Russia-Ukrainian War

[shhughes1116]

1 hour ago, Castanza said:

 

I'm not a fan of the lack of oversight there is on US funding. So far it's estimated that only 30% of money given to Ukraine by the US has actually been put towards the war effort. The other 70%? PooF

 

 

Care to provide a source for that?

 

More than 50% of the aid provided to Ukraine is in the form of weapons and weapons systems, or money that goes right back to the domestic manufacturer to produce the weapons or weapon systems for Ukraine.  It is hard for a lot of this stuff to just go poof.  
 

I tried to purchase some things on the dark web and it is pretty clear that most of it is bogus, even for the stuff that is easy to steal and move like small arms ammunition and automatic weapons.  People just advertising fake shit and waiting for dummies to send them the money first.  I mean, when you are trying to sell a Panzerhaubitze 2000 but the only pictures you can share are the inside of a T72 and the road wheels of a museum-era SU-150 SPG, it is pretty apparent that people are just running scams and don’t actually have the equipment to sell.  
 

Dont get me wrong, I’m sure there is some corruption in Ukraine.  And k fully support the idea of providing oversight and audits of how our money and aid is being used.  But the estimates I see bandied about are simply random percentages thrown around by people who are unencumbered by facts.  
 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by shhughes1116

[Spekulatius]

@changegonnacome

I think your are wrong that the West would do nothing after Russia dropped a Nuke on Ukraine. Biden mentioned "catastrophic consequences" and I don't think he was talking about an UN speech here.

 

Sort of funny that people who have been wrong all along keep making predictions that likely turn out to be wrong as well.

[shhughes1116]

6 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

you know who does care........Putin.....thousands of Russians have tied

Putin doesn’t give a shit about Russians dying in Ukraine.  He only cares about power, and ensuring that his people perceive him as the modern-day equivalent of Peter the Great.  

[Castanza]

On 9/21/2022 at 9:33 AM, shhughes1116 said:

If you thought you saw canon fodder over the last six months, this will be worse.  Think of the opening scene to the move Stalingrad.  “Rifle for you, ammunition for you.  When the man in front drops the rifle, the man in back picks up the rifle.”  That’s the approach they are using. 

 

You made this claim yet it never actually happened  

 

14 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

Care to provide a source for that?

 

More than 50% of the aid provided to Ukraine is in the form of weapons and weapons systems, or money that goes right back to the domestic manufacturer to produce the weapons or weapon systems for Ukraine.  It is hard for a lot of this stuff to just go poof.  
 

I tried to purchase some things on the dark web and it is pretty clear that most of it is bogus, even for the stuff that is easy to steal and move like small arms ammunition and automatic weapons.  People just advertising fake shit and waiting for dummies to send them the money first.  I mean, when you are trying to sell a Panzerhaubitze 2000 but the only pictures you can share are the inside of a T72 and the road wheels of a museum-era SU-150 SPG, it is pretty apparent that people are just running scams and don’t actually have the equipment to sell.  
 

Dont get me wrong, I’m sure there is some corruption in Ukraine.  But the estimates I see bandied about are simply random percentages thrown around by people who are unencumbered by facts.  

 

 

 

"More than 50% of the aid provided to Ukraine is in the form of weapons and weapons systems, or money that goes right back to the domestic manufacturer to produce the weapons or weapon systems for Ukraine.  It is hard for a lot of this stuff to just go poof." 

 

And your source is? ^  

 

Well there were multiple news agencies to report that over the past few months. Ukraine had former soviets sitting at the top of their government what 8 years ago? They have the VP's crackhead son sitting on a board for their largest company. They have a 31/100 rating on the corruption scale.

 

I'd say truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But I'd day there is a good amount of corruption there. Simple from a historical standpoint regarding wars I think it's naïve to think otherwise. Look at Cheney during the early years in Iraq. If it happens in the US, you can be damn sure it's happening in Ukraine. So yeah, with everyone saying how little oversight there is you can bet a large percentage of it has vanished.

 

I think Zelenskyy seems like a pretty solid guy but who knows. I mean the guy claimed to be under constant threat and claimed to have survived multiple assassination attempts yet he didn't miss his TV time to ask for money every 3 hours. I mean he even made an appearance live for the Grammys lol 

 

War is a racket, always has been always will be. The world is more corrupt than most think. 

[Pelagic]

The 30% figure was edited by CBS which was the original source of the claim. It has since been heavily disputed by both Ukraine and Western suppliers of aid.

 

 

[Castanza]

42 minutes ago, Pelagic said:

The 30% figure was edited by CBS which was the original source of the claim. It has since been heavily disputed by both Ukraine and Western suppliers of aid.

 

 

So not disproven and the ones disproving it also could have incentive to “disprove it”.  We won’t ever know either way. 
 

Fact: Anytime there is government funding there is fraud and usually lost if it. We’ve seen it during Katrina, we’ve seen it with other Hurricane aid, we’ve seen it with other foreign disaster relief, we’ve seen it with Covid Stimulus, we’ve seen it in other wars we’ve been involved in. 
 

Fact: Ukraine has a history of corruption. And by history I mean within the last 10 years. Ukraine has their Oligarchs too. 
 

Fact: There is very little oversight

[james22]

 

[patience_and_focus]

On 9/26/2022 at 9:09 AM, Castanza said:

Remember, many of our boys in Vietnam got less than their "required" 8 weeks of training. The individuals being drafted may be against the fight but when that first bullet flies past their head their allegiance will be to the man next to them and they will fight. 

 

That is why Vietnam was such a great success (to paraphrase Borat) for the US! And seems like Russia is destined for equal success, especially because of current eutopia for men who are being drafted.

 

Draft, in many cases, is a sign of weakness, not strength.

 

On 9/26/2022 at 9:23 AM, changegonnacome said:

 

And we shouldn't forget that 20 million of them that died in WWII......the bodycount far exceeding any losses by any of the Allied forces in defeating Hitler. 

 

I am not sure if that is a strength either, especially in the modern age of declining fertility and aging population. Country without men and working adults in sufficient numbers is not something to strive for. Even if this war ends up distroying Ukraine, Russia will also feel the aftermath for years to come. US, on the other hand, is just watching from far (and supplying resources of-course) without the body bags.

Edited September 27, 2022 by patience_and_focus

[Castanza]

13 minutes ago, patience_and_focus said:

 

That is why Vietnam was such a great success (to paraphrase Borat) for the US! And seems like Russia is destined for equal success, especially because of current eutopia for men who are being drafted.

 

Draft, in many cases, is a sign of weakness, not strength.

 

 

I am not sure if that is a strength either, especially in the modern age of declining fertility and aging population. Country without men and working adults in sufficient numbers is not something to strive for. Even if this war ends up distroying Ukraine, Russia will also feel the aftermath for years to come. US, on the other hand, is just watching from far (and supplying resources of-course) without the body bags.

I’m not saying it’s an advantage or disadvantage. Historically it’s been both. 
 

Russia is in the process of changing their strategy. They realized that the tank centric 2000 man regiment is not a flexible. Where Ukraine has adopted the US tactics of smaller unit tactics while sending out the SOF teams as purely tank and armored vehicle hunters. It was very effective. My guess is Russia will take on a similar approach moving forward. 
 

Also many people fail to differentiate between the type of soldiers Russia has. When They got overrun last week it was because they left their flank exposed and the only troops there (according to experts) likely internal troops that don’t have a primary function of combat. 

[Spekulatius]

11 minutes ago, patience_and_focus said:

 

That is why Vietnam was such a great success (to paraphrase Borat) for the US! And seems like Russia is destined for equal success, especially because of current eutopia for men who are being drafted.

 

Draft, in many cases, is a sign of weakness, not strength.

 

 

I am not sure if that is a strength either, especially in the modern age of declining fertility and aging population. Country without men and working adults in sufficient numbers is not something to strive for. Even if this war ends up distroying Ukraine, Russia will also feel the aftermath for years to come. US, on the other hand, is just watching from far (and supplying resources of-course) without the body bags.

The Russian mothers are not doing their job like they used to that's for sure.

 

As far as Vietnam is concerned, I am guessing a lot of people here haven't really studied this and rely on generalities. the fact is that US soldiers did quite well in Vietnam when you just look at the stats - 58K US soldiers killed vs 500k-1M Vietkong). That's 10-20x kill rate which i consider quite good.

 

Also, the US military never lost a significant battle in Vietnam and all the offensive of the Vietkong failed (Thet offensive being one that caused huge losses for the Vietkong).

 

During the time that the US has surged ~500k soldiers at the peak, the Vietkong really couldn't accomplish much. the problem of course was that nobody in the US wanted to keep that many soldiers in Vietnam indefinitely, so the US pulled out in the early 70's and the South Vietnams couldn't withstand the pressure from the more determined Vietkong.

 

So a total different situation than Ukraine where the US has no boots on the ground and just supplies weapons to Ukraine who happens to much more determined and fights smarter than the Orc hordes from Russia.

 

Anyways, I think most people nowadays think that Vietnam was a military defeat and it wasn't, imo. It was a political defeat and a case where a limited engagement turned out in an open ended one, that the US didn't want to fight any more.

[patience_and_focus]

19 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The Russian mothers are not doing their job like they used to that's for sure.

 

As far as Vietnam is concerned, I am guessing a lot of people here haven't really studied this and rely on generalities. the fact is that US soldiers did quite well in Vietnam when you just look at the stats - 58K US soldiers killed vs 500k-1M Vietkong). That's 10-20x kill rate which i consider quite good.

 

Also, the US military never lost a significant battle in Vietnam and all the offensive of the Vietkong failed (Thet offensive being one that caused huge losses for the Vietkong).

 

During the time that the US has surged ~500k soldiers at the peak, the Vietkong really couldn't accomplish much. the problem of course was that nobody in the US wanted to keep that many soldiers in Vietnam indefinitely, so the US pulled out in the early 70's and the South Vietnams couldn't withstand the pressure from the more determined Vietkong.

 

So a total different situation than Ukraine where the US has no boots on the ground and just supplies weapons to Ukraine who happens to much more determined and fights smarter than the Orc hordes from Russia.

 

Anyways, I think most people nowadays think that Vietnam was a military defeat and it wasn't, imo. It was a political defeat and a case where a limited engagement turned out in an open ended one, that the US didn't want to fight any more.

 

I actually 100% agree with what you said. But political defeat is important as well (just ask Russians whose leader will not accept political defeat - although in this case he is also loosing not winning militarily, at least so far).

 

A determined local population (with support from external powers and actors) willing to fight tooth and nail against a perceived invading military force is a bad setup. Even if US did not loose militarily, it was impossible to sustain in the long term. US did not learn from Vietnam going into into Afganistan and Russia did not learn from Afganistan going into Ukraine. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by patience_and_focus

[Castanza]

34 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The Russian mothers are not doing their job like they used to that's for sure.

 

As far as Vietnam is concerned, I am guessing a lot of people here haven't really studied this and rely on generalities. the fact is that US soldiers did quite well in Vietnam when you just look at the stats - 58K US soldiers killed vs 500k-1M Vietkong). That's 10-20x kill rate which i consider quite good.

 

Also, the US military never lost a significant battle in Vietnam and all the offensive of the Vietkong failed (Thet offensive being one that caused huge losses for the Vietkong).

 

During the time that the US has surged ~500k soldiers at the peak, the Vietkong really couldn't accomplish much. the problem of course was that nobody in the US wanted to keep that many soldiers in Vietnam indefinitely, so the US pulled out in the early 70's and the South Vietnams couldn't withstand the pressure from the more determined Vietkong.

 

So a total different situation than Ukraine where the US has no boots on the ground and just supplies weapons to Ukraine who happens to much more determined and fights smarter than the Orc hordes from Russia.

 

Anyways, I think most people nowadays think that Vietnam was a military defeat and it wasn't, imo. It was a political defeat and a case where a limited engagement turned out in an open ended one, that the US didn't want to fight any more.

 

Exactly, it's the same things as Afghanistan. They are wars that cannot be won so it's an automatic loss when the US leaves even though the enemy was getting their teeth pushed in day after day. I mean I don't really agree with either. Afghanistan was justifiable to an extent, but the stay was way past it's expiration date. They were political/cultural wars which were doomed from the beginning. 

 

27 minutes ago, patience_and_focus said:

 

I actually 100% agree with what you said. But political defeat is important as well (just ask Russians whose leader will not accept political defeat - although in this case he is also loosing not winning militarily, at least so far).

 

A determined local population (with support from external powers and actors) willing to fight tooth and nail against a perceived invading military force is a bad setup. Even if US did not loose militarily, it was impossible to sustain in the long term. US did not learn from Vietnam going into into Afghanistan and Russia did not learn from Afganistan going into Ukraine. 

 

How can anyone define winning or losing at this point? Comparing Russia's involvement to their current onslaught to Afghanistan is like comparing a fish to a deer. Zero similarities. What we are seeing Russia do has not been seen since WWII. Everyone is flying blind on what happens next. 

[Castanza]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2022/09/27/us-blew-up-russian-gas-pipelines-nord-stream-1--2-says-former-polish-defense-minister/
 

Well if the US did do this it’s foolish. Likely was as Biden said he was going to shut it down multiple times. One it hurts Germany immensely. Two you’ve now committed an act of war without congressional approval and made US infrastructure a target. 

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

The Russian mothers are not doing their job like they used to that's for sure.

 

As far as Vietnam is concerned, I am guessing a lot of people here haven't really studied this and rely on generalities. the fact is that US soldiers did quite well in Vietnam when you just look at the stats - 58K US soldiers killed vs 500k-1M Vietkong). That's 10-20x kill rate which i consider quite good.

 

Also, the US military never lost a significant battle in Vietnam and all the offensive of the Vietkong failed (Thet offensive being one that caused huge losses for the Vietkong).

 

During the time that the US has surged ~500k soldiers at the peak, the Vietkong really couldn't accomplish much. the problem of course was that nobody in the US wanted to keep that many soldiers in Vietnam indefinitely, so the US pulled out in the early 70's and the South Vietnams couldn't withstand the pressure from the more determined Vietkong.

 

So a total different situation than Ukraine where the US has no boots on the ground and just supplies weapons to Ukraine who happens to much more determined and fights smarter than the Orc hordes from Russia.

 

Anyways, I think most people nowadays think that Vietnam was a military defeat and it wasn't, imo. It was a political defeat and a case where a limited engagement turned out in an open ended one, that the US didn't want to fight any more.

 

Nope. The "Tet" offensive was a strategic defeat for the United States (the image of Viet Congs poping out in the capital Saigon out of nowhere was too much bear for the Johnson and the population at large).

 

Following the Tet offensive in '68, the Viet Cong as fighting force was largely de-fanged and the North Vietnamese regular army took up the burden of war.

 

You are gauging victory vs. defeat with number of death as a KPI. If Jonhson administration failed in their objectives than they lost the war. It matters not to classify at political or military defeat. 

 

 

[Xerxes]

When in doubt always ask the Prussians:

“War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” - Carol von Clausewitz

 

If Vietnam was a military success but a political failure than using the same logic, the 1991 Gulf War was also a military success (which it was) but a political failure (which it was not) because Bush failed to go all the way to Baghdad !!! something doesnt add up.

 

I think the reality is that in any war as it lengthens out, there is increasingly blurry line between what was/were objectives vs. accomplishment. Making the enemy "not want to fight anymore" equals victory in my book. 

 

If Russia drops a nuke and kills off 500K-1M people, and than calls for peace and return pre-Feb border, can we make the statement that "It was a political defeat and a case where a limited engagement turned out in an open ended one, that the Kremlin didn't want to fight any more but still had a good 10-20x kill rate, therefore not a miltiary failure but a political one as they lost the will to fight"

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

^^ Interesting... But actually, the Tet offensive was a major military victory for the US. The NVA was

crushed and failed to deliver a widespread uprising that they had sought. Few joined them and

it ended up as an unmitigated disaster for the NVA and the VC.

 

In just a few weeks, the NVA & VC lost more soldiers dead, than the US forces for the entire decade they were involved. After a major victory for the US, the military leadership failed to capitalize

on the destruction of the NVA - and did not pursue them. The retrenchment was a major mistake

as the communists were broken and on the ropes.  You can't engage militarily and lose solders

at an unheard-of 40:1 ratio and still be a viable fighting force.

The NVA learned a very hard lesson about engaging US forces directly. The NVA totally misunderstood the capabilities of the US forces.

 

But after Tet - the handcuffing of the US forces by their own leadership ensured the eventual

demise of Vietnam. Not pursuing the enemy, not crushing the supply lines, not invading and crushing the infrastructure in Hanoi.

 

When the US reverted to fighting with 1 hand tied behind their back - it was only going to be

a matter of time before they lost.

 

But the Tet offensive, itself, was a major military victory for the US.

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

That is what i said:   The Vietcong was larlgey de-fanged (i.e. wiped out). In fact so badly that the regular North Vietnamese army had to take the slack. But it remains a strategic defeat because of the psychological blow it delivered back home to the domestic audiance, seeing the Vietcong just coming out of every hole in the capital itself.

 

You and others are sandboxing the discussion around military engagement and kill ratio. I see things more holistically. The political and miltary side come in hand in hand.

 

Was the battle of Jutland a military victory for Germany, because it sank more warships than the British did. No. Royal Navy is the one that achieved a strategic victory, because at the end the Kriegsmarine (or whatever it was called in the first war) remained well bottled in the Baltic sea ... and very much ineffective. So much capital was spend by the Kaiser and his Grand Admiral to build this massive navy with surface ship, second only to Royal Navy (I think), yet it was "stuck".

 

Was the battle of Borodino, a strategic victory for the House of Bonaporte. No. While he achieved some sort of tactical success and send the Russian fleeing, the outcome of the battle meant he could not hold Moscow and his nemsis remained largely intact.

 

Etc. Etc

 

[no_free_lunch]

The success of the Ukrainian offensive in the north is proof that the weapons supply is being used.  How much exactly I don't know but that's not what matters.

 

Ukraine's own weapons system is damaged, even by Russian reports, and simply can't keep up.  It's the allies weapons that are allowing Ukraine to gain the offensive.  If Ukraine is on the offensive, of course the weapons are being sent to the front.  Even Russia admits the weapons are in use.  It's one of the reasons they threaten the West.

 

So let me examine the counter argument here.  We are both 1) antagonizing Russia by providing weapons and support to Ukraine and 2) the weapons that are sent are just being stolen.  These arguments aren't compatible.  Whatever, the Russian side just blurts out contradictory nonsense to try to push their argument.  The west's weapons are turning the tide, full stop. 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Spekulatius]

@Castanza, I predict that the Russian conscripts are getting massacred if they indeed hit the front line. They Motivation and equipment is abysmal. If they indeed get used on the front line, I think we are seeing 30% casualty rates if not higher. We do not know how many have been drafted burnside clear that it’s way more than 300k, probably between 500k and 1M, so you can do the math here how many dead and severely wounded we will see.

 

The Russian army has already been constraint by logistics before, so now with many mor soldiers , they will be even slower moving. So, I think the Ukraine could be able to take huge amounts of prisoners here if they can most an offensive and encircle some of those static troop concentrations.

 

If Russia were smart, they would use these troops just to improve logistics and as a backup but then again, it wouldn’t make all that much of a different. My bet is they are trying to do a Volkssturm here and that will end up with a disaster.

 

Another interesting fact - apparently some conscripts have already reached the Ukraine. You can do the math here, these guys can’t have 2 weeks of training yet, possible nothing.

 

Also, somewhat independent of this, the Russian economy will take a huge hit from this mobilization. Expect double digit declines in economic activity just from that, then add sanctions, lower energy prices, no money from NG exports to Europe, lower weapon exports. The list goes on and on.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Spekulatius

[changegonnacome]

23 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Also, somewhat independent of this, the Russian economy will take a huge hit from this mobilization. Expect double digit declines in economic activity just from that

 

Yep anecdotally with some companies I work with that had super smart Russian developers still in Russia or were tangentially connected to Russia based 'tech talent'.......they all to a man pretty much threw in the towel last week and fled Russia.........its going to be ironic that the real damage to the Russian economy will not come from the international sanctions regime but rather Putin's mobilization effort.....whatever aspirations Russia had to be not a petro-economy just went up in smoke.....never mind the demographic nightmare saved up for the next Tzar, sorry I mean President

[Castanza]

46 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

@Castanza, I predict that the Russian conscripts are getting massacred if they indeed hit the front line. They Motivation and equipment is abysmal. If they indeed get used on the front line, I think we are seeing 30% casualty rates if not higher. We do not know how many have been drafted burnside clear that it’s way more than 300k, probably between 500k and 1M, so you can do the math here how many dead and severely wounded we will see.

 

The Russian army has already been constraint by logistics before, so now with many mor soldiers , they will be even slower moving. So, I think the Ukraine could be able to take huge amounts of prisoners here if they can most an offensive and encircle some of those static troop concentrations.

 

If Russia were smart, they would use these troops just to improve logistics and as a backup but then again, it wouldn’t make all that much of a different. My bet is they are trying to do a Volkssturm here and that will end up with a disaster.

 

Another interesting fact - apparently some conscripts have already reached the Ukraine. You can do the math here, these guys can’t have 2 weeks of training yet, possible nothing.

 

Also, somewhat independent of this, the Russian economy will take a huge hit from this mobilization. Expect double digit declines in economic activity just from that, then add sanctions, lower energy prices, no money from NG exports to Europe, lower weapon exports. The list goes on and on.

 

 

 

Yeah their men are certainly demoralized with many asking to leave now that their contracts were up; only to have them indefinitely extended. With winter approaching you would think Russia is looking to entrench, secure and reinforce the lines (similar to Crimea prior to invasion). That would give them some time to "train" new recruits and somewhat organize their Supply Chain.

 

If that's the course of action you can probably expect Ukraine to turn on the jets now to cause as many disruptions as possible and if winter brings a pause I'm sure Ukraine will happily spend the next few months targeting the supply lines Russia tries to rebuild from afar. 

 

@XerxesWar on the Rocks is still the best podcast covering this imo. 

 

@no_free_lunch Nobody said the US weapons weren't helping. I mean it was pretty clear on day one when tanks were getting destroyed every hour by their SOF teams. You're very emotional on this...take a breath. Nobody here is an expert, nobody here is rooting for Russia. I think oversight does matter because The Constitution does matter to me and it should to others. It shouldn't be thrown out the window because there is a crisis. In fact it's designed for crisis. For the past 15 years Americans have been complaining about getting stuck in wars. Well this is how it happens. We don't need to be involved in another war that drags on for 10+ years while providing billions upon billions. No Congressional approval for attacks (Nord 1 & 2), no/little oversight with funds. You now have hundreds of thousands of Russians being drafted that presumably don't want to be who are going to be like lambs to the slaughter. It seems to me that an offramp is the preferred solution. My brother and sister are both adopted from Russia, I have distant relatives from Poland, Czech and likely Ukraine. I have work collogues who joined Ukrainian Foreign Legion Forces and many who have family affected. There's about two dozen other wars going on around the world too. At the end of the day you have a lot of people on both sides of the conflict who don't want to be there. Your "vibe" is that if someone isn't 100% behind Ukraine and willing to commit whatever to the "cause" without regard or abandon then somehow they are supporting Russia and Hitler 2.0....that's nonsense. So fly your Ukrainian flag. Send some money and get your name written on a mortar round. The US is only interested in supplying Ukraine because we want our cannon fodder buffer zone back between NATO and Russia. If we truly were over there because we cared about "independence" then we would have been in/done more for Hong Kong, Catalonia and the dozen other countries/regions looking for independence from whatever warlord, ruler, dictator and politician that rules over them. 

 

 

https://antiwar.com/

https://archive.ph/p85GD

[Spekulatius]

20 hours ago, patience_and_focus said:

 

I actually 100% agree with what you said. But political defeat is important as well (just ask Russians whose leader will not accept political defeat - although in this case he is also loosing not winning militarily, at least so far).

 

A determined local population (with support from external powers and actors) willing to fight tooth and nail against a perceived invading military force is a bad setup. Even if US did not loose militarily, it was impossible to sustain in the long term. US did not learn from Vietnam going into into Afganistan and Russia did not learn from Afganistan going into Ukraine. 

No question that war only makes sense with a valid objective. otherwise you can win all the battles and lose the war, just like what happened in Vietnam.

 

I think in the end some wars are worth fighting and getting involved in and others are not, WW1 and WW2 was worthwhile for the US to get involved in, Korea as well, Vietnam was not, Irak (imo was not) and Afghanistan highly questionable.

 

I think Ukraine is worth getting involved in because it affects security in a very broad sense for Allies and the US eventually and there is a ruthless dictator on the prowl. Furthermore, we do not have to put boots on the ground, we just have to supplies the means to do so to a very capable and hard fighting nation (the Ukraine), which also makes the situation unlike Vietnam.

 

Now there are other wars like Birma / Myanmar (military junta), Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Syria, Houthi , Kashmir and what not. in each of these cases, it is not clear to me that the US or Nato could help and what the objective should be. So in my opinion saying  - look there are many wars going on why do we something here and not there - is a strawmans argument that doesn't hold water.

 

By the way, this perfectly holds true for Taiwan. US should absolutely support Taiwan's independence, because there is a clear objective, it is doable, there is a will from the population to stay independent and fight for it and it also serves our interest, as well as it seems the right thing to do from a western moral POV.
 

Some may not agree here, but that's how I see it.

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

@XerxesWar on the Rocks is still the best podcast covering this imo. 

 

I cannot wait to get my hands on a good book few years from now on this topic.

Probably there will be a dozens of them, 3/4 of them just re-capping publically available information, trying to make quick buck.

 

[Spekulatius]

13 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

I cannot wait to get my hands on a good book few years from now on this topic.

Probably there will be a dozens of them, 3/4 of them just re-capping publically available information, trying to make quick buck.

 

It will take a long time to get a true picture of what really happened and is happening during the war. I think about one generation. Historians works best when everyone involved in an event is already dead.

 

Getting access to US assessments, the Ukrainian side and most importantly material from the Russian side will require a long time.

 

We probably get to see some movies with very subjective views first. Maybe Rambo comes out of retirement and does another tour there.

[Xerxes]

^^^

Activision's Call of Duty franchise is going to make a killing if they play their cards right with this conflict ... and dont screw it up. 

 

There would be a massive consumer demand, everyone would want to play the Ukrainians, there is enough real combat going from partisan stuff, tank-poping javelines, stingers, artillery duels etc., drone war, sabotage behind the lines etc.

 

The plate is set for Activision, if they can ensure not to screw it up.

They got the demand, the known franchise, and the money