Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

[Mikado463]

By saying that, you put yourself in league with blind isolationism of the past & present.

sorry, that was not my intent.

Where were those money wasting protests when W Bush & D!ck Cheney wanted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Similarly in 1991, when HW Bush wanted to intervene in Kuwait, where were those isolationists who vociferously opposed it because it was a budget-buster

They were there and I was questioning that mess as well, but 'The Steam Vent' hadn't been invented yet !

It does seem like an isolationist foreign policy combined with feigned interest in fiscal responsibility are selectively applied only when a president is a Democrat.

not from me, I'm an equal opportunity basher of any and all politicians when and where justified !!

 

[Mikado463]

Well, being good for business is not a justification and I don't believe Western aid to Ukraine is due to pressure from weapons manufacturers.

perhaps yes, perhaps no......... live Beta testing for weapons systems ?

 

[GO-NAD!]

perhaps yes, perhaps no......... live Beta testing for weapons systems ?

After 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq, what Beta testing is needed? Javelin and HIMARS have certainly proved their worth.

 

[highfigh]

Well, being good for business is not a justification and I don't believe Western aid to Ukraine is due to pressure from weapons manufacturers.

If the Gulf War was good for manufacturers of munitions, it was because the US needed to replenish a lot of what was used because some of that stuff was Vietnam-era. Many of the vehicles were already in the inventory, but obviously needed to be up-armored because we had never seen IEDs with that level of destruction. The F117 had never been used, AFAIK, the B2 was seen, but not in battle, although MOAB was developed during that time.

However, it seems that Biden, et al saw no value in keeping what was left for the Taliban/ISIS, etc when he pulled out and apparently never thought that it could be used against us or our allies. Sure, some was damaged, but even a simple person can learn to take things apart for the smart ones to cobble together.

Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex, but nobody listened. If they did, it was because they saw opportunities and wanted to exploit it.

This is one of the things I hate about old politicians- they're too willing to send young people into a war they can't imagine, won't feel the pain from and watch from a distance.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Another aspect of this is that Russia already has a very high percentage of it's armed forces in Ukraine. I doubt anyone (including Putin) knows with certainty what the actual percentages are, but UK Defence Secretary says that 97% of the Russian army is estimated to be in Ukraine already.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-64634760

It's hard to see how Russia could escalate much, other than using nukes. I'm skeptical Putin would actually use nukes because it would be suicidal, but there is of course no way to know with absolute certainty.

Granted, Russia is reportedly planning to increase defense spending, but the GDP of Russia is tiny and Russia is therefore very limited in terms of what it can do to escalate the war:

NATOs Combined GDP is far Larger than Russias: | World Economics

It is said (attributed to George Bernard Shaw and many others) that God always favours the big battalions in war, meaning that whoever has the greatest resources is likely - sooner or later - to triumph over the many other factors that can play a part. If this is the case, NATO should have no...

www.worldeconomics.com

Even by itself, the GDP of the U.S. is about 14 times that of Russia ($20.89 trillion vs $1.48 trillion).

https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/russias-minuscule-economy-the-mouse-that-roars

In terms of military spending, the U.S. (by itself) dwarfs Russia $750 billion to $48 billion:

Military Spending by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Russia is not an invincible monster of some sort. Putin's tough guy act is mostly (completely?) a bluff.

Prevailing in Ukraine is a question of Western resolve (politics), not capability.

 

[highfigh]

Another aspect of this is that Russia already has a very high percentage of it's armed forces in Ukraine. I doubt anyone (including Putin) knows with certainty what the actual percentages are, but UK Defence Secretary says that 97% of the Russian army is estimated to be in Ukraine already.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-64634760

It's hard to see how Russia could escalate much, other than using nukes. I'm skeptical Putin would actually use nukes because it would be suicidal, but there is of course no way to know with absolute certainty.

Granted, Russia is reportedly planning to increase defense spending, but the GDP of Russia is tiny and Russia is therefore very limited in terms of what it can do to escalate the war:

View attachment 60776

NATOs Combined GDP is far Larger than Russias: | World Economics

It is said (attributed to George Bernard Shaw and many others) that God always favours the big battalions in war, meaning that whoever has the greatest resources is likely - sooner or later - to triumph over the many other factors that can play a part. If this is the case, NATO should have no...

www.worldeconomics.com

Even by itself, the GDP of the U.S. is about 14 times that of Russia ($20.89 trillion vs $1.48 trillion).

https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/russias-minuscule-economy-the-mouse-that-roars

In terms of military spending, the U.S. (by itself) dwarfs Russia $750 billion to $48 billion:

View attachment 60777

Military Spending by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Russia is not an invincible monster of some sort. Putin's tough guy act is mostly (completely?) a bluff.

Prevailing in Ukraine is a question of Western resolve (politics), not capability.

IMO, it's not about what they can do in a normal conflict, it's what might they do if backed into a corner, facing insurmountable odds?

 

[Mr._Clark]

I hazard a guess that an explosion that close to the radar and other sensitive electronics must have made it at least temporarily out of service. The plane might fly but not do anything it’s supposed to do.

One site claimed there where satellites photo corroborating this but have no links.

It looks like there was indeed at least some damage.

Lukashenko's statements about a "terrorist" and the CIA seems a bit unhinged given that he also claims that the damage was superficial.

I highly doubt the CIA was involved. If nothing else, the CIA would have used a more sophisticated explosive charge.

>>>The Belarusian president has now admitted that a drone attack by partisans caused some damage to a Russian A-50 radar plane last month. . . . While officials in Belarus and Russia refuted the dissidents’ claims that the A-50 was blown up, Lukashenko now admits that the attack resulted in at least a limited amount of damage to the aircraft. This may support claims that the jet was subsequently flown to Taganrog in Russia, to undergo repairs, as well as the apparent changes in appearance to the forward-fuselage satellite communications (SATCOM) dome, which would seem to be consistent with this area having been repaired or its cowling swapped out.

The latest satellite imagery obtained by The War Zone reveals that, as of yesterday, the A-50 was no longer at Machulishchy. Since the weather was overcast in the previous days, it's possible that the aircraft actually returned to Russia days before then. Although we cannot say for sure, this might also suggest that temporary repairs were made to the aircraft first, but that it’s now returned to Russia for more extensive work and will be replaced by another example. It could also be a pre-planned swap with another A-50. <<<

Ukraine Situation Report: Belarus Admits Russian A-50 Radar Jet Damaged In Drone Attack

The Belarusian president has now admitted that a drone attack by partisans caused some damage to a Russian A-50 radar plane last month.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

IMO, it's not about what they can do in a normal conflict, it's what might they do if backed into a corner, facing insurmountable odds?

I doubt anyone wants to back them into a corner. All Putin needs to do is pull his forces out of Ukraine.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I doubt anyone wants to back them into a corner. All Putin needs to do is pull his forces out of Ukraine.

All of Ukraine, everything Russia took over in 2014.

Imagine what it would be like if Ukraine didn't give up its nukes in what, 2012.

 

[GO-NAD!]

All of Ukraine, everything Russia took over in 2014.

Imagine what it would be like if Ukraine didn't give up its nukes in what, 2012.

Indeed. And, it has given other countries holding nuclear weapons - Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea - plenty of incentive to hold onto them. It also encourages countries like Iran to continue pursuing them. When all else fails, the atom bomb becomes a poison pill - an invader may prevail, only to gain a pyrrhic victory.

 

[highfigh]

I doubt anyone wants to back them into a corner. All Putin needs to do is pull his forces out of Ukraine.

If they won't back him into a corner, what motivation would he have for leaving Ukraine?

 

[GO-NAD!]

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[GO-NAD!]

If they won't back him into a corner, what motivation would he have for leaving Ukraine?

If he's forced into a corner, he may feel he has no option but to go full on Götterdämmerung - which would be good for nobody.

 

[highfigh]

If he's forced into a corner, he may feel he has no option but to go full on Götterdämmerung - which would be good for nobody.

That's my point. This is very similar to wanting to get rid of a crazy person, but not wanting to make them mad enough to lash out. He doesn't care that the US also has nukes, he wants to threaten the use of the ones in the Russian arsenal because he knows the rest of the World doesn't want them to be used. He has always seemed to be a button-pusher WRT interacting with people. With Trump's little mind, Putin knew that compliments would manipulate Trump because of the latter's need for approval and his showboating.

 

[John Parks]

 

[GO-NAD!]

That's my point. This is very similar to wanting to get rid of a crazy person, but not wanting to make them mad enough to lash out. He doesn't care that the US also has nukes, he wants to threaten the use of the ones in the Russian arsenal because he knows the rest of the World doesn't want them to be used. He has always seemed to be a button-pusher WRT interacting with people. With Trump's little mind, Putin knew that compliments would manipulate Trump because of the latter's need for approval and his showboating.

What I mean is, continue the effort to push him out of Ukraine, while not impeding any offramp he can take to extricate himself. While there have to be consequences for his and the Russian military's actions, now is not the time for western leaders to be discussing them. That would be an example of forcing him into a corner. If he feels he has no alternative, he'll most certainly persist with the "special military operation".

To be honest, I'm not optimistic that this will end any time soon. Deep down, Putin has to understand that there are going to be consequences for his actions. He may be fighting for the win in Ukraine, or he may be just trying to kick the FAFO can down the road as long and as far as he can.

 

[highfigh]

What I mean is, continue the effort to push him out of Ukraine, while not impeding any offramp he can take to extricate himself. While there have to be consequences for his and the Russian military's actions, now is not the time for western leaders to be discussing them. That would be an example of forcing him into a corner. If he feels he has no alternative, he'll most certainly persist with the "special military operation".

To be honest, I'm not optimistic that this will end any time soon. Deep down, Putin has to understand that there are going to be consequences for his actions. He may be fighting for the win in Ukraine, or he may be just trying to kick the FAFO can down the road as long and as far as he can.

Is there an offramp? Is his survival an acceptable outcome, without banishing him to a remote place?

Everything I have seen lately indicates that even the Wagner Group doesn't want to be involved and Putin is using prisoners who are told to fight, or be executed. An old tactic, but still not something that's even close to humane. Russian soldiers are deserting, and even some from Wagner- at what pint does he see the light?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Is there an offramp? Is his survival an acceptable outcome, without banishing him to a remote place?

Everything I have seen lately indicates that even the Wagner Group doesn't want to be involved and Putin is using prisoners who are told to fight, or be executed. An old tactic, but still not something that's even close to humane. Russian soldiers are deserting, and even some from Wagner- at what pint does he see the light?

I think the offramp exists right now. He could pull out of Ukraine today, if he wanted to. Impeding an offramp might be to give Ukraine equipment enabling significant attacks on Russian territory, such as long-range missiles. That might steel Russian nerve and make them feel that they must continue on the current path.

Despite the crimes he is clearly guilty of, I'd allow him to survive if it meant he would give up on this insanity. It's quite apparent that the morale amongst Russian forces is pretty poor. It just hasn't reached WW1 proportions, where there were large-scale mutinies.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Let's just do it. Been a long time since the last clensing. Maybe this could be the final one.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Good response to a stupid article in The Atlantic.
How to fake a scholarly argument — Abrahms in The Atlantic – Branislav L. Slantchev (wordpress.com)