, gearhog said:

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?

 

 

I didn't think you do this intentionally, but you just hear what you want to hear. 

 

Everything you just said was a mischaracterization of his post, or just truly unimaginative thinking. 

 

If a hundred soldiers advance on my position 10km away, and I kill 10 per kilometer of advance, who wins? 

 

Similarly the French were quite effective in advancing into Russian territory, but that didn't work out great for Napoleon. Or Hitler.

Did the Americans win Vietnam? We were quite effective at advancing, and we had an overwhelming munitions advantage. 

 

That may or may not be what's happening here, but that you can't recognize the concept is... Questionable.

[Lord Ratner]

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Does anyone actually believe that Russia will be defeated and/or Ukraine will regain all its territory, to include the Crimea?  Honest question.

Highly, highly unlikely for the territory. "Win" has to be defined in your question. If regaining all territory is victory, then no.

[Lawman]

Does anyone actually believe that Russia will be defeated and/or Ukraine will regain all its territory, to include the Crimea?  Honest question.

Crimea is currently under effective siege. If it wasn’t the Russian Black Sea fleet would still be in harbor there and the biggest airfield on the Island wouldn’t have spent the last several days on fire.

If this ends at the tables as all wars have, negotiation positions will make all the impact in what final terms are.

The lunacy is people like Gearhog demanding that there is some kind of righteousness in the west abandoning Ukraine to its self like it can then enter those negotiations with any kind of leg to stand on. Germany tried that in WWI with the allies basically saying “sign this or else” and the inability to continue fighting. They were done because means = 0. Russia would simply demand absurd amounts and swallow the largest land mass in Europe through ineptness by the west, and then look at the Baltics (which Putin thinks are his by right) like “who is really gonna stop me.” We should cease our more active efforts of support only after hostilities have ended, not as some sort threat of withholding it to beat the peace out of the a Ukrainians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I didn't think you do this intentionally, but you just hear what you want to hear. 

 

Everything you just said was a mischaracterization of his post, or just truly unimaginative thinking. 

 

If a hundred soldiers advance on my position 10km away, and I kill 10 per kilometer of advance, who wins? 

 

Similarly the French were quite effective in advancing into Russian territory, but that didn't work out great for Napoleon. Or Hitler.

Did the Americans win Vietnam? We were quite effective at advancing, and we had an overwhelming munitions advantage. 

 

That may or may not be what's happening here, but that you can't recognize the concept is... Questionable.

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?

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by gearhog

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

If this ends at the tables as all wars have, negotiation positions will make all the impact in what final terms are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. We should have been having these negotiations long ago. But people like you have been screaming that negotiating with Putin is borderline treason…the second coming of chamberlain!

Russia will not lose this war and delaying negotiations for peace will cost more Ukrainian lives and push the US into a more dangerous position of direct conflict with Russia. 

[BashiChuni]

KHARKIV, Ukraine -- The situation in Ukraine is so serious that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had to cancel a planned trip to Spain and come straight to Kharkiv -- the country’s second largest city, which is again in real danger from the Russian advance.

“The situation is very serious,” Zelenskyy said. “We cannot afford to lose Kharkiv.”

“All we need are two Patriot systems,” he said. “Russia will not be able to occupy Kharkiv if we have those.”

 

do any of you professionally trained military officers believe this guy? As if two patriots are magical fucking fairy dust that will mystically change the tide of the battle  as if Russia won’t destroy those patriots like they have previously done. This is a puppet running a fantasy war in his head. It’s always “if only we get weapon system X” or “if only we get X more billions of dollars”. Boys that’s not how war is won. 
id have thought we as professionally trained military men would have learned these lessons from past failures. 

https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=110294232

Edited May 17, 2024 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

The next scene of the play waits impatiently behind the curtains:

”NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war.”

history repeats.

—————

“While attending the Armed Forces Staff College in late 1964, just as the U.S. Army was gearing up to deploy its own combat forces to Vietnam, Col. Volney F. Warner attended a speech by the Marine commandant, Gen. Wallace Greene. Before he began his talk, Gen. Greene asked his audience of a hundred 100 majors and colonels a pointed question: “How many of you think that U.S. forces should be sent to fight in Vietnam and draw the line against communism there?” 

Virtually everyone in the audience raised their hands enthusiastically. Then Greene, a decidedly hawkish member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked a second question: “How many think we should stay out of Vietnam?”  Six officers raised their hands … hesitantly. Warner was among them.“

“There are a few cowards in every bunch,” quipped the commandant. 

But those six officers weren’t cowards. They were soldiers and Marines who had recently returned stateside from tours of duty as advisers to South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) combat units. They knew from firsthand experience what the senior leadership of the American armed forces did not: That the ARVN officer corps, like the government it served, was riven by nepotism, corruption, and indifferent to the plight of the peasantry it was supposed to protect. Moreover, the ARVN was fighting a decidedly unconventional, “people’s war” against small units of guerrillas with tactics and doctrine developed by the U.S. Army for conventional conflicts between regular armies. Not surprisingly, it was losing”

Edited May 17, 2024 by BashiChuni