The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)

[Catemus]

Here is another result of Ukraine’s use of kamikaze drones they reverse engineered from Russia’s Iranian-made drones.

Ukrainian kamikaze drones destroy Russian Tor-M2 and S-300VM air defence systems worth tens of millions of dollars

Following the TOS-1A Solntsek heavy flamethrower system, the Ukrainian Security Service has used kamikaze drones to target two anti-aircraft missile systems at once. The kamikaze drones have once again demonstrated their effectiveness.

gagadget.com

 

[rqarnold]

How much is it gonna cost us to rebuild Ukraine or what’s left of it? A helluva lot more than New Orleans.

At the same time leave sanctions on Russia for a nuked to the hilt country. Allow that country to become 1920s Germany. Yeah that will end well for those of you pissing your pants over Putin. The west will seize all Russian assets and turn it over to Ukraine. You see the frigging longterm predicament here? It’s no simple out. There aren’t alot or scenarios that don’t lead to Russia backed in a corner resorting to their nukes. That’s the strength of their military. It always has been that way since ww2.

I would say to one of these pro war guys. “Tell me how to sort out this predicament without a nuclear conflict”. Their replay would be “get rid of Putin and Russia retreat from Ukraine”. Well that crap ain’t happening so come up with another solution before we are implementing a draft. It’s a matter of time and it’s not on our side. Vhcat catemus hack you guys ready ti send your sons and daughters or your grandkids to fight for Eastern Europe? Lol wake up !

Russia/Putin knows nuclear war is a no win situation. It’s a suicide pact. Plus, they are right next door and would suffer the long term consequences of their actions as the fallout would drift to the east making much of western Russia unlivable. Even China has warned Russia against introducing nukes into the conflict. Think Putin wants to level Kiev knowing that Moscow would suffer the same fate?

 

[jameslee32]

 

[Catemus]

View embedded media

Another reflection of the arrogance of Russians towards Ukrainians. Putin intends to wipe rhe Ukrainian slate clean and supplant it with his twisted version of Russian culture.

 

[JumperJack]

I want what the Ukrainian people want. I see the war from their perspective since it was their country that was invaded. This is the first war that is available for viewing on YouTube and it’s easy to get their opinions about the war.

They have chosen to fight for their complete independence from Russia, something that infuriated Putin and has caused him to commit to such destruction of a sovereign nation and people.

As long as they choose to fight I think we, and the 50+ other countries who support them, should continue to help Ukraine as much as we can.

So this is where I completely disagree. We can’t be their blank check, with no worry for strategic repercussions. Up to a point we can sensibly help but not at our own risk. More importantly, not at the risk of much worse cascading outcomes.

 

[Spica Orbit]

War Pigs

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Yep.

As are “pro-war” or “warmonger” references.

I hesitated to use the term “pro-war,” but was not sure what phrase best described those who believe strongly that Putin must be defeated in this war for pro-US interests to triumph. That said, I don’t think posters here are generally pro-war. How would you summarize your position?

 

[vhcat70]

Well, we’ve all asked this multiple times but again, what’s the strategic gain in prolonging war instead of peace?

Because barring a full scale occupation of Russia like we did with Germany and Japan, they’re not changing. That’s the point.

That makes no sense. If Russia isn't changing there can be no long-term peace.

 

[vhcat70]

Maybe there are. I suppose you’re right although I doubt they are hiding behind every bush like some would think.

I’d say most of us want order restored asap.

You act like only the West can restore order with Russia bearing zero responsibility for that. Nuts I tell ya. You have such a one-sided position/argument.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I want what the Ukrainian people want. I see the war from their perspective since it was their country that was invaded. This is the first war that is available for viewing on YouTube and it’s easy to get their opinions about the war.

They have chosen to fight for their complete independence from Russia, something that infuriated Putin and has caused him to commit to such destruction of a sovereign nation and people.

As long as they choose to fight I think we, and the 50+ other countries who support them, should continue to help Ukraine as much as we can.

I am not sure this can be the basis of a foreign policy philosophy, unless we do accept the “world’s police” role.

Is there a sovereign we would not defend if invaded? If China invaded Russia, would we pick a side? Would we want what the Russians want and fight for their compete independence from China?

Foreign policy has to be premised on more, I think. What are the factors?

I think most who support the US’s deep involvement justify it by (1) promises made (but, we break promises when in our best interest, so this is a bit pretext) and (2) Russia will in fact harm the US because it will not stop at Ukraine. I respect the sincerity of this argument, but don’t buy it completely.

I don’t think that Russia occupying Ukraine harms the US directly. If I am wrong, explain it to me. We are not too far removed from the Soviet regime to see that Ukraine separate or Ukraine a part is not much different to the US. Again, I say that off the cuff. So, if wrong, educate me. US interest has been our general default in the past. And, in my lifetime, when we choose what we see as the lesser of two evils, it tends to bite our ass later down the road.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Here is another result of Ukraine’s use of kamikaze drones they reverse engineered from Russia’s Iranian-made drones.

Ukrainian kamikaze drones destroy Russian Tor-M2 and S-300VM air defence systems worth tens of millions of dollars

Following the TOS-1A Solntsek heavy flamethrower system, the Ukrainian Security Service has used kamikaze drones to target two anti-aircraft missile systems at once. The kamikaze drones have once again demonstrated their effectiveness.

gagadget.com

Watching a video about war put to music isn’t enjoyable to me. This is not a video game.

 

[vhcat70]

So this is where I completely disagree. We can’t be their blank check, with no worry for strategic repercussions. Up to a point we can sensibly help but not at our own risk. More importantly, not at the risk of much worse cascading outcomes.

If it was a blank check, money wouldn't need to be authorized.

All your worrying is imagining worse outcomes than current if we don't stop. My view is that there will be worse outcomes if we do stop. To each their own. But you just keep repeating this over & over. Annoying as hell.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

If it was a blank check, money wouldn't need to be authorized.

All your worrying is imagining worse outcomes than current if we don't stop. My view is that there will be worse outcomes if we do stop. To each their own. But you just keep repeating this over & over. Annoying as hell.

It seems odd that you are critical of his fear of worse outcomes when you justify your own position in the same post by the same logic

 

[vhcat70]

I am not sure this can be the basis of a foreign policy philosophy, unless we do accept the “world’s police” role.

Is there a sovereign we would not defend if invaded? If China invaded Russia, would we pick a side? Would we want what the Russians want and fight for their compete independence from China?

Foreign policy has to be premised on more, I think. What are the factors?

I think most who support the US’s deep involvement justify it by (1) promises made (but, we break promises when in our best interest, so this is a bit pretext) and (2) Russia will in fact harm the US because it will not stop at Ukraine. I respect the sincerity of this argument, but don’t buy it completely.

I don’t think that Russia occupying Ukraine harms the US directly. If I am wrong, explain it to me. We are not too far removed from the Soviet regime to see that Ukraine separate or Ukraine a part is not much different to the US. Again, I say that off the cuff. So, if wrong, educate me. US interest has been our general default in the past. And, in my lifetime, when we choose what we see as the lesser of two evils, it tends to bite our ass later down the road.

So where do we get involved beyond our borders? What's the philosophy beyond our "strategic interest" when that's not defined and agreed upon? Should we get out of NATO - I've seen that voiced here? Do we care if we get Taiwan's chips or not? Somehow thinking because a place is 5K miles away that we shouldn't care isn't very strategic. Something not harming us directly doesn't mean it's not a strategic loss imo.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

In race to arm Ukraine, U.S. faces cracks in its manufacturing might

- - - Correction: A previous version of this article mischaracterized why Scranton, Pa., is known as "Steamtown." The name is derived from the steam-powered locomotives that helped fuel the city's industrial rise, not the early pioneering or electric power. The article has been updated.Subscribe...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Wildcats1st]

Here is another result of Ukraine’s use of kamikaze drones they reverse engineered from Russia’s Iranian-made drones.

Ukrainian kamikaze drones destroy Russian Tor-M2 and S-300VM air defence systems worth tens of millions of dollars

Following the TOS-1A Solntsek heavy flamethrower system, the Ukrainian Security Service has used kamikaze drones to target two anti-aircraft missile systems at once. The kamikaze drones have once again demonstrated their effectiveness.

gagadget.com

And the Iranians are reverse engineering javelins.

 

[JumperJack]

How much is it gonna cost us to rebuild Ukraine or what’s left of it? A helluva lot more than New Orleans.

Russia/Putin knows nuclear war is a no win situation. It’s a suicide pact. Plus, they are right next door and would suffer the long term consequences of their actions as the fallout would drift to the east making much of western Russia unlivable. Even China has warned Russia against introducing nukes into the conflict. Think Putin wants to level Kiev knowing that Moscow would suffer the same fate?

You think we would use nukes against Russia? That makes no sense.

 

[Catemus]

Beginning of the end? Russian soldiers at the front are beginning to see the uselessness of this war.

The first video is from the YouTube channel Insights from Ukraine and Russia. The host is a paraplegic Ukrainian who intercepts and then translates messages between Russian soldiers and their friends and families. In this video a Russian soldier at the front line is talking mutiny and says he isn’t alone. He refers to Putin as “Vovka.” I couldn’t find the meaning of the word but I don’t think it’s nice.

The second video is self-explanatory and may be indicative of what is happening across the Russian front lines. Even at Bakhmut, a “strategic pause” has been ordered.

Each video is about 5 minutes, so it won’t take much of your time to watch them. The first one is especially entertaining.

 

[Catemus]

Watching a video about war put to music isn’t enjoyable to me. This is not a video game.

I didn’t record the video so I won’t defend or criticize the author’s tastes.

 

[Catemus]

I am not sure this can be the basis of a foreign policy philosophy, unless we do accept the “world’s police” role.

Is there a sovereign we would not defend if invaded? If China invaded Russia, would we pick a side? Would we want what the Russians want and fight for their compete independence from China?

Foreign policy has to be premised on more, I think. What are the factors?

I think most who support the US’s deep involvement justify it by (1) promises made (but, we break promises when in our best interest, so this is a bit pretext) and (2) Russia will in fact harm the US because it will not stop at Ukraine. I respect the sincerity of this argument, but don’t buy it completely.

I don’t think that Russia occupying Ukraine harms the US directly. If I am wrong, explain it to me. We are not too far removed from the Soviet regime to see that Ukraine separate or Ukraine a part is not much different to the US. Again, I say that off the cuff. So, if wrong, educate me. US interest has been our general default in the past. And, in my lifetime, when we choose what we see as the lesser of two evils, it tends to bite our ass later down the road.

This is my personal opinion. We each have our own. I’m just glad that we are helping Ukraine and I think it’s a just thing to do.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I think of San Diego every time i see your
screen name

Then i think of dan fouts

Is there ANY CHANCE you
actually look like
Dan
Fouts?

Shut up Brent!

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I didn’t record the video so I won’t defend or criticize the author’s tastes.

Uh, no one thought you recorded the video.

 

[WildcatofNati]

Yep.

As are “pro-war” or “warmonger” references.

I refrain from those epithets. I like "Jingo" and "warhawk". The former is admittedly kind of rude; the latter is kind of cool. If I was pro-war, I'd like to be called a "warhawk".

 

[WildcatofNati]

Pro-war means you are resolved to war being the best solution.

What the warhawks fail to realize is that we ALL lose World War 3. Some of them seriously believe that the Russian nukes probably don't work, anyway.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Shut up Brent!

Oh come on, no one picked up on this?

 

[The-Hack]

Some of them seriously believe that the Russian nukes probably don't work, anyway.

I think Russian nukes work, just not near as hard as ours. If they launch one at Lexington, it’ll probably peter-out near White Hall.

 

[The-Hack]

Do you live in Lex maybe?

Bought 30 minutes away.

An easy trip most days.

 

[The-Hack]

Oh come on, no one picked up on this?

My hair is shorter, as it went over my head, but soooo close to my scalp.

 

[The-Hack]

I don’t think posters here are generally pro-war. How would you summarize your position?

Since WWII, the generally accepted thought has been that military strength and preparedness is preventative of war. At least no power could rationally believe a Pearl Harbor attack could beat us.

The folks opposed to our level of support of Ukraine cringe every time “appeasement” is mentioned, but have not offered a compelling paradigm or view of the world and human nature to refute the hard lessons learned by the West from 1937 to 1940. Frankly, I think some of those posting, here, do not know the history of Chamberland/Munich, etc. Worse, they may not know that the opposite strategy is credited with the liberation of Eastern Europe and the fall of the Soviet Empire.

I think it is hilarious that anyone, here, could be called “pro-war,” simply because they believe a sovereign nation has the inherent right of self-defense . . . a basic principle of international law for hundreds of years, enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Our support is as likely to lead to a resumption of peace, as is any plan.

Had we not supported Ukraine, Great Briton and many others would have, and there would have been no quick Russian victory.

Frankly, given the harsh defense Ukraine has shown, a possible “worst case scenario” for the future security of the world would be a complete Russian victory. The Russians would face decades of terrorism fueled by absorbing 40 million angry and sullen people who are hardly distinguishable upon sight, and who would be able to move about the empire with impunity. They could wreck havoc for 100 years, if within the belly of the beast.

The oddest fact about this war seldom mentioned, is that China signed an agreement with Ukraine in 2014 to place Ukraine beneath China’s “nuclear umbrella.” Those who fear Russian use of nuclear weapons have little to fear: even if merely tactical nukes are used in Ukraine, proper, China is on the dotted line to come to Ukraine’s defense.

Hence, China has drawn a red line with Putin on their potential use.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Yeah, but is this armor better than M1 or Leopard offers? Perhaps not.

 

[CastleRubric]

Oh come on, no one picked up on this?

I won't lie to ya

I felt the good vibes fm the post & recognized that it was PROBABLY like B+ clever and worthy of recognition ...

But I assumed you were referencing Bret Bearup for some oblique reason ...

Amirite?

 

[CastleRubric]

If it was a blank check, money wouldn't need to be authorized.

All your worrying is imagining worse outcomes than current if we don't stop. My view is that there will be worse outcomes if we do stop. To each their own. But you just keep repeating this over & over. Annoying as hell.

Out of curiosity - what do you think may happen if the US military doesn't get involved?

And a general question to the crowd here -

How high is your confidence that our media outlets are accurately portraying the eurasian conflict?

 

[CastleRubric]

Separate topic -

i have mentioned how the USG legalized military grade PSYOPS force & influence against its own citizens (via the 2012 NDAA) -

Here are a couple of links on that subject

MSN Link - Army Considering Use of 'Deep Fakes' & Other PSYOP Weapons Systems Against US Citizens

Link to Army Procurement Document Citing Support for the Military to Utilize Operations against US Citizens

The Army Investigation of Alleged Use of PSYOPS Personnel during the J6 Protests/Brew-Ha-Ha

So this (Army Special Operations Forces) is my former customer & wound up being my final
MIC related assignment - that was the last 3 years here in LEX

 

[JumperJack]

Since WWII, the generally accepted thought has been that military strength and preparedness is preventative of war. At least no power could rationally believe a Pearl Harbor attack could beat us.

The folks opposed to our level of support of Ukraine cringe every time “appeasement” is mentioned, but have not offered a compelling paradigm or view of the world and human nature to refute the hard lessons learned by the West from 1937 to 1940. Frankly, I think some of those posting, here, do not know the history of Chamberland/Munich, etc. Worse, they may not know that the opposite strategy is credited with the liberation of Eastern Europe and the fall of the Soviet Empire.

I think it is hilarious that anyone, here, could be called “pro-war,” simply because they believe a sovereign nation has the inherent right of self-defense . . . a basic principle of international law for hundreds of years, enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Our support is as likely to lead to a resumption of peace, as is any plan.

Had we not supported Ukraine, Great Briton and many others would have, and there would have been no quick Russian victory.

Frankly, given the harsh defense Ukraine has shown, a possible “worst case scenario” for the future security of the world would be a complete Russian victory. The Russians would face decades of terrorism fueled by absorbing 40 million angry and sullen people who are hardly distinguishable upon sight, and who would be able to move about the empire with impunity. They could wreck havoc for 100 years, if within the belly of the beast.

The oddest fact about this war seldom mentioned, is that China signed an agreement with Ukraine in 2014 to place Ukraine beneath China’s “nuclear umbrella.” Those who fear Russian use of nuclear weapons have little to fear: even if merely tactical nukes are used in Ukraine, proper, China is on the dotted line to come to Ukraine’s defense.

Hence, China has drawn a red line with Putin on their potential use.

There’s a lot here:

-military preparedness to protect US, not the world. We can no longer afford to fight everyone’s wars.

-on that point, if the British or Germans would have supported Ukraine, why didn’t we step back and allow them to?

-Appeasement happened because the only alternative was war. You all completely misuse it in this context, as if Europe is cowering before some enormous war machine in 2023 as in 1938.

It cannot be simultaneously true that Russia has an outdated, 2nd rate military, but yet if we “appease” them by not intervening in Ukraine, they’ll use it to take over Europe.

Yet that is the pretzel of logic you stake yourself to when you compare this to 1938.

-We call you pro-war because you seem to be for this war continuing at any cost. There is a point (and it may have already passed) where clear heads must evaluate what it’s worth.

I have said from day 1 that this is a regional conflict that we have no business being in. This week China brokered a peace deal in the Mid-East. Let that sink in. While we focus on something with no real strategic value to us, our actual enemy (not Russia) is inserting itself into the heart of our energy supply. While we funnel billions to a kleptocracy to prolong a war, China assumes the mantle of peacemaker.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Had we not supported Ukraine, Great Briton and many others would have, and there would have been no quick Russian victory.

And here you may have stumbled on a point. You’re called pro war because we are US citizens and you want the US involved in a conflict half way around the world, yet you just said if the US wasn’t involved Ukraine would essentially be in the same spot.

The collective You claims anyone who doesn’t support US involvement in the war is pro Putin, yet you acknowledge Russia’s military is shit, and you claim other countries would step in and help Ukraine if we weren’t.

Meanwhile, the US is being invaded from the southern border, and we’re spending my tax dollars in one of the most corrupt cesspools on the planet.

 

[vhcat70]

It seems odd that you are critical of his fear of worse outcomes when you justify your own position in the same post by the same logic

If disagreeing is being critical, OK. But he offers no long-term solution, just whines over & over.

 

[vhcat70]

Out of curiosity - what do you think may happen if the US military doesn't get involved?

And a general question to the crowd here -

How high is your confidence that our media outlets are accurately portraying the eurasian conflict?

Deleted since he subsequently quoted my post with more questions vs. responding. Done.

Now you answer your own question.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

My hair is shorter, as it went over my head, but soooo close to my scalp.

Dan Fouts yelling at Brent Musberger in "Waterboy".

I won't lie to ya

I felt the good vibes fm the post & recognized that it was PROBABLY like B+ clever and worthy of recognition ...

But I assumed you were referencing Bret Bearup for some oblique reason ...

Amirite?

Dan Fouts and Brent Musberger from "Waterboy".

 

[Catemus]

There’s a lot here:

-military preparedness to protect US, not the world. We can no longer afford to fight everyone’s wars.

-on that point, if the British or Germans would have supported Ukraine, why didn’t we step back and allow them to?

-Appeasement happened because the only alternative was war. You all completely misuse it in this context, as if Europe is cowering before some enormous war machine in 2023 as in 1938.

It cannot be simultaneously true that Russia has an outdated, 2nd rate military, but yet if we “appease” them by not intervening in Ukraine, they’ll use it to take over Europe.

Yet that is the pretzel of logic you stake yourself to when you compare this to 1938.

-We call you pro-war because you seem to be for this war continuing at any cost. There is a point (and it may have already passed) where clear heads must evaluate what it’s worth.

I have said from day 1 that this is a regional conflict that we have no business being in. This week China brokered a peace deal in the Mid-East. Let that sink in. While we focus on something with no real strategic value to us, our actual enemy (not Russia) is inserting itself into the heart of our energy supply. While we funnel billions to a kleptocracy to prolong a war, China assumes the mantle of peacemaker.

-military preparedness to protect US, not the world. We can no longer afford to fight everyone’s wars.

Like it or not we are the world’s police. Yes, we can afford it. If we abdicate that role, China steps in. Good cop or bad cop?

Appeasement happened because the only alternative was war. You all completely misuse it in this context, as if Europe is cowering before some enormous war machine in 2023 as in 1938.

No one, not even us or China, knew that the Russian military had become so weak. That’s why nobody responded when Russia took Crimea in 2014 without a fight. By chance, or maybe his intel learned something from 2014, Volodymyr Zelensky chose to fight back in 2022. He exposed Russia as a weak and corrupt nation. That’s the only reason why Ukraine has received so much help.

I have said from day 1 that this is a regional conflict that we have no business being in.

There’s no such thing as regions of the world anymore. Technology has shrunk it so such that when something happens in one place, everyone on earth knows it and can observe it, often while it’s happening.

 

[entropy13]

Yeah, but is this armor better than M1 or Leopard offers? Perhaps not.

View embedded media

Now this is quite surprising. Pakistan had been getting quite close to China recently. I guess the almighty dollar trumps all.