Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[reddogblitz]

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Currently winning the war is not the same as having won the war. Ammunition gets depleted, equipment breaks or is destroyed. The idea that we stop providing supplies once Ukraine has the momentum would only serve to prolong the war as it would stall Ukrainian advances and allow Russia to push back as UA equipment is depleted.

 

Putin has invaded Georgia and then Ukraine twice. If he succeeds in taking over the southern border of Ukraine through Odessa, there is about a 0% chance he wouldn’t move into Transnistria as well. 
 

For a small fraction of our budget, we can destroy the Russian war machine, show Western superiority, make China think twice about Taiwan, and strengthen our alliances. Seems like a bargain. 

 

It does seem like a bargain.  Like when the guy in the over coat under the street lights tries to sell you a ROLEX for $200.  Wars never go as easy as we are led to believe.  These saving the world for democracy expeditions have not gone well for us.  We could help S Viet Nam if we just sent in some advisors.  Iraq would be cheap and easy. We would be greeted as liberators. They would pay us back with oil money.  Afganistan, our longest war.

 

And what makes you so sure China will just sit around and think?  Them and Russia have been pretty chummy lately and have a common enemy in us.  What if they start supplying Russia?  Maybe even send over 100,000 troops.  

 

Hopefully it doesn't come to that but to beat Russia as President Zelensky described in front of Congress will not be cheap or easy. 

 

[sherpa]

29 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

It does seem like a bargain.  Like when the guy in the over coat under the street lights tries to sell you a ROLEX for $200.  Wars never go as easy as we are led to believe.  These saving the world for democracy expeditions have not gone well for us.  We could help S Viet Nam if we just sent in some advisors.  Iraq would be cheap and easy. We would be greeted as liberators. They would pay us back with oil money.  Afganistan, our longest war.

 

And what makes you so sure China will just sit around and think?  Them and Russia have been pretty chummy lately and have a common enemy in us.  What if they start supplying Russia?  Maybe even send over 100,000 troops.  

 

Hopefully it doesn't come to that but to beat Russia as President Zelensky described in front of Congress will not be cheap or easy. 

 

 

I'm certain there's no changing your mind, but the situations you mention are completely different.

Viet Nam is not only ancient history, but totally inapplicable.

First, we deployed a large amount of troops to fight an ground/air  war.

Second we foolishly and tragically did not allow our military to fight that war using its capabilities.

Iraq was a tremendous military success until the primary military goals were met. It was then completely destroyed by a terrible regime and massive third party interference.

The military goals in Afghanistan ere relatively easily achieved, but again, domestic leadership was unsupported and horribly ineffective.

 

Ukraine is fighting an invading force trying to steal its land.

It is under a very popular regime, for the moment.

It has huge international support which includes sufficient weapon aid.

 

China has an arms length relationship with Russia and as currently developing, would never send troops of any significance to be led by this grossly failing Russian military, nor has it ever been anything but a home defense force. 

 

As the saying goes, you can't fight the last war.

In addition, you can't use strategies of the last war to fit inapplicable realities.

 

Completely turning back the unprovoked Russian invasion is extremely beneficial to Europe and the US. Doing so without US troop involvement is as good as it gets.

The downside is current cost, which may be well worth it compared to continued and even more aggressive Russian expansion.

Evolving trade and discovering energy realities alone are worth tens of billions.

NATO countries finally coming around to learning that their failure to live up to agreements is an additional value.

 

Anyway, lots of variables in this equation, but I doubt active, large scale warfare extends into next winter.

[Tiberius]

 

4 hours ago, gobills404 said:

They need $100 billion to destroy half of a military that had a budget of $65 billion this year????? Pretty pathetic investment if you ask me.

More or less pathetic than these acts of terrorism? 

 

 

[sherpa]

5 hours ago, gobills404 said:

They need $100 billion to destroy half of a military that had a budget of $65 billion this year????? Pretty pathetic investment if you ask me.

 

I'm not sure of the implied viewpoint here.

The $65b is their one year budget.

It is not like US, NATO and other support is simply neutralizing that value.

 

The Russian non nuclear military is being destroyed to a significant extend, and the cost Putin has strapped his country with extends way beyond one year's budget, as well as a tremendous brain drain and working demographic escape.

 

Unless the tide is turned in his favor, this is going to cost the Russians a massive amount more than one year's military budget.

[Tommy Callahan]

17 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

The "pull" is because the ridiculous claim of asylum makes it much easier to nor enforce laws approved by our legislature, you know, the governmental body elected to make law, that the administration has absolutely no history of enforcing and no intent to do so.

That's all fact.  But so is the fact that our asylum packages is more than the median income.  And the current assylum case back log is like 5 years.  

[Tiberius]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm not sure of the implied viewpoint here.

The $65b is their one year budget.

It is not like US, NATO and other support is simply neutralizing that value.

 

The Russian non nuclear military is being destroyed to a significant extend, and the cost Putin has strapped his country with extends way beyond one year's budget, as well as a tremendous brain drain and working demographic escape.

 

Unless the tide is turned in his favor, this is going to cost the Russians a massive amount more than one year's military budget.

Nuclear threat aside, do you think we're being sold an overblown mis-representation of the actual conventional threat the Russia miliary poses?  Given their performance in Ukraine to date, I don't think anybody should lose any sleep over worrying about Russia invading western Europe for one.  The image NATO and the Pentagon paint is the risk of something akin German blitzkrieg of 1930-1940 of Europe.  Given observable actions, that appears to be a fantasy.     

[LDD]

21 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Are they?

 

Trump says Russia isn’t an enemy.

 

Obama let Iran develop Nukes and had no problem turning the ME over to them.  
 

Im super confused now.  

 

 

Yes, next. 

21 hours ago, Chris farley said:

Its funny how you all keep calling it a democracy. This all started with the euromaidan.  not very democratic.

 

I called it an "aspiring" democracy

[All_Pro_Bills]

22 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Are they?

 

Trump says Russia isn’t an enemy.

 

Obama let Iran develop Nukes and had no problem turning the ME over to them.  
 

Im super confused now.  

Some people choose to pass judgment based on the actor and not the act.  Like a romantic partner might judge their lover's actions, Obama could do no wrong, so he gets a pass on everything regardless of the act while Trump can do nothing right, so he doesn't.  I'd call it a lack of objectivity and I should add, emotion rather than logic and reasoning.

Edited December 24, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Some people choose to pass judgment based on the actor and not the act.  Like a romantic partner might judge their lover's actions, Obama could do no wrong, so he gets a pass on everything regardless of the act while Trump can do nothing right, so he doesn't.  I'd call it a lack of objectivity and I should add, emotion rather than logic and reasoning.

How about Putin? Do you consider him a terrorist? 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Nuclear threat aside, do you think we're being sold an overblown mis-representation of the actual conventional threat the Russia miliary poses?  Given their performance in Ukraine to date, I don't think anybody should lose any sleep over worrying about Russia invading western Europe for one.  The image NATO and the Pentagon paint is the risk of something akin German blitzkrieg of 1930-1940 of Europe.  Given observable actions, that appears to be a fantasy.     

 

That is a complicated question, and can only be viewed in hindsight.

 

I've been through all this before, on a personal level, having flown carrier based fighters, then on shore duty, teaching then Soviet weapons and tactics, as well as serving as an adversary pilot/instructor using those tactics to train US and allied Air Forces how to defeat them.

It's the same now as it was then.

 

The threat is presented, ("sold" using your word, which I would not use), based on what is known about their weapon's capabilities.

 

There are a lot of other things you can't know the total picture of by US and allied intel capabilities.

Things like training levels, degree of challenge in that training. Leadership capabilities. Maintenance and readiness levels. Morale, to some extent. The level of corruption etc., and it goes on and on.

 

To ensure effectiveness, you can't assume they are highly questionable until you see them in action in a meaningful, to them, operation.

So far, what we have witnessed is nearly a complete waste of those significant weapons and troops.

 

They obviously don't plan well, as seen by their complete inability to supply their initial offensive.

They have shown no realization that cell phones get you in trouble if the US is around.

Think it was a coincidence that a number of high ranking field officers were killed this past summer? How were they targeted? Think the Ukrainians happened to be lucky?

Still worse, they have seemingly no ability to maintain equipment or even produce necessary parts.

Still even worser, they have shown absolutely no ability to integrate forces. No coordination between ground and air, or any other joint force multiplier assets.

Their leadership, if you could call it that, is seemingly hideous from the 0-6 level down to E-3.

Their entire military operation reeks of massive corruption before anything even gets to the battle.

Further, they seem entirely disinterested.

 

The point is, though, you can't assume any of that prior to observation, which we are now getting an eyeful causing us to think the way we now do.

 

Anecdotally, I recall a similar situation during my active duty.

I was a Topgun trained adversary instructor and had access to stuff pretty early in the game.

We had access to a couple of defectors who had strong opinions that they were being overrated, but they were defectors. Obviously unhappy.

Anyway, when they shot down KAL 007, a civilian 747, I heard the intercepted radio transmissions of the entire thing.

It was an amateur, boneheaded event from their end.

I remember thinking, and stating, we are worried about these clowns? It was that bad.

 

In contrast, when I was on cruise in the northern Indian Ocean, just after the Iranian Embassy was invaded and the hostages were in custody, the first Iranian surveillance plane, a P-3 Orion that we had sold them, had just taken off and was heading out to sea looking for my carrier.

I launched off and was data linked, with out talking, to our E-2 Hawkeye early warning airplane.

Nothing was said in the clear, but the intercept data showed up on my HUD, and I intercepted him without him even knowing I was in the area until I pulled on on his wing and pointed to my Sidewinder missile.

That's how it's supposed to be done.

 

The Russians have, or had, all they  need to be a very effective adversary, but the entire thing is only impressive until you pull the curtain down, or you watch them in action.

 

The problem is that you can't assume that.

We have an all volunteer force, and you don't get volunteers unless they are quite sure of ultimate success.

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by sherpa

[Big Blitz]

You’re a clueless f…ing moron if you think pretty much anything that is happening ISN’T by design 

 

 

 

 

This was them openly mocking how stupid you are 

[Coffeesforclosers]

17 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

You’re a clueless f…ing moron if you think pretty much anything that is happening ISN’T by design 

 

 

 

 

This was them openly mocking how stupid you are 

 

 

Well, I can't think of a better way to bring someone around to my point of view. I should start all negotiations or trainings by calling my audience "clueless ***** morons".  You know, since "Deplorables" is already taken. 

[Big Blitz]

Just now, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

 

Well, I can't think of a better way to bring someone around to my point of view. I should start all negotiations or trainings by calling my audience "clueless ***** morons".  You know, since "Deplorables" is already taken. 

 

There is no convincing people of your ilk.  Trying to save the unsures and the next generation before it’s too late.  
 

I’d like the rest to fulfill their countless promises of moving to Canada - or Cuba.  Or, China.  And gtfo

[Big Blitz]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

That is a complicated question, and can only be viewed in hindsight.

 

I've been through all this before, on a personal level, having flown carrier based fighters, then on shore duty, teaching then Soviet weapons and tactics, as well as serving as an adversary pilot/instructor using those tactics to train US and allied Air Forces how to defeat them.

It's the same now as it was then.

 

The threat is presented, ("sold" using your word, which I would not use), based on what is known about their weapon's capabilities.

 

There are a lot of other things you can't know the total picture of by US and allied intel capabilities.

Things like training levels, degree of challenge in that training. Leadership capabilities. Maintenance and readiness levels. Morale, to some extent. The level of corruption etc., and it goes on and on.

 

To ensure effectiveness, you can't assume they are highly questionable until you see them in action in a meaningful, to them, operation.

So far, what we have witnessed is nearly a complete waste of those significant weapons and troops.

 

They obviously don't plan well, as seen by their complete inability to supply their initial offensive.

They have shown no realization that cell phones get you in trouble if the US is around.

Think it was a coincidence that a number of high ranking field officers were killed this past summer? How were they targeted? Think the Ukrainians happened to be lucky?

Still worse, they have seemingly no ability to maintain equipment or even produce necessary parts.

Still even worser, they have shown absolutely no ability to integrate forces. No coordination between ground and air, or any other joint force multiplier assets.

Their leadership, if you could call it that, is seemingly hideous from the 0-6 level down to E-3.

Their entire military operation reeks of massive corruption before anything even gets to the battle.

Further, they seem entirely disinterested.

 

The point is, though, you can't assume any of that prior to observation, which we are now getting an eyeful causing us to think the way we now do.

 

Anecdotally, I recall a similar situation during my active duty.

I was a Topgun trained adversary instructor and had access to stuff pretty early in the game.

We had access to a couple of defectors who had strong opinions that they were being overrated, but they were defectors. Obviously unhappy.

Anyway, when they shot down KAL 007, a civilian 747, I heard the intercepted radio transmissions of the entire thing.

It was an amateur, boneheaded event from their end.

I remember thinking, and stating, we are worried about these clowns? It was that bad.

 

In contrast, when I was on cruise in the northern Indian Ocean, just after the Iranian Embassy was invaded and the hostages were in custody, the first Iranian surveillance plane, a P-3 Orion that we had sold them, had just taken off and was heading out to sea looking for my carrier.

I launched off and was data linked, with out talking, to our E-2 Hawkeye early warning airplane.

Nothing was said in the clear, but the intercept data showed up on my HUD, and I intercepted him without him even knowing I was in the area until I pulled on on his wing and pointed to my Sidewinder missile.

That's how it's supposed to be done.

 

The Russians have, or had, all they  need to be a very effective adversary, but the entire thing is only impressive until you pull the curtain down, or you watch them in action.

 

The problem is that you can't assume that.

We have an all volunteer force, and you don't get volunteers unless they are quite sure of ultimate success.

 

Great assessment and appreciate you sharing your experiences and insights.  I'd summarize my feedback by saying that while we tend to highlight technology as the almighty factor it ultimately comes down to competent, motivated, well trained people with critical thinking skills that make the difference. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[Big Blitz]

Oh.  Ok.  
 

 

[Roundybout]

27 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Besides this being stupid nonsense, what does it have to do with Ukraine?

[reddogblitz]

44 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Oh.  Ok.  
 

 

 

I love how this is now being pitched as an "investment".  And the army suit is cool too.  Did he just step off the front lines on his way to Washington?

[reddogblitz]

9 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm certain there's no changing your mind, but the situations you mention are completely different.

Viet Nam is not only ancient history, but totally inapplicable.

First, we deployed a large amount of troops to fight an ground/air  war.

Second we foolishly and tragically did not allow our military to fight that war using its capabilities.

Iraq was a tremendous military success until the primary military goals were met. It was then completely destroyed by a terrible regime and massive third party interference.

The military goals in Afghanistan ere relatively easily achieved, but again, domestic leadership was unsupported and horribly ineffective.

 

Ukraine is fighting an invading force trying to steal its land.

It is under a very popular regime, for the moment.

It has huge international support which includes sufficient weapon aid.

 

China has an arms length relationship with Russia and as currently developing, would never send troops of any significance to be led by this grossly failing Russian military, nor has it ever been anything but a home defense force. 

 

As the saying goes, you can't fight the last war.

In addition, you can't use strategies of the last war to fit inapplicable realities.

 

Completely turning back the unprovoked Russian invasion is extremely beneficial to Europe and the US. Doing so without US troop involvement is as good as it gets.

The downside is current cost, which may be well worth it compared to continued and even more aggressive Russian expansion.

Evolving trade and discovering energy realities alone are worth tens of billions.

NATO countries finally coming around to learning that their failure to live up to agreements is an additional value.

 

Anyway, lots of variables in this equation, but I doubt active, large scale warfare extends into next winter.

 

I'm certain you won't change my mind either.

 

You make some good points.  

 

Thanks for your war time service.  You have my respect.

 

I do think you sort of missed my point on Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  My point was in the beginning they were all pitched as a quick, easy, cheap way to win to turn back and ruin the commies or later terrorists. None of them turned out that way and I don't think this will either.  As the saying goes, those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.  And as you say, there are a lot of variables.

 

We don't have "boots on the ground", but we're paying Erik Prince's army to do the dirty work cuz sending "boots on the ground" would be politically unpopular.

 

I also don't believe it will be quick.  President Zelensky didn't sound like he thought it would be and he's their President and Commander in Chief.

 

Doesn't matter what I think really cuz President Biden and Congress are all over it like a cat on a June bug.

 

I hope you're right.

Edited December 24, 2022 by reddogblitz