Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
Poe
Well-known member
But, again, Russia can strike us with missiles now so why am I expected to think having Ukraine back increases the likelihood? There just isn't an argument to be made about them being more of a threat to the US here, it's always at its core an argument about them being a threat to other countries which is what I was initially responding to.
It means more resources, people, real estate to make more and better missiles...
And planes, submarines, radars etc to provide support and platforms for those missiles.
And also to help them remove those who would help you defend from their missiles and make them help defend from your missiles.
And that's without even getting into getting better positions for missiles and hybrid warfare.
Ever since before WW2, it was understood by anyone with an understanding of numbers and economics that even if between the oceans and economic might of USA it's hard to cause it much trouble conventionally, a sufficiently large in terms of economy and population hostile power or alliance of them can in fact do it to one degree or another, and wannabe great powers in the XIX century sense like Russia and China definitely have an ambition to be exactly that, and that would be the case without even touching the nuclear warfare layer pointed out above.
So Russia lost another AWACs version of the A-50, which is a rare plane RU cannot make more of anymore, and an IL-22M, which is a command and control bird that RU was supposed to only have 12 of, and already lost one to Ukraine and one to Prigizhin's march. UA also has knocked out like 6 Fullbacks in the last week or so, and is now is removing air craft Russia cannot replace from the board, while UA pilots are currently training in F-16's.
Ukraine's near-term strategy is becoming clear; wear down the Russian's air and naval assets that support the Russian ground forces. Lot easier for Ukraine to retake land if Russia doesn't have air assets to spare for it, without taking away from other borders or the nuclear forces, or have many/any cruise missile launchers left in the Black Sea.
Once Ukraine can own it's own skies and not fear cruise missile out of the Black Sea, it'll make retaking ground that much easier.
Ukraine's near-term strategy is becoming clear; wear down the Russian's air and naval assets that support the Russian ground forces. Lot easier for Ukraine to retake land if Russia doesn't have air assets to spare for it, without taking away from other borders or the nuclear forces, or have many/any cruise missile launchers left in the Black Sea.
Once Ukraine can own it's own skies and not fear cruise missile out of the Black Sea, it'll make retaking ground that much easier.
Poe
Well-known member
Yet if Russia takes Ukraine and Kazakhstan it's still smaller than it was 35 years ago and now has to deal with a powerful China to its south and a rising Iran to its southwest who will see it as a threat as well.
>deal with
This is some serious fucking fantasy land where wishful thinking always comes true just because.
Dude, do you read the news?
As things stand now, Iran is sending them fucking ballistic missiles and a significant part of their artillery shell and drone supply, and China is their main trading partner.
If Iran was seeing Russia as a threat, we both know it would be still sending them to Russia of course, but in a much faster way, under own power, through one of their proxies who are meant for it.
Poe
Well-known member
Oh look, another person who thinks making a personal attack will win them an argument. An alliance of weird bedfellows, historical enemies at that, because they have a common enemy up in all of their backyards
You fail to have any true understanding of the world or geopolitical realities and are regurgitating what the war hawks pay the news to make you think. Iran and Russia can not be allies long term because both of them require dominating central asia and the northern middle east for their own security and prosperity. Without us as the enemy to unite them against they will be, at best, spending their defense budgets in preparation to fight each other. At the very least they have to be ready for such an event and this is especially true if Iran comes to control Iraq and Syria as it will be as large as Russia economically and population wise. Same goes for China, doubly so, which is sandwiched between Russia and India who themselves are very friendly and have military cooperation. Without the US there all of these countries will turn on each other and a natural balance of power will form again, which is what the US should have been attempting to cultivate since 1990 instead of trying to build an empire of democracies.
I get you want that empire, but don't come at me like me not sharing your opinions means you're smarter or "more informed" than me because you sure the fuck aren't.
If you think that's a personal attack, you don't know what a personal attack is.
Considering the kind of "wisdom" the kind of people who complain about "war hawks" in the West tend to usually produce, this is gonna be good.
Yet they understand that before ever going hot on those issues, they first have to arrange a world without you.
India is neither willing nor able to interfere much in this debacle beyond making money for itself, which it desperately needs, and which is one of major reasons for such policy, in addition to limiting geography.
Again, nice piece of wishful thinking you have there, why not a world of peace hope and prosperity of all, however out of all things to bet the future of world politics and existence of my country on, wishful thinking of people with this kind of misunderstanding of geopolitics is about the last.
Empire of democracies? Pfff... Stop stealing propaganda from Bush trying to chip at neoliberal idiot vote and thinking it was ever serious, or even more so, still is.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
A "neutral balance of power" means, in practice, an age of constant wars, scheming, instability and other bullshitry up until someone does to manage to set a more stable balance of power.
For all the ways it would suck, at least it would make people who think "neutral balance of power" in geopolitics means something else wise up.
There was a multipolar balance of power in Europe, and it ended in 1914...
There's always one or more empires or alternatively a bunch of wannabe ones fighting tooth and nail to be it, at best there's sometimes a choice which you have to live with.
I'm being smart by wanting a decent choice of one to be available, while you think you can keep the perks of being one but without the costs because you take them for granted, because sure as fuck you are terribly informed if you spout the same talking points about "war mongers" as leftists do.
Last edited:
Poe
Well-known member
Whatever dude, from what I can tell you nothing but insinuate others are idiots behind a keyboard. Even this entire response is nothing but ad hominem quips because you lack the ability to honestly and logically address anything I've said.
Just look at your comment about India, I'm making a point about long term geopolitical trends if America were to back out and you can't comprehend it, you're literally unable to understand something I blatantly stated, so you've decided to pretend my point was India would intervene in the Ukraine war and attack that. Its amazing a real human being could decide that was a response but yet here we are.
I can start with ad hominems if you want. You know i can...
America backing out is going to be seen as an opportunity to go after its now left for grabs interests, allies and future potential to suddenly change its mind on that, not each other.
Your wishful insistence that they are all going to do exactly the thing that will justify your wanted action instead of doing things that would make it look like a mistake is noted and is not making your argument stronger.
Are you claiming to be a seer?
Because yes, people who are not you are unable to understand why your predictions of the future that just so happen to be perfectly picked to suit your agenda are supposed to be taken at face value.
It's amazing a real human being can be so fortified in a house made out of own wishful thinking.
No, that's not something i said, read it again.
Wow. I haven't seen such insane defeatist attitude in a long while. If your ancestors thought as you did America would still be an undeveloped wasteland run by the KKK and espousing Eugenics.
Thankfully They were made of sterner stuff. Well if the cowards win you'll get to see what being a non Superpower is like. Welcome to our side amigo. You get to be a slave like the rest of us to Chinese and Russian overlords.
If we are not world hegemon, someone else will take it.
Someone that will not be nice and basically vie to control the world by way of forcing others to bow down.
Us included if we go isolationist.
We can't make everything ourselves, even if we had everything capable.
Someone that will not be nice and basically vie to control the world by way of forcing others to bow down.
Us included if we go isolationist.
We can't make everything ourselves, even if we had everything capable.
New YouGov survey out of American opinions on the Russian Special Military Operation to DeNazify Ukraine.
Some of the interesting things are that among Trump voters 74% want Ukraine to win but there is a close divide with Trump voters with 46% supporting and 42% opposing sending additional supplies and weapons to Ukraine (and basically identical to those of Republicans). Among independents its 43% support, 33% oppose. Perhaps amusingly, Trump voters support cyber attacks and targeted media attacks to foment political opposition in Russia (55%), and expanding sanctions against Russia (75%).
And more amusingly... approval ratings of world leaders from Trump voters.
Rishi Sunak (12% favorable, 11% unfavorable, 64% Literally Who?)
Emmanual Macron (17% favorable, 37% unfavorable, 31% Literally Who?)
Olaf Scholz (9% favorable, 12% unfavorable, 67% Literally Who?)
Vladimir Putin (9% favorable, 86% unfavorable, 2% Literally Who?)
Joe Biden (4% favorable, 93% unfavorable, 0% Literally Who?) - Apparently 1% of Democrat voters have never heard of Joe Biden. Maybe Biden himself took the poll?
Some of the interesting things are that among Trump voters 74% want Ukraine to win but there is a close divide with Trump voters with 46% supporting and 42% opposing sending additional supplies and weapons to Ukraine (and basically identical to those of Republicans). Among independents its 43% support, 33% oppose. Perhaps amusingly, Trump voters support cyber attacks and targeted media attacks to foment political opposition in Russia (55%), and expanding sanctions against Russia (75%).
And more amusingly... approval ratings of world leaders from Trump voters.
Rishi Sunak (12% favorable, 11% unfavorable, 64% Literally Who?)
Emmanual Macron (17% favorable, 37% unfavorable, 31% Literally Who?)
Olaf Scholz (9% favorable, 12% unfavorable, 67% Literally Who?)
Vladimir Putin (9% favorable, 86% unfavorable, 2% Literally Who?)
Joe Biden (4% favorable, 93% unfavorable, 0% Literally Who?) - Apparently 1% of Democrat voters have never heard of Joe Biden. Maybe Biden himself took the poll?
Buba
A total creep
I must admit that Rishi Sunak did give me pause and a little headscratch to remember that he is John Bull 
BTW - some 20 years ago a US penpall of mine commented that "Donald Tusk" does not sound very Polish. At my witty repartee she grudgingly conceeded that "Barak Obama" does not sound very American either
BTW - some 20 years ago a US penpall of mine commented that "Donald Tusk" does not sound very Polish. At my witty repartee she grudgingly conceeded that "Barak Obama" does not sound very American either
Fox News, which may or may not be inspired by another interview, did one with Zelensky.
There's a lot of questions specifically based on US discourse and controversies around Ukraine asked and answered.
It's also not a long listen due to a lack of historical lecture at the beginning.
There's a lot of questions specifically based on US discourse and controversies around Ukraine asked and answered.
It's also not a long listen due to a lack of historical lecture at the beginning.
Your correct that that isn't Ukraines fault.
But the fact is those pre exiting domestic problems matter, and we as a country spent more then 30 years handling international stuff over domestic needs. All of that is coming home to roost. Is it fair No it isnt. If you want people to support Ukraine your going to have to give them shit in return for that support.
It doesn't have to be fincial, an internet bill of rights that keeps corperate america from censoring political speech in exchange for Ukraine support would be a nice carrot. But if you keep telling people who have sacerficed for a cause for 20 plus years with no reward to sacerfice more and then get upset when they tell you they want something in return?
Then your simply going to be ignored and not only that people will pull support out of shear spite. I am telling you this as a friend find a way to make what you want in other peoples interests and your going to be more likely to get what you want.
The USA has currently one nickel extraction operation at Eagle mine producing 18000 metric tons. 9000 tons of which are exported to Canada. You currently import 85% of you Nickel primarily from China, Indonesia and a minor amount from the Philippines. Nickel is a critical resource militarily and heavy industry used in everything from EV batteries, body armor to weapons, ammunition, vehicles, high tech equipment, etc. Which makes the Alaska Energy Metals(very good time for investment btw) nickel prospecting and exploitation project critical for North America's defense as a whole. There are massive reserves under that frozen swamp and taiga and your military and heavy industry sector is heavily encouraging the buildup of infrastructure to allow for large scale mining. There are other projects in the Arctic in both the Alaska and the Canadian Territories to exploit the rare earth metals that have been discovered. The locations and lack of easy transport is hampering all of them. There are no populations roads, rails or airstrips that far north. It would be very hard to build them as well.
Last edited:
Vyor
My influence grows!
Ok.
So.
Can someone pick up 2 things with 2 hands when each weighs less than a pound and fits in the palm?