This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
"Since Friday morning, a Russian #Panzerwrack is directly in front of the Russian #Botschaft in #Berlin . For the activists, it's a #Mahnmal vs Russia's #Angriffskrieg vs #Ukraine which marks the first anniversary on Friday. http://rbburl.de/panzerbotschaft"
For the year anniversary, I thought I would take a stroll down memory lane and post some hilarious takes.
Vintage FSU Nat in the early days defending why war was not seemingly going as fast for Russia as predicted. Lol.
Here is me getting excited about the possibility of 800 dead Russians having no clue where we would be a year later.
Sorry bud. Still here
That picture of those f&ckwads makes me angry on so many levels. I can’t decide which one has the most punchable face. Hopefully they have been sufficiently doxxed.Nah, it’s that some of them hate Democrats so much that they’re unwilling to align with them on anything.
US too risk averse?
"The administration has done a good job, but I think it's been sometimes too slow and too risk averse," Jones said.In June, the Pentagon announced the U.S. would send High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) with precision ammunition capable of hitting targets up to 50 miles away.
"Ukrainian forces are now using long-range rocket systems to great effect, including HIMARS provided by the United States, and other systems from our allies and partners," Austin said in July.
But so far, the administration has declined to send longer-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) ammunition for the HIMARS. With a range of 190 miles, ATACMS would allow Ukraine to reach out nearly four times further than with the currently provided rockets.
"It's our assessment that they don't currently require ATACMS to service targets that are directly relevant to the current fight," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl told reporters in August.
Jones disagrees.
"In a ground war, longer range actually ends up being really helpful. So I think we're at a point right now for the Ukrainians to try to take back additional territory ... continuing to give them assistance is helpful. But what they also need now, and what the U.S. has not been willing to give, is long-range fires, like the ATACMS," he said.
That extra reach would be especially important in retaking Crimea, according to Mulroy.
"If they have any chance of taking Crimea, they're going to have to reach pretty far in there," he said.
The administration has changed course on some types of aid it originally wrote off as impractical, most notably Abrams tanks. For other items, such as large MQ-1C drones and F-16 fighters, which some experts say could make a difference in the fight, there's no indication that's being reevaluated.
While there are arguments to be made that money for fighter jets could be used to greater effect elsewhere, and that pulling Ukrainian pilots away from the war for a lengthy period of training might not be a worthwhile tradeoff, it's harder to apply such concerns to sending longer-range missiles for the HIMARS Ukrainians are already trained on and have been using in combat for months.
Fear of escalation
A less-publicized reason for hesitance over sending ATACMS and other sophisticated weapons is fear of escalation between Russia and the West. It's a fear the Kremlin has deliberately tried to inculcate.In September, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned the U.S. would be crossing a "red line" were it to supply Ukraine with longer-range weapons.
While threatening language from Putin and his subordinates is concerning, it would not make sense for Russia to extend its aggression into NATO territory, according to Jones, who said, "They're having enough problems right now in in Ukraine."
"With an industrial base that's stretched, with an army that can't even defeat a second or third-rate power, the idea that they would expand this to include NATO countries ... would be very irrational," Jones added.
But Putin's decision to invade in the first place was perhaps less than rational, and even if too conventionally depleted to match the U.S. and its allies, Russia still wields an awesome unconventional arsenal.
"The cloak has been pulled back -- Russia is not a superpower, militarily, at all. But they have 6,000 nuclear weapons," Mulroy said.
While Putin has not followed through on several previous threats, the prospect of Ukraine using long-range American missiles to hit targets across its border would likely be the greatest "red line" test of the conflict so far.
Jones and Mulroy both believe Ukraine could put ATACMS to better use pushing Russian forces out of its territory than by striking the Russian mainland.
Either way, while a beleaguered Kyiv could be morally and strategically justified in deciding to hit the land of its aggressor, land which is being used to launch attacks on Ukraine and to supply the Russian war effort, such a move could have unintended consequences.
"I'm suggesting that we give them what they need to fight and repel them out of Ukraine, but not taking strikes in Russia, which could then basically shore up president Putin's support," Mulroy said.
The U.S. could also offer ATACMS on condition they only be used within Ukraine. Once the missiles were in Ukraine, the restrictions could always be loosened if the U.S. deemed necessary.
After a year, will US strategy in Ukraine bring victory or stalemate?
After a year of war, is the U.S. strategy to help Ukraine win or to force a stalemate?
Capital of Estonia if accurate. Awesome sight.
They are so stupid they don’t even know what they are saying.
Quick question as we commit billions in more dollars of aid, while not having a withdrawal plan 1 year in. When we inevitably spend several trillion more dollars to backfill our supplies we are sending over there, that goes on this wars tab also right? We like to explain how this is like the cheapest way ever to take on Russia, while footing the bill for most of the world, I just want to make sure we are all in agreement on that.
I would hope that we would all agree that if they came to us now and said they need x trillion dollars for military spending they would get laughed out of the room. When they do so in 2-3 years under the guise of resupply the money will be spent without much thought.
We need to support Ukraine. We need to have a plan for that side of the world taking over the primary role in what has now become NATOs proxy war with Russia.
I would hope that we would all agree that if they came to us now and said they need x trillion dollars for military spending they would get laughed out of the room. When they do so in 2-3 years under the guise of resupply the money will be spent without much thought.
We need to support Ukraine. We need to have a plan for that side of the world taking over the primary role in what has now become NATOs proxy war with Russia.
Last edited:
Withdrawal plan for what? We are giving them the stuff. Also, several trillion means several thousand billion, not 50 billion.
PM, into three ways, and a smoke show. Not Zelensky this time. He's cool too
Withdrawal plan so that in 3-5 years they are being supplied equally or, better yet, more so from the countries on that side of the world. Our plan right now is to write checks.
O yeah, we are sending them "billions", it's going to cost us "trillions" to back fill for the new shit we are going to need for sending them the old shit.
I need to go back to school again. Schwing.
"According to Defense Department data, the US has had between 20 and 40 troops based in Taiwan in recent years. Most are Marines, who are tasked with embassy and diplomatic security at the de facto US embassy"
Nah, it’s that some of them hate Democrats so much that they’re unwilling to align with them on anything.
The DMF Russia lover on the left is more punchable. The comrade on the right is Junior Samples confused nephew.
This was our response one year ago - "So, today, I’m announcing the first tranche of sanctions to impose costs on Russia in response to their actions yesterday. These have been closely coordinated with our Allies and partners, and we’ll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates. " We've been risk averse, military support at any level wasn't consideredUS too risk averse?
"The administration has done a good job, but I think it's been sometimes too slow and too risk averse," Jones said.
In June, the Pentagon announced the U.S. would send High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) with precision ammunition capable of hitting targets up to 50 miles away.
"Ukrainian forces are now using long-range rocket systems to great effect, including HIMARS provided by the United States, and other systems from our allies and partners," Austin said in July.
But so far, the administration has declined to send longer-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) ammunition for the HIMARS. With a range of 190 miles, ATACMS would allow Ukraine to reach out nearly four times further than with the currently provided rockets.
"It's our assessment that they don't currently require ATACMS to service targets that are directly relevant to the current fight," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl told reporters in August.
Jones disagrees.
"In a ground war, longer range actually ends up being really helpful. So I think we're at a point right now for the Ukrainians to try to take back additional territory ... continuing to give them assistance is helpful. But what they also need now, and what the U.S. has not been willing to give, is long-range fires, like the ATACMS," he said.
That extra reach would be especially important in retaking Crimea, according to Mulroy.
"If they have any chance of taking Crimea, they're going to have to reach pretty far in there," he said.
The administration has changed course on some types of aid it originally wrote off as impractical, most notably Abrams tanks. For other items, such as large MQ-1C drones and F-16 fighters, which some experts say could make a difference in the fight, there's no indication that's being reevaluated.
While there are arguments to be made that money for fighter jets could be used to greater effect elsewhere, and that pulling Ukrainian pilots away from the war for a lengthy period of training might not be a worthwhile tradeoff, it's harder to apply such concerns to sending longer-range missiles for the HIMARS Ukrainians are already trained on and have been using in combat for months.
Fear of escalation
A less-publicized reason for hesitance over sending ATACMS and other sophisticated weapons is fear of escalation between Russia and the West. It's a fear the Kremlin has deliberately tried to inculcate.
In September, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned the U.S. would be crossing a "red line" were it to supply Ukraine with longer-range weapons.
While threatening language from Putin and his subordinates is concerning, it would not make sense for Russia to extend its aggression into NATO territory, according to Jones, who said, "They're having enough problems right now in in Ukraine."
"With an industrial base that's stretched, with an army that can't even defeat a second or third-rate power, the idea that they would expand this to include NATO countries ... would be very irrational," Jones added.
But Putin's decision to invade in the first place was perhaps less than rational, and even if too conventionally depleted to match the U.S. and its allies, Russia still wields an awesome unconventional arsenal.
"The cloak has been pulled back -- Russia is not a superpower, militarily, at all. But they have 6,000 nuclear weapons," Mulroy said.
While Putin has not followed through on several previous threats, the prospect of Ukraine using long-range American missiles to hit targets across its border would likely be the greatest "red line" test of the conflict so far.
Jones and Mulroy both believe Ukraine could put ATACMS to better use pushing Russian forces out of its territory than by striking the Russian mainland.
Either way, while a beleaguered Kyiv could be morally and strategically justified in deciding to hit the land of its aggressor, land which is being used to launch attacks on Ukraine and to supply the Russian war effort, such a move could have unintended consequences.
"I'm suggesting that we give them what they need to fight and repel them out of Ukraine, but not taking strikes in Russia, which could then basically shore up president Putin's support," Mulroy said.
The U.S. could also offer ATACMS on condition they only be used within Ukraine. Once the missiles were in Ukraine, the restrictions could always be loosened if the U.S. deemed necessary.
After a year, will US strategy in Ukraine bring victory or stalemate?
After a year of war, is the U.S. strategy to help Ukraine win or to force a stalemate?abcnews.go.com
Here we are a year later...
At the start of this war I (and others - maybe even Putin) thought or hoped this might be a short war, but the landscape has changed such that we now understand the depth of Putin’s desperation.
All early attempts at worldwide propaganda no longer fool those outside Russia.
Along with a majority of Americans I don’t believe that Putin would stop at the Ukraine border should Russia manage to be the victor.
He’s a crazy and thoroughly evil man and Ukraine must win this war.
The “big” increase is for an extra 300 military personnel. Are they serious?
And still many NATO countries are laggards. They have been since WWII.
We’re the financially overstretched parent who still makes the bed and picks up Juniors clothes off the floor after he says he’ll get to it. Junior is 40, still living at home, and living off Mom and Dad. He knows if he waits Mom will just do it so he’s playing the game.
The Germans are leading the way on this behavior.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,923
- 204,216
- 113
I have a question.
How are you able to write things like "our plan right now is to write checks" with such authority?
What high-level Pentagon and White House meetings have you attended? Are you on the House Armed Services Committee? Have you been in communication with Ukrainian war planners? Are you involved in the procurement of NATO weapon deliveries?
Or are you some guy in Iowa just pulling shit out of your ass?
It's fair to point out my information is based solely off what is available and the statements made by our president.
The restocking cost torbs, that gets put on this tab at the end right?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,923
- 204,216
- 113
This is an excellent read:
www.wsj.com
Here is a free link for non-subscribers: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-co...ge6b9iq5jyz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The Conflict in Ukraine Offers Old—and New—Lessons in 21st-Century Warfare
One year in, Russian underperformance and Ukraine’s overperformance so far don’t tell us how the war ends.
www.wsj.com
Here is a free link for non-subscribers: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-co...ge6b9iq5jyz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,923
- 204,216
- 113
My point is it is awfully presumptuous of you to proclaim that no one in the U.S. government is operating with a long-range plan. I find that to be highly, highly unlikely.
You and I can agree that there will be a day when our government attempts to explain to us why we need to spend an assload of money resupplying ourselves correct? We may be sending them all our 2nd gen shit but we won't replace it with 2nd generation shit we will replace it with new stuff.
(Sorry man but I watched them pull out of Afghanistan, I'm nor giving anyone the benefit of the doubt on having a plan)
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,923
- 204,216
- 113
They have already explained it --- it is to materially demonstrate that there is Western resolve to protect democracy and the rights of sovereign nations.
Not complicated.
So that Bill, likely in the trillions, for why we need to replace our stock, that goes on the cost of our involvement here right?
Example:
If they said "we need to spend x trillion on our military" right now, we would all tell them to get ****ed.
Yet, when they say it is backfilling for all the shit we sent over it will be passed without thought. ( but we wouldn't need to buy them or have justification for needing to buy them if we were not sending all our hand me downs away)
I thought we were sending obsolete equipment and not the “good” stuff? Rotating our stock so to speak…
We are, but they won't replace it with obsolete stuff. They will use this to justify why we need more new shit, that's what I'm saying. And that cost should be accounted for in the cost of our engagement in this conflict.
OTOH I find it highly disturbing to leave behind hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment in Afghanistan as top notch long range strategy.
What genius executed that “plan”?
