Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
The Saudis are not being given the money to pay for it, flat-out donated some of it, or getting manpower from volunteers. The Saudi military are a customer of the US military-industrial complex doing their own shit with it, whereas the Ukrainian military is being handed out almost everything needed to some degree AND using it almost exclusively in line with US goals.
The goals of the US and Ukraine are the same.
Destroy Russian military
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The Saudis are not being given the money to pay for it, flat-out donated some of it, or getting manpower from volunteers. The Saudi military are a customer of the US military-industrial complex doing their own shit with it, whereas the Ukrainian military is being handed out almost everything needed to some degree AND using it almost exclusively in line with US goals.
And how does it affect the point at all? Whether one gets foreign hardware through oil money or diplomacy, it's still nothing even close to said foreign country fighting for them.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
The goals of the US and Ukraine are the same.
Destroy Russian military
The point still stands that Ukraine's successes are primarily driven by exterior support, because the breakdown of the force is more direct NATO aid than local means of resistance.

By your logic, Soviet Union, France, UK and so on didn't fight in WW2, only USA, because everyone got a lot of US aid just because they were invaded by Nazis.
No, it would be that the Nazis were de facto fighting the USA long before Pearl Harbor, because their opponents really only held ground due to US aid. The point is not "Ukraine isn't the one fighting Russia", the point is "Russia is fighting more than Ukraine". This is proxy war bullshit 101, in the freshman geopolitics course.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The point still stands that Ukraine's successes are primarily driven by exterior support, because the breakdown of the force is more direct NATO aid than local means of resistance.
Wrong...
If the "local means of resistance" suck, no amount of resource support can get anything done.
See: Afghanistan.
See: Iraqis abandoning fully functional M1's.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Considering the sheer amount of money and weapons NATO nations have poured into Ukraine…well, as much as I hate to say it, they aren’t exactly wrong in the belief that this is NATO Vs Russia. Or that it plays a role in why Russia is losing.

How much of that is also due to corruption, poor planning and so on, I’ll leave for military historians to figure out in a decade from now. Because that’ll be about as long as it takes for the full picture to start to come into focus.
Not even one modern tank or plane,38 HIMARS,about 200 155mm guns....rest - old missiles,IFV and ammo,which NATO would scrapple anyway.
Yes,kgbstan surely is facing entire might of NATO :)
 

AmosTrask

Well-known member
Not even one modern tank or plane,38 HIMARS,about 200 155mm guns....rest - old missiles,IFV and ammo,which NATO would scrapple anyway.
Yes,kgbstan surely is facing entire might of NATO :)
Considering the gear the USA sold were rated to last only another year maybe three of full service and the USA is charging brand new prices. . . Yeah. The Eastern NATO gear is even more ancient than the American gear. The USA is making a killing in future profits and guaranteed favorable contracts in the rebuilding. While destroying the threat of Russia for generation or more. By which point USA technology will outstrip Russia and China making them irrelevant.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Wrong...
If the "local means of resistance" suck, no amount of resource support can get anything done.
See: Afghanistan.
See: Iraqis abandoning fully functional M1's.
Resource support is means. Your counter-examples are MOTIVE.

Without Starlink, they'd have incredibly limited communications by comparison, utterly crippling any kind of large-scale operation. Without the raw materiel, they'd have faced severe crunches in important areas by now. Without the finances, they'd have to juggle paying for hardware, maintenance, rations, and wages, most likely failing somewhere. And with the stuff being foreign aid, it's far less work to defend access because Russia starting shit over it risks Article 5.

The things they are doing could not be done without the piles of NATO support, which have been described as "fighting to the last Ukrainian" in official Biden administration statements. The Ukranian military is being used as a proxy by NATO to fight Russia, plain and simple, nobody up top is even pretending otherwise.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Resource support is means. Your counter-examples are MOTIVE.

Without Starlink, they'd have incredibly limited communications by comparison, utterly crippling any kind of large-scale operation. Without the raw materiel, they'd have faced severe crunches in important areas by now. Without the finances, they'd have to juggle paying for hardware, maintenance, rations, and wages, most likely failing somewhere. And with the stuff being foreign aid, it's far less work to defend access because Russia starting shit over it risks Article 5.

The things they are doing could not be done without the piles of NATO support, which have been described as "fighting to the last Ukrainian" in official Biden administration statements. The Ukranian military is being used as a proxy by NATO to fight Russia, plain and simple, nobody up top is even pretending otherwise.
So what?
Material support still doesn't replace the troops, the organization, the institutional culture and its leadership... It's still the latter fighting, we still don't live in Total Annihilation where robot armies fight. It's not that different from Soviets and UK getting US material support in WW2, or Vietnam getting support from USSR and China (and in that case the support was kinda more direct).
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Resource support is means. Your counter-examples are MOTIVE.

Without Starlink, they'd have incredibly limited communications by comparison, utterly crippling any kind of large-scale operation. Without the raw materiel, they'd have faced severe crunches in important areas by now. Without the finances, they'd have to juggle paying for hardware, maintenance, rations, and wages, most likely failing somewhere. And with the stuff being foreign aid, it's far less work to defend access because Russia starting shit over it risks Article 5.

The things they are doing could not be done without the piles of NATO support, which have been described as "fighting to the last Ukrainian" in official Biden administration statements. The Ukranian military is being used as a proxy by NATO to fight Russia, plain and simple, nobody up top is even pretending otherwise.

Indeed, in 2019 RAND Corporation produced the policy paper titled "Extending Russia":



Yes, the report says directly that about arming Ukraine, which @Zachowon noted started in 2018 under the Trump Administration:

uqFlU8Um_o.jpg


Also of note is this is the table of contents:


R3fM7Wg0_o.jpg


This war is the end result of years of the United States provoking the Russians into a direct conflict at every opportunity. Lethal aid to Ukraine? Started in 2018, RAND directly notes it can lead to war. Regime change in Belarus? Attempted in 2020, Lukashenko managed to fight it off. Exploit tensions in the South Caucasus? Done, via American-Israeli support to the Azeris, who defeated the Pro-Russian Armenians in their conflict in late 2020. Russian influence in Central Asia? Riots in Kazakhstan back in January, border battles between the Tajiks and Kyrgyz a few months ago. Also, in case anyone claims the Russians were making up the NATO membership threat up for Ukraine, ask them about NATO making Ukraine an Enhanced Opportunities Partner in June of 2020:



Make no mistake, the U.S. provoked this war and is using other people as cannon fodder to achieve its geopolitical aims.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
*Comparing a COIN conflict to Force on Force*
*comparing a nation the US left 2 years prior that actually lasted for those 2 years to a failed pullout that invovled pulling all military out in a night and forcing an evacuation in a civilian airport.*

Now, compare how Russia is doing to how the US did in both Iraq in 03 and in Desert Storm
 

mrttao

Well-known member
> USA unencumbered by idiocy would defeat russia
well, yes. because IRL both russia and USA are encumbered by idiocy
so if you magically wave a "de-moronize" wand to remove the stupid from one side. then they win.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
*Comparing a COIN conflict to Force on Force*

Original poster didn't make that distinction either, did they?

*comparing a nation the US left 2 years prior that actually lasted for those 2 years to a failed pullout that invovled pulling all military out in a night and forcing an evacuation in a civilian airport.*

U.S. signed the Doha Agreement in 2020, and started the withdrawal in early 2021. Final withdraw was occurring as the Taliban overran the country, notably defying the predictions of the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus which failed to anticipate such an eventuality.

Now, compare how Russia is doing to how the US did in both Iraq in 03 and in Desert Storm

I thought we couldn't compare COIN to force on force? The irony of attacking me for doing exactly what you proceed to do is not lost on me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top