Ukraine

[Phil1111 910]

Its been widely reported that up to 150 FSB officers have been arrested. Along with more than 20 generals and the admiral of the Black sea fleet. A ceremony was just held in Sevastopol where the crew of the Moskva paraded. Evidently about 400 of the crew already had been transferred to the Black Sea submariners service.

Others have suffered "heart attacks" or been transferred to Lefortovo prison for reeducation. Rumors have circulated that Stalin would have approved this purge.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, ryoder said:

Interesting backgrounds on those actors:

Werner "Col Klink" Klemperer: Father was Jewish, mother was Lutheran. Family moved from Germany to USA in 1933, when he was 13yo. He served in the US Army in WWII.

John "Sgt Schultz" Banner: Born to Jewish parents in Austria-Hungary. Moved to USA in 1938 at 28yo. Served in US Army Air Forces in WWII and became an actual Sgt.

But the most interesting of the cast was Robert "Corporal LeBeau" Clary, who was an actual Holocaust survivor:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clary

 

 

Leon Askin, who played General Burkhalter, was Jewish. He was attacked & beaten by the SA, interned in France for a while and later made his way to the US.

 

https://hogansheroes.fandom.com/wiki/Leon_Askin

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 4/15/2022 at 6:36 AM, brenthutch said:

Before the war Russia’s military was widely considered the second best in the world, six weeks into the “special military operation” it has been revealed to be the second best military in Ukraine.

So either Western intelligence agencies are really, really, really bad at what they do. Or maybe leaving people with the notion off all these incredibly powerful enemies is great for military spending and getting people upset that the whole western world isn't giving a minimum of 2% of their GDP to US companies?

[JoeWeber 2,298]

24 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So either Western intelligence agencies are really, really, really bad at what they do. Or maybe leaving people with the notion off all these incredibly powerful enemies is great for military spending and getting people upset that the whole western world isn't giving a minimum of 2% of their GDP to US companies?

The 2% issue is that all of the NATO Defense Ministers agreed to the 2% for a stated set of reasons. Then, as you know, their nations welshed on the promise. Whether any citizen thinks it's too much is another issue.

The wide world is bigger than Ukraine, hence the idea a very wide defense posture is needed. The interesting thing that should be NATO's Ukraine lesson is how logistics are decisive and how even a shitty army can be overwhelming before help arrives.

[Phil1111 910]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The 2% issue is that all of the NATO Defense Ministers agreed to the 2% for a stated set of reasons. Then, as you know, their nations welshed on the promise. Whether any citizen thinks it's too much is another issue.

The wide world is bigger than Ukraine, hence the idea a very wide defense posture is needed. The interesting thing that should be NATO's Ukraine lesson is how logistics are decisive and how even a shitty army can be overwhelming before help arrives.

Some nation states welshing on promises is hardly new. Not even unexpected. Probably a given.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Phil1111

[JoeWeber 2,298]

5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Some nation states welshing on promises is hardly new. Not even unexpected. Probably a given.

Sure. But on the issue of mutual defense obligations one might expect a tad more fidelity. Maybe it's just me but in my religion when you empower someone to make decisions that you will be bound by then you honor those decisions. In this instance it's even more serious as we're all supposed to be friends and mutually aligned not some assholes down the street whose dog craps in your yard, so fuck him.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But on the issue of mutual defense obligations one might expect a tad more fidelity.

Just a few years ago the US would not confirm it would live up to Nato's Article 5 obligation and there is a very strong possibility that same situation will present itself again in a few years.

[Phil1111 910]

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Just a few years ago the US would not confirm it would live up to Nato's Article 5 obligation and there is a very strong possibility that same situation will present itself again in a few years.

Just trump pandering. GOP leadership before and during his presidency disavowed those statements.

But just today Biden initiated a BUY USA steel policy

Biden to require US-made steel, iron for infrastructure "The Biden administration is taking a key step to ensure federal dollars will support U.S. manufacturing" which is a clear violation of NAFTA...er.... the  United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) the new trump negotiated free trade agreement.

US administration after administration routinely panders to its political base. By breaking free trade agreements.

"Peter Clark, a trade strategist involved in Canada-U.S. Free Trade and NAFTA negotiations, said Canada has had a winning record — but it depends where you look.

Clark said Canada has had lots of success with NAFTA challenges.

“They’ve won a lot of them,” he said, adding that it explains why the U.S. lumber industry wants to get rid of the Chapter 19 dispute settlement tool in the agreement."

[billvon 2,396]

21 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Just trump pandering. GOP leadership before and during his presidency disavowed those statements.

But just today Biden initiated a BUY USA steel policy

I'll take "how to get republicans to boycott US steel" for $100 Alex!

[JoeWeber 2,298]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Just a few years ago the US would not confirm it would live up to Nato's Article 5 obligation and there is a very strong possibility that same situation will present itself again in a few years.

Do you happen to recall the context and basis behind the implication?

Edited April 18, 2022 by JoeWeber

[SkyDekker 1,121]

27 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Do you happen to recall the context and basis behind of the implication?

That the US had no problem invoking it when they were attacked, even if all member nations didn't yet spend 2% of their GDP on the military, but that the US would not help other NATO members if they needed it if those member nations didn't spend 2% of their GDP.

Which was at odds with his other statement that NATO was obsolete. There is little doubt in my mind that Trump would have withdrawn from NATO during a second term.

Edited April 18, 2022 by SkyDekker

[ryoder 1,382]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That the US had no problem invoking it when they were attacked, even if all member nations didn't yet spend 2% of their GDP on the military, but that the US would not help other NATO members if they needed it if those member nations didn't spend 2% of their GDP.

Which was at odds with his other statement that NATO was obsolete. There is little doubt in my mind that Trump would have withdrawn from NATO during a second term.

What??? Trump rebuilt NATO! He told us all about it:

 

[Phil1111 910]

8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

....

Which was at odds with his other statement that NATO was obsolete. There is little doubt in my mind that Trump would have withdrawn from NATO during a second term.

Do you mean if Putin asked him? Ordered him? Threatened him with chemical assassination if he failed to withdraw?

[JoeWeber 2,298]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That the US had no problem invoking it when they were attacked, even if all member nations didn't yet spend 2% of their GDP on the military, but that the US would not help other NATO members if they needed it if those member nations didn't spend 2% of their GDP.

Which was at odds with his other statement that NATO was obsolete. There is little doubt in my mind that Trump would have withdrawn from NATO during a second term.

If you're hoping that I'd put anything past Trump, hope on. However, I am without your prescience on the matter and so would rely on the normal constraints on Presidential insanity to prevent our withdraw. You're right though that were it not for our NATO Allies giving the baboon the opportunity to point out that they've been cheap on splitting the bill it might never have come up.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Do you mean if Putin asked him? Ordered him? Threatened him with chemical assassination if he failed to withdraw?

None of those. Holding out to a second term would help gain support in the ongoing information warfare. From Trump's perspective getting rid of NATO would make perfect sense. It potentially inhibits the rise to power of autocrats and diminishes the power the US/Trump can wield directly.

[Phil1111 910]

10 minutes ago, ryoder said:

What??? Trump rebuilt NATO! He told us all about it:

 

FOX, Hannity, Carlson, fanboying over authoritarianism. Why has the US banned RT and Sputnik. Then left the biggest champions of Putin and his network on the air?

[JoeWeber 2,298]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

FOX, Hannity, Carlson, fanboying over authoritarianism. Why has the US banned RT and Sputnik. Then left the biggest champions of Putin and his network on the air?

Because we don't yet have an autocrat who can make it happen with the wave of a Turkey Drum Stick. We just can't win for losing.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

The 2% issue is that all of the NATO Defense Ministers agreed to the 2% for a stated set of reasons. Then, as you know, their nations welshed on the promise. Whether any citizen thinks it's too much is another issue.

The wide world is bigger than Ukraine, hence the idea a very wide defense posture is needed. The interesting thing that should be NATO's Ukraine lesson is how logistics are decisive and how even a shitty army can be overwhelming before help arrives.

NATO’s Ukraine lesson is that the Russian Army could be completely annihilated in any war on any ground with a lot less than 2% spending.

Otherwise I think they were well aware that we are much better at logistics than Russia, though perhaps not fully aware just how badly corruption within the Russian military has limited what logistical capacity they were supposed to have.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

So either Western intelligence agencies are really, really, really bad at what they do. Or maybe leaving people with the notion off all these incredibly powerful enemies is great for military spending and getting people upset that the whole western world isn't giving a minimum of 2% of their GDP to US companies?

To the argument that the Defense Ministers all agreed that their respective countries would meet the defense spending obligation, everyone there knew perfectly well that the Defense Ministers don't set spending policies. For them to promise any level of spending was a lie. For any of the others to accept that as anything other than an "I'll try to get my country to do this, but I'm not in control of that much" would be pretty stupid. 
It was posturing. Window dressing. Nothing more. Anyone who is familiar with the subject should know this.

Assessing military competence and capability is pretty complex. And REALLY difficult. Some of the reported failings of the Russian military would not have been something that could be evaluated before hand. Apparently not even by the Russians. Truck tires? Those who are 'car guys' understand that rubber ages regardless of use and that old tires are dangerous (especially on high performance cars). It's entirely possible that the Russians had a replacement schedule program in place and that those in direct control of it simply pocketed the money for the new tires and left the old ones in place. They looked like they were almost new? What could possibly go wrong?

Also, there are reports that the combat rations are really old.
That stuff stays 'good' for a long time, so stuff that's 7 years out of date is pretty bad.
And, again, it's not really something that would be available information. 
Again, maybe not even to the Russian command structure. Perhaps money was provided for the timely replacement of that stuff, and was simply pocketed.

Add in the fact that making one's self look tougher, meaner and more capable that reality is standard practice for a lot of things, not just militaries.

I'm not terribly surprised that the rest of the world over-rated the Russian army.
I am surprised at how bad they turned out to be.

And, in the 'Reality Check' thread, it was noted that the US seems to be sending more aid, and more capable aid to Ukraine. And that, predictably, Putin has renewed his threats about it.

But the thing Putin claims to be 'concerned' about is that the west is providing Ukraine with the capability to invade Russia.

So far the only things that have happened outside of Ukraine are a couple of attacks on supply yards just into Russia and the sinking of the Moskva, which may or may not have been in Ukrainian territorial waters.

And at this point, it's pretty clear that, short of launching large missiles, the Russian military isn't able to do much against the west. 

I think the west will increase the capability of the aid (up to fighter jets) as this goes on. I don't think it will provoke Putin to 'enlarging the conflict' (the Russian army can't do much more than it's doing right now - which is getting it's butt kicked). 

In fact, I think this has made Russia FAR more vulnerable than they were a couple months ago. The Russian army has been shown to be a hollow shell of what it was claimed to be (reminiscent of the US military in the late 70s).
Any major army, with the will to take on Russia, stands a pretty good chance of beating them. China? Certainly capable. Probably not willing. Japan? History gives a strong willingness, but probably not capable. German? Again, historical willingness, but not likely in the current political climate. Certainly not willing to go it alone with the result being the likely destruction of NATO. I don't think that anyone is both willing and capable. At least not right now. But that may change.

Putin has claimed he will win by May 9, which is "Victory Day" in Russia. We call it 'VE-Day' (Victory in Europe Day) and celebrate it on the 8th.

Short of nuking Kiev, I can't see that happening. If Putin has anything close to reality available to him, I don't understand how he is foolish enough to claim that.

But there have been a lot of reports that Putin is likele operating in the 'land of make believe'. He's reported to have been convinced that the Ukrainian public would support the Russian invasion. He's probably been fed 'less than accurate' reports about the 'victories' the Russians have been achieving. The number of RSV officers that have been reported arrested tends to support this. Not sure if it was the ones telling the lies that got in trouble...
Or the ones telling the truth.

The answer to that would be a good indicator of how this might end.

[lippy 771]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Short of nuking Kiev, I can't see that happening. If Putin has anything close to reality available to him....

As always I really enjoy your posts...The question of his available realities really is the ace up his sleeve, isn't it?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Short of nuking Kiev, I can't see that happening. If Putin has anything close to reality available to him, I don't understand how he is foolish enough to claim that.

Other than Ukraine claiming it, there appears to be no evidence Putin has claimed that. I continue to suggest that one should be highly skeptical of communications coming out of either country.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

51 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Other than Ukraine claiming it, there appears to be no evidence Putin has claimed that. I continue to suggest that one should be highly skeptical of communications coming out of either country.

My comment about Putin's 'claims' was about declaring victory on May 9. 

There are several reports out about plans for a victory parade to go along with "Victory" celebrations about the "Great Patriotic War" (WW2 for us proletarians)

I don't think Putin will use nukes. It's been made very clear that his comms are compromised. If he tried some kind of ruse to make it look justifiable, that would be all over the news a few days before he tried it.

The cost for 'first use' would be too high.

Both in the short term, and long term.

Putin wants to be in the history books. 
But as the 'hero' who restored Russia to greatness.
Not as the man who murdered thousands or millions of people in the first use of nukes in almost 80 years.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

To the argument that the Defense Ministers all agreed that their respective countries would meet the defense spending obligation, everyone there knew perfectly well that the Defense Ministers don't set spending policies. For them to promise any level of spending was a lie. For any of the others to accept that as anything other than an "I'll try to get my country to do this, but I'm not in control of that much" would be pretty stupid. 
It was posturing. Window dressing. Nothing more. Anyone who is familiar with the subject should know this.

Do tell, Joe, what is your familiarity with responsibilities at the Defense Minister level that gives you that insight?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Do tell, Joe, what is your familiarity with responsibilities at the Defense Minister level that gives you that insight?

Who is in  charge of the budget and spending in any democracy?

More importantly, who isn't?

[JoeWeber 2,298]

8 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Who is in  charge of the budget and spending in any democracy?

More importantly, who isn't?

Look, you went too far. Just acknowledge that and move on. You know with certainty that officials below the level of the Executive are empowered to bind our nation. If the President needed to agree to every deal in person we'd be fucked. Even in small corporations executives make binding decisions. You must know that.