Ukraine

[airdvr 210]

On 11/28/2022 at 11:42 PM, billvon said:

You sorta have to see all the newspaper clippings, the push-pins and the threads stretched between them to see the real structure of this conspiracy.

You mean like this?

[kallend 2,108]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

You mean like this?

More like this:

 

[jakee 1,564]

On 11/24/2022 at 7:06 PM, riggerrob said:

NATO attaches strings because the last thing they want is to fuel Russian propaganda about NATO wanting to expand all the way to the Ural mountains.

France learned that invading Russia was impossible back during the days of Napoleon (circa 1800).

During the First World War, Germany learned that they could at best fight Russia to a stand-still.

Furing the Second World War Germany learned that it was impossible to HOLD Russian territory, no matter how easy it might have been to conquer. Long supply lines and "General Mud" made it impossible to re-supply German soldiers too many thousand kilometers/miles from German farms and factories.

Bottom line is that NATO knows that invading Russia is a fool's game.

??? No-one's talking about invading Russia or has any intention of invading Russia. But so far with about 5 exceptions every bit of ordinance used in this war by both sides has exploded on Ukrainian territory, devastating Ukrainian land, infrastructure, culture and people. Russia acts as if those 5 or so exceptions are shocking, unprecedented and unjustified violations of its national sovereignty rather than natural consequences of starting a war on their own border. So far NATO and the EU have effectively played along with that narrative, as does talk about 'invading Russia'. 

There's no good reason why Ukraine should bear the entire brunt of the damage from this war, and no good reason why they should not be able to strike at the military equipment and infrastructure inside Russian border that is continuing to support and facilitate the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[jakee 1,564]

On 12/3/2022 at 2:09 PM, JoeWeber said:

How America spends money on defense is nothing short of obscene. Curious, however, is that the same people who lambaste Slim King for his desire to see Ukraine surrender don't recognize that if America spent on defense and R&D as their nations do the war in Ukraine would have been over long ago.

Most of what the US spends its defense and R&D money on is completely and utterly useless to Ukraine, and not much better than that to the US. How many carrier battle groups have you given them?

Edited December 5, 2022 by jakee

[JoeWeber 2,836]

17 minutes ago, jakee said:

Most of what the US spends its defense and R&D money on is completely and utterly useless to Ukraine, and not much better than that to the US. How many carrier battle groups have you given them?

Bullshit. M777 artillery firing regular and Excaliber guided rounds changed things on the ground. HIMARS changed things on the ground. Javelin Anti Armour systems changed things on the ground. The intel we give them changed things on the ground. Really, you could hardly have been more silly than to ask how many Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups we've given them when we cannot even give them M1A1 Tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles or a single F-16 because of fuel type and maintenance issues that would render them useless. Yes, we waste untold billions on our Military but that doesn't mean that our R&D spending isn't helping.

[gowlerk 2,253]

37 minutes ago, jakee said:

There's no good reason why Ukraine should bear the entire brunt of the damage from this war,

Unless you count the possibility of unleashing WWIII as a good reason not to. Let that be a lesson to all nations, nukes matter.

Edit, if Ukraine had nukes it would still have Crimea.

Edited December 5, 2022 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,836]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

There's no good reason why Ukraine should bear the entire brunt of the damage from this war, and no good reason why they should not be able to strike at the military equipment and infrastructure inside Russian border that is continuing to support and facilitate the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Negative. The good reasons are plenty. First, Ukraine is not a NATO country; our obligations are few beyond our own self interests. Were it not for NATO, and by that I mean America, they would have lost their country months ago. I am guessing Ukraine would agree that a pock marked nation in need of rebuilding is better than none at all so it's not all bad news. But the biggie, not to offend your delicate sensibilities, is that letting Russia deplete their military in Ukraine by deftly avoiding an escalation that might include nuclear weapons is in the worlds best interest. The Ukraine strategy is working and will continue to work as long as Europe can hold it's water.

[jakee 1,564]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Bullshit. M777 artillery firing regular and Excaliber guided rounds changed things on the ground. HIMARS changed things on the ground. Javelin Anti Armour systems changed things on the ground. The intel we give them changed things on the ground. 

Why does something that has nothing to do with what I said make it bullshit? Calm down for once and think before you speak.

Quote

Really, you could hardly have been more silly than to ask how many Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups we've given them when we cannot even give them M1A1 Tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles or a single F-16 because of fuel type and maintenance issues that would render them useless. 

How about we take a trip back into the mists of time when I said the majority of what the US spends its defense money on is useless to Ukraine and you said that was bullshit. What changed your mind between then and now?

[jakee 1,564]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Negative. The good reasons are plenty. First, Ukraine is not a NATO country; our obligations are few beyond our own self interests. Were it not for NATO, and by that I mean America, they would have lost their country months ago. I am guessing Ukraine would agree that a pock marked nation in need of rebuilding is better than none at all so it's not all bad news. But the biggie, not to offend your delicate sensibilities, is that letting Russia deplete their military in Ukraine by deftly avoiding an escalation that might include nuclear weapons is in the worlds best interest. The Ukraine strategy is working and will continue to work as long as Europe can hold it's water.

As long as Nato armies aren't invading we've already seen that Putin's nuclear bluster is an empty threat. Weapons that can hit Russian bases a few hundred miles inside their borders is not going to flick that switch.

By the way, if you're now arguing that America is in this purely for self interest that's just another reason for you to quit whining about anyone else's defense spending. It's not our job to help you achieve your policy goals.

Edited December 6, 2022 by jakee

[JoeWeber 2,836]

Just now, jakee said:

Why does something that has nothing to do with what I said make it bullshit? Calm down for once and think before you speak.

How about we take a trip back into the mists of time when I said the majority of what the US spends its defense money on is useless to Ukraine and you said that was bullshit. What changed your mind between then and now?

Jakee, you are so right, you're always so right. Thank you for pointing out that you and I should take a trip back through the "mists of time". I had no idea you felt that way as much as I am not sure how I feel that you do. No matter, let it be that every thing I have posted here, every poorly conceived notion I have penned, every silly idea I have offered here be purged such that I be granted a tabula rasa upon which I can write things that satisfy you.

[Phil1111 1,149]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

...There's no good reason why Ukraine should bear the entire brunt of the damage from this war, and no good reason why they should not be able to strike at the military equipment and infrastructure inside Russian border that is continuing to support and facilitate the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Agree

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Unless you count the possibility of unleashing WWIII as a good reason not to. Let that be a lesson to all nations, nukes matter.

Edit, if Ukraine had nukes it would still have Crimea.

Agree

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

... But the biggie, not to offend your delicate sensibilities, is that letting Russia deplete their military in Ukraine by deftly avoiding an escalation that might include nuclear weapons is in the worlds best interest. The Ukraine strategy is working and will continue to work as long as Europe can hold it's water.

Agree. I didn't think that I could agree with  Joe and Jakee on the same issue on the page of posts. The more Putin attacks Ukrainian infrastructure the more I think the Baltic leaders are right and know Russia best. They suggest that arming Ukraine substantially better is the way to deter Putin. Because sanctions are not sharp enough to outsmart Putin. The Ukrainians have been smart and responsible in the use of NATO supplied weapons. But they are suffering large losses in the process.

An exhausted capitulated Ukraine and a Putin win does nobody favors. He could win. What if he drafts a million men next spring? Decides Georgia, Belarus, Moldova should be next? Even before he finishes off Ukraine?

[ryoder 1,590]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

An exhausted capitulated Ukraine and a Putin win does nobody favors. He could win. What if he drafts a million men next spring? Decides Georgia, Belarus, Moldova should be next? Even before he finishes off Ukraine?

It is clear Putin is a megalomaniac whose goal is to reunite the old Soviet Union.

As soon as he captures Ukraine, every other former part of the old USSR would be on the table. And after that would be all the old satellite states of the USSR.

Give Uraine everything they need to put a stop to it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

An exhausted capitulated Ukraine and a Putin win does nobody favors. He could win. What if he drafts a million men next spring? Decides Georgia, Belarus, Moldova should be next? Even before he finishes off Ukraine?

While it's a remote possibility Putin could defeat Ukraine, it's not likely.

Where would he get a million men to draft?
He got about 300k, but most that could left the country.

Many that were drafted came from the remote Russian east. Many are ethnic Asians. 

Very few had much training. Many surrendered as soon as they could. Or ran the other way. 
That 'million men' would simply be cannon fodder in the face of any reasonably modern army.

Putin is quickly running out of just about everything. 

They may well have lost HALF of their main battle tanks.
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-probably-lost-half-main-battle-tanks-ukraine-pentagon-2022-11

 

They're now using cruise missiles intended for nuclear attack as decoy drones.

There's lots of other stuff that they have used, had destroyed or had captured that simply can't be replaced quickly. 

Building a new tank is not a trivial, cheap or fast thing to have happen. 

While I have no doubts that Putin planned on going after other 'former Soviet states' (Georgia was probably at or near the top of the list), the reality is that Russia won't be able to attack or invade anyone for quite a while.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

While it's a remote possibility Putin could defeat Ukraine, it's not likely....

While I have no doubts that Putin planned on going after other 'former Soviet states' (Georgia was probably at or near the top of the list), the reality is that Russia won't be able to attack or invade anyone for quite a while.

I don't disagree that it would be a tough stretch. But Russia has , lots of young men in the Russian hinterlands. Putin is very resourceful:Vladimir Putin has secretly approved a law that could send a further one million men to fight in Ukraine, according to information leaked from the Kremlin.

The target, revealed by a Kremlin source to a Russian newspaper, is more than triple the 300,000 number that had previously been given under Putin's "partial mobilisation" plan.

  Weapons investigators in Kyiv found that at least one Russian Kh-101 cruise missile used in widespread attacks there on Nov. 23 had been made no earlier than October.

I'm sure there are more deals he can make with Iran, N.. Korea for more weapons. But Ukraine has lots of friends too:Ukraine war: Arms made at pace ‘highest since Cold War’ as Europe’s east aids Kyiv

Edited December 6, 2022 by Phil1111

[gowlerk 2,253]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

They're now using cruise missiles intended for nuclear attack as decoy drones.

There's lots of other stuff that they have used, had destroyed or had captured that simply can't be replaced quickly. 

I keep reading the same stories you are reading. But I am skeptical. There is a long history of news organizations being spoon fed false or overly positive information to keep public support in times of war. I don't completely call bullshit, but I definitely take stories about Russia's problems with a healthy grain of salt. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,445]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

It is clear Putin is a megalomaniac whose goal is to reunite the old Soviet Union.

As soon as he captures Ukraine, every other former part of the old USSR would be on the table. And after that would be all the old satellite states of the USSR.

Give Uraine everything they need to put a stop to it.

Hi Robert,

Putin has said that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the break-up of the Soviet Union.

I have long felt that he wants to put back together.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,564]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Jakee, you are so right, you're always so right. Thank you for pointing out that you and I should take a trip back through the "mists of time". I had no idea you felt that way as much as I am not sure how I feel that you do. No matter, let it be that every thing I have posted here, every poorly conceived notion I have penned, every silly idea I have offered here be purged such that I be granted a tabula rasa upon which I can write things that satisfy you.

Man that’s a whole load of useless words when ‘oops’ would have been sufficient. Why can’t you just admit such an obviously stupid mistake?

[Phil1111 1,149]

9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I keep reading the same stories you are reading. But I am skeptical. There is a long history of news organizations being spoon fed false or overly positive information to keep public support in times of war. I don't completely call bullshit, but I definitely take stories about Russia's problems with a healthy grain of salt. 

Russia, China and N. Korea are not transparent states. More so in the time of war. The idea that Russia is building new long range cruise missiles using western chips. While under sanctions. Should open many eyes.

“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.”

From the author of the original treatise on war.

[JoeWeber 2,836]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

Man that’s a whole load of useless words when ‘oops’ would have been sufficient. Why can’t you just admit such an obviously stupid mistake?

[riggerrob 643]

14 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

"I don't disagree that it would be a tough stretch. But Russia has , lots of young men in the Russian hinterlands. Putin is very resourceful:Vladimir Putin has secretly approved a law that could send a further one million men to fight in Ukraine, according to information leaked from the Kremlin.
.... "

I disagree.

Russia is facing a shortage of young men.

Russia is facing a demographic crisis. Starting during World War 1, Russia has suffered a series of cycles of low birth rates. The most recent dip occurred in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the USSR circa 1990, which means that Russia is suffering a shortage of young men under 30 years old.

Russia can only maintain its labour force by importing many tens of thousands of young men from its former "stans." Mind you, right wing Russian thugs have an annoying habit of mugging "guest workers" in Moscow.

What if a prolonged war in Ukraine so depletes Russian Army ranks that they become vulnerable to invasions from the various "stans?" Those sorts of invasions have ONLY happened a dozen or so time in the past.: Sythians, Mongols, Huns, Turkmen, Tatars, etc. 

 

[ryoder 1,590]

Things keep going "boom" on Russian military airfields, and people keep blaming Ukraine:

Ukraine strikes another Russian air base, showing vulnerability of defenses

[billvon 3,078]

4 hours ago, ryoder said:

Things keep going "boom" on Russian military airfields, and people keep blaming Ukraine:

Ukraine strikes another Russian air base, showing vulnerability of defenses

Thoughts and prayers.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:56 PM, JoeWeber said:

Lame and you know it. Canada is first on the list of NATO partners who are happy to send their version of hopes and prayers when the shit hits the fan. Yes, Canada will buy some of our stocks and also put a few bucks into a reconstruction plan but Canada is always being dragged along. Canada needs to kick into gear big time and no more BS about the US and yada yada.  

 

And yet in the list of top 6 longest confirmed sniper kills are 3 Canadians and no Americans. Maybe you can send some of your military up for some training, add some skill to just brute force.

Those 3 were also all in conflicts supporting the US. You're welcome.

Edited December 8, 2022 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 2,836]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

And yet in the list of top 6 longest confirmed sniper kills are 3 Canadians and no Americans. Maybe you can send some of your military up for some training, add some skill to just brute force.

Those 3 were also all in conflicts supporting the US. You're welcome.

You're right, as always. Let us know if you need three more sniper rifles or have you yet sorted out how to make those? Fun fact, the Canadian CA15C2 Sniper rifle is made by Christensen Arms. Guess where they are located.

[gowlerk 2,253]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Fun fact, the Canadian CA15C2 Sniper rifle is made by Christensen Arms. Guess where they are located.

No doubt they are "The Arms of America".