A New Munich?

[lucklucky]

Quote

How pathetic and ignorant. Please point out the military reforms and enlightened guidance furnished by the Trumpist regime of the US. The clown in chief even thought $65B was a major shift in military spending. He was the most obvious traitor in US government and somehow could openly collaborate with Putin with impunity. It will take a decade of rearmament to begin to repair his damage to us.

I return the pathetic and ignorant.  You know very well that Obama propped ISIS, retired from Iraq creating a vacuum and militarily did nothing except putting it increasingly under woke neo-Marxist control.

Was it quite nice to see USN destroyers crashing into slow merchant ships?

Trump created Space Force, made the only black eye in Iranians in decades. Was he good enough? no he wasn't due to huge issues in place but he wasn't a blocking or destroyer force like Obama, or de inept Biden that have a disastrous Afghanistan evacuation in his flap. And partially the current Ukraine invasion too - a big chunk of it are also in Western Europe... 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

America's slow military decline started with Bill Clinton, and ended with Donald Trump. Biden thus far may have made a militarily and political incompetent decision in Afghanistan, but at least he didnt allow the USMC to self emasculate itself.

All your political leaders over the past 30 years can take credit for where you now are. Its just like the UK, its not this politician, or that bad decision. Its that cumulatively, the west has demobilised itself for 30 years because it thought, smugly, it had won the war of the world, and tyranny's would fall over without further effort or expenditure.

We ALL got it wrong. With the possible exception's of Sweden and Finland.

 

[sunday]

1 hour ago, lucklucky said:

I return the pathetic and ignorant.  You know very well that Obama propped ISIS, retired from Iraq creating a vacuum and militarily did nothing except putting it increasingly under woke neo-Marxist control.

Was it quite nice to see USN destroyers crashing into slow merchant ships?

Trump created Space Force, made the only black eye in Iranians in decades. Was he good enough? no he wasn't due to huge issues in place but he wasn't a blocking or destroyer force like Obama, or de inept Biden that have a disastrous Afghanistan evacuation in his flap. And partially the current Ukraine invasion too - a big chunk of it are also in Western Europe... 

I too think it is Trump's fault. He should have fought more the election recount process, and do not allow to being robbed of a landslide. Then, no shameful flight from Afghanistan, no show of weakness in the international scene, and no Ukrainian-paid shills at the helm of the USA.

😁

[Rick]

3 hours ago, Ken Estes said:

Not so fast, RETAC is quite correct in his statement that the western allies have followed us into many a dubious campaign as of late.

Two wrongs do not make it right.

[bojan]

4 hours ago, futon said:

Bojan can answer you that.

You know, low meltdown point person, it was not me who has named their country "Republic of China".

[futon]

35 minutes ago, bojan said:

You know, low meltdown point person, it was not me who has named their country "Republic of China".

That's right. The person that named the country was Chiang Kai-shek. He was gifted Taiwan by the US after destroying Imperial Japan. He along with 2 million Han Chinese retreated off the mainland by 1949 and onto Taiwan which had a population of a little over 6 million at 1945. So the population went up to about 8 million by the early 1950s. So the people that came along with Chiang Kai-shek consisted of about just 25% of the population. The population already on Taiwan had no liberation sentiment at all. Instead was the February 28 massacre and white terror. So a minority named the country with the China name. Fast forward to the 1990s, the true identity is reflected in that. 1996 election sees a big pro-Japan guy becoming president. Taiwan's first elected president; Lee Teng-hui. Another name that escapes the vocabulary of the glory narrative stitches. But about the identity: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/38893-kiev-is-burning/&do=findComment&comment=1570756

Edited February 24, 2022 by futon

[rmgill]

I think it's arguable Japan trying to subjugate China is what opened the door for the PRC. IJA forces and their greed for the Emperor is what laid the ground. 

[glenn239]

10 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I think it's arguable Japan trying to subjugate China is what opened the door for the PRC. IJA forces and their greed for the Emperor is what laid the ground. 

I've long thought the US demand for unconditional surrender of Japan created an enormous power vacuum that the Soviets were able to exploit at just the right moment.  In the big debate of Luzon vs. Formosa in 1944, MacArthur got his way and the answer was the Philippines.  But, for the post war American order in Asia, it really had to be Formosa.

Edited February 24, 2022 by glenn239

[futon]

18 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I think it's arguable Japan trying to subjugate China is what opened the door for the PRC. IJA forces and their greed for the Emperor is what laid the ground. 

No, the Chinese communists were seeded into Sun Yat-sens Nationalists Chinese faction in order to get material military aid from the SU to be able to fight agaisnt Yuan Shikai who had just declared himself emperor of China in Beijing, around in the mid 1920s. The Soviet Union had launched the comintern and was very eager to spread communism at this stage. So the seeded communists into Sun-Yetsens group proved too different to serve as the same faction so they splintered. That several years before Japanese invaded Manchuria. When Japan invaded Manchuria, the Chinese communists had declared a Soviet-China republic smack in the middle of the China heart land. So your assertion about Japan trying to subjugate China opening the door to the Chinese communists is incorrect.

Edited February 24, 2022 by futon

[Ken Estes]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

America's slow military decline started with Bill Clinton, and ended with Donald Trump. Biden thus far may have made a militarily and political incompetent decision in Afghanistan, but at least he didnt allow the USMC to self emasculate itself.

All your political leaders over the past 30 years can take credit for where you now are. Its just like the UK, its not this politician, or that bad decision. Its that cumulatively, the west has demobilised itself for 30 years because it thought, smugly, it had won the war of the world, and tyranny's would fall over without further effort or expenditure.

We ALL got it wrong. With the possible exception's of Sweden and Finland.

 

Afghanistan went sour as soon as the US created a puppet regime there. Yet that of the Rus had already failed. Once done, there was no easy way out. Who did that? Not Clinton.

[Angrybk]

10 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Wut?  Are they not ethnically Chinese?  S/F...Ken M

by your definition "real Americans" are ethnically British, no reason for US to exist.

[bojan]

US does not call itself "Republic of Britain".

[Ken Estes]

9 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Was it quite nice to see USN destroyers crashing into slow merchant ships?

That was a direct result of the clown in chief ordering the USN to send three battle groups to impress Kim in N Korea. These ships had no time for the regulation 6-month workup and thus had all the problems of green crews in unfamiliar settings.

How quickly we forget incompetence at the top:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/04/the-clash-between-trump-and-his-generals/

 

[RichTO90]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

America's slow military decline started with Bill Clinton, and ended with Donald Trump. Biden thus far may have made a militarily and political incompetent decision in Afghanistan, but at least he didnt allow the USMC to self emasculate itself.

What slow military decline is that?

US defense spending 1960-2020 averaged 5.44% of GDP (world was 3.49%). In recent years it peaked in 2010 at 4.92%. Since 1991 it averaged 3.92%. In the eight years of the Bush administration it averaged 3.89%. In the eight years of the Obama administration it averaged 4.22%. In the four years of the Trump administration it averaged 3.45%.

Or, to look at it another way, the last four years of Bush and the first four years of Obama averaged 4.48% and the last four years of Obama and the four years of Trump averaged 3.55%.

The trend overall since 1960 has been decreasing defense expenditures, whatever party was in power. Statistical blips, like the Reagan and Bush build up, are essentially as meaningless as the Clinton or Obama build down.

Where's the beef?

BTW, the politically incompetent decision in Afghanistan was Trump's, forcing Biden to either go along with it or unilaterally abrogate the agreement, neither of which were good moves.

 

Quote

All your political leaders over the past 30 years can take credit for where you now are. Its just like the UK, its not this politician, or that bad decision. Its that cumulatively, the west has demobilised itself for 30 years because it thought, smugly, it had won the war of the world, and tyranny's would fall over without further effort or expenditure.

Well, yes, it is just like the UK, or NATO, or China, or the world. The Russian Federation expenditure since Putin became El Presidente for Life has averaged 4.22% of GDP. Since 1992, the RF's average was 3.79%, less than the US and from a much smaller slice of pie. Of course, in the mid 1980s it was 15 to 17% of Soviet GDP, so everything is relative.

 

Quote

We ALL got it wrong. With the possible exception's of Sweden and Finland.

Naw, what about Francis Fukuyama? 😋

The real problem is not western demobilization, it's poor and wishful thinking. This outcome has been obvious for the last eight years and yet nothing substantial has been done by the rest of the world to prevent it. As I've said elsewhere, the west has told Putin in no uncertain terms that they expect Ukraine to be his final territorial demand. I suspect western leaders have already chartered planes to fly to Munich for discussions to resolve the crisis.

[lucklucky]

3 hours ago, Ken Estes said:

That was a direct result of the clown in chief ordering the USN to send three battle groups to impress Kim in N Korea. These ships had no time for the regulation 6-month workup and thus had all the problems of green crews in unfamiliar settings.

How quickly we forget incompetence at the top:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/04/the-clash-between-trump-and-his-generals/

 

Typical Pravda. So you rationalise sailors unprepared in highly costly destroyers that crashed separated in time and in distance as one Trump mission !?

 

I'll give one more. In French for you to translate...

 

Quote

Lors du sommet de l’Otan qui s’était tenu à Bruxelles, en juillet 2018, Donald Trump, alors président des États-Unis, avait mis l’Allemagne devant ses contradictions, en l’accusant d’être dans la main de la Russie pour ses approvisonnements énergétiques alors qu’elle comptait sur les forces américaines pour la défendre contre la menace russe.

« L’Allemagne est complètement contrôlée par la Russie […] elle est prisonnière de la Russie. […] Elle paie des milliards de dollars à la Russie pour ses approvisionnements en énergie et nous devons payer pour la protéger contre la Russie. Comment expliquer cela? Ce n’est pas juste! », s’était emporté M. Trump face à Angela Merkel. Et d’enfoncer le clou sur les manquements de Berlin à l’égard de l’Otan, en particulier sur l’engagement de porter les dépenses militaires à 2% du PIB.

From Opex360

 

 

[Ken Estes]

Quote

Typical Pravda. So you rationalise sailors unprepared in highly costly destroyers that crashed separated in time and in distance as one Trump mission !?

Nope, I just have the professionals' eye for ensuring one's troops/units are prepared for the missions at hand before they find themselves lost in the woods... or at sea

It is criminal to lose troops or ships' company because of lack of training

[futon]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

US does not call itself "Republic of Britain".

You would mean the US does not sometimes call itself "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Sometimes it refers to itself as just "Taiwan". And even url address is Taiwan referenced, not roc, rchn, or whatever. 

https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/

[Ken Estes]

On 2/23/2022 at 12:12 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh I don't think it was to mitigate the horrors of war. I think they perceived that if Ukraine was fighting a war, they might get dragged in to help them.

Yeah, I read an abridged Clausewitz, he had some really memorable things to say about courage.

 

He was at his best, IMHO, in his description of genius for war:

He categorized officers as intelligent, stupid, lazy, or active: 

---------

Intelligent/active officers: make good staff officers;

stupid and lazy: work can always be found for them;

Stupid and active: must be eradicated wherever found;

Intelligent and lazy: Commanders!

 

[futon]

Recent passport change should also be noted how "Taiwan" increased in emphasis while "Republic of China" is deemphasized. Old on left, new on right.

So just "it calls itself China" does not portray whats going on as it leaves an impression that no changes are taking place and as if the government still has policy of taking back the mainland. Small changes probably should be appreciated global so that the PRC doesn't throw a bigger fit. 

[futon]

5 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

What slow military decline is that?

US defense spending 1960-2020 averaged 5.44% of GDP (world was 3.49%). In recent years it peaked in 2010 at 4.92%. Since 1991 it averaged 3.92%. In the eight years of the Bush administration it averaged 3.89%. In the eight years of the Obama administration it averaged 4.22%. In the four years of the Trump administration it averaged 3.45%.

Or, to look at it another way, the last four years of Bush and the first four years of Obama averaged 4.48% and the last four years of Obama and the four years of Trump averaged 3.55%.

The trend overall since 1960 has been decreasing defense expenditures, whatever party was in power. Statistical blips, like the Reagan and Bush build up, are essentially as meaningless as the Clinton or Obama build down.

Where's the beef?

BTW, the politically incompetent decision in Afghanistan was Trump's, forcing Biden to either go along with it or unilaterally abrogate the agreement, neither of which were good moves.

 

Well, yes, it is just like the UK, or NATO, or China, or the world. The Russian Federation expenditure since Putin became El Presidente for Life has averaged 4.22% of GDP. Since 1992, the RF's average was 3.79%, less than the US and from a much smaller slice of pie. Of course, in the mid 1980s it was 15 to 17% of Soviet GDP, so everything is relative.

 

Naw, what about Francis Fukuyama? 😋

The real problem is not western demobilization, it's poor and wishful thinking. This outcome has been obvious for the last eight years and yet nothing substantial has been done by the rest of the world to prevent it. As I've said elsewhere, the west has told Putin in no uncertain terms that they expect Ukraine to be his final territorial demand. I suspect western leaders have already chartered planes to fly to Munich for discussions to resolve the crisis.

Hello Rich,

What's your opinion about the Wang Regime?

[Nobu]

On 2/23/2022 at 4:39 PM, rmgill said:

XXX corps after an opposed amphibious landing pushed through the Bosporus? 😳

I do admit to being partial to the Turkish option, historically or otherwise 🙂

XXX Corps on the road to Moscow isn't the right course of action at the moment. Let the Federation go a bridge too far, before blowing it sky high.

 

5 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Naw, what about Francis Fukuyama? 😋

The real problem is not western demobilization, it's poor and wishful thinking.

Mule jokes aside, Francis has walked back his initial thoughts on the end of History some. He could still be right, if UKRAINE 2022 shakes out as a poli/eco disaster for the Federation in the medium term.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Nobu

[R011]

53 minutes ago, Ken Estes said:

Nope, I just have the professionals' eye for ensuring one's troops/units are prepared for the missions at hand before they find themselves lost in the woods... or at sea

It is criminal to lose troops or ships' company because of lack of training

The issues leading to those collisions were a long time building and did not suddenly appear in January 2017

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by R011

[Nobu]

Not sure which rationale for the collisions is more disturbing.

They are not mutually exclusive, either.

[lucklucky]

Quote

 

Nope, I just have the professionals' eye for ensuring one's troops/units are prepared for the missions at hand before they find themselves lost in the woods... or at sea

It is criminal to lose troops or ships' company because of lack of training

 

 

Strange that your "professional eye" seem to not know how the real world works.   

No destroyer, a billion cost ship goes into the sea only with rookies. 

 

 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, futon said:

Recent passport change should also be noted how "Taiwan" increased in emphasis while "Republic of China" is deemphasized. Old on left, new on right.

So just "it calls itself China" does not portray whats going on as it leaves an impression that no changes are taking place and as if the government still has policy of taking back the mainland. Small changes probably should be appreciated global so that the PRC doesn't throw a bigger fit. 

Republic of China and Western Taiwan. 😉 aka the PRC