American Politics Discussion Thread

[Brian Shanahan]

A Trump plan for peace in Ukraine would hinge on him being willing to negotiate, including surrendering of land occupied by Russian troops. For as long as the Blinken-Biden team wants to indulge the fantasy of pushing Russia out of Ukraine the war will continue. But I don't think there are any signs Putin is in a hurry to negotiate, either.

No, a T****y "plan" hinges on the fact that he's an active Russian agent, and with him effectively every other member of the republican party (although the party's status as traitor probably predate's T****y's association with it). Thus at best any peace terms he'll push will include a situation where a rump Ukraine, at best, will suffer a few years hal-life as a total vassal of Russia, before being liquidated along with its people, culture and history.

[Brian Shanahan]

Its much easier for a country to resist NOT being occupied. It can be done via partisan and guerilla tactics, but that is not the easier way. Given the better position of NOT currently being occupied its easier for them to resist vs letting Russia occupy them.

Look at the casualties for Russia (Soviet Union at the time) in Afghanistan vs Russia in Ukraine. Ukraine has already inflicted over double that (conservative estimates). You also get the advantage of NOT being occupied, you get to better use your own countries resources, and you make your opponent use more resources.

Soviet Afghan war was 9 years. US was in Afghanistan for 20 and Vietnam total involvement was also near 20 years. I don't think this one is going as long as any of those, but it probably has a couple more years in it. But with more difficult circumstances the underdog won those, so again calling it a fantasy for Ukraine in a better position isn't accurate. Difficult and requiring political will for sure, but not a fantasy.

Actually Russia exceeded their Afghanistan numbers by the end of Summer 2022. Even under conservative estimates, the only comparable wars they've been involved in as regards casualties are the two World War's and Napoleon's invasion.

[Charr Babies]

...leaving ukraine as easy pickings for nato infrastructure, and mining exploitation...

I've been thinking the same thing. This far outweigh the short-term profits from energy inflation and military supplies. The us practically owns ukraine now. Trump might be thinking any further efforts to push the agenda will likely result in diminishing returns — not worth the negative impact on us itself. 

I wasn’t going to mention this until you brought it up. I wasn’t about to pretend I know or get dragged into theory crafting.

Armchair generals: a term used to describe individuals who consider themselves experts on military strategy and tactics, despite having little to no practical knowledge or experience in the field

It's amusing to watch all the armchair politicians and generals gathered at the roundtable for another round of "I know the only truth." Each one presenting their narrow viewpoints as if they hold the ultimate logic and truth. You ( all the armchair politicians and generals) act as if politics is predictable and every action has an absolute outcome. You seem to forget that the REAL policymakers are well aware of the complexities and pitfalls, and if it were that simple, they'd avoid missteps and make flawless decisions. There wouldn't be conflicts. 

Stick with facts! 

You can all come at me now.
 

[darrelljs]

All the spin in the world won't change the fact it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, and as long as they want to defend themselves the international community has the moral obligation to support them.

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

Obligation, maybe. Moral obligation would be to stop the Gaza genocide.

[Charr Babies]

Russia will lose. Whether thats 6months from now, or 6 years from now. They cannot continue to bully their neighbors. Fuck them.

Also fuck west Taiwan as well.

You horny lil devil, you.
I see you are adding Russia and west Taiwan to your fuck list, which includes China. 

And nobody report him to the admin for hate speech?

[greenline]

A Trump plan for peace in Ukraine would hinge on him being willing to negotiate, including surrendering of land occupied by Russian troops. For as long as the Blinken-Biden team wants to indulge the fantasy of pushing Russia out of Ukraine the war will continue. But I don't think there are any signs Putin is in a hurry to negotiate, either.

No, a T****y "plan" hinges on the fact that he's an active Russian agent, and with him effectively every other member of the republican party (although the party's status as traitor probably predate's T****y's association with it).  Thus at best any peace terms he'll push will include a situation where a rump Ukraine, at best, will suffer a few years hal-life as a total vassal of Russia, before being liquidated along with its people, culture and history.

If one of the greatest threats facing American democracy is the spread of obvious hoaxes and conspiracy theories, one would think that people concerned about fighting them could do the bare minimum of not supporting obviously false conspiracy theories like the one of Trump being a Russian agent.

[greenline]

Edit: response to Greenline as Boro posted while I was posting.

Ho Chi Minh: 'You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it." Wars are not decided by the race to 0, but by political will of the people fighting. Russia also out populaced Germany in WWI, but that war led to the end of the Czars. Population helps don't get me wrong, but its no where near the only determinant.

Ukraine isn't fighting like Ho Chi Minh. They aren't even fighting like Germany in WWI. The first step in learning from those past campaigns would be learning to fight like in those past campaigns rather than digging for pithy, but ill fitting quotes.

Trying to win a guerilla war like the Vietnamese would mean becoming very comfortable with giving up land and cities to the enemy, something Ukraine has been fighting at all costs to avoid doing. Fighting like the Germans in WWI would mean being capable of high intensity maneuver warfare and mass encirclement.

The WWI comparison also fails because the Russians ended the war not due to exhaustion of 'political will', but the outbreak of revolution in the homeland. It would be very bizarre and ill informed to expect this to happen under Putin, even if the war bears high costs, because adult Russians will keenly remember that there was a color revolution that ended the USSR in favor of a Western style liberal democracy, and living under that liberal democracy was hell for most Russians. Putin has a very solid support base of those looking to avoid that again, and he spent the decades leading up to the war purging the various remaining pro liberal oligarchs. I am not a Russian expert, but it would help to know the basics before making stupid arguments online.

They are not hulls and this is part of my problem with them as a taxpayer. They are actively maintained and run at significant expense and they will never be used. The 800 older models should have been disposed of about 2000 tanks ago, but might as well send them now. But overall I think the money to Ukraine isn't understood. Some of its old junk we should value at scrap. A vast majority is money we are sending them to then send back to us for stuff. And the rest degrades a primary geopolitical rival while simultaneously sending signal to other geopolitical rivals, while also making us look good to our allies. Its the best military money we've spent in at least 40 years (not that that is a hard bar to pass).

Exact numbers on military stockpiles are, of course, not easy to find. This estimate puts perhaps half of that 5000 number as being in storage and requiring significant maintenance to be combat ready: https://executivebiz.com/articles/unders...y-arsenal/.

Some would say, 'So what? We can afford to ship Ukraine 400 tanks out of 2500 ones this quarter.' But then the war will chew up those 400 tanks, and Ukraine will ask for more the next quarter, and more, and more... the attrition of the stockpile being even worse for aerial and air defense assets. Of which the US is ultimately paying for the whole way.

[superdeath]

Russia will lose. Whether thats 6months from now, or 6 years from now. They cannot continue to bully their neighbors. Fuck them.

Also fuck west Taiwan as well.

You horny lil devil, you.
I see you are adding Russia and west Taiwan to your fuck list, which includes China. 

And nobody report him to the admin for hate speech?

West Taiwan IS china.


Not hating on any race or anything that could be considered hate speech but good try lol. I hate the governments of those countries and what they are doing to the world as a whole.


My point stands. Russia will lose, and West Taiwan (China for those that cant guess what is meant) will hopefully learn that they cannot bully their neighbors without repercussions.

[Mjmd]

Edit: response to Greenline as Boro posted while I was posting.

Ho Chi Minh: 'You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it." Wars are not decided by the race to 0, but by political will of the people fighting. Russia also out populaced Germany in WWI, but that war led to the end of the Czars. Population helps don't get me wrong, but its no where near the only determinant.

Ukraine isn't fighting like Ho Chi Minh. They aren't even fighting like Germany in WWI. The first step in learning from those past campaigns would be learning to fight like in those past campaigns rather than digging for pithy, but ill fitting quotes.

Trying to win a guerilla war like the Vietnamese would mean becoming very comfortable with giving up land and cities to the enemy, something Ukraine has been fighting at all costs to avoid doing. Fighting like the Germans in WWI would mean being capable of high intensity maneuver warfare and mass encirclement.

The WWI comparison also fails because the Russians ended the war not due to exhaustion of 'political will', but the outbreak of revolution in the homeland. It would be very bizarre and ill informed to expect this to happen under Putin, even if the war bears high costs, because adult Russians will keenly remember that there was a color revolution that ended the USSR in favor of a Western style liberal democracy, and living under that liberal democracy was hell for most Russians. Putin has a very solid support base of those looking to avoid that again, and he spent the decades leading up to the war purging the various remaining pro liberal oligarchs. I am not a Russian expert, but it would help to know the basics before making stupid arguments online.

They are not hulls and this is part of my problem with them as a taxpayer. They are actively maintained and run at significant expense and they will never be used. The 800 older models should have been disposed of about 2000 tanks ago, but might as well send them now. But overall I think the money to Ukraine isn't understood. Some of its old junk we should value at scrap. A vast majority is money we are sending them to then send back to us for stuff. And the rest degrades a primary geopolitical rival while simultaneously sending signal to other geopolitical rivals, while also making us look good to our allies. Its the best military money we've spent in at least 40 years (not that that is a hard bar to pass).

Exact numbers on military stockpiles are, of course, not easy to find. This estimate puts perhaps half of that 5000 number as being in storage and requiring significant maintenance to be combat ready: https://executivebiz.com/articles/unders...y-arsenal/.

Some would say, 'So what? We can afford to ship Ukraine 400 tanks out of 2500 ones this quarter.' But then the war will chew up those 400 tanks, and Ukraine will ask for more the next quarter, and more, and more... the attrition of the stockpile being even worse for aerial and air defense assets. Of which the US is ultimately paying for the whole way.

I mean you are right they are fighting in a much more efficient way than guerilla tactics. Also technology has come a long way in a 100 years, so while WWI is probably the closer of the examples its obviously not a direct parallel. I'm using examples of political will being more important than the total population size or other power characteristics. A quote about deaths not mattering for the outcome seemed appropriate and as an American I assumed you would vaguely be aware of who won that war. It wasn't us the nation with more population and far more military power.

Ya again I've admitted its a grinding attritional war at this point. And I think you mean WWII not WWI in your statement as WWI was not well known for high intensity maneuver warfare. They did manage to do early in the war, but at this point its attritional and will come down to political will.

Out of vague curiosity, if your country is revolting, is there political will to support your government? You can't talk about stupid statements and then write that revolting isn't the loss of political will. I'm not a Russia expert either, but I would wager there are reasons more mass mobilization hasn't been done. Its not that they don't need the troops.

I'm reading that article and it doesn't say anything about amount in storage or significant maintenance to get running. It does talk very briefly about maintaining being expensive. There were some articles early in the war about differences in maintenance standards. There was some concern with a lot of Russian tanks having issues that the US could have issues. My understanding at the time was that a stupid amount of maintenance was being done on our tanks and it included running the tanks (and I can't remember if it was weekly or monthly). And of course I can't find now either.

So again, lets talk about the pluses of supporting Ukraine:
1) We weaken a geopolitical rival. Its not like the concept of proxy wars is that confusing or new.
2) We get to deter other countries (cough China), as well as future Russia and others by showing support. By showing Europe and the US can work together. Again appeasement isn't the best strategy.
3) We get to strengthen our alliances. We get to work with them. Alliances are a huge deal. They save you so much money because you don't need as big of a military yourself because your allies also have some and you are less likely to get into wars. I would prefer a smaller military and less wars so I'm a big fan of alliances.
4) This is the point where all the conspiracy people come in, but the US gets to show off its equipment and then sell it to others. We donate 39 HIMARs to Ukraine and after they have a good showing Poland orders 400. Also, in general again, a lot of the money comes back to US companies anyways.

Now on things like old tanks, yes we aren't getting new orders for those. But we also aren't likely to use them. So it doesn't hit #4, but points 1-3 stills seems fine to me. 400 tanks btw would be double total donated so far by everyone. What is the aging like on our artillery shells, can we get rid of a few million. Even if war broke out with China tomorrow we aren't using them. If war breaks out with China and Iran tomorrow we still aren't using them. The only case we would use them is North Korea vs South Korea and South Korea has quite a stockpile as well. We've spent a lot of money on stuff we will almost certainly never use. If we can not appease autocrats and strengthen bonds with our allies by giving some of it away, its better than it sitting around until we pay to decommission it.