nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Ukraine, sanctions and emigration are doing a pretty good job of that. No need for us to go to war.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
Ukraine, sanctions and emigration are doing a pretty good job of that. No need for us to go to war.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yep, people who suggest this type of negotiation are not considering that things would be far worse if we let Russia overrun Ukraine. You have to be fairly naive to think Russia would stop at Ukraine if they were successful this time. If you dig back through when Russia annexed Crimea, you can see they claimed they would stop at that. Instead their appetite only grew larger when they saw they could mostly get away with it.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
You were suggesting to do nothing before. Now you are suggesting the opposite extreme? Not following your logic. The fact of the matter is the amount of money we are spending to support Ukraine is a pittance compared to what we would have to spend if we just let Russia overrun Ukraine and dealing with the aftermath (not to mention we don't need to put our own military personnel into harms way). Ukraine is doing a great job with what we are providing and has the resolve to defend their own territory. That it knocked Russia way down in the military pedestal and united Europe (which will likely help reduce the demand on our military budget into the future) is a just bonus.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Different solutions for different goals.
If the goal is to “dismantle Russia”, which is fundamentally different than “maintain Ukrainian sovereignty” then you really just need to go all in rather than press on with some attempt at defeat by attrition.
There will be collateral damage any way you slice it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
If you can do the same thing for much cheaper and with little to no loss of your own military personnel, why would you logically opt for the worse path?
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
What’s the actual goal? Because that too seems to have shifted (depending on who you ask) as we close in on the first anniversary of this chapter of the conflict.
I think people are tired of funding these forever wars of attrition that are started and maintained on lies, misunderstandings (often intentionally), and manufactured consensus.
If in fact Russia must be eliminated due to its threat to the rest of the world then it should be done quickly and decisively. — No more half measures.
Last edited:
To force Russia's military off of every square inch of Ukrainian soil. If the Ukrainians are willing to accept any compromises to their '91 borders, that is their decision to make.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The goal as linked previously is to support Ukraine in defending themselves (both short and long term), with the decision at which point they call for a ceasefire (or to make concessions) up to them.
U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine - United States Department of State
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
I seem to remember Vlody moving those goalposts recently which raises a question:
If I gave you a credit card with no limit and told you that you’re welcome to use it for as long as you want, would you ever stop using it?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Except there is a limit, as discussed before, our weapons can't be used to attack Russian soil (counter-battery fire likely excepted). The US has made it clear, if there is any indication the Ukraine is using the aid to do anything beyond defending their own territory (for example making revenge attacks on Russia or invading Russian territory), it will end.
Last edited:
I would probably just assume that you were deranged, and toss the card in the nearest receptacle. We have not given Ukraine a blank check.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
There is no goal to "dismantle Russia", Russia is doing a good job of imploding all by itself.
Clean energy and transport is rapidly rendering Fossil Fuels irrelevant, Russia has very little of anything else that the world desperately needs.
Russia doesn't seem like a good /safe / stable place to do business, or a safe place to visit as a tourist.
When Russia leaves all of Ukraine, the world will be more than happy to simply ignore Russia.
Should Russia elect a democratic government, and show a genuine desire to join the modern world, people will be glad to help them out.
I don't think the government, or the war in Ukraine, is a true representation of the average Russian.
Maybe it's time the US government kept some promises?
The money the US has spent on Ukraine is spare change compared to the federal budget. The US government budget is $5.35 trillion. Since January 2021 the US has sent $16.9 billion in aid to Ukraine. Most of it this year ($16.2 billion this year). That's 0.3% of the US budget for 2022.
$1.1 Billion in Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine
Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending
Think of it as an investment. The US is spending pennies on foreign policy that could pay off in massive ways after this war is over. Russia is going to come out of this war vastly weaker. Ukraine is sitting on trillions of untapped resources including metals needed for batteries. If they have good relations with the US, US companies stand to benefit from this. Ukraine also needs to be rebuilt after this war and US companies will be getting a lot of those contracts.
This war is a realignment war. There are only two countries are capable of stepping in and guiding the realignment: China and the US. The US is putting itself in the primary position to lead the realignment. If China leads it, the world will look vastly different and things will be vastly worse for the US (and every other democracy) if China does this.
The US is investing their pocket change for an opportunity to shut China out and take advantage of a massive opportunity.
That's just the version for the people who don't care about the human cost of this war and the opportunity to help a people who are striving to be free of tyranny and join the liberal democracies of the world. If you care anything about people, the benefits there vastly outweigh the monetary and political benefits.
The US stands to gain tremendously from this war. Probably more than any country on the planet, politically, financially, and brownie points with the people of the world.
I saw some joking on Twitter that Ukraine was beating Russia with NATO surplus supplies.
NATO and the US so far haven't given Ukraine:-
- Modern aircraft
- Modern helicopters
- Modern air defence and missile defence systems.
- Modern tanks,
- Switchblades 600 drones or similar
- MQ9 Drones or similar.
- Longer range missiles
As a general rule, NATO isn't giving Ukraine the latest and best equipment, or anything NATO thinks it might need.
If Ukraine is wining now, imagine how it would go if NATO gave them everything the wanted, with a "blank cheque" budget.
In all probability Ukraine has more captured Russian equipment than they do NATO equipment.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Generally the attacker takes quite a lot of casualties, especially if the forces are anywhere near evenly matched. There are exceptions to this but they are hard to achieve: they take a lot of training; then a lot of battlefield preparation; then tight all-arms co-ordination and (paradoxically) a preparedness to take necessary unavoidable losses when punching through defenses. The Ukraine appear to have learnt how to do all this and are now showing that ability in several widely separated areas of the 1000-km front line, i.e. this is not just a few elite troops.
The continuing exchange ratio in the statistics is telling this story very clearly.
This is the best set of up-to-date maps I've seen in my scan this morning, together with a commentary that is also self-explanatory for both the southern and northern fronts
At this point the Ukraine forces are growing in number, in quality of personnel/training/experience, and in quality of equipment, and in confidence that what they are trying to do is achievable. The Ukraine troops know that their command teams are being as parsimonious as possible with their lives, and they are acting in a very disciplined cohesive manner with high morale. The Ukraine command team is fighting a battle with a series of good options at this stage and are selecting carefully and executing well.
The reverse is true in almost every way for the Russian forces and they have nothing but bad options at every turn, some worse than others. The best thing the Russians could do now is to declare a unilateral ceasefire and withdraw at max speed. Somehow I don't think Putin will approve that. It is difficult to know what will break first within Russia but the implications are obvious.
Our task is to make sure our populations in the West understand what is going on, understand that the combinations of military/economic/political efforts are working, and that we should stay the course in support of the Ukraine people, but be realistic that it will not be easy, quick, cost-free, or painless for us either. That is something that each and every one of us can help with.
Last edited:
I thought a limited operation in Afghanistan to get bin Laden was appropriate, but I was against staying there for any length of time and I was adamantly against Iraq. At the time I said it was the worst strategic decision the US has ever made. When it became clear than bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, the US should have packed up and left Afghanistan.
If the US hadn't been siphoning out troops from Afghanistan for the invasion of Iraq, they would have caught bin Laden.
There were not many T-80s made. They only fully equipped one unit that was at Izium, the 1st guards Tank Army. The 1st Guards had this tank because they were supposed to be a rapid response reserve and the T-80 is Russia's fastest tank. The 1st Guards retreated leaving most of their tanks behind.
What is notable is how few of the 7000 T-72s in storage were brought back to life and sent to the war. That is an indication of the poor shape of their reserve tank fleet. The T-72 was the most common tank in Russian service at the start of the war and with so many in storage, it should be the most common tank on the battlefield today, but we're seeing a lot of T-62s. The T-62s probably had less theft because they were so old, so more could be restored. A lot of the newer tanks that had been in storage have been stripped of so much equipment they are now pretty much useless.
The T-80 and T-90 are both based on the T-72 with mostly electronics and other equipment upgrades and the T-90 is essentially a re-engined T-80 with a more fuel efficient diesel replacing the turbine engine that burns through fuel at a staggering rate.
Russia is very short of experienced tank crews at this point. Their tanks were not built with crew survivability in mind so most of the ~2500 tanks lost also included loss of the crew. Without any trainers left, they have no ability to train new tank crews. Their new tank drivers barely know how to drive a car. There is also evidence a lot of tanks are going into combat with only one person in the turret, which overloads the tank commander and makes the tank virtually worthless in combat except in a stationary position where the commander can have bore sighted targets.
Direct involvement of the US military now runs the highest risk for nuclear war.
The war is going to end in less than a year. Hopefully the world will help Ukraine rebuild, but a lot of that money will go to American companies. The Marshall Plan after WWII was a big expense but it paid massive dividends both financially and politically.
Here is the goal as I see it: protect Ukraine's sovereignty with an increasing likelihood that Russia will be dismantled. If not dismantled it will become a vastly smaller threat to world peace coming out of this. The chances for a two-fer are very high.
Direct military intervention by the US risks the ICBMs flying.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Yes, see also Russia exports through Iran by train are increasing. See post #310 and #309 for some further info. The on-leg for the fertiliser out of Bandar Abbas to India is by sea which is a point that is being glossed over, so not yet a full win for China/Russia/Iran in that respect. They need to unlock further pieces of the network to either Gwadar (easiest) or Karachi (harder) in Pakistan to get around the Straits Of Hormuz chokepoint. China are playing the long game with this, they have the strategic patience.
Energy Sector News
It will be interesting to see how well this story stands up .... bearing in mind the underlying origin seems to be zerohedge .... (Whether there is a knock-on financial effect is undisputed. The real issue is whether physical cargo is getting sold through from Russia to Europe.)...
teslamotorsclub.com
