(06-07-2022 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 08:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ffs by any reasonable measure ukraine is getting its ass kicked.

This fanboy crap wears me out

It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Depends on what its compared to. Had we not propped up Ukraine and the Russians rolled through it in few weeks---I suspect Russia would immediately be looking at using those successful forces to militarily enforce Putins demand that NATO roll back to its 1997 borders. That direct NATO vs Russia conflict is one we would by treaty have no option to "sit out". Based on the trillions we spent fighting the crappy little Taliban forces---we'd be looking at peer level European war costing trillions more than the value of the Ukrainian aid we are sending (not the mention that not a single American soldier has to die in Europe if a little Ukrainian aid can prevent Russia from ever getting past Ukraine).

That said---Im pretty certain when all this over---likely in a settlement (because I no longer think the Rusisans will achieve their goals)--we will be on the hook long term as the key protectorate for Ukraine's future security (possible in a coalition of the willing---maybe including the UK, Poland, and perhaps Germany or France).

First off the trillions fought in Afghanistan was spread out over 20 years and that was largely due to us being stupid about fighting it. We could have easily not gone there at all and the results would have been similar today. The moment we became energy independent is the day we should have stepped back and reduced our presence there. We could still play an active role but behind the scenes and as allies to the Saudis, UAE and Israel. Maybe Jordan and Lebanon and any other countries over there who were generally positive about U.S. relationships.

Also consider that the eastern European states who joined NATO were meant to be our buffer against the Russians invading the original NATO members. Previously, it was the original eastern most NATO members who were the buffers. Now we need buffers for our buffer's buffers? Ukraine would have likely turned into another Afghanistan or Chechnya if we did nothing. Maybe we quietly send support to them at lower levels. But guerilla warfare conducted by the willing is better than pumping all of that money into them now - IMHO. Before Putin could go on, they would have to pacify Ukraine first and that would still cause issues for them that would have delayed them while we would put a bunch of weapons in Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia and Hungary - the more important former Eastern Bloc nations. **** Moldova.

(06-08-2022 12:22 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 12:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 08:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  It's not an outright ass kicking and Ukraine (thru massive assists from NATO) is punching above their weight. That said, many of their victories are Pyrrhic due the imbalances in resources to the respective parties involved. It's a war of attrition that will sooner or later result in Russia taking over. It's costing Russia a lot to do this though.

Question is whether the $40 billion +, or whatever we spend in the end, is worth bleeding Russia's war capabilities. IMHO, demographics and internal corruption alone was already rotting the country from the inside...

Russia's running out of troops. They committed a couple hundred thousand to the invasion. Attrition will hit them worse unless they do a general mobilization which they have avoided so far. Ukraine is doing a general mobilization.

More than likely the U.S. will pay $80 - $100 billion to subsidize Ukraine militarily. After the war is over - and if Ukraine still exists as an independent entity - how much more will the U.S. be pumping into it for "humanitarian" aid? You know damn well Russia won't contribute a single ruble to rebuild it. Europe will cry poor mouth and turn to us. Assuming all this, we're probably going to pay $150 billion today for something that would have hit Russia anyways 10 years from now...

Is all this expense - including our own politicians skimming from the top - worth this outcome?

Depends on what its compared to. Had we not propped up Ukraine and the Russians rolled through it in few weeks---I suspect Russia would immediately be looking at using those successful forces to militarily enforce Putins demand that NATO roll back to its 1997 borders. That direct NATO vs Russia conflict is one we would by treaty have no option to "sit out". Based on the trillions we spent fighting the crappy little Taliban forces---we'd be looking at peer level European war costing trillions more than the value of the Ukrainian aid we are sending (not the mention that not a single American soldier has to die in Europe if a little Ukrainian aid can prevent Russia from ever getting past Ukraine).

That said---Im pretty certain when all this over---likely in a settlement (because I no longer think the Rusisans will achieve their goals)--we will be on the hook long term as the key protectorate for Ukraine's future security (possible in a coalition of the willing---maybe including the UK, Poland, and perhaps Germany or France).

First off the trillions fought in Afghanistan was spread out over 20 years and that was largely due to us being stupid about fighting it. We could have easily not gone there at all and the results would have been similar today. The moment we became energy independent is the day we should have stepped back and reduced our presence there. We could still play an active role but behind the scenes and as allies to the Saudis, UAE and Israel. Maybe Jordan and Lebanon and any other countries over there who were generally positive about U.S. relationships.

Also consider that the eastern European states who joined NATO were meant to be our buffer against the Russians invading the original NATO members. Previously, it was the original eastern most NATO members who were the buffers. Now we need buffers for our buffer's buffers? Ukraine would have likely turned into another Afghanistan or Chechnya if we did nothing. Maybe we quietly send support to them at lower levels. But guerilla warfare conducted by the willing is better than pumping all of that money into them now - IMHO. Before Putin could go on, they would have to pacify Ukraine first and that would still cause issues for them that would have delayed them while we would put a bunch of weapons in Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia and Hungary - the more important former Eastern Bloc nations. **** Moldova.

Ukraine is not a NATO member---nor is it a buffer. Its more of Russia's first stage of moving NATO back to its 1997 lines. Putin has made it clear the next step after Ukraine is Moldova and the old Warsaw Pact NATO members. If Putin cant get past Ukraine, then he can never take the next step which involves direct confrontation with NATO. I mean--not only has Putin directly stated that moving NATO back to its 1997 lines is a non-negotiable position that he intends to establish by whatever means necessary (including military force)---but he's established a fairly solid track record of using military force to expand into his neighbor's borders when the mood strikes. So I think that threat is very serious. Id also add its not that hard to pacify a nation if your willing to just kill anyone who is a potential issue. Russia doesnt subscribe to the western "innocent until proven guilty/due process" thing. When it comes to pacification---utter brutality has a pretty decent success record--thats how the Taliban and ISIS were able to successfully rule.

McDonalds is back in Moscow, sort of -

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/12/mcdonal...ussia-open

The successor restaurant's name, Vkusno & tochka, translates as "Tasty and that's it". Also reportedly considered were "Fun and Tasty", "The Same One", "Just Like That" and "Open Checkout". It's no golden arches, but the new logo is supposed to represent a burger and two fries -