Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

7 hours ago, raimius said:

I'll ask again, Bashi...

ukraine is a simple rook in the geopolitical chess game played by the west post WWII. a chess game where the west has demonstrated strong opening moves but disastrous long term strategic thinking.

no one in the west, NATO, or the EU gives one flying fuck about ukraine or its people. they are a means to a end.

to answer your question russia invaded after seeing nato (US) and the cia fucking around and finding out in the ukraine.

"For years, the Kremlin made it emphatically clear that inviting Ukraine to join NATO would cross a red line that threatened Russia’s vital security interests."

"Evidence grew in recent years that the United States had begun to treat Ukraine as a NATO ally in all but name. Steps included pouring nearly $3 billion in “security assistance” (primarily weaponry) into the country since 2014."

"Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow’s decision to go to war. Russia’s invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country’s leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders."

 

https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war#

standing by for "the CATO institute is a secret KGB run dis/mis/trans-information campaign!

 

"The split between Washington and both Paris and Berlin about admitting Ukraine to NATO emerged clearly in 2008 when President George W. Bush lobbied ferociously for extending such an invitation. French and German leaders firmly opposed that step at the NATO summit. In her memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was especially outspoken, dismissing Ukraine as a “corrupt mess” and warning that a membership offer would dangerously provoke Russia. The allied opposition held, and the best that Bush could come away with was a summit declaration affirming that “someday” Ukraine would become a NATO member. "

https://www.cato.org/commentary/making-ukraine-nato-member-all-name

standing by for "Angela Merkel is a puppet of putin!"

Edited May 29, 2024 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

[BashiChuni]

any other fucking brain busters @raimius?

[BashiChuni]

[SurelySerious]

[Stoker]

Looking at our efforts, such as they are, to support a free and independent Ukraine outside of the Russian orbit, and saying that they're a strategic disaster because it provoked Russia into invading, is like someone in 1942 saying that cutting off oil exports to Japan in 1940 was a strategic disaster because it provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor. We just don't know how it's going to turn out... however, thus far it has taken Ukraine from a shaky potential partner to the most anti-Russian country on the planet, and roused Finland and Sweden out of decades/centuries of neutrality in favor of NATO membership. Not a bad gain for the first round of cards and hundred billion dollars.

[Lawman]

Plus they’re being targeted with something designed to specifically exploit the weakest part of the armor using a technology that is evolving remarkably quickly. Add in the symbolism of taking out “America’s flagship” oldest model.

I think a lot of people have built some sort of mythic reputation to the Abrams kind of like the A-10. It’s not invincible, in fact we have had them knocked out of action in every major fight they’ve ever been part of often times to RPGs. It’s just that story doesn’t override the “legend of 73 Easting.”

Abrams and Leo are both just as vulnerable to action as would be expected of any Armor vehicle. But what they do remarkably better than other tanks (specifically Russian ones) is crew survivability. We can always make a new tank (with the exception of the British which is a whole other issue). It takes a lot longer to make and train good tankers much less teach them to fight as a combined arms unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

Not a bad gain for the first round of cards and hundred billion dollars.

What’s another 100 Billion?

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

It’s just that story doesn’t override the “legend of 73 Easting.”

Abrams and Leo are both just as vulnerable to action as would be expected of any Armor vehicle.

What is the legend of 73 Easting, and what is Leo?

[Lawman]

What is the legend of 73 Easting, and what is Leo?

Battle of 73 Easting was the last major tank on tank engagement during the 91 Gulf war. Started in a sand storm as a movement to contact (the big left hook of the ground war), named after the geographic position that it took place on since it happened literally in the middle of nowhere. It was a complete routing of the Republican Guard unit encountered which was vastly superior in size to the force that encountered it. 2nd ACR basically conducted a text book example of movement to contact by a Cavalry unit conducting “covering” (security mission) for a Division and decimated a larger force through speed, surprise, and violence of action. I’m doing so they cemented the Abrams (and Bradley) reputation in the question of what would happen when it came up against T-72.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting


Leo is the shorthand nickname for the German Leopard tank. Widely considered the only real competitive model of tank to achieve the same prominence and capability of the Abrams because of its wide export market. The A5-7 series are impressive, but I’d argue the limits on the Leo are more to do with the way countries use them rather than specific capability of an individual model. Personally I really like what the Koreans did with K2, but they have a lot of unique capes built into that tank specific for where they plan to fight with it that we don’t necessarily need for the cost it would add to the unit price.

Honestly the greatest tank improvement would be including a true ECS system to provide and maintain crew comfort. You wouldn’t suffer nearly the danger to having hatches unbuttoned if it could maintain a viable temperature inside the hull. It would also vastly increase crew effectiveness from a rest/fatigue mindset, but the Army doesn’t think about that hence no requirements paperwork until we spent 30 years deploying tanks to the desert. We are only now starting to see that get into fighting vehicles of all types.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, Stoker said:

Looking at our efforts, such as they are, to support a free and independent Ukraine outside of the Russian orbit, and saying that they're a strategic disaster because it provoked Russia into invading, is like someone in 1942 saying that cutting off oil exports to Japan in 1940 was a strategic disaster because it provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor. We just don't know how it's going to turn out... however, thus far it has taken Ukraine from a shaky potential partner to the most anti-Russian country on the planet, and roused Finland and Sweden out of decades/centuries of neutrality in favor of NATO membership. Not a bad gain for the first round of cards and hundred billion dollars.

not even close. why does the west think ukraine SHOULDNT be outside the russian orbit?!

fuck the entire central and south american countries are in the US orbit

Edited May 30, 2024 by BashiChuni

[Stoker]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

What’s another 100 Billion?

1.5% of the Federal budget, annually, and likely the most cost effective spending out of Washington in decades. What's your point? We waste a shit ton of money and don't tax enough, so when we have an opportunity to actually do something with the money, we shouldn't, but still, don't do anything about the deficit?

$100 billion is also 12% of the annual US military budget, which for the last EIGHTY years has been entirely constructed around defeating Russia, with a side of "kill terrorists."

If Raytheon sold a magic button for $100 billion dollars that, if pressed, crippled the armed forces of a near peer power, it would be foolish not to buy one.

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

not even close. why does the west think ukraine SHOULDNT be outside the russian orbit?!

fuck the entire central and south american countries are in the US orbit

Because we believe in national self-determination, democracy, liberal world order based on free trade. Central and South America, and Europe, and most of Asia, are in the US orbit, because it benefits them, and everyone else, to be in our orbit, not because we invaded them, conscripted every man to go clear minefields with their feet, and raped any women we felt like.

I mean, seriously, why SHOULDNT Poland be in the Third Reichs orbit? Why SHOULDNT the Philippines be in Imperial Japan's orbit? Who are we to say to the Confederacy, "hey, stop owning people?"

[StoleIt]

6 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

"Evidence grew in recent years that the United States had begun to treat Ukraine as a NATO ally in all but name. Steps included pouring nearly $3 billion in “security assistance” (primarily weaponry) into the country since 2014."

I know I shouldn't feed the troll but this quote...wow. Seriously?

Geee...I wonder what might have happened in 2014 that would cause the US to start giving them weaponry.

[raimius]

15 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

ukraine is a simple rook in the geopolitical chess game played by the west post WWII. a chess game where the west has demonstrated strong opening moves but disastrous long term strategic thinking.

no one in the west, NATO, or the EU gives one flying fuck about ukraine or its people. they are a means to a end.

to answer your question russia invaded after seeing nato (US) and the cia fucking around and finding out in the ukraine.

"For years, the Kremlin made it emphatically clear that inviting Ukraine to join NATO would cross a red line that threatened Russia’s vital security interests."

"Evidence grew in recent years that the United States had begun to treat Ukraine as a NATO ally in all but name. Steps included pouring nearly $3 billion in “security assistance” (primarily weaponry) into the country since 2014."

"Predictably, such conduct ultimately produced a geopolitical explosion. U.S. and NATO officials used Ukraine as a strategic pawn against Russia and are now fuming with outrage at Moscow’s decision to go to war. Russia’s invasion was indeed a horrid overreaction, but it was far from being unprovoked. The Ukrainian people, unfortunately, are the ones paying a high price in blood for the gullibility of their country’s leaders and the shocking arrogance of U.S. leaders."

 

https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war#

standing by for "the CATO institute is a secret KGB run dis/mis/trans-information campaign!

 

"The split between Washington and both Paris and Berlin about admitting Ukraine to NATO emerged clearly in 2008 when President George W. Bush lobbied ferociously for extending such an invitation. French and German leaders firmly opposed that step at the NATO summit. In her memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalled that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was especially outspoken, dismissing Ukraine as a “corrupt mess” and warning that a membership offer would dangerously provoke Russia. The allied opposition held, and the best that Bush could come away with was a summit declaration affirming that “someday” Ukraine would become a NATO member. "

https://www.cato.org/commentary/making-ukraine-nato-member-all-name

standing by for "Angela Merkel is a puppet of putin!"

Accepting foreign aid and seeking to make alliances (sometime in the future), are now considered acts of war? 

...Half the world is now at risk of a Russian invasion, if that's the standard.

Do you really want to claim that is a valid justification for war?

[HeloDude]

9 hours ago, Stoker said:

We waste a shit ton of money and don't tax enough…

Read what you just wrote…

[O Face]

No shit!!  My taxes are plenty high, thank you. I’m certain the IRS will be willing to take however much more of your $ you feel is appropriate. What we have, here in the US, is a spending problem. Not a tax revenue problem. 

[BashiChuni]

6 hours ago, raimius said:

Accepting foreign aid and seeking to make alliances (sometime in the future), are now considered acts of war? 

...Half the world is now at risk of a Russian invasion, if that's the standard.

Do you really want to claim that is a valid justification for war?

Act of war and provoking are two separate issues. 
 

“Unprovoked”. Sure. 
 

look I think Russia overrated. But they definitely were reacting to something, which was articulated by yours truly in a masterful way above. 
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tucker-carlson-show/id1719657632?i=1000657058513

first 10 min of tuckers podcasts lays it out further. Jeffery sacks explains it well. 

Edited May 30, 2024 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:03 AM, ClearedHot said:

1.  Because it is not true, you are actually spreading Russian disinformation.   There were meetings and discussions but there was never anything singed and NATO leadership denies there was an agreement.  Gorbachev FALSELY claimed there was an agreement and ultimately that lie was used by Putin (and now you), as a justification for war.

 

 

 

 

 

I have receipts. What do you have?

https://https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

Edited May 30, 2024 by BashiChuni

[icohftb]

Even if Ukraine did break a promise and decided to ally them self with NATO does that somehow morally or legally justify Russia's invasion?

[Stoker]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Read what you just wrote…

Two things can be true at the same time. We waste a lot of money because, thanks to deficit spending, we don't need to prioritize one program over another. Very different than balanced budgeting. I spent five years with a front row seat to a state budgeting process, programs get racked and stacked brutally because you just can't fund everything.

And yes, we need to tax more as well. We're about to be strangled by entitlement spending in the next 20 years and if you think the solution is as simple as cutting those programs, you don't really have a very good view of how the US electoral and political process works. We need a grand bargain that raises taxes across all income levels, cuts wasteful spending, raises retirement and benefit ages to realistically track the growth of life expectancy in the last fifty years, and drives us in the general direction of a balanced budget in a decade or two. You gotta give a little to get a little.

Or you can dig in your heels, say "taxes too high, no new taxes," and await the inevitable collapse of the US financial and political system. If you're lucky, it won't happen while you're alive, but your children won't thank you.

[BashiChuni]

15 minutes ago, icohftb said:

Even if Ukraine did break a promise and decided to ally them self with NATO does that somehow morally or legally justify Russia's invasion?

I’m not justifying it. I’m telling you how we got here. And how we could have avoided it

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

I’m not justifying it. I’m telling you how we got here. And how we could have avoided it

You shared a memo...where is the signed and ratified document?  Your rules bro.

[BashiChuni]

50 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

You shared a memo...where is the signed and ratified document?  Your rules bro.

Where’s the signed, ratified treaty to defend Ukraine? I actually produce sources. It’s a proven fact the US promised to not advance nato via the sec state James baker. Don’t be ignorant. 

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

Two things can be true at the same time. We waste a lot of money because, thanks to deficit spending, we don't need to prioritize one program over another. Very different than balanced budgeting. I spent five years with a front row seat to a state budgeting process, programs get racked and stacked brutally because you just can't fund everything.

And yes, we need to tax more as well. We're about to be strangled by entitlement spending in the next 20 years and if you think the solution is as simple as cutting those programs, you don't really have a very good view of how the US electoral and political process works. We need a grand bargain that raises taxes across all income levels, cuts wasteful spending, raises retirement and benefit ages to realistically track the growth of life expectancy in the last fifty years, and drives us in the general direction of a balanced budget in a decade or two. You gotta give a little to get a little.

Or you can dig in your heels, say "taxes too high, no new taxes," and await the inevitable collapse of the US financial and political system. If you're lucky, it won't happen while you're alive, but your children won't thank you.

So you’re for cutting wasteful spending for our children, but all for spending 100 Billion (and I’m assuming more if needed?) for Ukraine?  That’s one of the first place we should be cutting spending.  That’s why I don’t believe you’re for cutting waste.  

As for raising taxes—by how much?  And I’m sure that won’t also affect economic growth.

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Don’t be ignorant. 

Something snapped in you a while back dude, DON'T make it personal.

There is not a ratified agreement to defend Ukraine, I previously shared the SIGNED agreement.  You shared an internal memo of a conversation, which others dispute... 

Your memo also overlooks the fact that Putin Invaded Ukraine and took the Crimea in 2014.