American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

2) We get to deter other countries (cough China)

China has TAKEN A STRONGER STANCE towards the United States. Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Qin Gang, have expressed concerns about U.S. efforts to contain China, that these actions are leading to deteriorating relations and suggest that conflict may be inevitable unless the U.S. changes its approach.

It in fact has resulted in increased tensions between the two countries, with both sides engaging in a strategic competition that spans various domains, including trade, technology, and military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

So much so that China had issued a direct challenge to the us, "The US does not have the qualification to speak to China from a position of strength, not since 20, 30 years ago"

Deterrence, NO!?  ILLUSION OF GRANDEUR, YES! 

 


Oh yeah, China got so scared they just fired a DF31AG missile to the south of hawaii, and increased their frequency of "freedom of navigation" off the us coast with warships and  jets 

Greenline to Mjmd: I don't know what the point of replying to you in this thread is when you repeatedly get basic information wrong, over and over again.

I have learned that long ago. 

[greenline]

I don't know what the point of replying to you in this thread is when you repeatedly get basic information wrong, over and over again.

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.

The Eastern front of WWI was fluid and featured a great deal of back and forth maneuvering on the front, with a fair number of cavalry charges. The Russian decision to surrender was motivated in part by several instances where the Russian army lost and was pushed back to the edge of Poland.

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.

Prior to the Russian Civil War, there already had been a revolt against the Czarist government by Republican and proto-Bolshevik groups in 1905. One of the catalysts for the 1917 revolution was Germany returning Vladimir Lenin from exile to Russia.

Modern Russia has no equivalent political leader or dissident groups. Navalny is a joke that no one takes seriously. The most direct threat to Putin came not from dissatisfied liberals, but from the army, in the form of Prigozhin. The result of his attempted revolt was that he was killed and his private armed forces were dissolved into the regular military.

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.

The vast majority of useful hardware provided to Ukraine has come from the US. European nations who have attempted to speed up production of key arms have failed to do so. The war itself has resulted in the weakening, not strengthening, of the European economy and the ability of those countries to make war, as many are reeling from the lack of access to Russian natural resources.

You don't need to read a book, but at a bare minimum, could you at least bother to read some wikipedia articles before saying all this shit online?

[Mjmd]

Yes Russia was pushed back early in WWI and Urkaine was able to do maneuver warfare early on with the Kharkiv counteroffensive in 2022. That doesn't mean that is where the war is now. And again, its not a direct parallel. There are obviously huge historical and technological differences. Its just a good example of attritional war where Germany didn't need to take over Russia.

You are aware Navalny is dead right? Unless you mean his widow. Again, neither of us is a Russian expert, but if you are doing larger and larger payments instead of doing mobilization which is a lot cheaper there is a political reason for that. I'm not saying Russia will collapse, but if Putin thinks there is a chance that may be enough to at least get reasonable peace terms. Something where he gets to save face, but Ukraine still exists long term.

Where have most of the tanks and F-16s come from? All the old soviet stockpiles in eastern NATO members hands at the beginning of the war were actually extremely useful. It was equipment Ukraine already knew how to operate so it could be transferred over and used fast and there was still a lot of it. That was some of the most important aid given for stopping and turning back the Russians. Even things like the UK being the first to supply weapon systems (long range missiles) and crossing "red" lines has been useful. Europe has also been supplying the lions share of the economic aid, which is also important to keep Ukraine in the fight. And yes a of the continued political will has to come from Europe as well. But that is a good thing. Something autocrats always assume of Democracies is a little pain will make us turn tail and give up. Maybe Europe (or most of it) understands appeasement isn't a great strategy. If Europe is willing with admittedly more pain for them continue the fight and keep giving aid, we should be there with them.

You used population as the guarantee that it was a fantasy for Ukraine to win when there are a plethora of examples contradictory. You sited Navalny who is dead. Listen the person who said a revolution isn't the loss of political will maybe shouldn't be throwing stones.

[Charr Babies]

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.

Saying you hate a country or using explicit language to express that hatred can be considered hate speech. It promotes hostility and animosity towards a group of people based on their nationality, which can be harmful and divisive.

But of course, this is america so it is okay to use this kind of language against other nations, well, except israel.

[Boro]

@ Boro This all seems awful like copy paste Russia propaganda. I especially love how "successful attack" involved themselves beaten back on several fronts. That is kind of the giveaway maybe its propaganda.

I think the numbers involved were more a product of Russian overconfidence and I don't think a particularly harsh Western sanctions were expected. A good signal of this is the Russian assets currently frozen that Russia 100% could have moved well ahead of time if they thought it was going to face a lot of push back / a long war.

The results of the attack:

• Peace talks that started in days and went on until the west instructed ukraine to focus on inflicting a military defeat on russia (See David Arakhamia for more details)
  
• Opening of the canal supplying water from the Dnieper to Crimea (which the ukrainians welded shut)
  
• Opening a land bridge to Crimea.
  
• Securing Chernobyl, which was the place ukraine would have allegedly used for hiding nuclear weapons development (Zelensky openly questioned the Budapest memorandum in the leadup to the conflict)
  

Yes, there were setbacks, because in the first days the conflict was not like the attritional warfare we see today, allowing for multiple ambushes. (plus the ukr use of civilian population as human shields, evidenced in Mariupol) Never mind that ukraine needed rearming with pretty much all the old warsaw treaty stocks nato could scrape together for it's arguably successful 2022 offensive (and then with all the western showpieces for the failed 2023 one), implying at least some success on that end.

Re:Sanctions, they had strong impact in 2014, weakening Russia's economy back then, and a lot of rhetoric leading up to the conflict was how there will be brutal sanctions if Russia attacks. All this, and much of the initial (controlled) social and legacy media talks point to the goal of using the initial hardships to foster dissatisfaction and ignite a regime change. (which is the classic american playbook)

Ironically, it failed because both China and Inida learned that - surprise surprise - appeasement of a bully (the united states) to their own detriment isn't a great strategy.

You can, of course, dismiss all that as propaganda, or barring that soft-reset your programming by retreating back to the same assertions, projections and platitutes as before. It won't change a thing when reality comes knocking.

[Mjmd]

All the spin in the world won't undo that it was Russia that invaded Ukraine. I love how the west is the bullies for trying to stop Russia from taking away another countries land. And don't worry the US fell for WMD lies too, you aren't alone.

[greenline]

Silly of me to forget that Navalny died.

Before his death, he was the hand picked man to lead a liberal Russian resistance movement by the US. How much had that accomplished in all the time leading up to his imprisonment? The peak of the power of liberal oligarchs in Russia was in the 90s and early 2000s, before Putin consolidated control in the government. This was time that US intelligence and business interests decided to spend on snapping up ex Soviet states in Eastern Europe into their orbit. This effort spent on capturing eastern Europe meant that they were also pushing any potentially sympathetic Russian assets out of reach. Even when Prigozhin was on the move towards Moscow, was there anyone in Washington really looking to pull a trigger on that bullet - aiming to install a right wing military dictator in Russia and ousting a democratically elected (if illiberal) president?

Anyone expecting a velvet revolution to end the war is barking up the wrong tree at this point. So the Ukranian propaganda wing resorts to gawking at Russian interest rates. "Surely, with 5% more inflation of the ruble, they must end the war!" Yet, somehow, the country of Argentina continues to exist...

All the old soviet stockpiles in eastern NATO members hands at the beginning of the war were actually extremely useful. It was equipment Ukraine already knew how to operate so it could be transferred over and used fast and there was still a lot of it.

Legacy Soviet stockpiles were useful at the beginning of the war. The obvious problem with relying on them was that no one was in a position to manufacture more of that equipment at any sort of scale.

Yes Russia was pushed back early in WWI and Urkaine was able to do maneuver warfare early on with the Kharkiv counteroffensive in 2022. That doesn't mean that is where the war is now.

The reason why the Kharkiv counteroffensive worked, and the 2023 counteroffensive did not, should trouble you. Ukraine in 2022 achieved numerical superiority on several fronts through mass mobilization and was able to quickly take ground that was thinly garrisoned. In 2023, after Russia had achieved its own mobilization, Ukraine still attempted a large armored assault, and was utterly demolished by Russian fortifications, drones, and helicopters. You've repeatedly asked why Russia has not done a second mass mobilization - the obvious answer is that they see no need to do so now that the lines have been stabilized, as monthly casualties are being offset by regular enlistment.

[Mjmd]

I did laugh at the Argentina line, but yes I agree Russia is unlikely to collapse. But collapse is not necessary to end a war either. Again, a lot of wars end without either side totally taking over the other. How much is Russia willing to give up if they don't think they can't gain significant territory? (think major city). There is a reason a lot of the aid announcements are long term. The west can 100% out attrition Russia with a fraction of their capability & storage IF they have the will to do so. And while the sanctions aren't 100% effective, they aren't 100% ineffective either. Russia is also giving up on its arms export industry (which was a major pre war export) and a lot of its central Asia influence. Are they willing to let other former soviet states start drifting farther away to gain small chunks of Ukraine? Again, not a Putin expert, so who knows, but just letting him take over Ukraine seems much worse and again my points 1-4 all still stand. As long as Ukraine wants to fight and Europe is willing to support them it makes a lot of sense for us also to support them.

I mean I think considering the complexity of operating what has to be an extremely diverse set of equipment that Ukraine has done a pretty good job at incorporating lots of different types of equipment. I don't envy their supply chain or mechanics.

I mean I've admitted I don't think Ukraine is taking much territory anymore and that its an attrition war. But again I think you are missing the point. If you are a government and certainly an autocrat lead government why pay people more for regular enlistment if you COULD do cheaper mobilization and not just replace casualties but build a greater advantage. A main reason is probably the political perception and possible political consequences. And again, just because Ukraine can't gain large chunks of land doesn't mean they can't win an attritional war. Few people thought they would live beyond the first couple weeks.

[greenline]

Russia is also giving up on its arms export industry (which was a major pre war export) and a lot of its central Asia influence. Are they willing to let other former soviet states start drifting farther away to gain small chunks of Ukraine?

Yes, and this was obvious to anyone with the most basic knowledge of Russian history well before the war started.

If you are a government and certainly an autocrat lead government why pay people more for regular enlistment if you COULD do cheaper mobilization and not just replace casualties but build a greater advantage.

Because there isn't a need for the amount of troops provided by a general mobilization or enough equipment for them all to use effectively. The Ukrainian front is now well garrisoned and Russian forces are already set up to continue attriting the Ukrainian army in the Donbass while steadily gaining ground. Even when Ukraine attempted to attack the more lightly guarded Kursk region, they barely made any headway before they were stalled and then pushed back - while the offensive in the Donbass continued unabated. The belief that Russia must do another mobilization only holds true if you believe the fabricated Russian casualty numbers that Ukraine and NATO propaganda pump out.

[Mjmd]

I mean if the war had been fast I don't think there would have been much effect on those. Most people not high on propoganda believe Russia thought the war would be fast.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't want to gain more Ukrainian land faster if they could? You yourself have noted multiple times that the number of troops has mattered this war. If you can figure it out I'm sure Putin can. So why isn't he? A long attritional war isn't to Russia's advantage material wise IF the west keeps supplying. IF Russia was making much faster gains public perception might shift faster away from helping Ukraine. There are multiple reasons to go for more of a manpower advantage and to me its telling he isn't. And he still may, but I don't think its a decision he takes lightly. It may not be because he is afraid of turmoil at home, but it may just be he wants to avoid more Russians leaving Russia. It could be for a multitude of reasons; again not a Putin whisperer. However, its not because he doesn't want more men or really likes spending more money to get them. That much I'm pretty sure of. Your estimation of 2 Russians to 1 Ukrainian earlier may be right. But even if its 1 to 2 against (and everyone BUT Russia pretty much is in agreement its somewhere in Ukraine's favor) that doesn't dictate the results of a war on its own. It helps, but again there are plenty of examples of a smaller populace country suffering more casualties winning a war.