Excargodog

Or better yet, reference one of my quotes where you believe I indicate that. The Encyclopedia Britannia says of race:

Excepting a few percentage of Homo Neanderthalis and Denosivan DNA in some people we are really pretty much all the same racial stock. Some adaptations and mutations occurred of course and those that were helpful (increased pigment for sun protection, Sickle Cell hemoglobin for malaria protection, etc.) persisted in local environs but I think we are all the same race. Culturally, there certainly are differences and while I'm unsure what exactly you mean by "cultural cocooning" there are clearly differences in differing cultures and not all cultures IMHO are equal. Some are simply more functional than others - at least not in the conditions that pertain today.

Which certainly doesn't mean it is our culture's business to play world policeman or to try, in Rick's words - to nation build where no nation has ever existed. Nor do I think it's particularly racist of even culturally imperialistic to want and expect Europe to pay to defend Europe rather than expecting us to do so. As for the Ukraine, I still go by that old Walter Lippmann quote (although I admit that I only know what a mimeograph machine is by research not from actually having used one.

The defense of Ukraine is clearly no existential threat to the US and is a threat to Western Europe only if Western Europe continues to refuse to properly fund their own defense, although I would admit that after 30 to 50 years of neglect, they have a lot of cat+hing up to do.

MaxQ

Your entire post history on this thread is an attempt to justify the objectives of Putins current version of Russia.
This means, whether intentional or not, you advocate support for Russias public position of being Civilizations defense against Multiculturalism, which is at its core, racial.This thought permeates Russias Alesandr Dugin's writings, and the rhetoric of Steve Bannon in his MAGA advocacy.

The difference is Dugin's Putin controls the State and criminal economy/govt.
Bannon, who fancies himself a Leninn like revolutionary, needs the destructive nihilism of "dismantling the administrative State".
These are the core shared philosophies that you sense with your Winds of War reference.
Your obsessing about what various individual countries contribute to NATO borders on lunacy. Roosevelt didn't sweat the cost of Spitfire.

Excargodog

Nonsense. My post history centers around three things:
1. Why Russia has done this.
2. Why the lack of serious military preparedness of the rest of Europe enabled Russia to pull this off.
3. The logistics problems this now presents to both sides but disproportionately to our side.

1. Discussing why Russia has done this does not in any way indorse their actions any more than discussing the US Civil War indorse the actions of the Confederacy or discussing the Napoleanic wars means I'm siding with the British ir French. Understanding the motivation of an adversary is always an important issue in war planning, and implying that studying the enemy means you are siding with them is at best foolishness.
2. The object of NATO was never to fight and win wars. The object was always DETERRENCE, ie., to keep wars from happening. NATO has failed in that mission, in large part because of cutbacks in military preparedness by the major countries in Europe which until the breakup of the USSR contributed to that deterrence. That is not hyperbole, their dearth of defense spending has been pointed out to them - pointedly pointed out to them - by six different US administrations, Democrat and Republican, it is easily quantifiable and verifiable. Once the European and Canadian NATO partners gelded their militaries, deterrence failed. That was demonstrated way back in the 90s with the breakup of Yugoslavia. Absent the US forces, the rest of the NATO nations were unable/unwilling to even stand up to Serbia, a NON- nuclear country of 7.5 million people with a 1990 GDP of (then) only $40 billion.
3. Military logistics is important in any war. Even in the absence of the supply chain problems still plaguing us today from COVID (witness the problems with Airbus, Boeing, Pratt&Whitney, among many others), you have the problems of long lead time procurement, transport to the theater, sustainability, etc. Battles are sometimes won because of tactics but wars by and large are determined by logistics. And to either win a war or deter one from happening you need capable enough stuff, close enough, in sufficient quantity.

Your belief that these issues can or should be ignored IS lunacy. Roosevelt spent much of his early years in office preparing the US for the war - long before Pearl Harbor. A huge amount of the WPA work was creating and upgrading military bases even before war had broken out in Europe:
https://livingnewdeal.org/new-deal-c...inistration%20(WPA,the%20Naval%20Reserve%20Air%20Base.

He did not have America sit on its @$$ and be unprepared like Europe has done for thirty years. Nor did he beg for others to do America's fighting for them.

dera

Finally! Glad to see Johnsons maneuver paid off.

Hubcapped

im shocked its so quiet here. Selective posting i guess lol

Excargodog

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...raine-00153499


https://sofrep.com/specialoperations...m-involvement/

​​​​​​​

rickair7777

*No Boots on Ground.



* Exclusive of JSOC, SAC, DCS, etc




Yawn. Typically advisors are not *supposed* to engage in combat. In this case I suspect orders to that effect are very explicit and unambiguous.

METO Guido

1. Cake walk special op, spoiled
2. Military pigmies cruisin under nuke parasols. So?
3. Not so fast. Hold the line. Spare the Speaker

MaxQ

Since you responded yourself, with some thoughtfulness, you deserve a more lengthy and detailed reply than I can do on my phone. Just as my last 3 posts have tons more info implicitly embedded, this too will be mostly abreviated with unexplained assertions.
. First poiint: Your argued causes, while having plausibility, are mostly wrong. They are based on Russian disinformation datiingback to Stalin, which was amplified by his allies to justify their acquiescence. It has become accepted as common knowledge, revived by Putin in 21st century. It is a load of horsecrap parroted by the ignorant. Even those with foreign affairs credentials, but lacking knowledge of Russia parrot it.
. Second point: NATO of itself was/is not a deterrence. It is defensive only. The only deterence would be the will of USA and others to supply Ukraine with the means to defend. Russia believed its own rhetoric, and that of both the far right an d far left in the West, that there would be no forthcoming aid. ( and that theycould blackmail Europe) In the immediate near term their intelligence failed them.
With their ideological and cultural alliance with Right Wing politicians and right wing populist politics, they may yet prove right regarding their assessment of Western assistance to Ukraine.
Your third point rests on your knowledge of deficiencies in USA and others capabilities.
In fact they dwarf Russias. Russia only has a logistical advantage in overall population and a somewhat, but notby much, shorter supply chain. Other than that, Russia is a mess. They can't even manufacture there own gun barrels for some of their artillery. At least one economist lists Russia's largest GDP item as payments made for the protection racket that permeates society. The top guys then export this through money laundering to foreign countries and entities such as Trump properties. This means that for Russia to have a logistically effective military operation Putin has to figure out how to undo 30 plus years of how business and governace their is done. Oligarchic Fascism (as opposed to National Fascism) is a tough nut to reform, particularly from the top down. All the players are who keep the top in power. It would take a revolution similar to Ukraine's EuroMaidan.
. In short, unless the West shrugs and does as you and others advocate, the logistical advantage lies with the USA and other western powers. The problems you point out are not anywhere near as large as theproblems Russia has.
To sum up. Their is some validity to your 3 points, but your overall conclusions are in error.
Your advocacy gives political power to US political players whom actively work to further Russia's strategic aims and further foment instability in the world. This instability has real consequences of increased death and suffering.

Excargodog

What cause of this did I argue? Russian paranoia mostly. That's pretty well established historically and was part and parcel of the agreement with Stalin at Yalta, the agreement to allow the division of Germany and that the eastern part be administered by the USSR. But Russian paranoia (and, yes, expansionism too when possible, greatly preceded that, dating back even before Katherine the Great when Russian borders even encompassed Alaska. But post WWII, it was broadly accepted that Russian/Soviet paranoia was responsible for the formation of the Warsaw Pact. https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/re...oia-about-west

What causes did I advocate? Adequacy of military readiness I will grant you. But most of the logistics stuff is either geography, other statements of fact, or comes right out of DOD training manuals/squadron officer's school, command and staff school or Air War College readings.

The claim that NATO is about deterrence is given in NATOs own documents:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2016/08/05/on-deterrence/index.html

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2022/12/30/deterrence-what-it-can-and-cannot-do/index.html

Surely you aren't claiming that is disinformation and certainly not Russian disinformation, are you?

The FACTS are:

That Ukraine is at a huge disadvantage militarily due to demographics. That is irrefutable based on both prewar and postwar demographics. Neither country had much of a fertility rate even before the conflict, but the ability (and apparently willingness) of Russia to conscript from their military age population greatly exceeds that of Ukraine.

The resource base between the two nations greatly favors Russia. Russia is the largest country on Earth with a resource base that greatly exceeds that of Ukraine. And logistically it is far easier for Russia to get weapons, munitions, vehicles, POL, food, and everything else to the FEBA than for the US to get those things there.

Now since you seem very willing to give me advice I'll give some to you.

1. Not everybody that disagrees with you is some simpleton rube held in thrall by either Russian propaganda or some New York real estate shyster. Sometimes they just know different things than you know, respawn different classified in the SCIF than you did, or just have a different life experience that leads them to interpret even the same set of facts differently.

2. You are unlikely to win those people over by either assuming or flat-out stating that they are simpleton rubes or morally deficient. Had Hillary passed up the cheap shot deplorables comment (in a state she was going to win by 2 million votes anyway) I truly believe the NY real estate shyster would have never been president, because even deplorables get a vote and wise individuals don't gratuitously insult the other side.

3. We are not developing two new limited yield warheads because the guys at Los Alamos just need gainful employment. We are doing it to DETER adversaries and because we believe they may indeed be needed if that deterrence fails. We are not doing it because we believe that nuclear weapons will never be used, for all their most desired purpose is deterrence.