Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

No.  That is why Ukraine has some level of a military.  Germany just said they pretty much don’t have a military.  Excluding France and Britain, look at the state of the rest of NATO’s militaries.  @tshileis right, they are just relying on our military.

And pre-trump, they were skating on contributing the $ they were supposed to. There are % of gdp clauses in nato. Trump called them out. I believe the bigger members put something in place to step their % up to the minimum over some years. I’m not sure where it currently stands. 
 

but this is and was a problem for a while. And trump said it because he knew it was a problem and he knew it would play well with conservatives (cause they have ****ed about the nato members for a long time)

[The Evil Genius]

But we spend 2.5x more on the military than the next closest nation (China). 750billion vs 250billion, roughly.

 

Wtf are we doing with our spending if we cannot occasionally be a protector, when needed, for Nato countries?

Edited February 24, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[visionary]

Not great….

 

[ixcuincle]

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by ixcuincle

[visionary]

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Germany just said they pretty much don’t have a military.  Excluding France and Britain, look at the state of the rest of NATO’s militaries.  @tshileis right, they are just relying on our military.

 

Been that way for over 70 years now tho. 😒

 

Once again Trump was just shaking NATO members down for money. He prolly would have redirected it to his border wall or his bank account.

 

NATOs annual budget is like $3 billion. 😬

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Wtf are we doing with our spending if we cannot occasionally be a protector, when needed, for Nato countries?

Until someone says otherwise, the assumption should be that we would show up to protect Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. 
 

uktaine? Maldova?

 

no. They’re not nato members. This is what treaties are. They exist for the people that sign onto them 🤷‍♂️ 

 

and no one’s saying we couldn’t go there and join the war. Obviously we could. We have a military that is in a class of its own. Russia isn’t even #2. Iraq was the #4 largest standing army in the world when we invaded and it took a week to topple them. A week. 
 

so yes. We could. 
 

but our political environment, fractures, and general condition of our society means there’s no way Biden can do that. We just got out of Afghanistan. And Iraq. We don’t have the appetite to rush over to the western Russia border, and fight or a non-nato country. We just don’t. 
 

(which is why Putin is doing this - he knows no one will stop him. He’s not an idiot. This has been in the works for a while and he’s decided now is the time to do it. And I bet part of the is because he knows it’ll hurt Biden, and give his puppet trump a solid look at 2024)

Edited February 24, 2022 by tshile

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Been that way for over 70 years now tho. 😒

 

Once again Trump was just shaking NATO members down for money. He prolly would have redirected it to his border wall or his bank account.

 

NATOs annual budget is like $3 billion. 😬

 

NATO's been under funded.  We've been pushing NATO nations to spend more money since the Russian invasion of Georgia (and the rise of China where we've wanted to focus more on Pacific).

 

Obama pushed for increased funding of from European countries too.

 

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/obama-seeks-increased-nato-spending-trans-atlantic-solidarity-591781

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[tshile]

For all the Hitler rhetoric going around (and I’m not saying Putin hasn’t gone mad and is literally starting his quest for world domination, I don’t know, maybe he is)…

 

I mean is anything truly lost with Ukraine? They have archaic weapons, they’re not a strong military, like if ww3 does come of this is the tide going to be turned because Ukraine was not defended?

 

where’s our risk players at? Is Ukraine important?

 

but seriously - if we assume this is the (eventual) start of ww3, are we actually hampered in that fight because Ukraine was lost?

 

if Russia turns on another country and we decide at that point, it’s time to put a stop to Putin’s Russia, are we gonna lose because we refused to act on Ukraine?

 

im not really feeling like that’s the case. At all. But I’m open to arguments about it. 
 

but, pending some good argument that Ukraine is the most important cog in the wheel, i think we’re ok in waiting to see if there is further aggressive supporting a plan of world domination, and acting then if there is. 

[NickyJ]

6 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Been that way for over 70 years now tho. 😒

 

Once again Trump was just shaking NATO members down for money. He prolly would have redirected it to his border wall or his bank account.

 

NATOs annual budget is like $3 billion. 😬

Even idiots can get it right once in a while. Without the U.S., NATO is a shell of itself. NATO is made up of Canada, America, and the majority of Europe. Yeah, cool, America **** yeah and all that, but if we're busy playing with China, Europe's NATO contingent really should put a bit of their budget towards defending themselves.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

which is why Putin is doing this - he knows no one will stop him. He’s not an idiot. This has been in the works for a while and he’s decided now is the time to do it. And I bet part of the is because he knows it’ll hurt Biden, and give his puppet trump a solid look at 2024)

this is what I’ve suspected from the beginning. It’s a win/win for Putin. He either gets what he wants effortlessly or he gets US troop involvement which 1,000% locks in a Trump 2024 win and ends US involvement anyway, with his puppet back in power. 

[method man]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

For all the Hitler rhetoric going around (and I’m not saying Putin hasn’t gone mad and is literally starting his quest for world domination, I don’t know, maybe he is)…

 

I mean is anything truly lost with Ukraine? They have archaic weapons, they’re not a strong military, like if ww3 does come of this is the tide going to be turned because Ukraine was not defended?

 

where’s our risk players at? Is Ukraine important?

 

but seriously - if we assume this is the (eventual) start of ww3, are we actually hampered in that fight because Ukraine was lost?

 

if Russia turns on another country and we decide at that point, it’s time to put a stop to Putin’s Russia, are we gonna lose because we refused to act on Ukraine?

 

im not really feeling like that’s the case. At all. But I’m open to arguments about it. 
 

but, pending some good argument that Ukraine is the most important cog in the wheel, i think we’re ok in waiting to see if there is further aggressive supporting a plan of world domination, and acting then if there is. 

 

It's not important in the grand scheme of things. They have a number of trade ports tied to the Black Sea but that's about it.

 

If China tries to annex Taiwan, given the tech and chip technology/manufacturing out of there, it is a different story

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

Europe's NATO contingent really should put a bit of their budget towards defending themselves.

 

Of course but that's not really realistic tho. I mean if all NATO members kicked in another 2% of their GDP maybe that gets NATOs budget up above $10 billion annually. 😬

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

this is what I’ve suspected from the beginning. It’s a win/win for Putin. He either gets what he wants effortlessly or he gets US troop involvement which 1,000% locks in a Trump 2024 win and ends US involvement anyway, with his puppet back in power. 

I posted that back when this started and it was not met well. 
 

but yeah. He’s in a win/win. (If you assume he doesn’t care about sanctions)

[visionary]

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Well then..I guess it's all OK.

 

 

[Springfield]

11 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

this is what I’ve suspected from the beginning. It’s a win/win for Putin. He either gets what he wants effortlessly or he gets US troop involvement which 1,000% locks in a Trump 2024 win and ends US involvement anyway, with his puppet back in power. 

Why would a Russian puppet win a 2024 election?

[Captain Wiggles]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

Well then..I guess it's all OK.

 

 

 

Alabama has entered the chat. 🤣

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Wait…folks think Biden looks weak while guys with mattresses strapped to their backs like Tuberville are a dime a dozen in the GQP?!?

[NickyJ]

14 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Of course but that's not really realistic tho. I mean if all NATO members kicked in another 2% of their GDP maybe that gets NATOs budget up above $10 billion annually. 😬

True, but it's always kind of funny for Europeans to laugh about how America is spending so much money on our defenses that we never need, then every few years Russia reminds everyone it exists and suddenly they're asking for America to spend money for their defense.

Edited February 24, 2022 by NickyJ

[The Sisko]

16 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

No.  That is why Ukraine has some level of a military.  Germany just said they pretty much don’t have a military.  Excluding France and Britain, look at the state of the rest of NATO’s militaries.  @tshileis right, they are just relying on our military.

I remember reading an article about this a few years ago in which they described the German military's inability to even scrounge up enough resources for a big war game they were having. Clearly they can't be counted on for much of anything.

On another note, here's an excellent article on logistics that explains the limitations of the Russian army. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

Quote

Feeding the Bear: A Closer Look at Russian Army Logistics and the Fait Accompli

 

...Most of these wargames, such as RAND’s Baltic study, focus on fait accompli, an attack by the Russian government aimed at seizing terrain — then quickly digging in. This creates a dilemma for NATO: launch a costly counter-attack and risk heavy casualties and possibly a nuclear crisis or accept a Russian fait accompli and undermine faith in the credibility of the alliance. Some analysts have argued that these seizures are much more likely to be small in size, limited to one or two towns. While that scenario should, of course, be studied, the concern about the feasibility of a fait accompli in the form of a major invasion still stands.

While the Russian army definitely has the combat power to achieve these scenarios, does Russia have the logistics force structure to support these operations? The short answer is not in the timelines envisioned by Western wargames. In an initial offensive — depending on the fighting involved — Russian forces might reach early objectives, but logistics would impose requirements for operational pauses. As a result, a large land grab is unrealistic as a fait accompli. The Russian army has the combat power to capture the objectives envisioned in a fait accompli scenario, but it does not have the logistic forces to do it in a single push without a logistical pause to reset its sustainment infrastructure. The Russian Aerospace Forces (with a sizable tactical bomber and attack aircraft force) and attack helicopters can also pick up fire support to alleviate artillery ammunition consumption.

NATO planners should develop plans focusing on exploiting Russian logistic challenges rather than trying to address the disparity in combat power. This involves drawing the Russian army deep into NATO territory and stretching Russian supply lines to the maximum while targeting logistics and transportation infrastructure such as trucks, railroad bridges, and pipelines. Committing to a decisive battle at the frontier would play directly into Russian hands, allowing a shorter supply to compensate for their logistic shortfalls.

 

[The Evil Genius]

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Why would a Russian puppet win a 2024 election?

 

see 2016. 

[The Sisko]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Well then..I guess it's all OK.

 

 

I'm sure he'd advise that the Ukrainians' best defense strategy would be to double cover Putin's best WR and run the ball to gain supremacy in time of possession.