War in Ukraine

#86,526
#86,526
#86,527
#86,527
dalton_vol said:
It baffles me that you guys think that posting Russian losses is a win, when Ukraine is probably losing 2 to 3 more times that amount
Click to expand...
you are going to need to back that claim up. at least if you mean combat troops, if you are including civilian losses its probably pretty close.

granted I don't think Russia has hit 900k casualties. probably a little more than half of that. but the most favorable to Russia projections have the losses hovering around 1:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#86,530
#86,530
GmyjPdxbMAAebgp
 
#86,531
#86,531
BeardedVol said:
Why not? Trump has already stated that he wouldn't defend a NATO member that he didn't feel was paying an arbitrarily high enough amount of their GDP towards defense spending.
Click to expand...
1. Its not arbitrary, its the NATO requirements of 2%
2. Those 2 have been. both are just under 4%, with plans to be up to 5%. so even in your bad argument they wouldn't be excluded in Trump's requirements.
3. There is still the rest of NATO to contend with, even outside of the US. Putin knows if Russia struggled this much dealing with only support from NATO, that real NATO, with or without the US, is going to be too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#86,532
#86,532
LouderVol said:
1. Its not arbitrary, its the NATO requirements of 2%
2. Those 2 have been. both are just under 4%, with plans to be up to 5%. so even in your bad argument they wouldn't be excluded in Trump's requirements.
3. There is still the rest of NATO to contend with, even outside of the US. Putin knows if Russia struggled this much dealing with only support from NATO, that real NATO, with or without the US, is going to be too much.
Click to expand...
1. It is arbitrary, the 2% was a guideline percentage of defense spending established back in 2006, and reaffirmed in 2014. It also has zero bearing on NATO common funding, and as I've pointed out previously "defense spending" is such a broad term under NATO guidelines, that increased defense spending doesn't necessarily translate to increased military capabilities.

2. The fact that Trump has even stated that there is a scenario where Article 5 would not be honored is enough to cast doubt on the US participating in the common defense of NATO allies.

3. The US is still the primary provider for logistics and intelligence for NATO. If we bowed out in an Article 5 scenario, the response form the other members would be crippled.
 
#86,533
#86,533
Glocker_Alum_2005 said:
MAGA admin will spend the first two years scapegoating Biden and Dems for every misstep and negative outcome, regardless. Trump is Teflon. By then, Ukraine will part of Russia. Elon and his subsidiaries will be running the Fed government--charging the taxpayers even more $$$ for government contracted personnel, that will replace civil servants. The only remaining civil servants will be Schedule F sycophants. Any swing state Secretaries of State will be MAGA and rigging elections to favor MAGA. MAGA tech oligarchy will get their $2.3T tax cut funded by evicerating safety net programs Medicaid and Medicare, Federal retirements, Free school lunches, HBCUs, OSHA, FAA, CDC and NIH research, IRS audit (so the 1% can cheat on their taxes even more than they already do). US will be even more isolated and the rolling 8% cuts to DoD top line coupled with wanning recruiting will diminish readiness. All of which will embolden China, to go ahead and take Taiwan, then setting this sights on S. Korea and Japan. But hey, at least we all got our $5K DOGE dividend.
Click to expand...
Damn son that's some unhinged rant right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and norrislakevol
#86,534
#86,534
BeardedVol said:
1. It is arbitrary, the 2% was a guideline percentage of defense spending established back in 2006, and reaffirmed in 2014. It also has zero bearing on NATO common funding, and as I've pointed out previously "defense spending" is such a broad term under NATO guidelines, that increased defense spending doesn't necessarily translate to increased military capabilities.

2. The fact that Trump has even stated that there is a scenario where Article 5 would not be honored is enough to cast doubt on the US participating in the common defense of NATO allies.

3. The US is still the primary provider for logistics and intelligence for NATO. If we bowed out in an Article 5 scenario, the response form the other members would be crippled.
Click to expand...
Oh well. They better open their checkbooks then for a change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#86,535
#86,535
BeardedVol said:
1. It is arbitrary, the 2% was a guideline percentage of defense spending established back in 2006, and reaffirmed in 2014. It also has zero bearing on NATO common funding, and as I've pointed out previously "defense spending" is such a broad term under NATO guidelines, that increased defense spending doesn't necessarily translate to increased military capabilities.

2. The fact that Trump has even stated that there is a scenario where Article 5 would not be honored is enough to cast doubt on the US participating in the common defense of NATO allies.

3. The US is still the primary provider for logistics and intelligence for NATO. If we bowed out in an Article 5 scenario, the response form the other members would be crippled.
Click to expand...
Number 3 is part of the problem. For too long Europe has ridden our coattails and neglected to provide for their own intelligence and defense capabilities because we always did it for them.

It's like the kid who's parents always put money on their bank account so they never got a job and moved out.

This is a course correction that's been needed for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL and hog88
#86,536
#86,536
BeardedVol said:
1. It is arbitrary, the 2% was a guideline percentage of defense spending established back in 2006, and reaffirmed in 2014. It also has zero bearing on NATO common funding, and as I've pointed out previously "defense spending" is such a broad term under NATO guidelines, that increased defense spending doesn't necessarily translate to increased military capabilities.

2. The fact that Trump has even stated that there is a scenario where Article 5 would not be honored is enough to cast doubt on the US participating in the common defense of NATO allies.

3. The US is still the primary provider for logistics and intelligence for NATO. If we bowed out in an Article 5 scenario, the response form the other members would be crippled.
Click to expand...
what the eff does the common funding of NATO have to do with anything? Even in that link it says the total is 4.6 billion, hardly going to fight a war with that money. If its a guideline, its a guideline and not arbitrary. just because Trump is the first one to actually hold to the standard doesn't make it an arbitrary standard.

enough doubt for someone playing partisan politics who doesn't understand what they are talking about and just wants to use catchphrases.

and if the rest of NATO thought it was a serious threat by Trump to pull out they would fix that problem pronto. I don't see any proposals to fix or change that status, so clearly the people actually in power and in charge of these decisions aren't as worried as you are.
 
#86,538
#86,538
LouderVol said:
what the eff does the common funding of NATO have to do with anything? Even in that link it says the total is 4.6 billion, hardly going to fight a war with that money. If its a guideline, its a guideline and not arbitrary. just because Trump is the first one to actually hold to the standard doesn't make it an arbitrary standard.

enough doubt for someone playing partisan politics who doesn't understand what they are talking about and just wants to use catchphrases.

and if the rest of NATO thought it was a serious threat by Trump to pull out they would fix that problem pronto. I don't see any proposals to fix or change that status, so clearly the people actually in power and in charge of these decisions aren't as worried as you are.
Click to expand...

The Baltic Nations pull their weight in NATO as well. People haven't focused on the fact that the Trump/US anger towards NATO is primarily directed at the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain to put more into their military. Eastern Europe tends to carry their weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL
#86,539
#86,539
LouderVol said:
you are going to need to back that claim up. at least if you mean combat troops, if you are including civilian losses its probably pretty close.

granted I don't think Russia has hit 900k casualties. probably a little more than half of that. but the most favorable to Russia projections have the losses hovering around 1:1.
Click to expand...
So I would ask what were to numbers of Ukraine and russian soldiers when this war started? I believe Russia had 2x to 2.5x the number of Ukrainians. A 1:1 ratio is still really bad for Ukraine
 
#86,544
#86,544
KB5252 said:
Number 3 is part of the problem. For too long Europe has ridden our coattails and neglected to provide for their own intelligence and defense capabilities because we always did it for them.

It's like the kid who's parents always put money on their bank account so they never got a job and moved out.

This is a course correction that's been needed for decades.
Click to expand...
While others should pay their way out of respect for allies and, more importantly, for their own self-sufficiency, it isn’t an accident that the US paid such a large proportion. Having poorly armed Euro states that have been consistently at war for 1000 years means more global security and limits brinkmanship. Also, the US expenditures also meant a very clear leadership position and the resulting ability to pursue its interests. It was an investment (maybe a poor one) and not charity.
 
#86,545
#86,545
BeardedVol said:
Context matters.
www.theguardian.com

Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands

President draws parallel with tsar who waged war on Sweden and says campaign in Ukraine stems from ‘basic values’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Which other lands do you think Putin considers "Russian lands" that must be retaken? Georgia? Latvia? Estonia?
Click to expand...
You must have a major problem with Poland, Lithuania, Denmark, and Norway, too. Should they be kicked out of the Western Alliance as Russia’s allies in the Northern War?

So your position is that all territorial acquisitions after 1700 are illegitimate?

And what’s wrong with Peter the Great? Who do you expect him to cite as a predecessor, George Washington?
 
Last edited:
#86,546
#86,546
BeardedVol said:
Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
View attachment 730328
Click to expand...
We funnel all sorts of other money there, offsetting much of their spending. Also a huge amount of our NATO costs are not counted as official NATO spending. The books are cooked. Finally, the “official” or deceptive figures are unreliable anyway since the military fails every audit. Really, you can quit citing those numbers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU, InVOLuntary and norrislakevol
#86,547
#86,547
Orange. said:
We funnel all sorts of other money there, offsetting much of their spending. Also a huge amount of our NATO costs are not counted as official NATO spending. The books are booked. Finally, the “official” or deceptive figures are unreliable anyway since the military fails every audit. Really, you can quit citing those numbers.
Click to expand...

Lol, none of which is affected by any county spending 2% of GDP or not on their own defense spending.

Nor does the US footing the bill for our own extracurricular NATO exercises alleviate our obligations under the cost-sharing agreement that is the NATO common budget.

As to your foray into the non sequitur...

1742904246859.jpeg
 
#86,548
#86,548
Orange. said:
You must have a major problem with Poland, Lithuania, Denmark, and Norway, too. Should they be kicked out of the Western Alliance as Russia’s allies in the Northern War?

So your position is that all territorial acquisitions after 1700 are illegitimate?

And what’s wrong with Peter the Great? Who do you expect him to cite as a predecessor, George Washington?
Click to expand...
My position is that after the forced association of the USSR finally collapsed in 1991, that Russia has no claims to any of the countries that they formerly occupied and forced into that association.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and McDad
#86,549
#86,549
dalton_vol said:
So I would ask what were to numbers of Ukraine and russian soldiers when this war started? I believe Russia had 2x to 2.5x the number of Ukrainians. A 1:1 ratio is still really bad for Ukraine
Click to expand...
That's true, but since this is a World War I type of war and the Ukrainians have been on the defensive most of the time, common logic would state that Russia has heavier combat losses due to their constant attacks against fortified positions. Still, yes, Ukraine has a personnel numbers issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#86,550
#86,550
dalton_vol said:
So I would ask what were to numbers of Ukraine and russian soldiers when this war started? I believe Russia had 2x to 2.5x the number of Ukrainians. A 1:1 ratio is still really bad for Ukraine
Click to expand...
Russia isn't able to devote every single soldier they have to fighting Ukraine. Ukraine on the other hand is able to devote every single soldier they have to fighting Russia.

the initial Russian invasion was only like 300k, they ramped up over time as the fight drug on and they had to shift from a quick knock out blow of Kiev to an occupation and WW1 style fight.

Russia CAN maintain longer than Ukraine. i have never argued otherwise. the issue is Ukraine is probably more willing to sustain those losses than Russia is. Ukraine loses, they don't exist anymore. Russia loses, and they go back to there 2013 borders. no real loss for Russia. Its going to be worth a higher percentage to ukraine to survive than it is for the russians to take.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top