War in Ukraine

[Velo Vol]

Train rolls by.

 

[Velo Vol]

Have a NATO ship escort them out.

 

[tvolsfan]

The rhetoric about Ukraine has certainly shifted. People seem far less concerned about upsetting Putin after the Wagner uprising.

 

[KB5252]

Have a NATO ship escort them out.

Which ports would they ship from though?

 

[LouderVol]

True, at least the covid part. I think the bank default affected mostly a bunch of tech weenies.

no I meant the treasury default we just faced in June. The one where they promised to limit spending. Already another trillion dollars in debt from when that debt deal got signed....

 

[Velo Vol]

Does this include the Black Sea?

 

[evillawyer]

Tell me you missed "stop drop and roll" day in elementary school without telling me you missed stop drop and roll day.

 

[LouderVol]

None. I've thought most of our involvements or whatever they should be called since Korea were mistakes. Even when the fighting went well, we screwed it up by lingering around.

so somehow, in a world with ICBMs, subs, and nuclear bombers we have some how avoided all of those threats WITHOUT directly taking hostile acts against those nations capable of such acts?

Seems like that non-intervention stance has worked for us there. we are interfering with the small guys, they guys who pose no threat to us. and for some reason people extrapolate that up to the big guys.

walk softly and carry a big stick is a pretty good foreign policy that protects us even in the modern day.

 

[Septic]

Tell me you missed "stop drop and roll" day in elementary school without telling me you missed stop drop and roll day.

at the tweet response "I hope he survived."

Instructions unclear, he got "stop, drop and roll" confused with "stop, drop, shut em' down - open up shop."

 

[LouderVol]

The best way to predict the future is to understand history.

What would have happened had the United States not intervened World War II?

What would have happened had Germany invented the atom bomb before we did?

The alternative to fighting against Russia is appeasement. Neville Chamberlain tried this during World War II.. how did that work out? There is no appeasing a dictator hell bent on expansionism.

The world's economies are intertwined today moreso than ever. Isolationism would hurt us more than the benefits of intervention.

the best way to understand history is to go deeper than the whitewashed history books you were given in middle school.

Germany still would have lost. We just sped it up. They never would have been able to take and hold Russia. Russia would have bled even more and probably wouldn't have had the post war capability to be a super power. So how did that intervention work out? Germany was also already losing in Africa before we landed.

Again if you get beyond a history book published in 1958, you would know that the German's never could have created an atom bomb due to their own research strategy. They had lost too many scientists. and the ones they had they kept compartmentalized. They couldn't even share notes, yes the Germans had a couple important pieces but they didn't know how they fit in and were actually using up the very few resources they had. and didn't have enough uranium. see the scientist parts, what radioactive materials they had were split between competing scientists. If they had pulled every last atom of uranium they had they wouldn't have had enough for critical mass, even if they knew about it. The next closest source of enough uranium, that they didn't already have access to was at the time Kazakhstan. They were no where close to that. The Brits were also able to neutralize their Heavy Water processing plants which completely stalled their programs regardless. How many wonder weapons actually worked out for Hitler? Look at modern times, even places like Iran and N. Korea have more advanced technology than the Nazis and they still haven't reached that level. Things would have had to gone perfect for Hitler to get a nuclear bomb, the chances of that in actual history is slim to none.

The Germans couldn't even cross 20 miles of the English Channel, how were they going to get a couple THOUSAND miles across the Atlantic to really threaten the US?

and again the appeasement angle is BS. In 1936 Britain had a 1/4 of the army it had in 1941 when the Germans invaded France and pushed them out in a couple weeks. What would you expect 1936/Chamberlain to do? Tell me about that part of history you never bring up. even if Hitler had won in Europe we could have kept going just fine on our end.

and you are going to have to show some math on that last claim. Again even back in the 1770s if you had taken away international trade from any country they would have collapsed. Thats why the brits were so strong, they had the strongest navy and controlled the trade routes and the most territory. Once they started losing that territory they no longer were a world power. I don't see how you can claim we are more intertwined than "total collapse of the economy". The relative dollar amounts may be higher now, but we were all pretty dependent on international trade even 300 years ago.

how has the swiss economy worked for even longer than 1776? Surely they must not be able to internationally trade since they don't intervene in any war? There is absolutely no reason we couldn't be a bigger, richer Switzerland. Or do the ICBMs and bombers somehow not threaten them?

 

[LouderVol]

Anybody with common sense and just a little bit of recent history should have seen this coming... mission creep. Happened in Vietnam with us only sending advisors. Happened in Afghanistan and in Syria.
We went from saying sending long range missiles that could reach Russia being a redline to now we are on the verge of sending boots on the ground. At what point will you guys be ready to come to terms with the idea that these guys are willing to take this thing nuclear?

Ukraine not joining NATO was an easy fix that could have been done in December 2021... or in 2008... or in 1997.

we have sent advisors to many more nations than just Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Syria. Russia has too fwiw, but its ok when they do it, right?

 

[evillawyer]

Karma be like:

 

[evillawyer]

Or is Ras-speak, "not a big deal"

 

[MontyPython]

the best way to understand history is to go deeper than the whitewashed history books you were given in middle school.

Germany still would have lost. We just sped it up. They never would have been able to take and hold Russia. Russia would have bled even more and probably wouldn't have had the post war capability to be a super power. So how did that intervention work out? Germany was also already losing in Africa before we landed.

Again if you get beyond a history book published in 1958, you would know that the German's never could have created an atom bomb due to their own research strategy. They had lost too many scientists. and the ones they had they kept compartmentalized. They couldn't even share notes, yes the Germans had a couple important pieces but they didn't know how they fit in and were actually using up the very few resources they had. and didn't have enough uranium. see the scientist parts, what radioactive materials they had were split between competing scientists. If they had pulled every last atom of uranium they had they wouldn't have had enough for critical mass, even if they knew about it. The next closest source of enough uranium, that they didn't already have access to was at the time Kazakhstan. They were no where close to that. The Brits were also able to neutralize their Heavy Water processing plants which completely stalled their programs regardless. How many wonder weapons actually worked out for Hitler? Look at modern times, even places like Iran and N. Korea have more advanced technology than the Nazis and they still haven't reached that level. Things would have had to gone perfect for Hitler to get a nuclear bomb, the chances of that in actual history is slim to none.

The Germans couldn't even cross 20 miles of the English Channel, how were they going to get a couple THOUSAND miles across the Atlantic to really threaten the US?

and again the appeasement angle is BS. In 1936 Britain had a 1/4 of the army it had in 1941 when the Germans invaded France and pushed them out in a couple weeks. What would you expect 1936/Chamberlain to do? Tell me about that part of history you never bring up. even if Hitler had won in Europe we could have kept going just fine on our end.

and you are going to have to show some math on that last claim. Again even back in the 1770s if you had taken away international trade from any country they would have collapsed. Thats why the brits were so strong, they had the strongest navy and controlled the trade routes and the most territory. Once they started losing that territory they no longer were a world power. I don't see how you can claim we are more intertwined than "total collapse of the economy". The relative dollar amounts may be higher now, but we were all pretty dependent on international trade even 300 years ago.

how has the swiss economy worked for even longer than 1776? Surely they must not be able to internationally trade since they don't intervene in any war? There is absolutely no reason we couldn't be a bigger, richer Switzerland. Or do the ICBMs and bombers somehow not threaten them?

So to smmarize your stance is as follows:

Japan invades Pearl Harbor, kills 3,000 Americans, and you would have the US do NOTHING.

Lest ye forget, Germany subsequently declared war on the US, not vice versa. And in response, you would have the US do NOTHING.

Thank God our founding fathers had a backbone unlike you. Had they been a bunch of pansy-ass isolationists like you, there would be no United States.

(PS France intervention WON the Revolutionary War for us)

 

[NorthDallas40]

Or is Ras-speak, "not a big deal"

Hit it again!!

 

[evillawyer]

The bridge isn't damaged; it's just gone fishing

 

[MontyPython]

Catchy tune.

(FWIW a Sarmat is an ICMB)

 

[MOOOOONEY]

Does this include the Black Sea?

Can’t wait until the boots hit the ground.

Should send the whole arsenal.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Catchy tune.

(FWIW a Sarmat is an ICMB)

Well it will be if they ever field it. It’s years behind schedule, they finally awarded a production contract late last year, and their February test this year was an abject failure. So it’s a perfect weapon for them.

 

[AM64]

@AM64 ...; You are (supposedly) a smart guy. You do know we've been down this road before, right? How did this slow down Russia the last time?

All I've got is opinion. but here goes. Russia really wanted the eastern end of Ukraine for several reasons, but one has to do with Crimean access. Crimea has to do with Black Sea access. If you read much about sailing during the 1700 and 1800s, you begin to understand how difficult it is moving ships around when the capes at the bottom of Africa and S America are concerned. The Suez and Panama canals ease that; but for a navy to project power, unfettered access to bordering oceans is everything and Russia especially for its size doesn't have it. Russia to a great extent is largely landlocked and screwed.

There's plenty of Artic access, but much of that is not ice free. There's very limited Baltic access, and the Baltic itself is not much better than a big lake with a stopper. The UK is right there to limit Atlantic access from the Baltic, too. Go to the other end of Russia and the best sea access is Vladivostok. We've had discussions the last week or so about how Russia came up with what seemingly should be part of China, and how it looks like it could be China's for the taking. Come out of Vladivostok and there are limited sea lanes either up through the Kurils or down around Japan and Korea. Again not real friendly territory.

That gets back to the Black Sea and the fact that Ukraine is in the way. Russia annexed Crimea as part of the solution, but then there's the part about how to get to Crimea. This is a roundabout way of getting to an answer. Putin believed he could take Ukraine or at least the part really necessary, but it didn't work out the way he planned. Ukraine wasn't really prepared to fight when Russia invaded, but it didn't collapse either. What looks to be happening is something similar to but not exactly like an insurgency. Russia may be the bigger force with the ability to build weapons and munitions for fighting forces, but it's unable to deliver a sustaining blow. We won the battles in Vietnam and lost the war because there was never a peace. That's happening in Ukraine. Russia may hold important tracts of land (and a bridge), but Russia doesn't have free access as this new bridge strike shows.

The question isn't so much how any individual event slows Russia, but how long the two sides can keep it up and what the cost is to Russia overall. The Russian economy is suffering - deny it if you like, but Russia in this regard is in a position very similar to times we've faced. We had all the marbles and walked away with a loss. Russia had its Afghanistan. The bigger power isn't always the winner; the little guy has to keep punching, and it's very effective when the land where the war is fought belongs to the little guy. I think Russia is also facing a huge loss of face, and the Russian annexed states that were previously part of the USSR are likely to move against Russia because of what's happening in Ukraine.

That's my view, and to be honest I don't know much about Russia/Ukrainian history, and I don't read most news stories about this war. Primarily stuff from The Drive, so my aspect is just a lot of what I perceive. I just try to figure out what my thoughts would be if I were in a certain position. For Russia: they've got a huge country, lots of resources (questionable on the people part of that), a lot of leftover ego (in people like Putin) from the height of the USSR, very little sea access for trade and military might ... A wise person would probably forget the old days as a world terror and use what he has to build a prosperous country blessed with a lot of natural resources - and most of all develop a democratic type country free of corruption (government, thugs, and those who got away with the USSR's treasury and holdings).

 

[AM64]

Or is Ras-speak, "not a big deal"

On the mostly undamaged side of the highway bridge things don't line up, so doesn't look like either side is usable, and getting things back together on the "good" side probably isn't going to be easy. Time to start "working on the railroad".

When you annex land that isn't adjacent to your own and have limited access - like a single bridge and a plan to steal land, it's pretty much putting all your eggs in one basket and the weaves are getting undone.

 

[NorthDallas40]

On the mostly undamaged side of the highway bridge things don't line up, so doesn't look like either side is usable, and getting things back together on the "good" side probably isn't going to be easy. Time to start "working on the railroad".

When you annex land that isn't adjacent to your own and have limited access - like a single bridge and a plan to steal land, it's pretty much putting all your eggs in one basket and the weaves are getting undone.

Yeah saw that too. Clearly that span has been damaged and dislodged from its designed support point. In any western country no structural engineer would put his stamp on the line and certify that for load carrying but in the third world hole that is Russia today they’ll slap some bondo and a coat of paint on it and call it good to go!

 

[LouderVol]

So to smmarize your stance is as follows:

Japan invades Pearl Harbor, kills 3,000 Americans, and you would have the US do NOTHING.

Lest ye forget, Germany subsequently declared war on the US, not vice versa. And in response, you would have the US do NOTHING.

Thank God our founding fathers had a backbone unlike you. Had they been a bunch of pansy-ass isolationists like you, there would be no United States.

(PS France intervention WON the Revolutionary War for us)

Was the war over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Do you know what non-interventionalist means? It doesn't mean we are pacifists who lets people get away with attacking us. It means that we ONLY defend ourselves.

You were asking about Germany/Hitler. Now you want to talk the Japanese? pretty easy.

We flip the script. Instead of focusing Europe first, we should have focused Japan first as they are the ones who actually attacked us. After we beat up his one ally with a navy we see if Hitler still wants to eff around. Even IF Germany had defeated Russia, they wouldn't have had the manpower to mount a successful campaign west across the Atlantic. I don't see taking out the Russians as bringing the Germans any closer to actually landing on British soil, yet alone American soil. By the time we finished with the Japanese our Navy would be so insane Germany wouldn't have had a chance to cross the Atlantic. The number of ships we produced in 1944 alone was the second largest navy in the world, the rest of the American fleet was number 1. also Japan never joined the war against the Soviet Union, so its not like it would have been unpresented for one side of the Axis to sit out a fight with another's enemy.

and if we had just focused on Japan we probably would have landed troops in China to help them fight the Japanese ground forces. Which could/should have changed the direction of the RoC vs PRC fight, and today we wouldn't be dealing with a communist China, but instead a non-communist friendly China. You consider that in your what if of interventionalist? The questions go both ways. Why did the USSR become our enemy? Because we sided with the rest of Europe. Does that mean we should have sided with the USSR? Absolutely not. But it shows how interventionalism created bigger problems for us, than taking the route I would argue we "should" have. you are just ignoring all the blow backs from our interventionalist nature over the last 80 years and how it has created the crises of today. Its why I warn people to consider this WW1 rather than WW2. A bad peace treaty gets us a worse conflict in short order if we get involved.

FWIW I don't think the Japanese were close at all to getting nukes, before you try to flip that script, but I haven't specifically looked into their research towards that. and we were able to completely decimate their navy so its not like they could have launched a second Pearl Harbor.

so unless you want to argue 3 pretty significant completely non-historical what-ifs, my point still stands even when dealing with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Tell me you missed "stop drop and roll" day in elementary school without telling me you missed stop drop and roll day.

.

 

[Hunerwadel]

On the mostly undamaged side of the highway bridge things don't line up, so doesn't look like either side is usable, and getting things back together on the "good" side probably isn't going to be easy. Time to start "working on the railroad".

When you annex land that isn't adjacent to your own and have limited access - like a single bridge and a plan to steal land, it's pretty much putting all your eggs in one basket and the weaves are getting undone.

I've been wondering why they have hit the paved side twice and haven't gone for the railway. Could it be that collapsing or at least stopping traffic on the paved side has a greater psychological impact on the Russian people and even the leaders?