User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 7:51:38 PM EDT
 Excerpt: Here's the ugly fact: This war needs to end in a negotiated peace, one that the Ukrainians are not going to like. The Ukrainians have held the Russians back because they are tough and because we give them enough ammo and gear to do so. But they also succeed because, so far, the Russians have sucked. Their equipment, leadership, and morale stinks. Now the front lines are relatively frozen. It’s nearly WWI-like in some areas. We are not looking at sweeping maneuver warfare but static trench fighting. This eats up men and equipment. We can feed Ukraine more ammo and gear. We cannot feed them more men, and the locals are not buying the propaganda and cheery dance Tik Toks from the front. The Ukrainians are running out of troops. Russia, however, is much bigger. It has more bodies (even though many have fled the country). And it has a history of coming back from setbacks. Napoleon got to Moscow. Then he got driven out. Hitler nearly got to Moscow. Then he got driven back to the Brandenburg Gate. The Russians will fire their ineffectual generals and replace them with solid killers. They will reconstitute their equipment and build new and better armaments. They will train up new forces. To break the stalemate, one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines. If you are betting that the Ukrainians will do that first, you probably double-down on a 16. Link:https://t.co/P9Codel703 |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 7:59:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 8:49:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bulldog1967: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6755/FDB0A002-B087-4A93-AD90-E4B1440A3A13-2749720.jpg Excerpt: Here's the ugly fact: This war needs to end in a negotiated peace, one that the Ukrainians are not going to like. The Ukrainians have held the Russians back because they are tough and because we give them enough ammo and gear to do so. But they also succeed because, so far, the Russians have sucked. Their equipment, leadership, and morale stinks. Now the front lines are relatively frozen. It’s nearly WWI-like in some areas. We are not looking at sweeping maneuver warfare but static trench fighting. This eats up men and equipment. We can feed Ukraine more ammo and gear. We cannot feed them more men, and the locals are not buying the propaganda and cheery dance Tik Toks from the front. The Ukrainians are running out of troops. Russia, however, is much bigger. It has more bodies (even though many have fled the country). And it has a history of coming back from setbacks. Napoleon got to Moscow. Then he got driven out. Hitler nearly got to Moscow. Then he got driven back to the Brandenburg Gate. The Russians will fire their ineffectual generals and replace them with solid killers. They will reconstitute their equipment and build new and better armaments. They will train up new forces. To break the stalemate, one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines. If you are betting that the Ukrainians will do that first, you probably double-down on a 16. Link:https://t.co/P9Codel703  Attached File |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 8:57:08 PM EDT
Duh
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 8:57:12 PM EDT
We're being invaded and Biden welcomes invaders in with open arms and wallets.
Ukraine gets invaded and Biden can't spend enough money to protect their country. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:04:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MachRider]
The wet-brained populism of diddlin' DeSantis will only secure votes of the GQP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:07:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: bigstick61]
Originally Posted By bulldog1967: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6755/FDB0A002-B087-4A93-AD90-E4B1440A3A13-2749720.jpg Excerpt: Here's the ugly fact: This war needs to end in a negotiated peace, one that the Ukrainians are not going to like. The Ukrainians have held the Russians back because they are tough and because we give them enough ammo and gear to do so. But they also succeed because, so far, the Russians have sucked. Their equipment, leadership, and morale stinks. Now the front lines are relatively frozen. It’s nearly WWI-like in some areas. We are not looking at sweeping maneuver warfare but static trench fighting. This eats up men and equipment. We can feed Ukraine more ammo and gear. We cannot feed them more men, and the locals are not buying the propaganda and cheery dance Tik Toks from the front. The Ukrainians are running out of troops. Russia, however, is much bigger. It has more bodies (even though many have fled the country). And it has a history of coming back from setbacks. Napoleon got to Moscow. Then he got driven out. Hitler nearly got to Moscow. Then he got driven back to the Brandenburg Gate. The Russians will fire their ineffectual generals and replace them with solid killers. They will reconstitute their equipment and build new and better armaments. They will train up new forces. To break the stalemate, one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines. If you are betting that the Ukrainians will do that first, you probably double-down on a 16. Link:https://t.co/P9Codel703 If those are his words, then he sounds ignorant and also like he doesn't have what it takes when it comes to foreign policy. Either that or he bends the knee to much to the populist nationalist morons in the GOP which also brings his foreign policy acumen into question. Neither speaks well to him, although he's still better than Trump either way. Sad that this is what the Right is coming to. I wonder what the situation would look like if Biden wasn't slow-rolling aid and imposing various limits for his own political purposes (or just due to him being weak). |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:08:06 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Bagobo: Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:12:41 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: Originally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. The two countries are linked in this context and taking this threat off of the board will be useful when it comes time to deal with China, although I'm sure at that point we'll have plenty of Republicans screaming "no more forever wars," "not our business," "no blood for computer chips," etc. The Western response to Russia and Russia's performance also appears to be giving China some pause vis-a-vis Taiwan and other territorial ambitions. We are taking out our second greatest adversary on the cheap without yet having to commit any American forces directly. Only a fool, ignoramus, or deliberately bad actor would throw that away. I don't think Reagan was the fool many Republicans insist in being today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:14:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bulldog1967: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6755/FDB0A002-B087-4A93-AD90-E4B1440A3A13-2749720.jpg Excerpt: Here's the ugly fact: This war needs to end in a negotiated peace, one that the Ukrainians are not going to like. The Ukrainians have held the Russians back because they are tough and because we give them enough ammo and gear to do so. But they also succeed because, so far, the Russians have sucked. Their equipment, leadership, and morale stinks. Now the front lines are relatively frozen. It's nearly WWI-like in some areas. We are not looking at sweeping maneuver warfare but static trench fighting. This eats up men and equipment. We can feed Ukraine more ammo and gear. We cannot feed them more men, and the locals are not buying the propaganda and cheery dance Tik Toks from the front. The Ukrainians are running out of troops. Russia, however, is much bigger. It has more bodies (even though many have fled the country). And it has a history of coming back from setbacks. Napoleon got to Moscow. Then he got driven out. Hitler nearly got to Moscow. Then he got driven back to the Brandenburg Gate. The Russians will fire their ineffectual generals and replace them with solid killers. They will reconstitute their equipment and build new and better armaments. They will train up new forces. To break the stalemate, one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines. If you are betting that the Ukrainians will do that first, you probably double-down on a 16. Link:https://t.co/P9Codel703 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:16:19 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By bigstick61: The two countries are linked in this context and taking this threat off of the board will be useful when it comes time to deal with China, although I'm sure at that point we'll have plenty of Republicans screaming "no more forever wars," "not our business," "no blood for computer chips," etc. The Western response to Russia and Russia's performance also appears to be giving China some pause vis-a-vis Taiwan and other territorial ambitions. We are taking out our second greatest adversary on the cheap without yet having to commit any American forces directly. Only a fool, ignoramus, or deliberately bad actor would throw that away. I don't think Reagan was the fool many Republicans insist in being today. I wonder what woudlve happened if the Polish got western material and training before things went tits up if they could have held off the Germans long enough to make Stalin think twice. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:16:54 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: Originally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of surplus artillery shells and M113s is taking the focus off China. How does stirring up the MIC for a neo Cold War do that, in your mind? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:18:08 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Cypher15: BINGO! If anything else, the material support to Ukraine has made China recalculate. I wonder what woudlve happened if the Polish got western material and training before things went tits up if they could have held off the Germans long enough to make Stalin think twice. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By bigstick61: The two countries are linked in this context and taking this threat off of the board will be useful when it comes time to deal with China, although I'm sure at that point we'll have plenty of Republicans screaming "no more forever wars," "not our business," "no blood for computer chips," etc. The Western response to Russia and Russia's performance also appears to be giving China some pause vis-a-vis Taiwan and other territorial ambitions. We are taking out our second greatest adversary on the cheap without yet having to commit any American forces directly. Only a fool, ignoramus, or deliberately bad actor would throw that away. I don't think Reagan was the fool many Republicans insist in being today. I wonder what woudlve happened if the Polish got western material and training before things went tits up if they could have held off the Germans long enough to make Stalin think twice. They got invaded by the Germans and Soviets pretty much simultaneously. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:19:10 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Bagobo: Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of surplus artillery shells and M113s is taking the focus off China. How does stirring up the MIC for a neo Cold War do that, in your mind? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: Originally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of surplus artillery shells and M113s is taking the focus off China. How does stirring up the MIC for a neo Cold War do that, in your mind? The other positive is the war is bringing to light just how inadequately we have been preparing for modern war, which is resulting in production ramping up for a lot of munitions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:20:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: byron2112]
this afternoon on Dore's program they had video of press gangs snatching men off the street over there(Ukraine)... they called them recruiters
 ...
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:23:25 PM EDT
Russia can bring more troops.
EU can also. Both sides can turn up the heat. But if the West decides to win, it's over very quickly. Obviously that decision hasn't been made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:23:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: uncle_big_green]
Drinking
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:26:15 PM EDT
Let’s protect our borders FIRST.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:27:41 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By bugy: Russia can bring more troops. EU can also. Both sides can turn up the heat. But if the West decides to win, it's over very quickly. Obviously that decision hasn't been made. Despite what some are saying here, there is zero stomach in the west to send troops. Maybe Poland. But, western Europe, nope. The US, hell no. Russia can send more troops, but do they have the logistics to support them? So far they haven't shown that. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:28:28 PM EDT
China not loosing anything supplying Russia that they need to attack Taiwan. China increasing weapons production rate fast while the west is mostly arguing about contracts. Virtually all western politicians are just having their speech writers throw together some gibberish on the subject. Not like the peasants care to learn up on matters that could end up getting them drafted or in a war that results in their cities being smashed into burning rubble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:36:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bulldog1967: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6755/FDB0A002-B087-4A93-AD90-E4B1440A3A13-2749720.jpg Excerpt: Here's the ugly fact: This war needs to end in a negotiated peace, one that the Ukrainians are not going to like. The Ukrainians have held the Russians back because they are tough and because we give them enough ammo and gear to do so. But they also succeed because, so far, the Russians have sucked. Their equipment, leadership, and morale stinks. Now the front lines are relatively frozen. It’s nearly WWI-like in some areas. We are not looking at sweeping maneuver warfare but static trench fighting. This eats up men and equipment. We can feed Ukraine more ammo and gear. We cannot feed them more men, and the locals are not buying the propaganda and cheery dance Tik Toks from the front. The Ukrainians are running out of troops. Russia, however, is much bigger. It has more bodies (even though many have fled the country). And it has a history of coming back from setbacks. Napoleon got to Moscow. Then he got driven out. Hitler nearly got to Moscow. Then he got driven back to the Brandenburg Gate. The Russians will fire their ineffectual generals and replace them with solid killers. They will reconstitute their equipment and build new and better armaments. They will train up new forces. To break the stalemate, one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines. If you are betting that the Ukrainians will do that first, you probably double-down on a 16. Link:https://t.co/P9Codel703 I don't think Ukraine has much appetite for peace. Russia has trashed their cities, raped their women, and stolen their children. If they can't win outright, they'll want to kill as many Russians as possible. Ukraine isn't going to launch an offensive deep into Russia like Hitler or Napoleon. Even a static war could be a victory. Russia's economy is trashed and they don't have endless manpower. Many people who say otherwise are quoting Russian sources. If China gets involved, the situation changes and we're looking towards a world war or at least another cold war. Ukraine could simply outlast Russia with the total costs of war. They will have domestic problems if too many men get killed in combat. Families don't like it when their sons get killed in a pointless war, no matter what the propaganda says in Russia. Eventually someone will grow balls and take a shot at Putin. It is possible that some kind of civil war will break out in Russia. Recall that the failures of Russia in WWI was one of the major reasons for the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:47:35 PM EDT
appeasement is always the answer for weak willed people
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:49:16 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Cypher15: BINGO! If anything else, the material support to Ukraine has made China recalculate. Perhaps. However, I'd argue that the conditions internal to China that would push Xi to give the EXORD to invade aren't that conditional to outside assessments. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:50:35 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Bagobo: Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of and M113s is taking the focus off China. How does stirring up the MIC for a neo Cold War do that, in your mind? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bagobo: Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of surplus artillery shells I know you are "new" here, but that is in fact incorrect. We are giving first line artillery war stocks to the Ukraine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:51:12 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By bigstick61: The other positive is the war is bringing to light just how inadequately we have been preparing for modern war, which is resulting in production ramping up for a lot of munitions. How does a cut to the DOD budget constitute a "ramp up?" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:55:29 PM EDT
Quote HistoryQuote History Originally Posted By Anastasios: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6755/FDB0A002-B087-4A93-AD90-E4B1440A3A13-2749720.jpg Excerpt: Here's the ugly fact: This war needs to end in a negotiated peace, one that the Ukrainians are not going to like. The Ukrainians have held the Russians back because they are tough and because we give them enough ammo and gear to do so. But they also succeed because, so far, the Russians have sucked. Their equipment, leadership, and morale stinks. Now the front lines are relatively frozen. It’s nearly WWI-like in some areas. We are not looking at sweeping maneuver warfare but static trench fighting. This eats up men and equipment. We can feed Ukraine more ammo and gear. We cannot feed them more men, and the locals are not buying the propaganda and cheery dance Tik Toks from the front. The Ukrainians are running out of troops. Russia, however, is much bigger. It has more bodies (even though many have fled the country). And it has a history of coming back from setbacks. Napoleon got to Moscow. Then he got driven out. Hitler nearly got to Moscow. Then he got driven back to the Brandenburg Gate. The Russians will fire their ineffectual generals and replace them with solid killers. They will reconstitute their equipment and build new and better armaments. They will train up new forces. To break the stalemate, one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines. If you are betting that the Ukrainians will do that first, you probably double-down on a 16. Link:https://t.co/P9Codel703 /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 9:56:31 PM EDT
That's a rather shit take.
Ukraine is running out of men, therefore Ukraine needs to negotiate a peace settlement that Ukraine won't like? Even though Ukraine has the will to keep fighting? What exactly is this person saying the USA should do? I know what it sounds like he's saying. But he carefully didn't say it explicitly. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:00:27 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By 1Andy2:But he carefully didn't say it explicitly. That would defeat the point. Tucker & co are treading a tightrope between 4+ factions. The contrarianism-poisoned schizos, the establishment neocons, the office holders, apolitical normies (themselves split into 2-3 factions on foreign policy) and probably 2-3 other groups. The neo-isolationist populists who've overreacted are the headline of the day. But he can't cater to them above every other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:00:33 PM EDT
There's a good chance this is going to age terribly, too. Ukraine is clearly gearing up for an offensive. And several countries have been equipping and training them to do exactly that.
So what happens when this "double down on 16" really turns out to be an obvious win for Ukraine? I'd be curious what his thoughts were in the runup before the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives, too. Did he think further support then was "doubling down on 16?" Republicans are running a terrible risk betting against Ukraine for the sake of short term popular mood chasing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:01:12 PM EDT
No, he’s not
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:01:49 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By 1Andy2: There's a good chance this is going to age terribly, too. Ukraine is clearly gearing up for an offensive. And several countries have been equipping and training them to do exactly that. So what happens when this "double down on 16" really turns out to be an obvious win for Ukraine? I'd be curious what his thoughts were in the runup before the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives, too. Did he think further support then was "doubling down on 16?" Republicans are running a terrible risk betting against Ukraine for the sake of short term popular mood chasing. Exactly. “The current thing” bites again |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:02:36 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By 1Andy2: That's a rather shit take. Ukraine is running out of men, therefore Ukraine needs to negotiate a peace settlement that Ukraine won't like? Even though Ukraine has the will to keep fighting? What exactly is this person saying the USA should do? I know what it sounds like he's saying. But he carefully didn't say it explicitly. The key is to be clear with Ukrainians what the Ukrainians CAN accomplish with the level of support that we are willing to provide, and its far less than the aspirational shit they've been saying. At some point, the Uks need to understand he who pays the piper, calls the tune. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:04:38 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By ricko1: appeasement is always the answer for weak willed people Ron flip flopped on tnis. It’s nothing more than appeasing his base even when they are wrong |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:05:04 PM EDT
Can some one give me a good reason, a real one, thats not emotionally based, for the united states to get involved in this shit? This has been going on for a year and so far it seems like its 100% Europe's problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:06:16 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By 1Andy2: There's a good chance this is going to age terribly, too. Ukraine is clearly gearing up for an offensive. And several countries have been equipping and training them to do exactly that. So what happens when this "double down on 16" really turns out to be an obvious win for Ukraine? I'd be curious what his thoughts were in the runup before the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives, too. Did he think further support then was "doubling down on 16?" Republicans are running a terrible risk betting against Ukraine for the sake of short term popular mood chasing. If the Ukrainians win, then they win. I mean, its still not a win for the US taxpayer as the costs of underwriting Ukrainian defense are likely to last for many decades, but the war might end on some favorable term to Ukraine. The problem is that Uks have been vociferously opposed to any end save total victory, and I think there is a growing realization that's a long time, lots of dead and billions of dollars away in a pretty hopeful case. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:06:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Pallas]
Yep.
It’s also in China’s interest for Russia to win this… Or rather, for NATO/US/EU to not win this. I’m tired of giving UKR money, but I don’t believe for one second that a negotiated peace won’t have the Russians banging across (or attempting to) UKR again in a few years. This stops and countries will lose interest in UKR aid, so they aren’t going to magically build up better and stronger. I’m slightly surprised we haven’t see any Chinese volunteers on Russias side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:07:48 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By boomhower: Can some one give me a good reason, a real one, thats not emotionally based, for the united states to get involved in this shit? This has been going on for a year and so far it seems like its 100% Europe's problem. Ukrainian resistance is (perhaps) creating a better understanding in the Chinese of the actual likely cost of the invasion of Taiwan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:09:07 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Screechjet1: Ukrainian resistance is (perhaps) creating a better understanding in the Chinese of the actual likely cost of the invasion of Taiwan. I can understand that, but that would happen regardless of US involvement? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:09:31 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Pallas: Yep. It’s also in China’s interest for Russia to win this… Or rather, for NATO/US/EU to not win this. I’m tired of giving UKR money, but I don’t believe for one second that a negotiated peace won’t have the Russians banging across (or attempting to) UKR again in a few years. This stops and countries will lose interest in UKR aid, so they aren’t going to magically build up better and stronger. I think its in China's interest to create a grinding stalemate that forces Russia to give away more and more of its remaining crown jewels. Much like Britain in 1940, it might have to mortgage the remainder of its technological and scientific value to keep their offensive in Ukraine going. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:11:34 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By boomhower: I can understand that, but that would happen regardless of US involvement? My personal assessment is that we'd be in a national guerilla war phase in the absence of massive, primarily US support to Ukraine. This is take away nothing from the average Ukrainian plumber or computer printer repairman fighting and dying, but just a recognition of the reality of sustained Ukrainian resistance. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:15:15 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By boomhower: I can understand that, but that would happen regardless of US involvement? This whole thing would have been a hell of alot cheaper for Russia if we hadn't given Ukraine the kinds of weapons we did. I'm curious how effective HIMARs ammo is on something like a troop barge. Having artillery that can hide in a bunker, drive out, launch salvos on troop ships, and then drive away seems like it would be mighty useful to Taiwan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:15:20 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Screechjet1: My personal assessment is that we'd be in a national guerilla war phase in the absence of massive, primarily US support to Ukraine. This is take away nothing from the average Ukrainian plumber or computer printer repairman fighting and dying, but just a recognition of the reality of sustained Ukrainian resistance. Im not saying you dont know what your talking about. But how is that scenario Americas problem? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:16:19 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Screechjet1: I think its in China's interest to create a grinding stalemate that forces Russia to give away more and more of its remaining crown jewels. Much like Britain in 1940, it might have to mortgage the remainder of its technological and scientific value to keep their offensive in Ukraine going. Not doubt. But, if Ukraine tanks, that would be back to back “losses” for the US aid. Third time is the charm, maybe Congress takes a hard look at the next country (Taiwan, etc) and says “We support you, but we have learned our lesson, sorry.” Add in some news videos of Russian troops dicking around with captured US equipment, and the public tide my turn, especially if our economy isn’t so hot. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:19:20 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Bagobo: Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of surplus artillery shells and M113s is taking the focus off China. How does stirring up the MIC for a neo Cold War do that, in your mind? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: Originally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Reagan would have focused on our primary enemy, which is China. Good, you're making progress! But you haven't explained how getting rid of surplus artillery shells and M113s is taking the focus off China. How does stirring up the MIC for a neo Cold War do that, in your mind? Lol, surplus. 
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:23:26 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Pallas: Yep. It’s also in China’s interest for Russia to win this… Or rather, for NATO/US/EU to not win this. I’m tired of giving UKR money, but I don’t believe for one second that a negotiated peace won’t have the Russians banging across (or attempting to) UKR again in a few years. This stops and countries will lose interest in UKR aid, so they aren’t going to magically build up better and stronger. I’m slightly surprised we haven’t see any Chinese volunteers on Russias side. They will be fighting in 100 and 200 years from now. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:26:20 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Screechjet1: My personal assessment is that we'd be in a national guerilla war phase in the absence of massive, primarily US support to Ukraine. This is take away nothing from the average Ukrainian plumber or computer printer repairman fighting and dying, but just a recognition of the reality of sustained Ukrainian resistance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screechjet1: Originally Posted By boomhower: I can understand that, but that would happen regardless of US involvement? My personal assessment is that we'd be in a national guerilla war phase in the absence of massive, primarily US support to Ukraine. This is take away nothing from the average Ukrainian plumber or computer printer repairman fighting and dying, but just a recognition of the reality of sustained Ukrainian resistance. An insurgency in Ukraine would likely be cheaper in terms of lives and cost for all involved and would stymie the Russians for years to come. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:27:54 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: An insurgency in Ukraine would likely be cheaper in terms of lives and cost for all involved and would stymie the Russians for years to come. That Is debatable. The mass torture, rape, and murder committed by Russian forces across the conquered areas say no |
|
|
|
NPL
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:28:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4thbreak]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By boomhower: Im not saying you dont know what you're talking about. But how is that scenario Americas problem? Because at the current rate of advance, Russia would take Europe in the next 500 to 1000 years. America would be next around 3300.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:28:52 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By Bagobo: Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bagobo: Originally Posted By bulldog1967: one side is going to have to generate massive combat power that can shatter the enemy lines Yep. Reagan would supply them tanks and IFVs. Biden...isn't. The only oddity IMO is why some nominal conservatives are taking Biden's side and slow-rolling or blocking aid. It ain’t the fuckin 80s boomer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:30:08 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: An insurgency in Ukraine would likely be cheaper in terms of lives and cost for all involved and would stymie the Russians for years to come. I don't think the Russians can hold what they have now, but I don't think the Uks are willing to surrender a square foot without a fight (itself not an unalloyed good, see also French Defensive strategy, 1915-1917.) |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2023 10:30:13 PM EDT
Quote History Originally Posted By fadedsun: That Is debatable. The mass torture, rape, and murder committed by Russian forces across the conquered areas say no Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By ClayHollisterTT: An insurgency in Ukraine would likely be cheaper in terms of lives and cost for all involved and would stymie the Russians for years to come. That Is debatable. The mass torture, rape, and murder committed by Russian forces across the conquered areas say no That just inflames an insurgency. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
