The PRC is loving our Ukraine gameplan…just saying. RUS hemorrhaged “treasure” for 10 years in AFG, what makes anyone think they’re not willing to do the same now? History shows they are a lot more willing to slug it out for years on end then people seem to be giving them credit for this round.

Initial actions made sense, and not saying zero support, but things are off the tracks…specifically financially.

Edited June 16, 20241 yr by brabus

2 hours ago, brabus said:

The PRC is loving our Ukraine gameplan…just saying. RUS hemorrhaged “treasure” for 10 years in AFG, what makes anyone think they’re not willing to do the same now? History shows they are a lot more willing to slug it out for years on end then people seem to be giving them credit for this round.

Initial actions made sense, and not saying zero support, but things are off the tracks…specifically financially.

Pretty sure the US has Russia beat when it comes to willingness to hemorrhage treasure for decades in the Middle East. USA USA USA 🇺🇸 

3 hours ago, archer said:

Pretty sure the US has Russia beat when it comes to willingness to hemorrhage treasure for decades in the Middle East. USA USA USA 🇺🇸 

sadly, truth

10 hours ago, brabus said:

The PRC is loving our Ukraine gameplan…just saying. RUS hemorrhaged “treasure” for 10 years in AFG, what makes anyone think they’re not willing to do the same now? History shows they are a lot more willing to slug it out for years on end then people seem to be giving them credit for this round.

Initial actions made sense, and not saying zero support, but things are off the tracks…specifically financially.

That may be, but the USSR had roughly twice the population available that Russia has now.  And Ukraine seems to be a far deadlier conflict.  If I recall correctly, the Soviets claimed roughly 15K dead in Afghanistan, so likely 2-3 times that number.  I've seen estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine pushing a half mil.  500k casualties might be too high, but I don't think there's any doubt that they're over 100k dead, which makes the war 2-5 times deadlier depending on the estimates in 1/3 the time with half the population to draw from.

@archer You are not wrong, unfortunately.

@Smokin Sure,  but I don’t think Putin gives a single fuck about those numbers. Unless someone with more GAS factor in the inner circle assassinates him and takes power, we’ll probably continue to see Putin drive on, body count be damned. 

33 minutes ago, Smokin said:

That may be, but the USSR had roughly twice the population available that Russia has now.  And Ukraine seems to be a far deadlier conflict.  If I recall correctly, the Soviets claimed roughly 15K dead in Afghanistan, so likely 2-3 times that number.  I've seen estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine pushing a half mil.  500k casualties might be too high, but I don't think there's any doubt that they're over 100k dead, which makes the war 2-5 times deadlier depending on the estimates in 1/3 the time with half the population to draw from.

I’m not a historian, but in basic terms (if memory serves), the USSR involvement in Afghanistan initially wasn’t an “invasion” per se, but at least originally an attempt to support the communist government of Afghanistan from failing/losing.  Whereas in Ukraine, it was straight up an invasion.  Plus technology has changed quite a bit compared to the 1980s, meaning you can do a lot more today with technology vs straight manpower/basic resources, compared to the 80s.  So it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges.

I have no doubt our massive amount of money is helping the Ukrainians slow down the Russian invasion and is definitely leading to more Russian casualties…my whole argument is that we’re F’ing broke and we have massive problems here (the border, for one), and that’s where I would like to see attention and resources spent before it’s spent on the other side of the globe.  And no, we can’t spend massive amounts on both (if either)—our debt is going to make our lives and the lives of our kids more painful than if Russia takes part, half, or all of Ukraine.

Side note—took the wife and kid to a pizza/bar place for a late lunch over the weekend.  It was a trendier place, but you still had to order at the counter, fill up our own water cups, etc.  For two 16” pizzas (we wanted some for leftovers and that was the only size they had since it was after lunch), one salad, a sprite bottle, and a small gelato dessert, it was around $90…I was like “WTF”?  Now we do very well, so I just paid it, but the startling factor of how expensive things are is no joke.  This is what happens when we have a massive money supply/spending/debt problem.

I wonder how effective these modern Claymores are over there.

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I’m not a historian, but in basic terms (if memory serves), the USSR involvement in Afghanistan initially wasn’t an “invasion” per se, but at least originally an attempt to support the communist government of Afghanistan from failing/losing.  Whereas in Ukraine, it was straight up an invasion.  Plus technology has changed quite a bit compared to the 1980s, meaning you can do a lot more today with technology vs straight manpower/basic resources, compared to the 80s.  So it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges.

I have no doubt our massive amount of money is helping the Ukrainians slow down the Russian invasion and is definitely leading to more Russian casualties…my whole argument is that we’re F’ing broke and we have massive problems here (the border, for one), and that’s where I would like to see attention and resources spent before it’s spent on the other side of the globe.  And no, we can’t spend massive amounts on both (if either)—our debt is going to make our lives and the lives of our kids more painful than if Russia takes part, half, or all of Ukraine.

Side note—took the wife and kid to a pizza/bar place for a late lunch over the weekend.  It was a trendier place, but you still had to order at the counter, fill up our own water cups, etc.  For two 16” pizzas (we wanted some for leftovers and that was the only size they had since it was after lunch), one salad, a sprite bottle, and a small gelato dessert, it was around $90…I was like “WTF”?  Now we do very well, so I just paid it, but the startling factor of how expensive things are is no joke.  This is what happens when we have a massive money supply/spending/debt problem.

I tried making this same point a few months ago, but Lawman and somebody else told me if we didn’t give all our money to Ukraine, Russia was gonna EMP our asses!  I had no clue that the only thing standing between us and certain destruction, was the Ukrainians.  

Edited June 17, 20241 yr by O Face

The Ukrainians are taking out an S400 EVERYDAY...interesting to note the S400 we feared has some weaknesses afterall.

 

On 6/7/2024 at 4:50 AM, BashiChuni said:

what does victory look like?

Very clearly: Russia goes back to Russia and gets out of the Ukraine. Zelensky says this includes Crimea, so back to pre-2014. Perhaps pre-2022 will be the eventual agreement, maybe with a DMZ.

They could put up a wall.

16 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Very clearly: Russia goes back to Russia and gets out of the Ukraine. Zelensky says this includes Crimea, so back to pre-2014. Perhaps pre-2022 will be the eventual agreement, maybe with a DMZ.

and you think that is realistic? russia giving up crimea?

good luck with that

33 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

and you think that is realistic? russia giving up crimea?

good luck with that

You think the US can just leave Ukraine to fend for itself after we explicitly promising that we wouldn't?

Good luck with that

25 minutes ago, FourFans said:

You think the US can just leave Ukraine to fend for itself after we explicitly promising that we wouldn't?

Good luck with that

yes.

no luck needed. ukraine isn't nato. good luck to them. i'd start negotiating if i were them.

I am unwilling to fight WWIII for Ukraine. Simple as that. 

19 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

I am unwilling to fight WWIII for Ukraine. Simple as that. 

Go look for the update to this....

On 6/17/2024 at 12:44 PM, ClearedHot said:

The Ukrainians are taking out an S400 EVERYDAY...interesting to note the S400 we feared has some weaknesses afterall.

 

I remember in the 90s during Southern Watch it was known as an AWACS killer. Just listened to Peter Zeihan this morning, the Russian space program took a hit with a failed Soyuz launch, the crew made it through. They are running out of old ICBM boosters to get them to the ISS and are losing their ability to maintain their satellites in orbit now.  With Boeing looking bad with Starliner after $4 billion spent with a fixed contract, inability to give cost overruns to the taxpayers, it was their business model for years. Space X same contract $2 billion and they have Dragon a super reliable platform. No wonder General Atomics got the contract for the new NEACPs using a Boeing platform.

Edited June 25, 20241 yr by Prosuper
content

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13595327/Ukraine-CORRUPT-join-NATO-says-major-blow-Zelensky-boost-Putin.html
 

too corrupt to join nato but fuck it here’s 200 billion US taxpayer dollars. Lol. 
 

the cord cutting of Ukraine has begun. 

Just move to Russia, dude.

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Just move to Russia, dude.

a sign of a weak argument

Da, tovarischi

11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

a sign of a weak argument

Or the realization there is no point arguing with you in this.

Lot of video-bloggers with access and funding have been buying commercial satellite scans and doing what NGIC was doing from the get go of the conflict… counting hulls in storage yards.




In terms of “what does funding this war buy” well… in this example Russia will no longer have the equipment to provide the means to conduct offensive ground warfare against its neighbors in NATO. Unfortunately nobody is doing YouTube videos on similar losses of more critical systems like engineering vehicles or self propelled artillery, that would paint an even bleaker story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Lot of video-bloggers with access and funding have been buying commercial satellite scans and doing what NGIC was doing from the get go of the conflict… counting hulls in storage yards.




In terms of “what does funding this war buy” well… in this example Russia will no longer have the equipment to provide the means to conduct offensive ground warfare against its neighbors in NATO. Unfortunately nobody is doing YouTube videos on similar losses of more critical systems like engineering vehicles or self propelled artillery, that would paint an even bleaker story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How dare you bring logistics into a talk about warfare!  What do you think this place is?!  Task and Purpose?!