The Western Alliance accepts no responsibility for advancing hostility -through NATO expansion- on to Russia’s doorstep. The Western Alliance has attempted to sanction Russia out of the global economy. With the same Western Alliance now positioning for war, why would Putin adhere to their limitations?

In addition to these data points from today, the saber rattling from the DC foreign policy and war machine financial system is on display in the Biden policy as transmitted from Warsaw. Again, just today.

Like us, I’m pretty sure from watching his statements and eventual policies over the past several years, President Donald Trump views foreign policy through the prism of economics. If “economic security is national security,” then what is it when economic insecurity is an intentional design policy?

All of the economic data points have aligned toward direct military conflict between the Western Alliance and Russia that expands beyond the proxy war in Ukraine.

https://theconservativetreehou...for-war/#more-243565

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Russia has no ability to exert their influence to any place in the world that isn't contiguous with Russia itself. Their logistics are shit and aren't set up to only supply what's required but instead, they send everything forward. That ends of costing logistics energy to send things to units who haven't requested everything they received but that's the Russian way. When unit receive things they didn't request, the excess materials are sold off to locals and the cash pocketed. Their have horrible logistics and it's part of their current problems.

I read a few articles about this a while back. It's one of those nuances that, as a military history fan but not an expert, I never realized.

Basically, the reason why Russia has "push" logistics instead of the traditional "pull" logistics is that their entire logistics system is still built around their Cold War logistics doctrine whose underlying assumption was that any significant war fought by Russia would be taking place after a nuclear exchange. Such a nuclear exchange would render communications and command guidance spotty or nonexistent, so their logistics system is set up to continuously send out what they assume their various units need, without waiting to learn what they actually need, since they may not be able to receive word of what they actually need. That makes a certain amount of sense for a nuclear conflict specifically, but because that underpins every aspect of their logistics, they don't have the capability to pivot to a more effective "pull" system in a non-nuclear conflict like this.

That was interesting to learn, and helps one to understand why Russian logistics is so terribly inefficient and wasteful. "Here's a bunch of crap that you may or may not actually need. If you don't need it, just get rid of it. And if you need something and don't have it, well too bad. Maybe it'll show up in the next supply push. Or not."

So you start with a terribly inefficient logistics system to begin with, and then from there you factor in the widespread corruption that led to stuff like supplies existing on paper, but not actually in practice, since the supply warehouse commanders before the way broke out had been fudging the supply figures to line their own pockets, banking on nobody ever finding out. Until a war breaks out and they need those 200k uniforms or 5M rounds of ammo that it turns out don't actually exist.

And then you factor in the massive overall neglect and lack of preventative maintenance across the Russian military stockpiles.

As a result, Russian logistics as a whole is a massive dumpster fire.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^Well, you can start with everything in the linked article/'opinion piece' shown in bold in my previous post...

None of which actually addresses the arguments made in the opinion piece Sigfreund posted.

quote:

Western politicians preaching “peace”: Who...There aren't any!

We've seen pressure for negotiations from Macron, from Scholz, from Trump, from various Republicans in the House, from Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard (both of whom were standing in front of Communist flags at a rally when they said what they did_...there's plenty of Western politicians preaching peace.

quote:

Many in the U.S. and Europe are ready to head to a negotiating table: Really...Who? Again, there aren't any!

You're just repeating what you said before - so reread what I just wrote above.

quote:

The fastest route to peace then is defeating Mr. Putin: This claim is just ridiculous! ZERO evidence that statement has ANY basis in reality! Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan are prime examples that the exact opposite is the most likely outcome!

There's nothing ridiculous about it. All concessions, sanctions and attempts to negotiate on a level playing field have done is encourage Putin to launch military attacks, cut off energy supplies, threaten to induce nuclear meltdowns, kidnap Ukrainian children - and adults - on a mass basis and issue extremist demands while making hollow threat after hollow threat to use weapons of mass destruction and encouraging his Foreign Minister to threaten invasions elsewhere in Europe. Where Putin has stopped before, his stopping has been proven (particularly by the current invasion of Ukraine and the threatened invasion of Moldova) to be nothing more than a pause in his attacks. Defeating Putin militarily in Ukraine is the only option Putin has left the West, because his behavior since 1999 clearly shows that he won't be stopped in any other way.

quote:

Then these objections suddenly vanish after criticism in public and from Congress: There are NO objections...The repeated by all promoting the war narrative/policy/agenda is 'As long as it takes, whatever it costs'!

And this proves...what, besides the fact that Biden is a dithering old man? We already knew that, and Putin still has his back on the ropes as can be seen by his (so far ineffective) mass mobilizations, his reliance on Wagner and his having to spend thousands of Russian lives just to take one little town (Bakhmut).

quote:

Can we skip ahead and provide F-16 fighter jets now?: The Military Industrial Complex is ALL IN for Ukraine!

Actually a lot of people are "all in" for making Putin's apparently inevitable military defeat happen sooner rather than later and with fewer civilian casualties. You'd be right in thinking that there's broad enough support for defeating Putin that political leaders have publicly committed to seeing the conflict all the way through. That deprives Putin of any illusion that bullshit can win him what the Russian Army could not. Given the commitment, that's also why it makes sense to send weapons that will hasten the end of the fighting in Ukraine rather than giving Putin what he wants and achieving (based on Putin's historical behavior) nothing more than kicking the can down the road and hoping it'll take Russia a long time to launch another inevitable attack. The only way to prolong the war is to simply dribble a few weapons out to Ukraine over the long term rather than providing the means to Ukraine to actually end the fighting.

quote:

EVERYONE is for prolonging the war, and NOBODY is promoting peace! It's ALL Propaganda!

See the above. More and better weapons to Ukraine will shorten the war and lead to a defeat for Russia that will make it clear to the Russians that aggression in the future will not gain Russia anything.

Now, do you have any facts of your own to offer? Or are you reduced to hoping that taking potshots at what others say will be enough to persuade others to agree with you?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
<snip>
And then you factor in the massive overall neglect and lack of preventative maintenance across the Russian military stockpiles.

As a result, Russian logistics as a whole is a massive dumpster fire.

I believe that General James Mattis said words to this effect:

“Good generals study military history. Great generals study logistics.”

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The Western Alliance accepts no responsibility for advancing hostility -through NATO expansion- on to Russia’s doorstep.

Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation that has the freedom to join whatever alliances it chooses. Where was Russia's concern when West Germany was in NATO...right on their doorstep?

quote:

The Western Alliance has attempted to sanction Russia out of the global economy.

Russia gets sanctioned because Russia doesn't play nice with the rest of the world. Sanctions get imposed when behavior/actions don't meet the standards of the rest of civilized society. Want the sanctions lifted? Behave.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
All of the economic data points have aligned toward direct military conflict between the Western Alliance and Russia that expands beyond the proxy war in Ukraine.

And yet none of the facts on the ground actually support that point of view.

- We've always used sanctions as a "step short of war" to attempt to persuade others to modify their behavior. This is particularly appropriate given that Putin has made no bones about his expectation that Russia's ability to control Europe's energy supplies gives him the ability to arbitrarily change Western European countries' public policies. No country will willingly tolerate that sort of external control.

- The Western Alliance can hardly be accused of encroaching on Russian security when independent sovereign nations with decades (if not centuries) of experience of being Russia's neighbors come to NATO and apply for membership in order to gain some protection from the horrors of the past that Putin has openly threatened to inflict on them again.

- Putin has threatened Western Europe, and the Europeans are rearming. The US is also reinforcing NATO allies like Poland against a repeatedly-threatened Russian invasion. NATO and Western allies have agreed to supply Ukraine in its fight for self-determination, and have therefore had to build up supplies and service capacity in Europe around Ukraine in order to make good on that agreement. If NATO was gearing up for a war, we'd see a lot more weapons being sent over, and a lot fewer weapons being sent to Ukraine since NATO would have to look to its own needs first if it planned to go to war.

Well, at least this thread is back on track now...Promulgating propaganda!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Well, at least this thread is back on track now...Promulgating propaganda!

And you still haven't managed to come up with any facts or logical arguments at all. But, hey - maybe a snide comment is just as good as the truth, right?

Some of you guys might want to go back and read Para's post in his Zelensky no more thread.

You guys can roll your marbles around in the round room until the cows come home for all I care. But for the most part he has it exactly right.

ANY effort to retake Crimea would change things markedly, as in ways that are unimaginable! Crimea is Russia's 'red line' so to speak, and that's in part, why they 'annexed' it in 2014. Back them into that corner and it's EVERYONE's worst nightmare...ANYONE that doesn't understand that is dangerously Naive!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
ANY effort to retake Crimea would change things markedly, as in ways that are unimaginable! Crimea is Russia's 'red line' so to speak, and that's in part, why they 'annexed' it in 2014. Back them into that corner and it's EVERYONE's worst nightmare...ANYONE that doesn't understand that is dangerously Naive!

Putin threatened to use weapons of mass destruction if there were any strikes in Crimea, and made a point of citing the fact that it has been formally annexed as proof that he meant what he said.

Then there were strikes in Crimea and Putin did absolutely nothing except blow up a few plainly civilian apartment complexes in Ukraine.

Red line or no red line, Putin has proven that an attack on Crimea will not lead Russia to all-out conventional war or nuclear strikes.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
ANY effort to retake Crimea would change things markedly, as in ways that are unimaginable! Crimea is Russia's 'red line' so to speak, and that's in part, why they 'annexed' it in 2014. Back them into that corner and it's EVERYONE's worst nightmare...ANYONE that doesn't understand that is dangerously Naive!

So we should just toss our hands up, ignore that Russia used a post Cold War treaty they signed as toilet paper when they invaded and occupied Crimea, and then should we should just let Russia keep that. Oh, and let Russia occupy Ukraine and Moldova because Russia wants those too. And when the west complains, Putin just has to wave an ICBM at us we just roll over for him.

Is it irony that the guy with "LIVE FREE OR DIE" as a signature is advocating American policy should be others just raise the white flag, and accept Putin/Pooh Bear/Kim Jong Un's occupation and/or genocide?

I think many around here believe that Europe should handle Europe’s problems. They are neighbors with a giant that doesn’t mind expanding back into it’s old borders. This is nothing new. It was perfectly preventable. Europe, including Ukraine, should have funded their defense rather than handing out freebies, promoting corruption, and wasting resources by opening the gates to an invasion from the third world. Now the American taxpayer is supposed to fix it by flooding Ukraine with printed money supported by nothing but our retirement savings?

quote:

I think many around here believe that Europe should handle Europe's problems...

We've had troops stationed in Germany since WWII. That war ended 77 years ago.

By pledging our own military we have enabled Europe to spend its' money on social programs. We are the enabler of socialism abroad, and now our youngest generations want socialism at home.


Social Security is Broke, but American Taxpayers Just Gave Ukrainian Pensioners a Double-Digit Raise
By William Sullivan

As American taxpayers paying into Social Security today stare down the barrel toward substantial cuts to their own benefits, estimated to take place in 2034, they can at least take solace in knowing that all categories of Ukrainian pensioners will get a 20% raise in March 2023. “As early as this March,” says Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, “the government will index pensions by 20%” for about 10 million Ukrainians.

Indexing the payments “is not mandatory according to the Law of Ukraine on the State Budget for 2023,” but benevolent President Zelensky has instructed them to reprice the benefits upwards anyway.

And why wouldn’t he? His government is swimming in American cash.

Americans have spent more than $100 billion on aid to Ukraine. And, as the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian government is undoubtedly well aware, money is fungible.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ubledigit_raise.html

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Putin threatened to use weapons of mass destruction if there were any strikes in Crimea, and made a point of citing the fact that it has been formally annexed as proof that he meant what he said.

Then there were strikes in Crimea and Putin did absolutely nothing except blow up a few plainly civilian apartment complexes in Ukraine.

Red line or no red line, Putin has proven that an attack on Crimea will not lead Russia to all-out conventional war or nuclear strikes.

Indeed. There were supposedly Ukrainian strikes on cities in Russian-annexed Donbas just today that were previously thought out of reach, which pro-Russian Telegram channels have implied were by newly-delivered US long-range weapons (though it would be a little early for GLSDB, which was suggested to take up to nine months to become operational when it was announced on 3 February). There have been marine drone attacks on Russian Navy ships at anchorage in Sevastopol, and of course the bombing of the bridge between Crimea and Russia proper. There have in fact been incidental artillery strikes on unequivocally Russian towns near the Ukrainian border, with civilian casualties; there have even been drone attacks on strategic bomber bases deep inside Russia.

Yet there are no nukes flying because despite all the rhetoric out of Moscow, this is no existential war with the West for Russia, rather than a colonial adventure gone wrong. Escalating to the nuclear stage to save a land grab would be self-defeating as it would put the very existence of the country at risk. Even Russian nuclear doctrine itself countermands that. They will no more risk this over Ukraine than over the US supplying Stingers to the Mujaheddin to kill Soviet troops in Afghanistan; or conversely, than the US did over the Soviets supplying every conventional weapon in their arsenal to North Vietnam, along with the instructors to teach them how to use them against American troops.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
And why wouldn’t he? His government is swimming in American cash.

Americans have spent more than $100 billion on aid to Ukraine. And, as the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian government is undoubtedly well aware, money is fungible.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ubledigit_raise.html

That would be a strong argument if it weren't for one fact - we aren't sending them money, we're sending them weapons, ammunition, medical gear and trainers. None of those things is being, or can be, turned into money to turn over to the pensioners. One has to wonder why the American Thinker is forced to clutch at straws that way just to come up with an argument.

^^^Uhhh, Newsflash...We're sending MONEY to Ukraine!

The United States Contributes $4.5 Billion to Support the Government of Ukraine
Tuesday, November 22, 2022

The United States, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and in coordination with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Department of State, is providing an additional $4.5 billion in direct budgetary support to the Government of Ukraine. The funding, which will help alleviate the acute budget deficit caused by Putin’s brutal war of aggression, was made possible with generous bipartisan support from Congress. The Government of Ukraine will receive the funding in two tranches before the end of 2022.

These funds, provided by the United States through the World Bank, allow the Government of Ukraine to withstand the immense economic, social, and political pressures from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. This assistance keeps basic government services like hospitals, schools, and utilities running, and it sustains support for emergency responders and firefighters that save the lives of Ukrainian citizens every day. The budget assistance maintains support to Ukrainians further pushed into poverty since the start of the war, including low-income individuals, seniors, children with disabilities, and internally displaced persons. It will also provide new housing and utility subsidies over the winter season in response to Putin’s brutal assault on Ukraine’s electricity and heating infrastructure.

Once these additional funds are fully disbursed, the U.S. government will have provided $13 billion in direct budgetary support to the Government of Ukraine. Robust safeguards put in place by the World Bank, coupled with USAID-funded, expert third-party monitoring support embedded within the Ukrainian government, ensure accountability and transparency in the use of these funds.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, USAID has been coordinating with humanitarian partners in the country and region to provide Ukrainians with lifesaving humanitarian assistance while also ramping up critical development assistance to respond to cyber-attacks and threats to the energy sector, countering disinformation, supporting small businesses and the agriculture sector, documenting human rights violations, meeting essential health needs, and bolstering the continued functioning of local, regional, and national government entities.

The United States remains committed to supporting Ukraine and its people in the wake of the Kremlin’s unprovoked and unjustified war.

https://www.usaid.gov/news-inf...t-government-ukraine

nhracer is going to have an stroke when he reads up on the Marshall plan....

Gustofer

quote:

Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation that has the freedom to join whatever alliances it chooses. Where was Russia's concern when West Germany was in NATO...right on their doorstep?

By your reasoning:

Cuba is an independent sovereign nation that has the freedom to join whatever alliances it chooses. And to have what weapons the alliance gives it.

John Kennedy disagreed.

quote:

The Western Alliance accepts no responsibility for advancing hostility -through NATO expansion- on to Russia’s doorstep.

Would you say we provoked Japan in our expansion into the Pacific in the early parts of the 20th Century?