Political Posts

[cubsfan]

Hi John!  Hope all is well for you in Denmark.

 

Here is the way I see it: If you are an ally of the United States, and have been under the protection

extend by the US military in terms of nuclear attack by Russia/China/North Korea and the soon to be nuclear Iran - well, you got to be very worried about the US Military.

 

Look no further than the focus on diversity/equity/inclusion bullshit being espoused by the 

Pentagon. This is not a Pentagon that is focused on Nuclear deterrence. It's decisions

are driven by POLITICS - witness the disastrous Afghanistan collapse. If you are an ally,

you KNOW you can't trust this administration or Pentagon to come to your aid until thousands

of your citizens are killed and your cities destroyed. Only then, when the political winds change,

might you see some assistance out of the United States.

 

Post WWII - the Cold War role of the United States has been to provide protection against

evil regimes that MIGHT get out of control: Saddam, Putin, Kim Yong.  Traditionally, these

players KNEW the United States was SERIOUS about nuclear deterrence. Reagan was the

culmination with the arms race with the Soviets. These actors KNEW that the US had greater

capabilities and WOULD use these weapons against aggression if pressed. The value of 

deterrence meant the US would rain holy hell down on a regime that threaten Western

Democracies. Of course, this umbrella, extended to China's neighbors Japan, S. Korea, 

Phillipines, Taiwan, South East Asia & Australia as well. Now it's gone.

 

It's quite clear that this blanket of protection is melting and being destroyed by a woke

Pentagon that is far more interested in white supremacy and bullshit like that. The US

Military is driven by politics and it presents nothing but weakness to the world's enemies.

It's a fatal disease, when your Pentagon chiefs lecture the country on being "woke"

and take their eyes off the primary reason they exist which is to protect the US

and our allies.

 

Our allies are not stupid. They can see it. Mark my words - if Iran gets a nuke (with China

or Russia's help) - all hell is going to break loose in the Middle East. You'll see an 

arms race to counteract the Mullahs. The Saudis, Emirates, and of course Israel are going

to arm to the teeth - since they can't count on the US to deliver.

 

Europe's best shot is NATO - and you're seeing it play out right now. 

 

The constant threats by Putin about using first strike Nukes - small nukes, large nukes, etc, etc

is tremendously destabilizing. And now you have China saber rattling big time - reminding

everyone they have nukes. All this talk - like it's NO BIG DEAL. These constant threats will

do nothing but insure our allies "nuke up" - since it's obvious the US can not be depended

on anymore.

 

You can look at the Russians and see how their military has been destroyed by NKVD

like behavior & corruption - all hidden from Putin. It's beginning to happen to the 

US military - that is destroying meritocracy and competence - and being replaced

by woke political poison and ideologies - our own NKVD in action.

 

 

 

 

[Ross812]

11 hours ago, cubsfan said:

Here is the way I see it: If you are an ally of the United States, and have been under the protection

extend by the US military in terms of nuclear attack by Russia/China/North Korea and the soon to be nuclear Iran - well, you got to be very worried about the US Military.

 

Look no further than the focus on diversity/equity/inclusion bullshit being espoused by the 

Pentagon. This is not a Pentagon that is focused on Nuclear deterrence. It's decisions

are driven by POLITICS - witness the disastrous Afghanistan collapse. If you are an ally,

you KNOW you can't trust this administration or Pentagon to come to your aid until thousands

of your citizens are killed and your cities destroyed. Only then, when the political winds change,

might you see some assistance out of the United States.

 

Post WWII - the Cold War role of the United States has been to provide protection against

evil regimes that MIGHT get out of control: Saddam, Putin, Kim Yong.  Traditionally, these

players KNEW the United States was SERIOUS about nuclear deterrence. Reagan was the

culmination with the arms race with the Soviets. These actors KNEW that the US had greater

capabilities and WOULD use these weapons against aggression if pressed. The value of 

deterrence meant the US would rain holy hell down on a regime that threaten Western

Democracies. Of course, this umbrella, extended to China's neighbors Japan, S. Korea, 

Phillipines, Taiwan, South East Asia & Australia as well. Now it's gone.

 

It's quite clear that this blanket of protection is melting and being destroyed by a woke

Pentagon that is far more interested in white supremacy and bullshit like that. The US

Military is driven by politics and it presents nothing but weakness to the world's enemies.

It's a fatal disease, when your Pentagon chiefs lecture the country on being "woke"

and take their eyes off the primary reason they exist which is to protect the US

and our allies.

 

Our allies are not stupid. They can see it. Mark my words - if Iran gets a nuke (with China

or Russia's help) - all hell is going to break loose in the Middle East. You'll see an 

arms race to counteract the Mullahs. The Saudis, Emirates, and of course Israel are going

to arm to the teeth - since they can't count on the US to deliver.

 

Europe's best shot is NATO - and you're seeing it play out right now. 

 

The constant threats by Putin about using first strike Nukes - small nukes, large nukes, etc, etc

is tremendously destabilizing. And now you have China saber rattling big time - reminding

everyone they have nukes. All this talk - like it's NO BIG DEAL. These constant threats will

do nothing but insure our allies "nuke up" - since it's obvious the US can not be depended

on anymore.

 

You can look at the Russians and see how their military has been destroyed by NKVD

like behavior & corruption - all hidden from Putin. It's beginning to happen to the 

US military - that is destroying meritocracy and competence - and being replaced

by woke political poison and ideologies - our own NKVD in action.

 

The president an congress are responsible for the use of the US military so of course moves are driven by politics. They always have been, just look at WWII. The US has a list of Major non-NATO allies - 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

 

MNNA status does not come with a mutual defense pact, but messing with a MNNA country would be a big deal. Who is not on the MNNA list? Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden; hence why you see Finland and Sweden joining NATO. 

 

The US military, woke or not, is one hell of a deterrent. Russia is still playing by the rules. If Russia uses a nuke and NATO does not step in with a no fly zone and DMZ, I'll eat my words.  

[Xerxes]

On 5/17/2022 at 11:31 AM, james22 said:

 

You'd think. But that may be an assumption only a citizen of a democracy would make?

 

I was pretty surprised when visiting Tbilisi several years ago when a girl I met said I'd love the Russian girls who visited Georgia.

As she'd just shared that her brother had fought against the Russians when they invaded ten years earlier.

When I asked her about it, she said no one held individuals responsible for their governments.

i remember my first few years in Canada when I met bunch of Iraqis. We all got along and had good laughs. We were kids of course, but we also lived through the 8-year long Iran-Iraq war in our respective countries. But we were all clear of what was going on with our so called governments. There was no personal animosity. 

 

I think it really depends where you are during the war (in the cities close to the border or further away) and your personal suffering. I am sure an Iranian who lived close to the border who lost a leg, along with half of his family and has scars of the chemical attacks would feel very differently. But again I don’t think there would be a personal hate. And same vice versa with an Iraqi victim. 
 

at the end of the day, normal people just want to get along with their lives. 

 

What is the population of Ukraine and how many of them had a direct loss. Not economical harm or losing investments, but a direct irreversible personal loss. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Xerxes

[james22]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

There was no personal animosity. ...

 

I don’t think there would be a personal hate. And same vice versa with an Iraqi victim. 
 

at the end of the day, normal people just want to get along with their lives. ...

 

Sure.

 

And that's why democracies field the most murderous armies and win wars - they take it personally, being taken away from their lives.

 

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/special-series/dusty-shelves/soul-of-battle/

 

 

[Xerxes]

I guess depends when in history. Mongols were far from democracies, but …

 

In their glory days, Mongols were the most industrious in warfare, their mobile blitz-like battlefield strategies were centuries ahead of their time (and i am not taking about their taste for massacres, which is what they are actually known for). 
 

in contrast, Europeans in 12-13th centuries were in the Dark Age, fighting the medieval wars with their castles and peasant armies. It will take several hundred years for them to evolve their military, which also coincided with the rise of nationhood in Europe. One could say Europe was in a “secular bear market” from the fall Roman Empire to the renaissance. (They didn’t read Asimov’ Foundation Trilogy) 
 

Also, one of the reason why Europe got ahead, is because it was saved from the Mongolian invasion and literarily the Wrath of Khan, following the death of Otagi Khan. Everybody else got re-baselined back to zero. 
 

so granted post-renaissance Europe did pretty well, but how much of that was a consequence of not getting nuked by the Great Khan. 
 

how much Of Great Britain success rested on it being separated from the main continent by a body water. Geography played a role too. 
 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

Speaking of geography the British historian from pre-WW1 era had said: “who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world."  Naturally he was a product of the Great Game era and Russian-British rivalry to win the contest in Central Asia.
 

Decades later, the quote was updated by a Dutch historian to say "Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world."

 

it helps being on the rim. 
 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

5 hours ago, Ross812 said:

 

The president an congress are responsible for the use of the US military so of course moves are driven by politics. They always have been, just look at WWII. The US has a list of Major non-NATO allies - 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

 

MNNA status does not come with a mutual defense pact, but messing with a MNNA country would be a big deal. Who is not on the MNNA list? Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden; hence why you see Finland and Sweden joining NATO. 

 

The US military, woke or not, is one hell of a deterrent. Russia is still playing by the rules. If Russia uses a nuke and NATO does not step in with a no fly zone and DMZ, I'll eat my words.  

 

The US Military is the strongest and most feared in the world. Yup. Exactly what I said.

 

It has become dangerously politicized over the last 4-5 years. No question about that.

 

Witness the Generals & Officers ignoring the Uniform Code of Military Justice - all military

officers USED to adhere to this before about 4 years ago. Not anymore. The code sets

strict rules for expressing political & ideological views in public. Violation of these rules

were grounds for severe penalties - including Dishonorable Discharges. The worst infractions

were reserved for public criticism of elected officials of Congress or Administration:

 

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

 

As recently as a few years ago, during the Obama administration - officers were courtmartialed

and dishonorably discharged for selling "Nobama" Bumperstickers. Now all bets are off - and these violations happen every day. 

 

The current military has lost it's focus on meritocracy, and replaced it with political ideology:

transgenderism, racial & gender quotas for officers, identity politics, rooting out Trump 

supporters, CRT, etc.  All this politically driven nonsense comes straight from the Pentagon

generals focused on "White Rage" and garbage like that.

 

If you can't see the dangers of a hyper-politicized Military - look no further that what happen

to the Soviet forces. You think it can't happen here? 

 

Deterrence is a state of mind as much as it is weapons technology. Your enemies need to fear 

you and understand you not only have superior technology, but WILL use them.

 

Our real enemies - China/Iran/Russia/N Korea - are laughing at the current state of the

US Military. They know we have the weapons, but not the will to use them.

 

And our allies see it. Watch them nuke up after Russia/Ukraine situation is all over.

 

[Spekulatius]

German Russians clash over war in Russia. Apparently Putin's propaganda reaches far beyond Russia:

 

[Ross812]

35 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

The US Military is the strongest and most feared in the world. Yup. Exactly what I said.

 

It has become dangerously politicized over the last 4-5 years. No question about that.

 

Witness the Generals & Officers ignoring the Uniform Code of Military Justice - all military

officers USED to adhere to this before about 4 years ago. Not anymore. The code sets

strict rules for expressing political & ideological views in public. Violation of these rules

were grounds for severe penalties - including Dishonorable Discharges. The worst infractions

were reserved for public criticism of elected officials of Congress or Administration:

 

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

 

As recently as a few years ago, during the Obama administration - officers were courtmartialed

and dishonorably discharged for selling "Nobama" Bumperstickers. Now all bets are off - and these violations happen every day. 

 

The current military has lost it's focus on meritocracy, and replaced it with political ideology:

transgenderism, racial & gender quotas for officers, identity politics, rooting out Trump 

supporters, CRT, etc.  All this politically driven nonsense comes straight from the Pentagon

generals focused on "White Rage" and garbage like that.

 

If you can't see the dangers of a hyper-politicized Military - look no further that what happen

to the Soviet forces. You think it can't happen here? 

 

Deterrence is a state of mind as much as it is weapons technology. Your enemies need to fear 

you and understand you not only have superior technology, but WILL use them.

 

Our real enemies - China/Iran/Russia/N Korea - are laughing at the current state of the

US Military. They know we have the weapons, but not the will to use them.

 

And our allies see it. Watch them nuke up after Russia/Ukraine situation is all over.

 

 

The military racially integrated in 1948, women were allowed in combat roles in 2004, openly gay soldiers could enlist in 2011, natural hair in 2014 - radical changes over time. I'm not sure where you are thinking Article 88 is not enforced. I would argue our enemies respect the military as there is no real bad behavior other than saber rattling. The military is capable of enacting radical social change and efficiently killing huge numbers of people at the same time - don't worry.    

[Blugolds]

Dont get me wrong, things in the ME were not handled correctly, other theatres as well...but what you are describing...enemies underestimating the US resolve/capability....is fine, let them...I think Putins behavior is indicative of that. I think he was probably surprised a bit by the response by not only the US but the rest of the world.

 

I agree, Power perceived is Power achieved...and that is great, but at the end of the day...anybody can rattle the saber..just like the bully on the playground talking big. 

 

I personally know several career military individuals at various stages of their careers/ranks. Rear Admiral, EP detail for Senators, Colonel, Majors, Captains, Sergeants, Plebs, Recruiters... and I can honestly say that every single one of them are the epitome of professionalism. Just like any other bunch, you have your outliers, but honestly the majority are absolutely top notch and take their job very seriously and with the utmost pride. I have no doubt in my mind that the worlds best fighting force works for Uncle Sam. America and its allies are fine, nobody wishes for war, but I am confident in their abilities vs anyone else in the world that would like to FAFO. 

 

 

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Ross812 said:

 

The military racially integrated in 1948, women were allowed in combat roles in 2004, openly gay soldiers could enlist in 2011, natural hair in 2014 - radical changes over time. I'm not sure where you are thinking Article 88 is not enforced. I would argue our enemies respect the military as there is no real bad behavior other than saber rattling. The military is capable of enacting radical social change and efficiently killing huge numbers of people at the same time - don't worry.    

 

 Yeah, right Ross. Keep that social agenda going for the US military - it's of utmost importance.

 

Meanwhile, your "woke" Pentagon oversees an enormous disaster in Afghanistan killing dozens

of Americans with a totally botched withdrawal in hopes of meeting the political pressure for

a September 11th victory parade for Biden. Nothing like taking your eye off the ball for politics.

 

Message to our Afghan allies:  "Sorry we unleashed a total bloodbath nightmare for you and your

families. You helped us, so we cut and run to meet our political agenda. Sorry the Taliban came

in and cut your throats in front of your children - and then shot you too boot"

 

But it certainly did work out in spectacular fashion for the Taliban - since the

morons at the Pentagon left them billions of dollars of the most sophisticated

weapons know to man. 

 

If you don't think the rest of our allies have noticed and are going to arm up - you're dreaming.

Edited May 18, 2022 by cubsfan

[shhughes1116]

On 5/17/2022 at 12:42 PM, Viking said:

@Xerxes i agree it is difficult to see how this situation ultimately is resolved. Stalemate looks like the most likely outcome to me.

 

Unless Ukraine is stronger than we think. And Russia is weaker than we think, even today. There is a chance we could see Ukraine actually push Russia out of Ukraine. 

Man, you guys are still prognosticating about the end game in Ukraine?  
 

Why is stalemate the most likely outcome?  On what basis do you make this claim?

 

Think about this from the perspective of mobilizing and maintaining an army in the field.   On Day 1 of the war, Ukraine had about 100k active duty troops, most of them in the Donbas, with combat experience.  They had another 650k men, many of them reservists, with combat experience from their 1-yr stints in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022.  In this situation, they traded space for time, wearing down the Russians, to give them time for mobilization.    It probably takes about 45 days to bring these men in, equip them, form them into units, train them into a functional brigade-level unit, and another week to work them into the front-line.  
 

And what do we see now, about 75 days after the war started?   New brigade-level units deployed around Krakiv are pushing the Russians back.  Same around the Izyum salient.  By the end of the Summer, I’ll bet Ukraine has over 500k combat-experienced, NATO-equipped troops fighting in Eastern Ukraine, and another 250k territorial defense troops manning the borders around Kyiv, Krakiv and Odessa.  
 

On the other side, the Russians are only able to field about 250k troops at a time, outside of Russia.  Even if they declare war and implement a general mobilization, they lack the logistical infrastructure for anything more.  And they are equipping some soldiers in front-line units with dated equipment like MosinNagants.  Nice rifle, but atrocious for a fire fight in the 21st century.  And almost all of the replacements coming from Russia lack combat experience.  So they have 250k troops, at most,  to hold a long crescent-shaped front stretching from eastern Ukraine down to Kherson.   That is not enough front-line troops to defend the land-bridge to Crimea AND hold the Donbas.  
 

A few weeks ago, I said to expect the Fourth Battle of Krakiv, which would blow open the Russian flank in the Donbas and lead to an encirclement of Russian troops.  That is now happening in Izyum - the Ukrainians are starting to pinch that salient, while at the same time Ukraine troops are threatening Vovchansk.  This will suck Russian troops from other areas to protect the railroad lines between Belgorod and Donbas.   And they are being sucked into their rear areas to defend against partisans, especially in the South.  
 

With the growing manpower advantage and with an unending stream of weapons from the West, I suspect we are going to see Ukraine sever the land-bridge to Crimea this Summer by attacking towards Melitpol.  This would expose the flank of Russian troops in Kherson and likely cause them to fall back into Crimea, rather than hold Kherson and die like the Ukrainian soldiers in Mauriopol.  That opens up numerous possibles for Ukraine to finish the war on their terms. 
 

Plenty more bleeding and death to come, sadly.  But I think we are going to see the Russian army routed in the field.  

[Viking]

26 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

Man, you guys are still prognosticating about the end game in Ukraine?  
 

Why is stalemate the most likely outcome?  On what basis do you make this claim?

 

Think about this from the perspective of mobilizing and maintaining an army in the field.   On Day 1 of the war, Ukraine had about 100k active duty troops, most of them in the Donbas, with combat experience.  They had another 650k men, many of them reservists, with combat experience from their 1-yr stints in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022.  In this situation, they traded space for time, wearing down the Russians, to give them time for mobilization.    It probably takes about 45 days to bring these men in, equip them, form them into units, train them into a functional brigade-level unit, and another week to work them into the front-line.  
 

And what do we see now, about 75 days after the war started?   New brigade-level units deployed around Krakiv are pushing the Russians back.  Same around the Izyum salient.  By the end of the Summer, I’ll bet Ukraine has over 500k combat-experienced, NATO-equipped troops fighting in Eastern Ukraine, and another 250k territorial defense troops manning the borders around Kyiv, Krakiv and Odessa.  
 

On the other side, the Russians are only able to field about 250k troops at a time, outside of Russia.  Even if they declare war and implement a general mobilization, they lack the logistical infrastructure for anything more.  And they are equipping some soldiers in front-line units with dated equipment like MosinNagants.  Nice rifle, but atrocious for a fire fight in the 21st century.  And almost all of the replacements coming from Russia lack combat experience.  So they have 250k troops, at most,  to hold a long crescent-shaped front stretching from eastern Ukraine down to Kherson.   That is not enough front-line troops to defend the land-bridge to Crimea AND hold the Donbas.  
 

A few weeks ago, I said to expect the Fourth Battle of Krakiv, which would blow open the Russian flank in the Donbas and lead to an encirclement of Russian troops.  That is now happening in Izyum - the Ukrainians are starting to pinch that salient, while at the same time Ukraine troops are threatening Vovchansk.  This will suck Russian troops from other areas to protect the railroad lines between Belgorod and Donbas.   And they are being sucked into their rear areas to defend against partisans, especially in the South.  
 

With the growing manpower advantage and with an unending stream of weapons from the West, I suspect we are going to see Ukraine sever the land-bridge to Crimea this Summer by attacking towards Melitpol.  This would expose the flank of Russian troops in Kherson and likely cause them to fall back into Crimea, rather than hold Kherson and die like the Ukrainian soldiers in Mauriopol.  That opens up numerous possibles for Ukraine to finish the war on their terms. 
 

Plenty more bleeding and death to come, sadly.  But I think we are going to see the Russian army routed in the field.  

@shhughes1116 i will readily admit i do not have a very sophisticated understanding of the current situation in Ukraine. Your post was informative. My thinking was Russia was able to control small parts of Ukraine before the war (which i define as stalemate) so it seems plausible to me that they would continue to control a larger part of Ukraine as long as they chose to. Throughout the war, Ukraine has outperformed expectations and Russia has underperformed.
 

Do you think they will be able to push Russia out of the eastern parts of the country Russia controlled before the war? Is Crimea a lost cause?

[shhughes1116]

1 hour ago, Viking said:

@shhughes1116 i will readily admit i do not have a very sophisticated understanding of the current situation in Ukraine. Your post was informative. My thinking was Russia was able to control small parts of Ukraine before the war (which i define as stalemate) so it seems plausible to me that they would continue to control a larger part of Ukraine as long as they chose to. Throughout the war, Ukraine has outperformed expectations and Russia has underperformed.
 

Do you think they will be able to push Russia out of the eastern parts of the country Russia controlled before the war? Is Crimea a lost cause?

After 2014, it was a frozen conflict.  Ukraine lacked the resources and political will to re-take Donbas, and Crimea’s location makes it challenging to retake.  Russia was busy consolidating control over Donbas and Crimea.  
 

After the recent invasion and associated indiscriminate killing and shelling, the political will exists to spill blood while fighting Russia.  And NATO has provided the resources that previously didn’t exist.  I think Ukraine will push Russia back to the pre-2022 borders.  At that point, I think the political leadership will take stock of whether the Ukrainian people are willing to die to retake Donbas and Crimea, and what the potential cost might be. 
 

If retaken, Crimea is easily defensible.  On the other hand, the Donbas is not easily defensible and could become a demilitarized wasteland between Ukraine and Russia.  Even Igor Girkin says that the Russians turned Donbas into a dump, so it might not be worth the cost for Ukraine to retake it.  

[crs223]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:17 AM, rkbabang said:

+1  Government is a delusion. It is the most dangerous of the worlds religions.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

@crs223 the libertarian utopia does not exist. Any Government  might do a lot of things wrong, but try to do without it. Even if you do manage without it, the neighbor government / country  will just move their army in your utopia and that will be it.

 

As for Ukraine winning, I think it is possible, but might take a long time, unless the Russian army collapses , which I don't think is likely. They can win, when Ukraine as well as the territorial forces and newer formed volunteer units get NATO weaponry and fully trained on those as well as getting seasoned. (the Ukraine regulars are seasoned and some territorial forces are, but many are not and neither are most volunteer units at this point and they are taking heavy losses on front lines).

 

If Ukraine is fully armed with western/ NATO weapons, I don't think the Russians have a chance against them any more.

[crs223]

15 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Government  might do a lot of things wrong, but try to do without it.

 

Yes, that was the point of the clip.

[shhughes1116]

28 minutes ago, crs223 said:

 

Yes, that was the point of the clip.

Thanks for sharing that clip - quite funny. Forgot how much I enjoyed Monty Python. 

[rkbabang]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

@crs223 the libertarian utopia does not exist. Any Government  might do a lot of things wrong, but try to do without it. Even if you do manage without it, the neighbor government / country  will just move their army in your utopia and that will be it.

 

As for Ukraine winning, I think it is possible, but might take a long time, unless the Russian army collapses , which I don't think is likely. They can win, when Ukraine as well as the territorial forces and newer formed volunteer units get NATO weaponry and fully trained on those as well as getting seasoned. (the Ukraine regulars are seasoned and some territorial forces are, but many are not and neither are most volunteer units at this point and they are taking heavy losses on front lines).

 

If Ukraine is fully armed with western/ NATO weapons, I don't think the Russians have a chance against them any more.

 

 

Funny how we can live in violent societies where governments are powerless to stop it, see wars and genocides where hundreds of millions are killed, and still think gee maybe it is the government that stops my neighbor from attacking me.    No society involving humans will ever be a utopia.  The only ones who ever call a libertarian society a "utopia" are non-libertarians.   Violence between people will always happen, but for large scale Hitler or Stalin type violence you need a government.  Your government utopia is the only way to slaughter hundreds of millions of people.  I'm far more worried about Russia and NATO coming to nuclear blows than I am about my neighbor attacking me.  I have enough firepower to handle that on my own. 

 

 

[patience_and_focus]

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

Funny how we can live in violent societies where governments are powerless to stop it, see wars and genocides where hundreds of millions are killed, and still think gee maybe it is the government that stops my neighbor from attacking me.    No society involving humans will ever be a utopia.  The only ones who ever call a libertarian society a "utopia" are non-libertarians.   Violence between people will always happen, but for large scale Hitler or Stalin type violence you need a government.  Your government utopia is the only way to slaughter hundreds of millions of people.  I'm far more worried about Russia and NATO coming to nuclear blows than I am about my neighbor attacking me.  I have enough firepower to handle that on my own. 

 

 

 

Yes, but to stop it, you also need a govt or collective on the other side. Govt is a necessary evil because without it adversaries will (a) form a collective by pooling resources (call it Govt backed by taxes - either democratic or autocratic by force) (b) sense weakness outside their sphere of influence and exploit it.

 

Nothing is utopia, but the next best thing is to pray that the collective is a democratic govt with the heft that can stop your adversaries so that people inside that collective usually live in relative peace and freedom. Now, nothing is stopping the democratic govt from starting their own oppression on people outside their purview but that is the best one can do.

 

[Spekulatius]

The modern nation state evolved to wage war more efficiently. Conscription as well as waging a total war was not possible before. One may or may not like it, but a amalgation of tiny little fiefdoms would not have a chance against modern organized army. It's jungle out there and without a nation and institution to protect out. we would be in the middle of it.

 

The Ukraine is an example of what happens with a state on it's own when the large neighboring state goes bonkers.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

[Ross812]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:52 PM, cubsfan said:

 

 Yeah, right Ross. Keep that social agenda going for the US military - it's of utmost importance.

 

Meanwhile, your "woke" Pentagon oversees an enormous disaster in Afghanistan killing dozens

of Americans with a totally botched withdrawal in hopes of meeting the political pressure for

a September 11th victory parade for Biden. Nothing like taking your eye off the ball for politics.

 

Message to our Afghan allies:  "Sorry we unleashed a total bloodbath nightmare for you and your

families. You helped us, so we cut and run to meet our political agenda. Sorry the Taliban came

in and cut your throats in front of your children - and then shot you too boot"

 

But it certainly did work out in spectacular fashion for the Taliban - since the

morons at the Pentagon left them billions of dollars of the most sophisticated

weapons know to man. 

 

If you don't think the rest of our allies have noticed and are going to arm up - you're dreaming.

 

The military has always had civilian leadership (the president) and big decisions like going to war are always political decisions. The military has also always implemented "radical" social change - integration, women on the front lines, etc. The military implements the changes because, in the long run, it makes the military more cohesive and better. Our Afghan allies weren't the first to see what happens when the military is ready to pull out; I remember the same outrage when we pulled out of Iraq in the 90's and let the Kurds fend for themselves. You seem to really be advocation for the military changing up the way they have always done things. Very progressive of you . 

 

Wasn't Trump the one who wanted our allies to arm up and quit relying on the US to subsidize their low defense spending? I'm confused, you either want to pull out of NATO because the US is pulling all the weight, but when NATO gets stronger with increased allied defense spending and new members you throw a tantrum? It's almost like "woke" politics got Trump the NATO he wanted - that right there is a mind fuck!

[cubsfan]

^^^ Hey, don't be confused. Like you said, Ukraine was not part of NATO, which was Ukraine's issue

since they dumped their missiles etc, for the Russians back in 1991.  That turned out to be a disaster,

which is exactly why other countries are going to be prepared via, hopefully, new alliances or getting nukes. Finally, now we are seeing NATO getting serious, to the benefit of Europe. So that's all good.

 

Of course Trump wanted NATO to pull their weight and fair share!! He just called out all the fucking

freeloaders, led by the Germans to ante up for defense budgets! He threaten to pull out, which

is exactly what he should have done. Now NATO is beginning to galvanize in their opposition

to Russia - unfortunately it just took a wholesale destruction of Ukrainian cities and tremendous

loss of life. 

 

The Afghan pullout was a disaster like no past US administration has seen: totally avoidable, totally

predictable. So much for the "honor" of the Pentagon generals to give in to the idiots in the

White House. Rather that resign in honor for a failure everyone could see coming - they choose

to protect their careers and insure the slaughter of the Afghan allies, as well as making a weak

Taliban the best armed terrorist army in the world.  Better to focus on transgenders rights...

 

The Taliban had no fear of Biden and his Pentagon flunkies. You seem to forget for Trump's

last 18 months, no Americans were killed in Afghanistan. One MOAB bomb did the trick.

 

The difference between Biden & Trump were stark: Given the most powerful military in the 

world - Trump was not afraid to use it and send a powerful message of deterrence.

Biden, on the other hand, being a total coward, like Neville Chamberlain - possessed

the weapons and the greatest military - but WOULD NOT USE IT - and insured a complete disaster

for Afghan allies and American soldiers.

 

All American Allies have taken note. 

[aws]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/26/putin-george-soros-says-russia-is-blackmailing-europe-with-gas.html?&qsearchterm=russia

 

This article is much in line with how I think a good endgame could be reached. Russia does not want to be turning off any taps, and all of its threats on the subject are bluffs. They want to project the image that Europe needs the gas more than they need to sell it. They hope by cutting off a few small countries it will scare the rest into making deals, and in the meantime the loss of volume is made up for by higher prices, but a complete termination of gas exports to Europe hurts Russia massively more than Europe. Revenue drops to zero, and the gas production can actually become a burden if their storage is full and they need to shut in wells which can't be started again easily if tensions cool soon after. 

 

And how much of Russia's NG production is associated gas, which cannot be turned off without losing oil output as well? Operators in the permian in recent years had to flare or accept negative prices for their gas as there was no way to get it to market. And they couldn't shut in the gas as it was just a byproduct of their oil production. 

 

Russia has no other customers and cannot afford to stop production. But while Europe holds all the cards, they are playing it in a way that so far has been a net positive for Russia's O&G revenue. The fears of shortages has driven up prices and any actions that may have a real impact on the dependence on Russian energy are months or years away. If they took drastic action and called Russia's bluff two months ago, the war might have been over already.