Ukraine

[JoeWeber 2,810]

  On 5/17/2022 at 12:46 PM, olofscience said:

Decisive, yes, but not irreplaceable.

The US can just supply Reapers, and IAI has plenty of alternatives too.

I suppose. But I further suppose that given the rest of what the US is supplying to fight what has become a proxy war that not having US air assets flying over Ukraine when an ally nearby Ukraine can do so is a good thing. Regarding Finland, I just do not see how the value of bringing them into NATO exceeds the additional friction it will cause especially now.

[olofscience 489]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:29 PM, JoeWeber said:

I suppose. But I further suppose that given the rest of what the US is supplying to fight what has become a proxy war that not having US air assets flying over Ukraine when an ally nearby Ukraine can do so is a good thing. Regarding Finland, I just do not see how the value of bringing them into NATO exceeds the additional friction it will cause especially now.

I've found it mentioned in other forums, but the Baltic is way more strategic for NATO than the Black Sea. Having Finland would effectively make the Baltic a complete NATO lake.

Russia's Baltic fleet is bigger and more important than the Black Sea fleet. It would also move NATO closer to the Kola Peninsula, which is very strategically important.

Erdogan has a good negotiating starting point, but not unlimited. He'll probably use whatever leverage he has to negotiate some concessions and Finland will eventually join. Turkey's order of Russia's S-400 missile system has already caused way more friction than whatever Finland has done.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:46 PM, olofscience said:

I've found it mentioned in other forums, but the Baltic is way more strategic for NATO than the Black Sea. Having Finland would effectively make the Baltic a complete NATO lake.

Russia's Baltic fleet is bigger and more important than the Black Sea fleet. It would also move NATO closer to the Kola Peninsula, which is very strategically important.

Erdogan has a good negotiating starting point, but not unlimited. He'll probably use whatever leverage he has to negotiate some concessions and Finland will eventually join. Turkey's order of Russia's S-400 missile system has already caused way more friction than whatever Finland has done.

The US can't control what Turkey does anymore than we can control India. Honestly, when the time is right I won't care if we make Finland the capital of the world and force everyone to be happy and have a home sauna. I simply think now isn't the time to add a country that has an 800 mile border with Russia given that NATO is fighting a proxy war over something similar at the moment.

[metalslug 36]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:10 PM, billvon said:

Exactly.  He was very up on it initially, since his mentor Putin was prosecuting it.

Then he saw the poll numbers, and then, as Skydekker said, "told the viewer what he wants to hear."  If all republicans started supporting Putin he'd be singing his praises in a heartbeat again.

You're sorta proving Skydekker's point here.

If that's true then it also disproves the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'.  You've now conceded that in your comment above.  Either they don't support Putin, or Trump does not pander to his supporters. Both can't be true. Trump didn't seem to mind recommending the vaccine to his supporters, either by being too 'slow' to realize the blowback he would get, or by actually placing principle above policy. I know which one you'll pick.

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:10 PM, billvon said:

"told the viewer what he wants to hear." 

 Name me one prominent US politician who doesn't do that?  The very nature of politics is popularity, else they never become prominent.

[olofscience 489]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:54 PM, JoeWeber said:

The US can't control what Turkey does anymore than we can control India. Honestly, when the time is right I won't care if we make Finland the capital of the world and force everyone to be happy and have a home sauna. I simply think now isn't the time to add a country that has an 800 mile border with Russia given that NATO is fighting a proxy war over something similar at the moment.

Well, the US can't control what Finland does either - and what they've done is apply to NATO.

Russia's army has gotten decimated in Ukraine and Finland's army is far better equipped. With Putin now dialing down his threats to Finland I don't see what the problem is. Could you clarify? Only Turkey stands in the way, and I've explained how they might negotiate something.

[Phil1111 1,149]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:10 PM, billvon said:

...You're sorta proving Skydekker's point here.

That the hard core of the republican base will always only see what they want to see? Or something else?

 

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:54 PM, JoeWeber said:

... I simply think now isn't the time to add a country that has an 800 mile border with Russia given that NATO is fighting a proxy war over something similar at the moment.

I detest bullies and those in power that abuse power. I love the idea that Putin is getting the proverbial punch in the face. That Finnish membership delivers to him and his supporters.

As far as Ukraine becoming some sort of external threat due to the flood of weapons flowing into the country. Don't forget it gave up its nuclear weapons years ago. In exchange for worthless paper promises.

[olofscience 489]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:59 PM, metalslug said:

the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'

um, nope, if you think that's the narrative, that's not coming from me. I don't think billvon has said anything of the sort either.

I think the conservatives here in this forum are firmly against Putin. (The Hundredth Monkey doesn't count - he's probably a russian bot) Even me and brent are on the same side!

But your narrative that Trump is firmly against Putin is what's getting pushback, so calm down.

From what I've seen, the most extreme leftists have also sided with Putin, as have the extreme right (which Trump is part of). Little do they realise what they have in common!

[jakee 1,558]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:29 PM, JoeWeber said:

I suppose. But I further suppose that given the rest of what the US is supplying to fight what has become a proxy war that not having US air assets flying over Ukraine when an ally nearby Ukraine can do so is a good thing. Regarding Finland, I just do not see how the value of bringing them into NATO exceeds the additional friction it will cause especially now.

Consider that if Ukraine had been a full member of NATO already we would not currently be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. That’s the value Finland being in NATO brings to NATO.

[billvon 3,063]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:59 PM, metalslug said:

If that's true then it also disproves the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'.

?? Right.  I didn't claim that.  Many do, including some of the more influential politicians and media mouthpieces.  Taken as a subset of conservatives, far more Trump supporters support Putin (or at least are OK with Putin's actions) than your average republican.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:03 PM, olofscience said:

Well, the US can't control what Finland does either - and what they've done is apply to NATO.

Russia's army has gotten decimated in Ukraine and Finland's army is far better equipped. With Putin now dialing down his threats to Finland I don't see what the problem is. Could you clarify? Only Turkey stands in the way, and I've explained how they might negotiate something.

I see what Finland gains short term, I don't see what NATO gains-at this particular moment. If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland we can choose to respond or not and to whatever degree seems appropriate. Why add an unnecessary trigger point, and potentially give Russia additional political leverage, at an inconvenient time? Yes, that's entirely transactional but so is everything geopolitical.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

  On 5/17/2022 at 3:59 PM, metalslug said:

Trump didn't seem to mind recommending the vaccine to his supporters, either by being too 'slow' to realize the blowback he would get, or by actually placing principle above policy. I know which one you'll pick.

Should note that Trump has not recommended the vaccine after he got booed doing so. 

[billvon 3,063]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, SkyDekker said:

Should note that Trump has not recommended the vaccine after he got booed doing so. 

Exactly.  He got negative feedback, so he went with a different message.  His ratings control what he says - not the other way around.

[jakee 1,558]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:22 PM, JoeWeber said:

I see what Finland gains short term, I don't see what NATO gains-at this particular moment. If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland we can choose to respond or not and to whatever degree seems appropriate. Why add an unnecessary trigger point, and potentially give Russia additional political leverage, at an inconvenient time? Yes, that's entirely transactional but so is everything geopolitical.

NATO is a deterrent. Putin doesn’t want conflict with the NATO block. That’s partly why he attacked Ukraine - to cut off NATO membership - and most of why he felt confidant that he could attack Ukraine without being directly opposed.

 

In short, with Finland in NATO there is a far, far lower probability of Russian aggression against Finland. If you can’t see why that’s a good thing for NATO in general and the rest of Europe in particular then I’m not sure what else to say.

[olofscience 489]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:22 PM, JoeWeber said:

I see what Finland gains short term, I don't see what NATO gains-at this particular moment. If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland we can choose to respond or not and to whatever degree seems appropriate. Why add an unnecessary trigger point, and potentially give Russia additional political leverage, at an inconvenient time? Yes, that's entirely transactional but so is everything geopolitical.

NATO gains the entire Baltic sea, which is a big gain.

If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

Yes it might add a trigger point.

No it won't give Russia additional political leverage. Their complaint that NATO caused their invasion of Ukraine was like a rapist blaming their victim that they were "forced" to do it.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:48 PM, olofscience said:

NATO gains the entire Baltic sea, which is a big gain.

If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

Yes it might add a trigger point.

No it won't give Russia additional political leverage. Their complaint that NATO caused their invasion of Ukraine was like a rapist blaming their victim that they were "forced" to do it.

The political leverage could be a simple as knowing that by treaty an attack on Finland would require a response from all of NATO. Even a serious looking bluff would require something in kind. Not to mention we'd receive even more piercing insights into who is willing to pay for what and when. I see nothing gained by changing the games rules at this juncture. I concede I might be wrong but that's how I'd play it right now.

[Phil1111 1,149]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:57 PM, JoeWeber said:

... I see nothing gained by changing the games rules at this juncture. I concede I might be wrong but that's how I'd play it right now.

"President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that there was no threat to Russia if Sweden and Finland joined NATO but cautioned that Moscow would respond if the U.S.-led alliance bolstered military infrastructure in the new Nordic members."

The opposing player has submitted to the rule change already. Concede your victory, smile and retire to the bar where the victor's spoils await consumption.

[jakee 1,558]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:57 PM, JoeWeber said:

The political leverage could be a simple as knowing that by treaty an attack on Finland would require a response from all of NATO.

Yes, that’s exactly the point. This is a good thing for all of NATO and a bad thing for any more of Putin’s expansionist ambitions.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

  On 5/17/2022 at 6:56 AM, jakee said:

Safeguards against one person doing something crazy with nukes. But we’re not talking about nukes, so how on earth do you think he’s addressed his concerns about every other piece of equipment?

Eh? We need to be worried about A10s because they could be used to start WW3 but we don’t need to worry about people who have A10s? Maybe explain that one.

Nukes would definitely set off WW3. 

A-10s (or any other serious attack) from Ukraine might set it off.

I'm not worried about anyone else attacking Russia with A-10s (or anything else) at the moment.

The original album question was about the aid being provided to Ukraine, and why there were certain 'big ticket ' things being left out. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,426]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:48 PM, olofscience said:

NATO gains the entire Baltic sea, which is a big gain.

If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

Yes it might add a trigger point.

No it won't give Russia additional political leverage. Their complaint that NATO caused their invasion of Ukraine was like a rapist blaming their victim that they were "forced" to do it.

Hi Olof,

Re:  If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

I am still somewhat dumb-founded that the Russian military is so ineffective.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

  On 5/17/2022 at 6:43 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Olof,

Re:  If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

I am still somewhat dumb-founded that the Russian military is so ineffective.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry, 

It's a lot more obvious in hindsight. 

 

Afghanistan in the 80s & 90s showed a few weaknesses. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the corruption skyrocketed. It was always there, but capitalism sent it through the roof. 

So you get ancient rations, ancient tires, 'miracle tanks' that exist only on paper,  untrained thugs instead of actual trained soldiers. 

 

I won't pretend I could have predicted it, but I'm also not as surprised as I might have been. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,426]

  On 5/17/2022 at 6:50 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Hi Jerry, 

It's a lot more obvious in hindsight. 

 

Afghanistan in the 80s & 90s showed a few weaknesses. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the corruption skyrocketed. It was always there, but capitalism sent it through the roof. 

So you get ancient rations, ancient tires, 'miracle tanks' that exist only on paper,  untrained thugs instead of actual trained soldiers. 

 

I won't pretend I could have predicted it, but I'm also not as surprised as I might have been. 

Hi Joe,

And, a little update:  Ukraine says it's downed 200 aircraft, a mark of Russian failures in the sky : NPR

 instead of dominating the skies as expected, Russian pilots are so vulnerable they're reluctant to enter Ukraine's airspace.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,558]

  On 5/17/2022 at 6:41 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

A-10s (or any other serious attack) from Ukraine might set it off.

I'm not worried about anyone else attacking Russia with A-10s (or anything else) at the moment.

So why did you bring it up?

  On 5/17/2022 at 6:41 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

The original album question was about the aid being provided to Ukraine, and why there were certain 'big ticket ' things being left out. 

Specifically, why A10s were left out. Not why nukes were left out, why A10s were left out which is your scenario that you chose to talk about. So if you’re not worried about anyone with access to A10s doing something stupid why are you worried about someone with access to A10s doing something stupid?

[billvon 3,063]

  On 5/17/2022 at 6:50 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

So you get ancient rations, ancient tires, 'miracle tanks' that exist only on paper,  untrained thugs instead of actual trained soldiers. 

Many of them are not even "thugs."  Interviews with them reveal young untrained troops that were tricked into coming to Ukraine by calling it a training exercise - or sometimes by being told nothing at all.  There are stories of commanders hunkering down in well protected bunkers while ordering troops to patrol the area - not for Ukranain fighters, but for Russian troops trying to desert.  APC crews are drilling holes in their gas tanks so they can "run out of gas" and not have to go near the fighting.  One crew intentionally ran over their own commander, Yuri Medvedev.  One gun crew were shooting down both Ukranian and Russian aircraft.

The troops pretty clearly aren't well trained and don't want to be there, and are doing what they are ordered to do only with great reluctance.

[JerryBaumchen 1,426]

  On 5/17/2022 at 7:22 PM, billvon said:

Many of them are not even "thugs."  Interviews with them reveal young untrained troops that were tricked into coming to Ukraine by calling it a training exercise - or sometimes by being told nothing at all.  There are stories of commanders hunkering down in well protected bunkers while ordering troops to patrol the area - not for Ukranain fighters, but for Russian troops trying to desert.  APC crews are drilling holes in their gas tanks so they can "run out of gas" and not have to go near the fighting.  One crew intentionally ran over their own commander, Yuri Medvedev.  One gun crew were shooting down both Ukranian and Russian aircraft.

The troops pretty clearly aren't well trained and don't want to be there, and are doing what they are ordered to do only with great reluctance.

Hi Bill,

Re:  APC crews are drilling holes in their gas tanks so they can "run out of gas" and not have to go near the fighting.  One crew intentionally ran over their own commander, Yuri Medvedev.  One gun crew were shooting down both Ukranian and Russian aircraft.

Every cloud has a silver lining.  You have to love it.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 643]

  On 5/17/2022 at 4:48 PM, olofscience said:

NATO gains the entire Baltic sea, which is a big gain.

If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

Yes it might add a trigger point.

No it won't give Russia additional political leverage. Their complaint that NATO caused their invasion of Ukraine was like a rapist blaming their victim that they were "forced" to do it.

Finland bloodied the Russian bear's nose back in 1939 and they will bloody it again if Russia is foolish enough to invade again in the near future.

Also remember that Finland has a first class electronics industry and power tools industries.