Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

Putin is a master strategist..

Honestly though I'm sure that factored into it. 

Putin would go along with that, but I doubt he'll allow Wagner to merge with Kadyrov's people, because that seems to get really dicey for him in terms of potential rivals.  Kadyrov's men seem more loyal to Kadyrov than Mother Russia, which is the same with Wagner's (many of whom are convicts and probably have no love for the state).

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be controversial. If so, fire away. I think:
1. It is right for the US to support Ukraine, militarily, to win this war. 
2. It is even more right for Europe to support Ukraine militarily, but they are happy to passive aggressively position themselves so Uncle Sam picks up most of the bill (talking about France and Germany, mainly, but others, too, to different extents. They just don’t spend on defense). 
3. When this is over, repairing Ukraine will be ridiculously expensive. Again, Europe will guide us into paying that bill. 
4. We (the USA) must resist. We need to do nothing, and let Europe pick up that check. We must, because:
5. Taiwan is under a similar threat, from the PRC. Europe will not help against China, not militarily and probably not with sanctions. They are too in bed, economically, with China. The US can’t assume the cost of restoring Ukraine because we have to build up military stores, to be a credible threat against China. Private charity is fine, but none of this “you broke it, you own it” business. 

Edited by statsman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

This may be controversial. If so, fire away. I think:
1. It is right for the US to support Ukraine, militarily, to win this war. 
2. It is even more right for Europe to support Ukraine militarily, but they are happy to passive aggressively position themselves so Uncle Sam picks up the bill. 
3. When this is over, repairing Ukraine will be ridiculously expensive. Again, Europe will guide us into paying that bill. 
4. We (the USA) must resist. We need to do nothing, and let Europe pick up that check. We must, because:
5. Taiwan is under a similar threat, from the PRC. Europe will not help against China, not militarily and probably not with sanctions. They are too in bed, economically, with China. The US can’t assume the cost of restoring Ukraine because we have to build up military stores, to be a credible threat against China. Private charity is fine, but none of this “you broke it, you own it” business. 

The tab may end up smaller than we think because we have so much seized Russian assets.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, statsman said:

This may be controversial. If so, fire away. I think:
1. It is right for the US to support Ukraine, militarily, to win this war. 
2. It is even more right for Europe to support Ukraine militarily, but they are happy to passive aggressively position themselves so Uncle Sam picks up the bill. 
3. When this is over, repairing Ukraine will be ridiculously expensive. Again, Europe will guide us into paying that bill. 
4. We (the USA) must resist. We need to do nothing, and let Europe pick up that check. We must, because:
5. Taiwan is under a similar threat, from the PRC. Europe will not help against China, not militarily and probably not with sanctions. They are too in bed, economically, with China. The US can’t assume the cost of restoring Ukraine because we have to build up military stores, to be a credible threat against China. Private charity is fine, but none of this “you broke it, you own it” business. 

I hope at the point the war ends that Russia is so hopelessly fucked that they have no option but to agree to some kind of reparations agreement.   IOW, you can keep half of your oil and gas profits but the rest goes to repair Ukraine.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, statsman said:

This may be controversial. If so, fire away. I think:
1. It is right for the US to support Ukraine, militarily, to win this war. 
2. It is even more right for Europe to support Ukraine militarily, but they are happy to passive aggressively position themselves so Uncle Sam picks up most of the bill (talking about France and Germany, mainly, but others, too, to different extents. They just don’t spend on defense). 
3. When this is over, repairing Ukraine will be ridiculously expensive. Again, Europe will guide us into paying that bill. 
4. We (the USA) must resist. We need to do nothing, and let Europe pick up that check. We must, because:
5. Taiwan is under a similar threat, from the PRC. Europe will not help against China, not militarily and probably not with sanctions. They are too in bed, economically, with China. The US can’t assume the cost of restoring Ukraine because we have to build up military stores, to be a credible threat against China. Private charity is fine, but none of this “you broke it, you own it” business. 

With all due respect:

Youre Wrong John C Mcginley GIF

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I think we’ve spent or allocated $100B so far, so $300 per American. We spend $3k per American per year on our defense budget, for perspective.

And that is probably using 300 Million in the denominator. I'm strongly for supporting Ukraine, but be we should be careful about using dubious stats to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I believe the EU as a whole has actually put more into this than the US has (or it's extremely close), and not just in terms of the cost of taking in millions of refugees, but armaments, money, other aid, etc.,  If you get into individual countries' GDP numbers, some European countries are punching well above their weight class, especially the smaller countries.

 

This is correct, or it was as of this past Thanksgiving. If anyone cares to look into the numbers, other charts are available that break it down by type of aid and country.

image.png.6e910dda554b9dd89f547cf630d697b9.png

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And how many of the vehicles that we've donated were just sitting around, either in storage, or on their way to storage.  Some people are acting like we are straight up giving Ukraine the money, or giving them our best stuff, when the fucking M113s entered service in 1960 and the Bradley's entered in 1981.

As a matter of fact, the Army is in the process of replacing over 2,800 M113s with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (which is based on the Bradley chassis, but not the existing Bradleys, which will also be replaced/are being replaced by the AMPVs and other systems.

And those Humvees?  We have over 230,000 of them in the Army and the Marine Corps, and they are being replaced by the Oshkosh L-ATV

Almost everything we are sending, with the exception of the HIMARS (which are themselves from the 1990s) and the M777s is old shit.  We were paying to store this shit and now it's being put to good use.

For the people worried about the cost to the United States, a lot of American companies are wanting to get into a Russian-free Ukraine, but in particular the oil & gas companies who were just starting to really get the Ukrainian O&G industry going pre-February 2022 (which could have been another reason for Putin to move - he couldn't risk Ukraine replacing Russian gas, which Putin has now guaranteed will eventually happen).

But in general, this will lead to a much more stable Europe, which, again, is good for our economy, for those worried about how much this is costing us.

For the record, my issue was with bullshit stats. Just give me the facts and I can form my own opinions.

 

YARN | I won't blow sunshine up your ass. | Top Gun (1986) | Video gifs by  quotes | 04244023 | 紗

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Almost everything we are sending, with the exception of the HIMARS (which are themselves from the 1990s) and the M777s is old shit.

and HIMARS are cheap - it's literally a GMLRS launcher on a (heavily armored) tactical truck.

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

So, every person who thought that we could utterly destroy the conventional Russian military with a couple hundred billion dollars, and no American casualties, raise your hand.

Seriously. This war is one of the greatest “bang for our buck” exercises ever. And yes, we should damn well acknowledge the huge price that is being paid in Ukrainian blood and suffering, on behalf of themselves and the rest of the world. Damn right we should be part of the reconstruction effort; we did so with respect to the UK, Germany, France…and the mutual prosperity was astronomical. Rebuilding European countries (and let’s not forget similar exercises with Japan and Korea) has a proven great ROI. When this is done, we should have a great reconstruction effort in Ukraine, build up a great economy, and have fantastic ties with them and their enterprises going forward. Think generationally here. The world I described, most people couldn’t have imagined in 1945…or even 1955. But by 1970, Western Europe was prosperous.

this should be hammered into anyone who thinks this "costs too much". 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...