Ukraine conflict
05-03-2024, 08:31 PM
#2911
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
Including a C-130 which they sort of overbanked:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j8EUepv27-Y
The guys who gave the Iraq government $19 Billion in development funds - $250 million in 2023 alone - which is now cozying up to Iran?
https://www.usaid.gov/iraq
THOSE experts and diplomats?
05-04-2024, 08:59 AM
#2912
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
Another voice heard from…
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/colum...litical-logic/
Some excerpts:[/size]
Wars, Rumors, and Geopolitical Logic
MAY 2024BY SRDJA TRIFKOVIC[size=33px]
The decision in Washington to expand NATO and weaponize Ukraine against Russia was an act of human will; so was the decision in Moscow to respond to this challenge with military force. The permanence of Ukraine’s geographic position, on the other hand, makes this challenge an existential issue for Russia, no less than the control over the Jordan river valley and the Golan Heights is an existential issue for Israel, and the control over its coastal seas is an existential issue for China. A state striving for security can change segments of its space by building Great Walls and Maginot Lines, but it is inseparably bound to the physical framework of its existence: to the location of its land, its position, shape, and size, its resources, and its borders.
Unlike mountain ranges and rivers, however, borders are not fixed realities that separate sovereignties and legal authorities. They are military-political arrangements subject to change depending on power relations. There is nothing sacred or permanent about them. They have been shifting for centuries in favor of the stronger and at the expense of the weaker, regardless of legal or moral claims. The future border between Ukraine and Russia, or between Israel and its Arab neighbors, not to mention China’s maritime frontier, will not be decided at a conference table. They will be decided by the realities created on the ground by force and threat of force.
Of course, the new borders will also be challenged in the fullness of time. Their durability primarily will depend on the raw might of the winners, and on the consensus of their decision-makers to defend the new status quo. In the drama of international politics, power has always been based on strength and will. Territory and physical space has always been the ultimate currency in that cruel and dangerous business.
Unlike mountain ranges and rivers, however, borders are not fixed realities that separate sovereignties and legal authorities. They are military-political arrangements subject to change depending on power relations. There is nothing sacred or permanent about them. They have been shifting for centuries in favor of the stronger and at the expense of the weaker, regardless of legal or moral claims. The future border between Ukraine and Russia, or between Israel and its Arab neighbors, not to mention China’s maritime frontier, will not be decided at a conference table. They will be decided by the realities created on the ground by force and threat of force.
Of course, the new borders will also be challenged in the fullness of time. Their durability primarily will depend on the raw might of the winners, and on the consensus of their decision-makers to defend the new status quo. In the drama of international politics, power has always been based on strength and will. Territory and physical space has always been the ultimate currency in that cruel and dangerous business.
Today’s international relations are conditioned by geopolitical considerations which override ideology. There is no value system—especially not the monstrosity of wokedom espoused by the U.S.—capable of changing the aspiration of major powers (Russia, China) or regional ones (Israel) to increase their security by expanding control over spaces, resources, and access routes.
The essence of spatial competition does not change; only the essential pressure points do. It is in the American interest for the U.S. policy making elite to understand that this will be true until the end of history, which will come about only when the world passes from time into eternity. ◆
The essence of spatial competition does not change; only the essential pressure points do. It is in the American interest for the U.S. policy making elite to understand that this will be true until the end of history, which will come about only when the world passes from time into eternity. ◆
05-04-2024, 09:52 AM
#2913
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 197
05-04-2024, 10:43 AM
#2914
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
Seems you've been scratching your head as to why on earth so many here would assume you're a willing, if not fully aware, shill for the Russian kleptocracy and their propaganda. I refer to your post above as exhibit A. Don't even think of giving us your standard "oh, I was just re-posting what some highly intelligent people are saying" excuse. By now you must know EXACTLY who's water you're carrying when you post garbage like this. "It was Wahhington's decision to weaponize Ukraine against Russia" (of course comrade). "The poor Russians couldn't help but respond with military force" (naturally). "Look what a mess the imperialist, capitalist pigs in the United States have made" (certainly mother Russia is only acting in her own best interest and should not be held responsible for any of the death, destruction, and suffering in Ukraine). It's been a while since you've posted something that so explicitly details your real position. Thanks for re-affirming your shill status. Why don't you just do us all a favor though & change your screen name to something more appropriate like, say, Moscow Mule? That way it'll be easier to remember what you stand for. What a disgraceful and disgusting thing for a veteran to be posting. Really.
Not so long ago on this thread there was a discussion of what geopolitics really was, with several of your fellow ad hominem attackers attempting to lecture me that geopolitics was "enforcing international norms" and "the rules based international order." It isn't and never has been. As the word GEOpolitics implies, it relates to geography and the history - as this opinion piece emphasizes - has long been one of spheres of influence.
Pretending otherwise and pretending we can unilaterally enforce such a rules based international order - especially with feckless nominal allies unwilling (not unable, but unwilling) to provide their pro rata share of the resources to do that - is simply beyond the capability of any country. Hence we must prioritize what is really important to us, just like every other country. This, we will retreat from Niger - from a couple of airbases we spent over a quarter of a billion dollars building after a military coup by officers we helped train no less) removed the elected government and told us to leave because the juice simply wasn't worth the squeeze even though the population of Niger now being ruled by that junta is 26 million - 26 million that will now be living under a dictatorship every bit as totalitarian as that of Russia.
https://reason.com/2024/03/19/americ...ds-in-failure/
Now if you prefer to live in ignorance of the fact that some stories have another side, so be it. But that's on you, not me.
But there really is GEOGRAPHY as a central tenet of geopolitics, however much you might want to admit it.
05-04-2024, 11:15 AM
#2915
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 197
Another ad hominem attack? Is that the best you've got.
Not so long ago on this thread there was a discussion of what geopolitics really was, with several of your fellow ad hominem attackers attempting to lecture me that geopolitics was "enforcing international norms" and "the rules based international order." It isn't and never has been. As the word GEOpolitics implies, it relates to geography and the history - as this opinion piece emphasizes - has long been one of spheres of influence.
Pretending otherwise and pretending we can unilaterally enforce such a rules based international order - especially with feckless nominal allies unwilling (not unable, but unwilling) to provide their pro rata share of the resources to do that - is simply beyond the capability of any country. Hence we must prioritize what is really important to us, just like every other country. This, we will retreat from Niger - from a couple of airbases we spent over a quarter of a billion dollars building after a military coup by officers we helped train no less) removed the elected government and told us to leave because the juice simply wasn't worth the squeeze even though the population of Niger now being ruled by that junta is 26 million - 26 million that will now be living under a dictatorship every bit as totalitarian as that of Russia.
https://reason.com/2024/03/19/americ...ds-in-failure/
Now if you prefer to live in ignorance of the fact that some stories have another side, so be it. But that's on you, not me.
But there really is GEOGRAPHY as a central tenet of geopolitics, however much you might want to admit it.
Not so long ago on this thread there was a discussion of what geopolitics really was, with several of your fellow ad hominem attackers attempting to lecture me that geopolitics was "enforcing international norms" and "the rules based international order." It isn't and never has been. As the word GEOpolitics implies, it relates to geography and the history - as this opinion piece emphasizes - has long been one of spheres of influence.
Pretending otherwise and pretending we can unilaterally enforce such a rules based international order - especially with feckless nominal allies unwilling (not unable, but unwilling) to provide their pro rata share of the resources to do that - is simply beyond the capability of any country. Hence we must prioritize what is really important to us, just like every other country. This, we will retreat from Niger - from a couple of airbases we spent over a quarter of a billion dollars building after a military coup by officers we helped train no less) removed the elected government and told us to leave because the juice simply wasn't worth the squeeze even though the population of Niger now being ruled by that junta is 26 million - 26 million that will now be living under a dictatorship every bit as totalitarian as that of Russia.
https://reason.com/2024/03/19/americ...ds-in-failure/
Now if you prefer to live in ignorance of the fact that some stories have another side, so be it. But that's on you, not me.
But there really is GEOGRAPHY as a central tenet of geopolitics, however much you might want to admit it.
Last edited by Lowslung; 05-04-2024 at 11:17 AM. Reason: Had more to add. 😎
05-04-2024, 12:08 PM
#2916
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
Quit crying "ad hominem" every time someone legitimately criticizes your position. No one is calling you a fool because they can't defend their own positions. We imply you are a fool because your position is foolhardy. You clearly have a limited understanding of the English language and an uninspiring vocabulary. You are very plainly, actively, and vociferously re-posting Russian propaganda. What's almost as bad is rather than owning your positions, you attempt to attribute them to others (as if the body of your posting history here isn't entirely one-sided), and then claim you're being persecuted by "ad hominem" attacks. Most here can see right through you. Grow a pair. Own what you insist on posting over, and over, and over.......and over. Shill.
a. US troops on the ground.
b. Going nuke.
Because the sanctions and appeals to the International Court of Justice and cr@p like that ain't going to do it. Wishing that Putin is going to be replaced by someone nicer is just wishful thinking (see if wishes were horses meme) and the force-multiplier tech is not enough of an advantage to do the job, even if we had a larger supply of it (which we don't).
So put up or shut up. Which of the two routes to your goal that are actually possible are you advocating for, option a or option b?
05-04-2024, 01:20 PM
#2917
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 197
But you AREN'T defending your own position, simply engaging in ad hominem attacks. I've long since conceded that the more moral side is the Ukrainian position and stated many months back that I think they are going to come out of this feeling betrayed, but it's still a matter of geography, logistics, and demographics and that's largely playing out. Ukraine is not going to win - ie, force the Russians out of Ukraine's internationally recognized borders - without more boots on the ground, boots that they seem to be unable or at least politically unwilling (got their military commander - the guy who for two years had actually held or pushed back the Russians - fired for publicly insisting on a half million new conscripts) to come up with those troops. Most of our major NATO allies (ie, not the micro countries like Lithuania and Latvia) have spent 30 years taking "peace dividends" that had effectively gelded their military even before they gave the poorly maintained remnants of their equipment and ordnance to Ukraine. They are not going to put their troops on the ground (what few they have after 30 years of cutbacks) so it comes down to two options for the stated goal of Ukraine pushing the Russians back to international borders.
a. US troops on the ground.
b. Going nuke.
Because the sanctions and appeals to the International Court of Justice and cr@p like that ain't going to do it. Wishing that Putin is going to be replaced by someone nicer is just wishful thinking (see if wishes were horses meme) and the force-multiplier tech is not enough of an advantage to do the job, even if we had a larger supply of it (which we don't).
So put up or shut up. Which of the two routes to your goal that are actually possible are you advocating for, option a or option b?
a. US troops on the ground.
b. Going nuke.
Because the sanctions and appeals to the International Court of Justice and cr@p like that ain't going to do it. Wishing that Putin is going to be replaced by someone nicer is just wishful thinking (see if wishes were horses meme) and the force-multiplier tech is not enough of an advantage to do the job, even if we had a larger supply of it (which we don't).
So put up or shut up. Which of the two routes to your goal that are actually possible are you advocating for, option a or option b?
On the other hand, one can’t help but wonder if one day the Russians said to themselves: “You know what would be great Alexi? What’s that Ivan? Well, wouldn’t it be great if we could get the American people to believe that somehow their country has been the world’s bad actor all these years? Ha! Ivan, you’re delusional my friend. No, no Alexi, hear me out. There’s a whole contingent of them dim enough to buy this manure we’re shoveling & attempt to shove it down their countrymen’s throats! Let me introduce you to Excargodog….there are many others like him! Really? More than you can imagine comrade!”
Shill.
05-04-2024, 01:55 PM
#2918
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
It’s somewhat of a miracle the Ukrainians have held this long. If the Russians do manage to eek out a victory, they should be made to pay dearly for it & even then we should provide stingers, M4s, Javelins, bayonets, knives, rocks and whatever else we can to the Ukrainians who take to the hills & continue to fight. Let Russia and their friends China, North Korea, Iran, & other totalitarian states know that simply walking into a neighbor’s territory is a bad idea in a modern world. No American troops necessary. Nukes? Really? How’s that play out?
Shill.
Shill.
Lack of strategy, leadership, message clarity. Fickle, tepid support/unity at home and overseas. Crippling budget projections, bureaucratic infighting, incompetence. Endemic fraud at every partisan level. Conspiracy cloaking, media flaming, scapegoating for dollars run wild. Routine random gun/bomb half masts. All good otherwise. Mount up, draw your sabres.
05-04-2024, 03:39 PM
#2919
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
Indeed. Although I doubt Lowslung will get the Crimean Charge of the Light Brigade reference.
The problem is that no one knowledgeable actually believes that Ukraine is winning, or that they have any realistic chance of winning, absent option a or b - at least if you define "winning" as pushing back Russia to the internationally recognized borders. Now if you define "victory" as using conscript Ukrainians to kill conscript Russians to deplete the population of Russians available for conflict as your goal, that certainly can be done for some years yet without option a or b, absent some major Russian breakthrough and possibly even then. And that is pretty much what HAS been accomplished.
But you are still dealing with demographics - there are a lot more conscriptable Russians than there are conscriptable Ukrainians and the discrepancy is growing. Russia has about a thirty percent higher fertility than Ukraine and Ukraine's rate -with 6-7 million of their population (disproportionately women and kids) displaced out of the country - that's likely to get worse long before it gets better if it ever does get better at all. Ukraine's population was falling (and aging) fast even before the war.
And the other problem is that Ukraine isn't winning and absent more troops isn't going to be winning. Well, not without option b anyway. The situation isn't static and the US has already sent them most of what we can spare. $13.4 billion of the just passed $61 billion goes to replenish our own stockpiles, $7 billion goes to increase our own defense industrial base to - among other things - enable us to ramp up 155mm ammunition production, $7.3 Billion pays for the increased number of US troops in Europe, $3.3 Billion goes to cover the cost of US Intelligence in support of Ukraine, $7.9 billion is non military financial support of the Ukraine government for things like paying police, fire, supporting civilian government personnel, etc.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-u...ean-future-war
Relative to what has already been given to Ukraine by us the actual military stuff (less than 50% of the money) going is not great and a goodly part of that ($13.8 Billion) goes to cover training costs and purchase of weapons that will take months or years to deliver. Now yeah, we can quibble about money being fungible and the 7.9 Billion government support could be used by the Ukrainians to buy weapons, but a lot of the stockpiles of old 122mm and other Soviet era equipment which still represents a substantial portion of the Ukraine military equipment has already been bought up. It's just difficult to see this last increment of funds making much difference and it is widely assumed this IS the last increment before the US elections.
Which brings us with the other problem with the nonexistent option c. The longer this goes on, the better Russia's negotiating position (and likely demands in those negotiations is/are getting.
The problem is that no one knowledgeable actually believes that Ukraine is winning, or that they have any realistic chance of winning, absent option a or b - at least if you define "winning" as pushing back Russia to the internationally recognized borders. Now if you define "victory" as using conscript Ukrainians to kill conscript Russians to deplete the population of Russians available for conflict as your goal, that certainly can be done for some years yet without option a or b, absent some major Russian breakthrough and possibly even then. And that is pretty much what HAS been accomplished.
But you are still dealing with demographics - there are a lot more conscriptable Russians than there are conscriptable Ukrainians and the discrepancy is growing. Russia has about a thirty percent higher fertility than Ukraine and Ukraine's rate -with 6-7 million of their population (disproportionately women and kids) displaced out of the country - that's likely to get worse long before it gets better if it ever does get better at all. Ukraine's population was falling (and aging) fast even before the war.
And the other problem is that Ukraine isn't winning and absent more troops isn't going to be winning. Well, not without option b anyway. The situation isn't static and the US has already sent them most of what we can spare. $13.4 billion of the just passed $61 billion goes to replenish our own stockpiles, $7 billion goes to increase our own defense industrial base to - among other things - enable us to ramp up 155mm ammunition production, $7.3 Billion pays for the increased number of US troops in Europe, $3.3 Billion goes to cover the cost of US Intelligence in support of Ukraine, $7.9 billion is non military financial support of the Ukraine government for things like paying police, fire, supporting civilian government personnel, etc.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-u...ean-future-war
Relative to what has already been given to Ukraine by us the actual military stuff (less than 50% of the money) going is not great and a goodly part of that ($13.8 Billion) goes to cover training costs and purchase of weapons that will take months or years to deliver. Now yeah, we can quibble about money being fungible and the 7.9 Billion government support could be used by the Ukrainians to buy weapons, but a lot of the stockpiles of old 122mm and other Soviet era equipment which still represents a substantial portion of the Ukraine military equipment has already been bought up. It's just difficult to see this last increment of funds making much difference and it is widely assumed this IS the last increment before the US elections.
Which brings us with the other problem with the nonexistent option c. The longer this goes on, the better Russia's negotiating position (and likely demands in those negotiations is/are getting.
05-04-2024, 04:28 PM
#2920
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,466
It’s an interesting playbook some here are using:
1. Insist our ally is flawed & not worth saving (usually a politically motivated position). State (incorrectly) that they are bound to lose.
2. Actively advocate for policies that will hamstring the ally and make your original assertions magically come “true”.
3. Sit back and say “told you so” to the people you think are dumb enough not to have seen through your ploy.
🤦♂️
1. Insist our ally is flawed & not worth saving (usually a politically motivated position). State (incorrectly) that they are bound to lose.
2. Actively advocate for policies that will hamstring the ally and make your original assertions magically come “true”.
3. Sit back and say “told you so” to the people you think are dumb enough not to have seen through your ploy.
🤦♂️
-no normal human posts this much
-no normal human fails to remember conversations that have already happened
-No normal human displays such loneliness
the man is a bot…..treat him as such
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
