War in Ukraine, assorted opinions

[Colin]

10 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The Taiwanese were considering buying the decommissioned LCS, not sure what they decided in the end (or whether they're still thinking about it). Seems like an awful idea though.

I would not want to do Damage Control on them.

[Roman Alymov]

On 9/23/2023 at 10:59 PM, DB said:

The window mender and glass vendor both believe it is a good system, everyone else knows it's shit.

Defence spending is a necessary evil, to prevent paranoid maniacs from inventing invasion excuses and murdering their neighbours. Escalating your military spending beyond that required for a credible self-defence capability is dumb as rocks, and predicating your entire economic model on it results in North Korea. You're welcome to that model.

Are aircraft carriers really needed for UK's "credible self-defence capability"?

Currently it seems it is not Russian economy in worst trouble

 

 

[seahawk]

True and well deserved, as Germany is once again supporting and participating in an attack on Russia.

[urbanoid]

18 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Are aircraft carriers really needed for UK's "credible self-defence capability"?

Yes? Both for self-self defense like e.g. Falklands and collective defense (NATO, AUKUS etc.)

[Rick]

I have not followed this conflict much. I presume Russia advanced so far and then? I also presume Russia and Ukraine have  lost much men and material with Ukraine receiving material from most of the Western World? How about Russia? Is the Russian public supporting Putin in this war of his?

I personally find this Grate Site more reliable than a quick scan of the major U.S. news media.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

I personally find this Grate Site more reliable than a quick scan of the major U.S. news media.

Especially after ignoring obvious trolls, and deluded, prolific posters.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

I have not followed this conflict much. I presume Russia advanced so far and then?

Russia has not made a significant advance in over a year.  The Ukrainians have not done so since last fall.

Quote

I also presume Russia and Ukraine have  lost much men and material with Ukraine receiving material from most of the Western World?

Russian material holdings fell throughout 2022, but seem on the rise as of 2023.  There are reports of increasingly large Russian reserves being held back for an offensive when the correct condition have been set.  Ukrainian equipment and munitions have continued on a downward spiral despite Western supplies, and now recent reports are that its officers corps is gutted to the extent that the British are actually considering sending their own officers into Ukraine to fill the gap.

Quote

How about Russia? Is the Russian public supporting Putin in this war of his?

Russian opinion in 2022 seemed somewhat indifferent overall, but as Ukrainian drone attacks into Russia have increased, Russian opinion has hardened into something approaching a demand for unconditional surrender and wiping out the Zelensky regime.  Russian reports now claim there is no need for conscription because hundreds of thousands of men are volunteering to sign contracts.  On the Ukrainian side, there are reports that the recent attempts to cull out further cannon fodder in the East have proven abortive.

[JWB]

Washington has committed more than $60 billion in aid to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, including more than $43 billion in military aid, Ruby Mellen and Artur Galocha report in a visual look at U.S. spending during the war. “These are off-the-charts numbers,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He likened the figures to U.S. commitments to European countries at the end of World War II. The Marshall Plan, when adjusted for inflation, came to about $150 billion over three years.

[Roman Alymov]

5 hours ago, Rick said:

 Is the Russian public supporting Putin in this war of his?

Here are the historic data of Puitin's personal support by "Levada-center" (ultra-liberal pro-Western research agency, official "foreign agent" no one could blame of being pro-Russian)

 

(source https://gogov.ru/articles/rating-putina)  But as always, it worth remembering that while declaring suppor of Putin personally, significant part of population hates pro-Western state apparatus de-facto in control of Russia.

Nd by teh way it is not "war of Putin"  - as the only definite outcome of this war is the end of "collective Putin" rule (may be he personally will stay afloat, but not his "team"). That is why they were jumping loops to pospone war as long as possible.

[Roman Alymov]

5 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Yes? Both for self-self defense like e.g. Falklands and collective defense (NATO, AUKUS etc.)

You mean for colonial actions far away from home?

[urbanoid]

9 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

You mean for colonial actions far away from home?

For defending British citizens on British territory or for defense of UK's allies. Last time I checked countries were allowed to have overseas territories or to enter alliances in different parts of the world.

[Stefan Kotsch]

24 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

You mean for colonial actions far away from home?

Russia's colonial territories are all in the immediate neighborhood. 😉

Namely the former Soviet republics. They can feel free and independent as long as they remain submissive to the Kremlin. 

 

[Roman Alymov]

28 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

For defending British citizens on British territory or for defense of UK's allies. Last time I checked countries were allowed to have overseas territories or to enter alliances in different parts of the world.

France, Spain and Portugal (as well as many other countries) also got citizens and territories around the globe - but for some reason are having far less aircraft carriers. Despite of this, it is hard to say average Briton is more safe than average citizen of France, Spain or Portugal.... 

[RETAC21]

3 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

France, Spain and Portugal (as well as many other countries) also got citizens and territories around the globe - but for some reason are having far less aircraft carriers. Despite of this, it is hard to say average Briton is more safe than average citizen of France, Spain or Portugal.... 

But France, Spain and Portugal need to worry about their neighbours, while the UK is an island

[Strannik]

44 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Russia's colonial territories are all in the immediate neighborhood. 😉

Namely the former Soviet republics. They can feel free and independent as long as they remain submissive to the Kremlin. 

 

Nice.  Germans here are rewriting the definition of a colony.  What's  next?

[Stefan Kotsch]

15 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Germans here are rewriting the definition of a colony

Oh, no, we definitely don't.

'A colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule. Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or "mother country"), within the shared imperialist administration' Source

This completely applies to Russia's view of Ukraine.

Or also: Transnistria or  South Ossetia or Luhansk People's Republic or or Donetsk People's Republic. Belarus  - oK, not yet complete because of the clever Lukashenka.

But with Ukraine, Russia found a real opponent for the first time. Shit happens.

 

[Strannik]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Oh, no, we definitely don't.

'A colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule. Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or "mother country"), within the shared imperialist administration' Source

This completely applies to Russia's view of Ukraine.

Or also: Transnistria or  South Ossetia or Luhansk People's Republic or or Donetsk People's Republic. Belarus  - oK, not yet complete because of the clever Lukashenka.

But with Ukraine, Russia found a real opponent for the first time. Shit happens.

 

If you would not cherry pick - you would see there:

Quote

This colonial administrative separation, though often blurred, makes colonies neither annexed or incorporated territories nor client states. 

And coming from the troll from our (US) colony though it's hilarious:

Quote

Territories furthermore do not need to have been militarily conquered and occupied to come under colonial rule and to be considered de-facto colonies, instead neocolonial exploitation of dependency or imperialist use of power to intervene to force policy, might make a territory be considered a colony, which broadens the concept, including indirect rule or puppet states

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

@Strannik Evade by opening side scenes.

[Strannik]

25 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

@Strannik Evade by opening side scenes.

@Stefan Kotsch Lacking reading comprehension.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

France, Spain and Portugal (as well as many other countries) also got citizens and territories around the globe - but for some reason are having far less aircraft carriers. Despite of this, it is hard to say average Briton is more safe than average citizen of France, Spain or Portugal.... 

Yes. How is the Admiral Kuznetsov these days btw?

The thing you forget, not only do we have allies, we are also good allies. It's not just about ensuring the security of British subjects, its about ensuring the security of Europe.

Everyone in Europe is a safer for 120000 tons of British steel.

 

[Roman Alymov]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How is the Admiral Kuznetsov these days btw?

I hope this ship will be finally scrapped, since it is useless (the only use of it is maintaining carrier pilots/crews experience, but not sure it is needed for Russia, and it is massively expencive). By the way today archive video of floating Su-33 lost at sea back in 2016 was published https://t.me/milinfolive/107413

25 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The thing you forget, not only do we have allies, we are also good allies. It's not just about ensuring the security of British subjects, its about ensuring the security of Europe.

Everyone in Europe is a safer for 120000 tons of British steel.

 

Your allied commitments are up to you, but the discussion started from "credible self-defence capability", not foreign commitments by your politicians.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

I hope this ship will be finally scrapped, since it is useless (the only use of it is maintaining carrier pilots/crews experience, but not sure it is needed for Russia, and it is massively expencive). By the way today archive video of floating Su-33 lost at sea back in 2016 was published https://t.me/milinfolive/107413

Your allied commitments are up to you, but the discussion started from "credible self-defence capability", not foreign commitments by your politicians.

Oh, I hope you keep it for prestige reasons. Every Ruble you spend on the stinky Kuz is money you arent spending on other things that can actually kill people.

Yes, once again I believe you dont get it. Credible self defence capability is at core, part of an alliance. And whilst I would particularly like us to do more independently (there are still a few rare out of area commitments we still have), ultimately we dont need to. Because we have, for most of the threats we face, valuable allies.

[Roman Alymov]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, I hope you keep it for prestige reasons. Every Ruble you spend on the stinky Kuz is money you arent spending on other things that can actually kill people.

Well, thanks to efforts of our grandfathers and fathers generation, we allready have enough means to make some territories uninhabited, if, God forbids, it came to really big war. Quite enough for "prestige". But i like your logic - as it means a lot of people in A-stan, Iraq and other places your forces were bringing the light of civilization to are now alive because your Gov have spent funds not on killing them, but on "120000 tons of British steel". That is really investment in safety.

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, once again I believe you dont get it. Credible self defence capability is at core, part of an alliance. And whilst I would particularly like us to do more independently (there are still a few rare out of area commitments we still have), ultimately we dont need to. Because we have, for most of the threats we face, valuable allies.

Unlike self-defence, alliences are optional - for example, if you strike an allience with penguins, you will need a fleet of icebreakers to defend them, and technically it will be quite possible to build such a fleet - but it will be your choice, not your need. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Actually quite a lot of the Royal Navy were in Afghanistan as well. And as for carriers, although we didnt use them, they were very useful for the American providing a cap over Afghanistan, both during the war and the Withdrawal. The point is, Carriers are useful for lots of things, including killing people.

No, again, you really dont get it. Belonging to a nation whom is friendless other than Cuba I can understand this. But alliances are NOT optional, particularly when they are neighbours. This is what democracies do.

You really do belong to that select group of people, occupied by recalcitrant Russians and Right Wing Tories, that believes ourselves alone. And right there is why you will lose this war, because despite having been hand fed arms and trucks and airplanes all through the second world war, you cannot imagine the need for alliances. Good luck with that.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Actually quite a lot of the Royal Navy were in Afghanistan as well.

I'm sure having marine training was significant boost for their performance in killing nomads in rocky mountains of A-stan.

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 And as for carriers, although we didnt use them, they were very useful for the American providing a cap over Afghanistan, both during the war and the Withdrawal.

You mean they were useful in loosing war to religeous tribal militia, and Withdrawal that became iconic for local US loyalists  falling from the skies ? Well, probably they were.

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, again, you really dont get it. Belonging to a nation whom is friendless other than Cuba I can understand this. But alliances are NOT optional, particularly when they are neighbours. This is what democracies do.

Correct me if i am wrong: above mentioned A-stan was (or even still is -have not heard of this status removed) "Major non-NATO ally". As far as i understand, it is highest possible status for non-NATO country. This is what democracies do.

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You really do belong to that select group of people, occupied by recalcitrant Russians and Right Wing Tories, that believes ourselves alone. And right there is why you will lose this war, because despite having been hand fed arms and trucks and airplanes all through the second world war, you cannot imagine the need for alliances. Good luck with that.

Interesting to note you have moved from "you have already lost" to "you will lose this war".