Ukraine War and Politics

[zackmars]

I can't wait for prohibition to end so our dear Gov't will stop taxing our income!

 

[zackmars]

It's a poor fictional scenario, because at the time 70 billion was a lot of money.
Under Bidenomics, you're talking about a few loaves of bread...

We aren't quite at the same point as Weimar era Germany. I'll get back to you in 4 years on that.

 

[kbaxter60]

We aren't quite at the same point as Weimar era Germany. I'll get back to you in 4 years on that.

Agree, and it's a deal.
Four years may be optimistic.

 

[Havok1]

It's not in Ukraine's interest to take over russian land. They are figting a defensive war against a much larger hostile nation.

No student loans here. But i am familiar with government spending to know that aid to Ukraine is the smartest thing they've done with our money in the past decade or two, and regardless of whos killing who, the tax man is still oh his way.

You're too naive. Our spending has been put of control even when Ukraine was an SSR.

No, the smartest thing they did with our money was reduce the amount that was stolen from us when Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs act.

Foreign aid, including the money being sent to Ukraine is not in any way the best way to spend money, at least from the general public’s position. Especially when that money is going to a country that does not have a strategy in place in which they can explain how they are going to use our equipment to succeed.

How are they not failing?

By what metric are they not failing?

Their K/L ratio is insanely the wrong way

They have lost 33% of their BSF to a nation without a navy

Their production cannot keep pace with losses.

They have failed capture a regional capital in 24 months

The few areas of positive movement on the from are coming at astronomical losses in men and equipment and are unsustainable.



Sent from my SM-S918B using

People only use body counts as an indicator of the success of wars when they have failed to achieve any strategic goals. Beyond that, body count only matters when it’s so high that one side runs out of bodies. That’s a problem for Ukraine, not Russia.

ukraine has had some successful attacks on the Black Sea fleet, but once again, let’s not pretend like that’s their whole navy. Let’s not forget that Russia does still have one of the largest navies in the world, even if it is inferior to ours. You point out that Ukraine does not have a navy, and it’s worth noting that countries without a navy can not suffer naval losses. Look at some of the things that have taken our own ships out of the game.

What makes you think that their production can’t keep up with their losses? Some of the media that you’re so reliant on for information has been reporting how Russia would be running out of equipment any day now for the past 2 years. Yet we just had a theater commander fly half way around the world to brief a Congressional committee on how Ukraine, not Russia, is running out. Meanwhile, our own production is lagging behind.

While you say them not gaining ground is a loss for Russia, if someone had taken over that same percentage of US territory, nobody would ever say they were losing because they didn’t gain more. If that invading force was maintaining control of that US territory while expanding their footprint in other theaters, nobody would ever say the invading force was losing.

 

[zackmars]

No, the smartest thing they did with our money was reduce the amount that was stolen from us when Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs act.

Foreign aid, including the money being sent to Ukraine is not in any way the best way to spend money, at least from the general public’s position. Especially when that money is going to a country that does not have a strategy in place in which they can explain how they are going to use our equipment to succeed.


People only use body counts as an indicator of the success of wars when they have failed to achieve any strategic goals. Beyond that, body count only matters when it’s so high that one side runs out of bodies. That’s a problem for Ukraine, not Russia.

ukraine has had some successful attacks on the Black Sea fleet, but once again, let’s not pretend like that’s their whole navy. Let’s not forget that Russia does still have one of the largest navies in the world, even if it is inferior to ours. You point out that Ukraine does not have a navy, and it’s worth noting that countries without a navy can not suffer naval losses. Look at some of the things that have taken our own ships out of the game.

What makes you think that their production can’t keep up with their losses? Some of the media that you’re so reliant on for information has been reporting how Russia would be running out of equipment any day now for the past 2 years. Yet we just had a theater commander fly half way around the world to brief a Congressional committee on how Ukraine, not Russia, is running out. Meanwhile, our own production is lagging behind.

While you say them not gaining ground is a loss for Russia, if someone had taken over that same percentage of US territory, nobody would ever say they were losing because they didn’t gain more. If that invading force was maintaining control of that US territory while expanding their footprint in other theaters, nobody would ever say the invading force was losing.

Last i checked, we didn't get much of a say in tax cuts, or foreign aid allocation. I don't know how much attention you paid 4 years ago, but you know they kinda just straight up stole an election? We're at the end of their rope.

You're totally clueless on not only how government works, but how russia fights and equips its forces.

The Russian army barely started to issue socks before their invasion. Their production lines of tanks and fighters makes our production lines look like they're from the future. Every step of the way, their EW and AD capabilities get shown to be total dumpster fires.

Their ships are in total disrepair. Even the ones that get an 80% readiness rating are total shit shows. They've *never* had a good navy, even as far back as the Czar's, every major naval operation they've tried has ended in disaster.



A competent military achives objectives. Russia isn't achieving it's objectives. They are bleeding men and resources they can't afford to loose. The birth rate never recovered post ww2, this war isn't going to help them. And try as they might, even with the help of such friendly nations like iran, nk, and china, they can't match the losses suffered.

Compare Desert Storm to the "special military operation". that is how you conduct an invasion. Russia can't even maintain a basic order of battle, these dumbasses send defenseless troop carriers into areas with active AD systems.

But hey, i hear their tech support is real hands on

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-india-migrant-workers-rcna148584

 

[Havok1]

Last i checked, we didn't get much of a say in tax cuts, or foreign aid allocation. I don't know how much attention you paid 4 years ago, but you know they kinda just straight up stole an election? We're at the end of their rope.

You're totally clueless on not only how government works, but how russia fights and equips its forces.

The Russian army barely started to issue socks before their invasion. Their production lines of tanks and fighters makes our production lines look like they're from the future. Every step of the way, their EW and AD capabilities get shown to be total dumpster fires.

Their ships are in total disrepair. Even the ones that get an 80% readiness rating are total shit shows. They've *never* had a good navy, even as far back as the Czar's, every major naval operation they've tried has ended in disaster.



A competent military achives objectives. Russia isn't achieving it's objectives. They are bleeding men and resources they can't afford to loose. The birth rate never recovered post ww2, this war isn't going to help them. And try as they might, even with the help of such friendly nations like iran, nk, and china, they can't match the losses suffered.

Compare Desert Storm to the "special military operation". that is how you conduct an invasion. Russia can't even maintain a basic order of battle, these dumbasses send defenseless troop carriers into areas with active AD systems.

But hey, i hear their tech support is real hands on

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-india-migrant-workers-rcna148584

Nobody said the Russian military was better, or comparable to ours, except for many of the people who use that as a point for suggesting that as a reason for continuing the proxy war. What was said, and was correct, is that Russia is not losing in Ukraine, and that it is a waste of money for us to keep sending money there. Funny That you bring up Russia not achieving objectives. I guess if you don’t have objectives you can’t fail to achieve them. Therefore, everything is ok! Lol.

 

[zackmars]

Nobody said the Russian military was better, or comparable to ours, except for many of the people who use that as a point for suggesting that as a reason for continuing the proxy war. What was said, and was correct, is that Russia is not losing in Ukraine, and that it is a waste of money for us to keep sending money there. Funny That you bring up Russia not achieving objectives. I guess if you don’t have objectives you can’t fail to achieve them. Therefore, everything is ok! Lol.

Except they are loosing. They are incapable of replacing losses and haven't achived a single major objective. Their MFG capabilities are not able to replace all the aircraft, tanks, APC's or ships lost.

Seriously its a country the size of our state, and despite being fully mechanized, Russia hasn't been able to win after 2 years.

Russia absolutely has objectives, unless you seriously think they invaded their neighbor with no tactical or strategic goals in mind, because the start of the war was absolutely inspired by the second chechen war, where the VDV and the armored column to Kiev was to depose the Ukrainian government and replace it with a puppet.

But that didn't pan out, because Russia has no idea how to gain air superiority, has no idea how to do combined arms against western trained forces. They can't even conduct naval operations against a country *with no navy*

 

[BigRed]

Go bitch about the money Hamas and Iran and countless other places that HATE the USA and all we stand for get.

Look around. I do. "Foreign aid" from the US gov should be -0-.If folks feel so strongly otherwise, they are free to donate their own property.

 

[zackmars]

Look around. I do. "Foreign aid" from the US gov should be -0-.If folks feel so strongly otherwise, they are free to donate their own property.

Clearly you don't make policy decisions, so sit back and enjoy the fact our adversary is getting it's crap pushed in

 

[Havok1]

Except they are loosing. They are incapable of replacing losses and haven't achived a single major objective. Their MFG capabilities are not able to replace all the aircraft, tanks, APC's or ships lost.

Seriously its a country the size of our state, and despite being fully mechanized, Russia hasn't been able to win after 2 years.

Russia absolutely has objectives, unless you seriously think they invaded their neighbor with no tactical or strategic goals in mind, because the start of the war was absolutely inspired by the second chechen war, where the VDV and the armored column to Kiev was to depose the Ukrainian government and replace it with a puppet.

But that didn't pan out, because Russia has no idea how to gain air superiority, has no idea how to do combined arms against western trained forces. They can't even conduct naval operations against a country *with no navy*

lol. Only on the internet in 2024 can a country take control of another countries land and be considered losing while still accomplishing goals on other continents. While the country that does not control its own land is considered winning.

That being said, please keep repeating how weak Russia is for the couple other confused people in this thread who think Russia is losing, but also think they’re going to take over other European nations if we don’t keep letting our politicians get rich by having this proxy war. Russia isn’t a powerhouse the way many people incorrectly believed before, but that doesn’t mean they are on the losing end of the proxy war.

 

[Havok1]

Clearly you don't make policy decisions, so sit back and enjoy the fact our adversary is getting it's crap pushed in

what foreign policy decisions do you make?

 

[cycleguy2300]

No, the smartest thing they did with our money was reduce the amount that was stolen from us when Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs act.

Foreign aid, including the money being sent to Ukraine is not in any way the best way to spend money, at least from the general public’s position. Especially when that money is going to a country that does not have a strategy in place in which they can explain how they are going to use our equipment to succeed.


People only use body counts as an indicator of the success of wars when they have failed to achieve any strategic goals. Beyond that, body count only matters when it’s so high that one side runs out of bodies. That’s a problem for Ukraine, not Russia.

ukraine has had some successful attacks on the Black Sea fleet, but once again, let’s not pretend like that’s their whole navy. Let’s not forget that Russia does still have one of the largest navies in the world, even if it is inferior to ours. You point out that Ukraine does not have a navy, and it’s worth noting that countries without a navy can not suffer naval losses. Look at some of the things that have taken our own ships out of the game.

What makes you think that their production can’t keep up with their losses? Some of the media that you’re so reliant on for information has been reporting how Russia would be running out of equipment any day now for the past 2 years. Yet we just had a theater commander fly half way around the world to brief a Congressional committee on how Ukraine, not Russia, is running out. Meanwhile, our own production is lagging behind.

While you say them not gaining ground is a loss for Russia, if someone had taken over that same percentage of US territory, nobody would ever say they were losing because they didn’t gain more. If that invading force was maintaining control of that US territory while expanding their footprint in other theaters, nobody would ever say the invading force was losing.

First: i dont like taxes any more than anyone else, but taxes are not theft and nothing was stolen from you.

***

Just because Ukraine didnt consult you on their plan to fight russia doesn't mean they dont have a plan to work towards victory. They have been forced, because of a number of ignorant people, to fight with severe shortages and preserve life and equipment by slow withdrawal in some regions.
More spreading of doubt without any supporting evidence. Its just not reasonable to believe a waring military will freely put out their strategy for victory, in fact it is absurd to think they would.

***

Lets talk about the russian navy. By raw number of vessels russia appears about equal to the USA with about equal numbers of vessels depending on what is included in the lists BUT

By tonnage russia is less than 1/3 the size of the US NAVY by most lists

The russian navy includes only 1 carrier

The ability of the russian navy to stop surface attacks appears to be POOR

The ability of the russian navy to stop missiles appears to be POOR

In short the survivability of russian naval ships is POOR, they have suffered from poor maintenance, poor training and poor counter-measures for decades and even if their surface fleet could inflict 1:1 losses the US NAVY would remain the most powerful navy in the world.

***

I dont know of any reliable source claiming russia would be running out of equipment "anyday now" more lies and misinformation to cloud the discussion from you. Twisting words has been used to deceive since the serpent asked Eve if God had really told her not to eat any fruit in the garden...

What folks have pointed out is the increasing use of older equipment (bmp-1s for example) and satellite image counts of depots show that russia has about another 2-years at the current loss rate before they run out of most of their equipment (assuming it isnt rusted/pilaged beyond repair). If production was in excess of losses, one would expect to see more and newer equipment on the front and that isnt the case, the quantity of new/first-tier equipment has shrunk to about 5% of losses while older and older equipment makes up more and more of the losses.

***
Losing is different that failing. I tend to use failing, but losing is a fair word too.

By any metric you choose, russia is not succeeding in their 3-day special military operation... sq miles seized since 2022? Maybe... but then you would need to ask why they couldn't hold their positions around Kyiv and Kharkiv...

russia's stated goal wass a 3-day blitz across Ukraine capturing Kyiv and they didn't succeed, so the then the assault failed its objective.It doesnt mean they lost, except for that battle.
Even if the russians can gain ground (at an enormous cost of men and equipment) they still are failing in the larger objective and their small success may come at a cost that does cause them to lose and withdrawal over the 2014 border.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[zackmars]

lol. Only on the internet in 2024 can a country take control of another countries land and be considered losing while still accomplishing goals on other continents. While the country that does not control its own land is considered winning.

That being said, please keep repeating how weak Russia is for the couple other confused people in this thread who think Russia is losing, but also think they’re going to take over other European nations if we don’t keep letting our politicians get rich by having this proxy war. Russia isn’t a powerhouse the way many people incorrectly believed before, but that doesn’t mean they are on the losing end of the proxy war.

They are loosing because after 2 years they're no closer to taking over Ukraine.

Actually they're further away now than they were not even 1 day into their invasion.

Regardless if russia is loosing or not, it's unacceptable to invade sovereign countries because they don't like you after you kill millions of them and invade them.

 

[zackmars]

what foreign policy decisions do you make?

Where did i make that claim? Quote me, please.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Look around. I do. "Foreign aid" from the US gov should be -0-.If folks feel so strongly otherwise, they are free to donate their own property.

That is not how government, ours included has EVER worked, nor should it.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

They are loosing because after 2 years they're no closer to taking over Ukraine.

Actually they're further away now than they were not even 1 day into their invasion.

Regardless if russia is loosing or not, it's unacceptable to invade sovereign countries because they don't like you after you kill millions of them and invade them.

I have yet to see Havok1, Dakar34 or BigRed to simply say/agree the russian invasion of Ukriane was unjustified and wrong.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

I find it interesting that China is propping up Putin, and who did I hear was sending missile's to Russia, was it North Korea, Iran or both? No one is mentioning that anymore.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[zackmars]

First: i dont like taxes any more than anyone else, but taxes are not theft and nothing was stolen from you.

***

Just because Ukraine didnt consult you on their plan to fight russia doesn't mean they dont have a plan to work towards victory. They have been forced, because of a number of ignorant people, to fight with severe shortages and preserve life and equipment by slow withdrawal in some regions.
More spreading of doubt without any supporting evidence. Its just not reasonable to believe a waring military will freely put out their strategy for victory, in fact it is absurd to think they would.

***

Lets talk about the russian navy. By raw number of vessels russia appears about equal to the USA with about equal numbers of vessels depending on what is included in the lists BUT

By tonnage russia is less than 1/3 the size of the US NAVY by most lists

The russian navy includes only 1 carrier

The ability of the russian navy to stop surface attacks appears to be POOR

The ability of the russian navy to stop missiles appears to be POOR

In short the survivability of russian naval ships is POOR, they have suffered from poor maintenance, poor training and poor counter-measures for decades and even if their surface fleet could inflict 1:1 losses the US NAVY would remain the most powerful navy in the world.

***

I dont know of any reliable source claiming russia would be running out of equipment "anyday now" more lies and misinformation to cloud the discussion from you. Twisting words has been used to deceive since the serpent asked Eve if God had really told her not to eat any fruit in the garden...

What folks have pointed out is the increasing use of older equipment (bmp-1s for example) and satellite image counts of depots show that russia has about another 2-years at the current loss rate before they run out of most of their equipment (assuming it isnt rusted/pilaged beyond repair). If production was in excess of losses, one would expect to see more and newer equipment on the front and that isnt the case, the quantity of new/first-tier equipment has shrunk to about 5% of losses while older and older equipment makes up more and more of the losses.

***
Losing is different that failing. I tend to use failing, but losing is a fair word too.

By any metric you choose, russia is not succeeding in their 3-day special military operation... sq miles seized since 2022? Maybe... but then you would need to ask why they couldn't hold their positions around Kyiv and Kharkiv...

russia's stated goal wass a 3-day blitz across Ukraine capturing Kyiv and they didn't succeed, so the then the assault failed its objective.It doesnt mean they lost, except for that battle.
Even if the russians can gain ground (at an enormous cost of men and equipment) they still are failing in the larger objective and their small success may come at a cost that does cause them to lose and withdrawal over the 2014 border.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I love the Kuznetsov. It's so pathetic. It can't launch fully loaded aircraft. It's missile bay doors can (and do) fail which prevents aircraft from sortieing, it has water/sewage issues, so it's crew is frequently on water rations and the entire carrier smells like shit and piss, and has so many reliability issues it's constantly shadowed by tugs. It burns low quality oil as fuel, so even Stevie wonder could spot it approaching.

You know you're winning a war when you need to buy munitions from north korea.

 

[BigRed]

I have yet to see Havok1, Dakar34 or BigRed to simply say/agree the russian invasion of Ukriane was unjustified and wrong.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

The invasion by that ****hole Russia of that ****hole Ukraine is wrong and unjustified.

Not our circus. Not our monkeys.

 

[zackmars]

The invasion by that ****hole Russia of that ****hole Ukraine is wrong and unjustified.

Not our circus. Not our monkeys.

I'm pretty sure we signed at least one treaty with Ukraine saying we'd help defend them if they gave up their nukes.

And it's in our best interest to defend Ukraine. Russia doesn't want NATO states on its borders.

You know who's right next to Ukraine? Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary. All NATO states. I'm sure Russia would be very happy with them on its borders