Jump to content

Because Biden


nitflegal

Recommended Posts

On 2/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, R011 said:

As for a hot war with Russia, the front line  countries, like Poland,  are preparing.  The rest are   letting Ukraine bleed Russia so they don't have to.  The Ukraine war is cheaper than a return to the Cold War.

How noble of the chickenhawks, fight the bear to the last Ukrainian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

What alternative do you propose?

For starters European nations, that claim this is a fight for democracy, need to demand Ukraine not suspend their democracy by suspending elections.  Next, the chickenhawks need to send some fresh young cannon fodder to Ukraine.  As it stands now the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is almost 45 years.  Time for chickenhawks to get some actual stake in the war, the easiest wars to fight forever are the ones you get some other poor suckers to fight for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DKTanker said:

For starters European nations, that claim this is a fight for democracy, need to demand Ukraine not suspend their democracy by suspending elections.  Next, the chickenhawks need to send some fresh young cannon fodder to Ukraine.  As it stands now the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is almost 45 years.  Time for chickenhawks to get some actual stake in the war, the easiest wars to fight forever are the ones you get some other poor suckers to fight for you.

The UK also has postponed elections until after the war in a lot more comfortable situation. Not every country is the US, where there are no legal provisions to postpone it. There was no whining about how undemocratic the UK is. 

The Ukrainians don't ask for soldiers, they ask for weapons and ammunition. They still have more people in the field than the Russians, they still don't draft anyone below 27 (might lower it to 25 though) etc. Their motivation to fight isn't 'for us', they fight for themselves, we help them because it's also in our interest.

Do you want to de facto disband NATO? Because direct involvement of some countries may lead to the situation where their allies decide that Article 5 no longer applies to them, due to their military 'adventurism' outside the bounds of the alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2024 at 4:42 AM, urbanoid said:

d3z635o.jpeg

It's a category error. People think a thing that seems like them is like your side because of one factor. 

Putin is about growing Russian empire. That's it. 

Of course the left in the west is doing the same that are thinking Hamas are on their side with regards to LGBT Rights. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Do you want to de facto disband NATO? Because direct involvement of some countries may lead to the situation where their allies decide that Article 5 no longer applies to them, due to their military 'adventurism' outside the bounds of the alliance.

On the contrary, if European countries, read NATO, truly believe Russia is an extant existential threat, then let's get Ukraine into NATO immediately so that Article five and can invoked.  I mean if we're serious about winning this war instead of just pumping money into the military industrial complex to last Ukrainian standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

On the contrary, if European countries, read NATO, truly believe Russia is an extant existential threat, then let's get Ukraine into NATO immediately so that Article five and can invoked.  I mean if we're serious about winning this war instead of just pumping money into the military industrial complex to last Ukrainian standing.

Every single major country in NATO,  including yours, would be against that, besides it's not something that Article 5 covers in the first place. And since our countries here largely depend on yours when it comes to security... The Ukrainians are well aware of that fact and that's' why they ask for weapons and ammunition, not soldiers. They have already pretty much annihilated half of more of pre-war Russian land forces and quite a few of their air and naval assets. 

Some NATO countries consider Russia to be an existential threat, others consider it to be at least a major threat, but it doesn't mean that we can go and attack them when NATO countries have not been attacked first. Basically what is being done is based on the old Cold War playbook - Soviet assistance to North Korea in the 50s and Vietnam in the 60s/70s, US support for Afghan mujahideen in the 80s, I culd go onand on.

The military industrial complex is being... revitalised actually, on both sides of the pond, but especially in Europe where more needs to be done to catch up and where military spending is rising substantially - that's basically what the US was asking for as long as I can remember. Better late than never, I guess. Overall it's a good thing.

We're doing what we should in this situation, more or less. What we're doing wrong is trickling the supplies, playing internal political games with them and butting heads with each other about 'muh escalation'. I.e. ATACMS was supposed to be one, while Iran is supplying Russia with missiles with longer range and bigger warhead. Germany is still withholding Taurus deliveries even though the French and the British have already supplied comparable missiles. Anyway, when it comes to actual production, US capacity is bigger than European one, though Europe did larger share financial backing of fighting Ukraine than the US and accepted most of the refugees. The real costs are paid mostly here in Europe, US backing is funneled mostly into current production of USian MIC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

They have already pretty much annihilated half of more of pre-war Russian land forces and quite a few of their air and naval assets. 

According to their propaganda, Russia has ceased to exist as a military power.

Several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

According to their propaganda, Russia has ceased to exist as a military power.

Several times.

That was never my conlusion from the available data, more like 'they've been hurt badly'. Lost more tanks and IFVs than Western Europe has in the first place, lost the numerical equivalent of Polish air force combat aircraft inventory, major warship etc.

Of course, they're rebuilding, taking sometimes very old stuff from deep storage, mobilising their industry, buying stuff abroad when it's possible etc. 

If 1,5-2 years ago someone told me that Russia will be taking T-54s out of storage, import something as trivial as simple drones from Iran, artillery ammunition from North Korea (I considered their own stocks to be 'virtually infinite') and depend on Iran to supply ballistic missiles, I would have probably laughed at that.

As far as I'm concerned, every killed or maimed Russian invader and every piece of equipment destroyed is the one NATO (or part of it) won't have to deal with if the Kremlin rulers have another brilliant idea, at the same time discouraging such ideas. Oh, obviously they say they won't do that, they've been saying the same about Ukraine, both prior to 2014 and 2022. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DKTanker said:

For starters European nations, that claim this is a fight for democracy, need to demand Ukraine not suspend their democracy by suspending elections.  Next, the chickenhawks need to send some fresh young cannon fodder to Ukraine.  As it stands now the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is almost 45 years.  Time for chickenhawks to get some actual stake in the war, the easiest wars to fight forever are the ones you get some other poor suckers to fight for you.

The only people I see claiming the narrative is about supporting democracy are people who oppose aid to Ukraine.  The people who support aid to Ukraine say its about stopping Russia.

Ukrainians want to defend themselves and it's in the West's interests to help them.  They don't need or especially want foreigners to do it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DKTanker said:

On the contrary, if European countries, read NATO, truly believe Russia is an extant existential threat, then let's get Ukraine into NATO immediately so that Article five and can invoked.  I mean if we're serious about winning this war instead of just pumping money into the military industrial complex to last Ukrainian standing.

Absolutely, and some of us have been saying this for the past 10 years, and being told 'we cant do that, its dangerous'.

As if the world as it now is, is in any way safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R011 said:

The people who support aid to Ukraine say its about stopping Russia.

Spot on.

10 hours ago, urbanoid said:

every killed or maimed Russian invader and every piece of equipment destroyed is the one NATO (or part of it) won't have to deal with if the Kremlin rulers have another brilliant idea, at the same time discouraging such ideas.

Precisely.

10 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Lost more tanks and IFVs than Western Europe has in the first place, lost the numerical equivalent of Polish air force combat aircraft inventory, major warship etc.

Our main problem is insufficient stocks to draw from, unlike the US (and Russia in particular); at the same time the production capacity has also atrophied (even if there's major revival now). The failure has been to discard rather than to stockpile seemingly obsolete equipment, along with sufficient quantities of munitions in case of a major war. Correcting that mistake needs time - maybe more time than Ukraine has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rmgill said:

It's a category error. People think a thing that seems like them is like your side because of one factor. 

Putin is about growing Russian empire. That's it. 

Of course the left in the west is doing the same that are thinking Hamas are on their side with regards to LGBT Rights. 

 

It's contrarianism.

 

The left put Ukraine flags on their socials,  cars, etc. Therefore, some conservatives are against it. It's like when the antiwar crowd got quiet when Obama took office, in soite of continuing the GWOT.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

It's contrarianism.

 

The left put Ukraine flags on their socials,  cars, etc. Therefore, some conservatives are against it. It's like when the antiwar crowd got quiet when Obama took office, in soite of continuing the GWOT.

.

"Damn democrats and those freeloading Europeans are saying that Ukraine good and Russia bad? Whoa, it must mean that Ukraine bad and Russia good!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

It's contrarianism.

 

The left put Ukraine flags on their socials,  cars, etc. Therefore, some conservatives are against it. It's like when the antiwar crowd got quiet when Obama took office, in soite of continuing the GWOT.

.

Well stated. Said in other way, it is the old trap of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". It could be useful, at first, until the enemy of my enemy wins over my enemy, then it shows that it was not my friend in any means. See what happened to the Iranian  Communists that allied with the Islamists against the Shah, for instance.

Thus sensible people are more in the field of "My enemy's enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less.", so popularized by Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary fame.

Smart people, then play the weaker enemy against the stronger one.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You think its going to be better for the Ukrainians to surrender? Look at Bucha.

They should ditch Zelensky by having an election and put someone in that can talk to the Chinese and the Russians.  Then, they should start fucking well talking to the Chinese and the Russians seriously, and see if they can resolve this mess in a way that salvages something from the disaster.  Meanwhile, keep the army on the defensive and do whatever is necessary to hold friendly casualties to a minimum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stargrunt6 said:

It's contrarianism.

 

The left put Ukraine flags on their socials,  cars, etc. Therefore, some conservatives are against it. It's like when the antiwar crowd got quiet when Obama took office, in soite of continuing the GWOT.

.

The skepticism from the Right, (and the center, BTW) with Ukraine these days is one of observed and consistent failure in the policy to deliver on its promises.  There have been quite a number of promises of success, claims that were soon exposed to be lies.   Now, all much of the American public does not trust any of the claims being made, and sees a bottomless pit sucking in their money with no prospect of this mattering to the final result.  They know that the current $60 billion is bullshit, it's going to be much higher just to keep the corpse on life support. 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The skepticism from the Right, (and the center, BTW) with Ukraine these days is one of observed and consistent failure in the policy to deliver on its promises.  There have been quite a number of promises of success, claims that were soon exposed to be lies.   Now, all much of the American public does not trust any of the claims being made, and sees is a bottomless pit sucking in their money with no prospect of this mattering to the final result.  They know that the current $60 billion is bullshit, it's going to be much higher just to keep the corpse on life support. 

And vast majority of US funds for Ukraine are being spent in the US, which means jobs and revitalisation of capabilities that shrunk since the end of the Cold War. The purely financial assistance has mostly been covered by Europeans, but we don't have US production capacity.

An argument that's maybe not entirely correct (as one has nothing to do with the other), but far more understandable is 'why the fuck should I care about Ukraine when my government refuses to enforce our borders and allows us to be flooded by millions of migrants'.

I have no idea why Biden administration just can't give the GOP whatever deal they want when it comes to the border in exchange for Ukraine aid. Enforcing it is basically their damn duty anyway, pretty much by definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And vast majority of US funds for Ukraine are being spent in the US, which means jobs and revitalisation of capabilities that shrunk since the end of the Cold War. The purely financial assistance has mostly been covered by Europeans, but we don't have US production capacity.

An argument that's maybe not entirely correct (as one has nothing to do with the other), but far more understandable is 'why the fuck should I care about Ukraine when my government refuses to enforce our borders and allows us to be flooded by millions of migrants'.

I have no idea why Biden administration just can't give the GOP whatever deal they want when it comes to the border in exchange for Ukraine aid. Enforcing it is basically their damn duty anyway, pretty much by definition.

Exactly. Yes, I can understand the argument 'But we must give in or they will ALWAYS do it', except, they are always doing it anyway. Its hardly likely to head them off at the pass if Ukraine falls over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The skepticism from the Right, (and the center, BTW) with Ukraine these days is one of observed and consistent failure in the policy to deliver on its promises.  There have been quite a number of promises of success, claims that were soon exposed to be lies.   Now, all much of the American public does not trust any of the claims being made, and sees a bottomless pit sucking in their money with no prospect of this mattering to the final result.  They know that the current $60 billion is bullshit, it's going to be much higher just to keep the corpse on life support. 

The skepticism is understandable. 

 

The Putin worship, however,  is pure contrarianism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

And vast majority of US funds for Ukraine are being spent in the US, which means jobs and revitalisation of capabilities that shrunk since the end of the Cold War. The purely financial assistance has mostly been covered by Europeans, but we don't have US production capacity.

The US taxpayer does not require Ukraine in order to hand their military industrial complex billions of dollars.  They are still on the hook for the expenditure, and there are growing questions about whether the spending is going to result in anything useful.  There is also skepticism about the total  amount of money poured into the sucking chest wound that is Ukraine - no one believes that if Biden gets his sixty billion that this will be the last, or even the biggest, tranche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...