Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[brabus]

@Majestik Møøse Boomer pretty much nailed it. I’ll say this: it was a good strategic move for us to do what we did for a time, and we accomplished significant weakening of a major adversary via supporting another’s direct actions - that’s a win. But, at this point we have well passed the sensible ROI and are now playing bullshit games with taxpayer funded property. Its time to KIO. 

[BashiChuni]

with a lame duck president (who uses the baby stairs to enter AF1) knowing the incoming president is going to change course.

spiteful and not in the best interests of the country.

[Biff_T]

 

The Ukrainians shot down a Russian helicopter with a sea drone.   That's nuts.  

[Majestik Møøse]

Sorry dudes, not buying it, when it’s been politicized like it has even the smart college-educated guys can lose their minds. It’s now somehow “liberal” to send weapons to Ukraine. Fuck that noise.

It’s a false choice to think that there’s a choice between sending old weapons to Ukraine and securing borders or whatever. It’s a minuscule amount of the budget, and something that nearly everyone in Congress agreed on until key MAGA mouthpieces (that are literally paid by Russian media) started focusing on it.

Quitting on the Ukraine is cowardly and reprehensible, don’t care what your airplane quals are.

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Sorry dudes, not buying it, when it’s been politicized like it has even the smart college-educated guys can lose their minds. It’s now somehow “liberal” to send weapons to Ukraine. Fuck that noise.

It’s a false choice to think that there’s a choice between sending old weapons to Ukraine and securing borders or whatever. It’s a minuscule amount of the budget, and something that nearly everyone in Congress agreed on until key MAGA mouthpieces (that are literally paid by Russian media) started focusing on it.

Quitting on the Ukraine is cowardly and reprehensible, don’t care what your airplane quals are.

Concur...for pennies on the dollar Russia has been neutralized as peer adversary.  I've said it many times, the impact of this war on the Russian population will last for generations.

A U.S. think tank, not the Ukrainian propaganda machine, has estimated Russian losses as epic.  They've lost 40 soldiers for every square mile of ground they have seized.

Russia seized 1,600 square miles of Ukraine's territory in 2024 while losing 427,000 troops, ISW says

[brabus]

@Majestik Møøse Here’s a few financial points you’re either ignorant on or purposely misrepresenting:

- Of the $175B “for” UKR, roughly $69B didn’t even go to them

- Approx $70B of what they did receive is actual war materiel

- Approx $40B of what they received has been spent on their economic recovery and humanitarian aid

I am not saying all of that sum is a bad thing or foolishly spent, but there are lots of Billions that are not simply “sending our old stuff and making new stuff” as you threw out earlier. To be clear, your post about what the $175B has been spent on is incorrect. 
 

What you, and maybe CH, aren’t seeming to grasp on this specifically is two things can be true simultaneously:  the money (and associated efforts) broadly discussed above achieved great national security objectives, and one would be very ignorant to argue otherwise. But, there is a point of diminishing returns and going too far at the expense of other things (such as addressing domestic issues, putting more towards addressing the PRC threat, etc.) Of course the defense industry and all their politician friends love this - they DGAF about our country, they care about money, and UKR is a cash cow for these blood suckers. 

Given the current state of affairs, arguing “quitting is cowardly and reprehensible” is retarded. Talk about myopic emotions.

[Day Man]

27 minutes ago, brabus said:

Here’s a few financial points you’re either ignorant on or purposely misrepresenting:

- Of the $175B “for” UKR, roughly $69B didn’t even go to them

- Approx $70B of what they did receive is actual war materiel

- Approx $40B of what they received has been spent on their economic recovery and humanitarian aid

source?

[ClearedHot]

26 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Majestik Møøse Here’s a few financial points you’re either ignorant on or purposely misrepresenting:

- Of the $175B “for” UKR, roughly $69B didn’t even go to them

- Approx $70B of what they did receive is actual war materiel

- Approx $40B of what they received has been spent on their economic recovery and humanitarian aid

I am not saying all of that sum is a bad thing or foolishly spent, but there are lots of Billions that are not simply “sending our old stuff and making new stuff” as you threw out earlier. To be clear, your post about what the $175B has been spent on is incorrect. 
 

What you, and maybe CH, aren’t seeming to grasp on this specifically is two things can be true simultaneously:  the money (and associated efforts) broadly discussed above achieved great national security objectives, and one would be very ignorant to argue otherwise. But, there is a point of diminishing returns and going too far at the expense of other things (such as addressing domestic issues, putting more towards addressing the PRC threat, etc.) Of course the defense industry and all their politician friends love this - they DGAF about our country, they care about money, and UKR is a cash cow for these blood suckers. 

Given the current state of affairs, arguing “quitting is cowardly and reprehensible” is retarded. Talk about myopic emotions.

Slow your roll bro...I made ZERO disparaging personal remarks about you or anyone else. 

And for the record, I can comprehend that multiple things can be true at the same time...keep in mind much of this is subjective.

The point of diminishing returns is certainly subjective and probably tracks more closely with our national objectives.  Relegating Russia to non-peer is definitely worth continued investment.  Check the Economist and few other news sources that are now reporting on Russia's worsening economic issues.  Inflation is now rampant and some think Putin has a tenuous grip on power. 

This is the great game and should be viewed that way instead of a simple fight in Ukraine.

[brabus]

@ClearedHot Rog, I get it. I’m all about what has been done to RUS, but I’m also good with acknowledging we have indirectly achieved some great shit, the RUS horse has been beat to death x69, so let’s pivot to more important things. Of course we keep an eye on things and can pivot back if necessary, but I don’t think it’s likely that’d be necessary anytime soon.

@Day Man Doesn’t take much effort to find this open source info, but here’s a few items for you. There’s plenty more; #1 is a broad overview while #2 and #3 are specific examples to make the point, which is $175B isn’t simply just war materiel support, and it’s incorrect to say no money has gone to UKR that could have been earmarked elsewhere.

CFR (Sep 24): Good big pic overview 

USAID (Dec 24): $3.4B that “enables healthcare, education, first responders, and other vital services to reach the people of Ukraine.”

CSIS (May 22): $16B for economic support

 

 

Edited January 3 by brabus

[ClearedHot]

25 minutes ago, brabus said:

@ClearedHot Rog, I get it. I’m all about what has been done to RUS, but I’m also good with acknowledging we have indirectly achieved some great shit, the RUS horse has been beat to death x69, so let’s pivot to more important things. Of course we keep an eye on things and can pivot back if necessary, but I don’t think it’s likely that’d be necessary anytime soon.

@Day Man Doesn’t take much effort to find this open source info, but here’s a few items for you. There’s plenty more; #1 is a broad overview while #2 and #3 are specific examples to make the point, which is $175B isn’t simply just war materiel support, and it’s incorrect to say no money has gone to UKR that could have been earmarked elsewhere.

CFR (Sep 24): Good big pic overview 

USAID (Dec 24): $3.4B that “enables healthcare, education, first responders, and other vital services to reach the people of Ukraine.”

CSIS (May 22): $16B for economic support

I am just an internet troll but if I were POTUS I would keep the pressure on for a bit longer.  If we go all stop and Russia gets to keep all the land gains Putin can declare victory.  Access tot he Black Sea is one of the keys to a prosperous and self-sustaining Ukraine.  Losing the Crimea was a big hit, Putin has pushed hard at Kherson and everything around the Tendrivs'ka Gulf because it lets him hold all sea-born Ukraine trade at risk...he effectively controls the black sea.  If Ukraine gives up other land but gets some of the coast back then we have good grounds to end it.  Putin is feeling the pain, I would keep the pressure on until he is willing to give up more.

[brabus]

I support some pressure, more than $0, but way less than the $Bs we’ve been slinging like candy on Halloween as of late. As you know, we can and should exert diplomatic and economic pressure to achieve the goals you’ve mentioned. Dumping billions at the rate we have been is not required at this point. In line with this, we need to reprioritize - not saying turn back totally on UKR/RUS, but we have other huge problems that could use the effort and money that is going to UKR in various forms, so scale back on Eastern Europe and refocus some (not all) of that energy and funds on other problems that should be a higher priority. 

[ClearedHot]

This (Finland had 12 minutes left to stop a Russia-linked oil tanker from dealing 'much worse' damage to its undersea cables, president says), is yet another reason I am in favor of continued support to Ukraine and efforts that will weaken Russia.  Putin is happy to openly wreck the infrastructure of our allies, his hegemonic goals are not deterred by our words and sanctions.

[icohftb]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

This (Finland had 12 minutes left to stop a Russia-linked oil tanker from dealing 'much worse' damage to its undersea cables, president says), is yet another reason I am in favor of continued support to Ukraine and efforts that will weaken Russia.  Putin is happy to openly wreck the infrastructure of our allies, his hegemonic goals are not deterred by our words and sanctions.

Finland was a Nazi ally that later joined NATO. Russia is only defending itself.

/S

Edited January 15 by icohftb

[BashiChuni]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

his hegemonic goals are not deterred by our words and sanctions.

Can you articulate these goals? Did Russia blow up nord2?

[SurelySerious]

Can you articulate these goals? Did Russia blow up nord2?

Glad you’re finally asking for help understanding this since we know you sure as shit can’t articulate anything with respect to global politics.

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Can you articulate these goals? Did Russia blow up nord2?

Books have been written brother...to very poorly summarize it, Putin wants to restore a vision of what the USSR used to be.  Remember, he started as a KGB guy and most of those dudes are still pissed at how it all turned out.  While many of the old school are nostalgic for a Russia that looks like the old days, I think Putin is a bit more pragmatic and that matches with his actions.  He wants buffer states against NATO, not that he thinks they will invade but the close borders enable nationalism within those former proxies and nothing scares a good communist dictator more than nationalistic hopes for freedom. 

Putin wants to maintain control AND expand his influence and he knows a key component it the economy. 

Russia, despite its 23,000 miles of coastline, has no warm water, ice free ports, with direct access to an ocean.  Not only is Russia landlocked, but they lack land where they can grow crops. Russia can be divided into three main areas. The tundra which is 32% of Riussia's land mass, is found north of the Arctic Circle which is WAY too cold for trees and crops.  The subsoil is permanently frozen, sometimes to a depth of several hundred feet.  Then there is the Taiga which represents 1/4 of the worlds forest.  The soil is boggy and is again a huge area of Russia unusable for agriculture.  Finally, the Steppe which is basically a large plain and the only area Russia and grow crops but unlike much of the rest of the world, in that the regions that receive the most rainfall, are the regions with soil least suited to agriculture. Its growing season of 5 – 6 months is also significantly shorter than the 9-month window western Europe has.

The access to deep warm water ports and thus the world's oceans presents SEVERE challenges to Putin.  In the event of war, Russia wouldn’t be able to get out of the Baltic Sea. To get into the North Sea and on into the Atlantic Ocean from St Petersburg, a ship must pass through the Skagerrak, a narrow body of water controlled by NATO members Denmark and Norway.

  Then there’s the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, also home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.The port however is simply too shallow and too small to facilitate large scale cargo operations. The port is also poorly connected to the Russian heartland, reducing the profit margin of exports, and increasing the cost of imports that come through the port.  Even without conflict Putin's ability to get his goods, energy and resources to market.

When you take these factors into consideration and his belief that Ukraine IS Russia his moves make sense.  Taking the Crimea was ALL about access to open water...even with the limitations of getting through the The Turkish Straits, to include the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.  Invading Ukraine proper gives him the bread basket of Europe.  When you look at the calculus of what he has to gain combined with a feckless U.S. administration it makes sense.  His mistake was not realizing 30+ years of Ukraine freedom and nationalism gave Ukrainians a resolve, combined with U.S. weapons and his military leadership being complete stooges he is struggling. 

I am not normally in favor of giant sums of money going to other countries, but in my knuckle-dragger opinion it is money WELL spent to take Russia off the stage for a generation as a hegemonic near-peer.  But hey what do I know, I flew in circles for a living.

 

 

[ClearedHot]

Ukraine giving Russian's no quarter...hit a dude with an RPV while he was in the outhouse!

 

[Smokin]

The old cone of survival saves another one

[BashiChuni]

On 1/15/2025 at 3:51 PM, ClearedHot said:

Books have been written brother...to very poorly summarize it, Putin wants to restore a vision of what the USSR used to be.  Remember, he started as a KGB guy and most of those dudes are still pissed at how it all turned out.  While many of the old school are nostalgic for a Russia that looks like the old days, I think Putin is a bit more pragmatic and that matches with his actions.  He wants buffer states against NATO, not that he thinks they will invade but the close borders enable nationalism within those former proxies and nothing scares a good communist dictator more than nationalistic hopes for freedom. 

Putin wants to maintain control AND expand his influence and he knows a key component it the economy. 

 

Russia, despite its 23,000 miles of coastline, has no warm water, ice free ports, with direct access to an ocean.  Not only is Russia landlocked, but they lack land where they can grow crops. Russia can be divided into three main areas. The tundra which is 32% of Riussia's land mass, is found north of the Arctic Circle which is WAY too cold for trees and crops.  The subsoil is permanently frozen, sometimes to a depth of several hundred feet.  Then there is the Taiga which represents 1/4 of the worlds forest.  The soil is boggy and is again a huge area of Russia unusable for agriculture.  Finally, the Steppe which is basically a large plain and the only area Russia and grow crops but unlike much of the rest of the world, in that the regions that receive the most rainfall, are the regions with soil least suited to agriculture. Its growing season of 5 – 6 months is also significantly shorter than the 9-month window western Europe has.

The access to deep warm water ports and thus the world's oceans presents SEVERE challenges to Putin.  In the event of war, Russia wouldn’t be able to get out of the Baltic Sea. To get into the North Sea and on into the Atlantic Ocean from St Petersburg, a ship must pass through the Skagerrak, a narrow body of water controlled by NATO members Denmark and Norway.

 

  Then there’s the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, also home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.The port however is simply too shallow and too small to facilitate large scale cargo operations. The port is also poorly connected to the Russian heartland, reducing the profit margin of exports, and increasing the cost of imports that come through the port.  Even without conflict Putin's ability to get his goods, energy and resources to market.

 

When you take these factors into consideration and his belief that Ukraine IS Russia his moves make sense.  Taking the Crimea was ALL about access to open water...even with the limitations of getting through the The Turkish Straits, to include the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.  Invading Ukraine proper gives him the bread basket of Europe.  When you look at the calculus of what he has to gain combined with a feckless U.S. administration it makes sense.  His mistake was not realizing 30+ years of Ukraine freedom and nationalism gave Ukrainians a resolve, combined with U.S. weapons and his military leadership being complete stooges he is struggling. 

I am not normally in favor of giant sums of money going to other countries, but in my knuckle-dragger opinion it is money WELL spent to take Russia off the stage for a generation as a hegemonic near-peer.  But hey what do I know, I flew in circles for a living.

 

 

 

 

copy putin wants to maintain his influence in his sphere. kind of like we do.

none of that is a threat to our national security interests. you wrote nothing about putin wanting to keep invading west until he hits the atlantic ocean. crimea has been historically russian. no problem with them taking that.

thankfully trump will find a end to this dumbass involvement we've done. meanwhile the REAL threat to US interests is lurking in the pacific.

[SurelySerious]

copy putin wants to maintain his influence in his sphere. kind of like we do.
none of that is a threat to our national security interests. you wrote nothing about putin wanting to keep invading west until he hits the atlantic ocean. crimea has been historically russian. no problem with them taking that.
thankfully trump will find a end to this dumbass involvement we've done. meanwhile the REAL threat to US interests is lurking in the pacific.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

[Smokin]

Russia is and has been a threat to US interests since 1945 (maybe 1918?).  China is a bigger threat right now, but if you're fighting two guys at once and one falls to a knee, it isn't time to ignore them, it is time to stomp their face so they are out of the fight for a long time allowing you to focus on the other guy.

Is it expensive to fund Ukraine?  Yes.  Are we getting a way better return on that money compared to much of the other junk we burn our national treasure on?  Absolutely.  This is another Russia in Afghanistan scenario except the "good guys" aren't Islamic terrorists.  We'd be foolish to walk away from this opportunity to spend some money and help an enemy bleed themselves out.  Way better to defeat an enemy via a proxy war than face them directly in a war yourself.  And that doesn't even address the good of helping a free people defend themselves.

[BashiChuni]

19 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Your reading comprehension sucks.

throw facts and show me where i'm wrong. or just throw spears like a child.

[SurelySerious]

throw facts and show me where i'm wrong. or just throw spears like a child.

The facts can only be laid out for you so many times.

[BashiChuni]

yeah ok. my argument is valid and will be proven correct with hindsight. carry on NPC

[ClearedHot]

On 1/20/2025 at 9:28 AM, BashiChuni said:

throw facts and show me where i'm wrong. or just throw spears like a child.

I did throw facts brother, you just read them differently.