How do you propose that we are going to do that ?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:38 am And here's the potential 'good news'...we may end up enforcing the free corridor ourselves instead of letting Russia blackmail the world.
More bluster...attacking a US ship would result in the annihilation of the Russian fleet.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:53 pmHow do you propose that we are going to do that ?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:38 am And here's the potential 'good news'...we may end up enforcing the free corridor ourselves instead of letting Russia blackmail the world.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy ... ns-2021-11
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:36 pm
More bluster...attacking a US ship would result in the annihilation of the Russian fleet.
This is how: https://nypost.com/2022/10/31/grain-shi ... de-threat/
mmm, Gulf of Tonkin...that'll be your first reaction if Russia attacks American ships providing safe passage for ships delivering grain to feed the hungry of the world???Brooklyn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:47 pmMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:36 pm
More bluster...attacking a US ship would result in the annihilation of the Russian fleet.
This is how: https://nypost.com/2022/10/31/grain-shi ... de-threat/
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if an attack on a US vessel is in the works ~ a modern day Gulf of Tonkin scenario as a "justification" for more war.
Watch for it.
get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:15 amDid I say he acted tough? You don't know what was said to Putin and neither do I. Trump was a "Peacenik" compared to the warmongering establishment (D's and R's), whose loyalty is to the Military Industrial Complex. As a SC resident, I long for the day when Graham retires. Try the red pill, it results in way fewer deaths. See Afghanistan under Trump.Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:45 amDo tell us how the former DOPUS acted tough with Putin in four years?get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:38 amI would note that while, as you stated, "your people" were in the WH, Russia wasn't so ambitious. In fact, the whole time Trump was in the WH your side was accusing Putin of conspiring with Trump to defraud the American people. Ukraine was invaded twice, under two D administrations. Weakness invites aggression, a lesson taught over and over throughout history.Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 7:13 am So doesn't Ukraine have a right to defend itself from Russian ships launching missiles? Do you really think the "agreement" excludes hostile actions against Russian naval assets known to be involved in this type of activity?
Like usual, your people aren't in the WH so its time to disagree and biyach about every decision they make. Rinse and repeat. You've been doing this for YEARS.
a fan still has you pegged for this M.O.
Try the blue kool-aid.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:00 pm
mmm, Gulf of Tonkin...that'll be your first reaction if Russia attacks American ships providing safe passage for ships delivering grain to feed the hungry of the world???
I understand the desire for confirmation that Russia actually attacked, but we have way, way better media coverage of such today.
Maybe harder to fake a moon landing...
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:40 pm
60 dead American solders under Trump doing the slow bleed; 13 under Biden and it was over. Biden was the only President to keep his word about getting us out of Afghanistan. Trump and Obama did the slow bleed believing the generals that the Afghans would ever fight for themselves.
More bluster from you. Russia has just not yet re-instituted the blockade. Since the agreement expires in a couple weeks anyway, there's no urgency in re-deploying their warships to enforce the blockade. Russia will probably demand prohibitions which will preclude further such attacks as a condition for extending the agreement.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:36 pmMore bluster...attacking a US ship would result in the annihilation of the Russian fleet.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:53 pmHow do you propose that we are going to do that ?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:38 am And here's the potential 'good news'...we may end up enforcing the free corridor ourselves instead of letting Russia blackmail the world.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy ... ns-2021-11
This is how: https://nypost.com/2022/10/31/grain-shi ... de-threat/
But despite the apparent safe passage of the Ikaria Angel and the other ships to depart Ukrainian ports Monday, the future of the grain deal was uncertain.
Insurers at Lloyds of London — a marketplace for insuring ships and cargo — indicated that grain shipments in the Black Sea would be difficult to underwrite without more clarity regarding Russia’s intentions.
Which is what Biden is doing, and HAS been doing. Obviously. Yet you're STILL complaining. You know better than anyone how hard it is to "correctly" meter weapons to induce a stalemate. It's ABSURD that you're not admitting this, and simply giving Biden credit here.
What are you talking about? Putin has taken land that the Ukrainians have owned for decades now.
Sure we can. We just choose not to.
Thats' great. The problem is that neither Putin nor Zelensky agree with you.
get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:38 am I would note that while, as you stated, "your people" were in the WH, Russia wasn't so ambitious. In fact, the whole time Trump was in the WH your side was accusing Putin of conspiring with Trump to defraud the American people. Ukraine was invaded twice, under two D administrations. Weakness invites aggression, a lesson taught over and over throughout history.
Come on. You don't get to complain about warmongering as Biden and Zelensky embarrass the Russian army in full view of the world....yet at the same time, call him weak.But they might fight for Pootie's caterer...jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:40 pmget it to x wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:15 amDid I say he acted tough? You don't know what was said to Putin and neither do I. Trump was a "Peacenik" compared to the warmongering establishment (D's and R's), whose loyalty is to the Military Industrial Complex. As a SC resident, I long for the day when Graham retires. Try the red pill, it results in way fewer deaths. See Afghanistan under Trump.Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:45 amDo tell us how the former DOPUS acted tough with Putin in four years?get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:38 amI would note that while, as you stated, "your people" were in the WH, Russia wasn't so ambitious. In fact, the whole time Trump was in the WH your side was accusing Putin of conspiring with Trump to defraud the American people. Ukraine was invaded twice, under two D administrations. Weakness invites aggression, a lesson taught over and over throughout history.Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 7:13 am So doesn't Ukraine have a right to defend itself from Russian ships launching missiles? Do you really think the "agreement" excludes hostile actions against Russian naval assets known to be involved in this type of activity?
Like usual, your people aren't in the WH so its time to disagree and biyach about every decision they make. Rinse and repeat. You've been doing this for YEARS.
a fan still has you pegged for this M.O.
Try the blue kool-aid.
60 dead American solders under Trump doing the slow bleed; 13 under Biden and it was over. Biden was the only President to keep his word about getting us out of Afghanistan. Trump and Obama did the slow bleed believing the generals that the Afghans would ever fight for themselves.
Nope, I'm merely stating that it would be predictable that there will be consequences for Russian aggression and war crimes, including blackmail of the world's hungry.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:57 pmMore bluster from you. Russia has just not yet re-instituted the blockade. Since the agreement expires in a couple weeks anyway, there's no urgency in re-deploying their warships to enforce the blockade. Russia will probably demand prohibitions which will preclude further such attacks as a condition for extending the agreement.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:36 pmMore bluster...attacking a US ship would result in the annihilation of the Russian fleet.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:53 pmHow do you propose that we are going to do that ?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:38 am And here's the potential 'good news'...we may end up enforcing the free corridor ourselves instead of letting Russia blackmail the world.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy ... ns-2021-11
This is how: https://nypost.com/2022/10/31/grain-shi ... de-threat/
But despite the apparent safe passage of the Ikaria Angel and the other ships to depart Ukrainian ports Monday, the future of the grain deal was uncertain.
Insurers at Lloyds of London — a marketplace for insuring ships and cargo — indicated that grain shipments in the Black Sea would be difficult to underwrite without more clarity regarding Russia’s intentions.
Re. your bluster about the US enforcing the agreement & breaking the blockade, the Montreux Convention precludes sending enough USN ships into the Black Sea to provide adequate force protection to conduct such operations. It's unlikely that the US or any NATO member would put a valuable warship at risk without more protection or defensive capabilities than the Montreux Convention allows. Your bluster about retaliation is not adequate force protection.
Russia has already temporarily relocated their subs from Crimea to their other Black Sea naval base. They can do the same with their surface ships if necessary & still enforce a blockade & conduct cruise missile strikes from further out at sea.
Wait a second...are you really claiming that Assad did not use chemical weapons multiple times against Syrian civilians?Brooklyn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:43 pmMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:00 pm
mmm, Gulf of Tonkin...that'll be your first reaction if Russia attacks American ships providing safe passage for ships delivering grain to feed the hungry of the world???
I understand the desire for confirmation that Russia actually attacked, but we have way, way better media coverage of such today.
Maybe harder to fake a moon landing...
Why would the US be providing "safe passage" instead of spending that money to feed the poor and homeless here?
Just a hand full of years ago people were all hell bent on starting a war with Syria because Assad was accused of gas bombing his own people. Even tRump dropped a bomb thinking it would stop such an attack. Turns out the gas attacks were FAKE NEWS:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514d7a45 ... index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcsH2EJOis
In the past there were dozens of photos of children supposedly near death due to gas exposure which were easily refuted by other photos which showed them vacationing in Europe the next week. There were also made links with articles discussing this issue. Sadly, these photos and links have been removed from the internet. Info suppression like that can easily lead to more war.
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:49 pmWhich is what Biden is doing, and HAS been doing. Obviously. Yet you're STILL complaining. You know better than anyone how hard it is to "correctly" meter weapons to induce a stalemate. It's ABSURD that you're not admitting this, and simply giving Biden credit here.
I'll give Biden credit if & when he does that. For now, he's backing Zelensky's vow to retake everything surrendered since 2014 & trying to cram through as much aid as he can before the (R)'s control the House.What are you talking about? Putin has taken land that the Ukrainians have owned for decades now.
...which was part of Russia for centuries.
Pretend this happens on YOUR watch, OS. You're still on the front lines. Putin takes Texas, Oklahoma, MS and Alabama. How fast would YOU run to the table to give Putin those States in the name of peace? A more apt analogy would be for our future Chinese overlords to foment a revolution which breaks up the USA & makes TX,NM,AZ,CA,NV, UT, CO, KN & OK a separate country. I'd fight to reunite them with the rest of the USA.
You keep acting like you don't get this.Sure we can. We just choose not to.
In a confined theater of operations, defending their homeland, Ukraine can defeat Russian forces. That's not the same thing as engaging Russian Naval & Air forces in 3 global theaters, invading their homeland & neutralizing their missile forces.Thats' great. The problem is that neither Putin nor Zelensky agree with you.
We need to keep quietly pressuring them until they do. Winter will help in that regard.
He did not and it's been documented. Unfortunately the pro war powers that be have removed the photos I referred to earlier. In fact the White Helmets who presented fake news photos of "suffering" children (the same ones vacationing in Europe the next week) are a sub group in al-Qaeda.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 7:37 pm
Wait a second...are you really claiming that Assad did not use chemical weapons multiple times against Syrian civilians?
So did ISIL, though mostly the Syrian government.
https://unherd.com/thepost/is-putin-sca ... -war-aims/
Is Putin scaling down his war aims ?
by ARIS ROUSSINOS, 28 October 2022
Targeting Ukraine's power infrastructure may be a tacit admission of defeat
As the seasons change, the war in Ukraine has entered a new phase. Following a series of major reverses the Russians are digging in, in the hope that the autumn rains will bog down any further Ukrainian counter-offensives, perhaps allowing time to train and equip their newly-mobilised conscript army for a second push next spring.
In the meantime, Russia’s attention has shifted towards knocking out Ukraine’s electrical grid from the air. Over the past three weeks, waves of cruise missile and Iranian Shahed drone strikes have battered Ukraine’s power infrastructure, damaging or destroying around 40% of its power network, leading to blackouts and outages across the country, including western cities hitherto barely affected by the war. In his nightly address last night from a blacked-out Kyiv, standing next to a downed Shahed UAV, Zelensky asserted: “We are not afraid of the dark. The darkest times for us are not without light, but without freedom.”
But if the disruption of power supplies continues into winter, it will affect civilian morale, as is no doubt intended. Urging Ukrainians to limit their electricity consumption on Wednesday, Zelensky stated that “Russian terrorists have created such difficult conditions for our energy workers that no one in Europe has ever seen or encountered” but “we need victory over Russia in the energy sphere as well.”
The coinciding of the new bombing campaign with the appointment of the Russian Air Force general Sergey Surovikin, who oversaw much of the brutal and successful aerial bombardment of rebel-held Syrian cities following Russia’s 2015 intervention, has naturally led to speculation that his appointment is an attempt to apply the “Syrian playbook” to Ukraine.
Yet expert analysts urge caution: as the Institute for the Study of War observed, all the Russian commanders overseeing the Ukraine war so far have previously commanded operations in Syria, using much the same methods. In any case:
Whoever was appointed as theatre commander would have overseen the October 10 cruise missile strikes, which Ukrainian intelligence reported had been planned as early as October 2 (and which Surovikin certainly did not plan, prepare for, and conduct on the day of his appointment).
If anything, the surprise is that Russia did not pursue this aerial campaign at the beginning of the war. A “shock and awe” campaign against civilian and dual-use infrastructure, like American bombing of Iraq’s power nodes in 2003, would ordinarily precede a ground offensive. Perhaps the better analogy is with the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, in which the destruction of the electric grid only began after three months of limited success striking military targets.
NATO spokesman Jamie Shea briefed then that “the fact that lights went out across 70% of the country shows that NATO has its finger on the light switch now… We can turn the power off whenever we need to and whenever we want.” No doubt Putin, who frequently cites NATO’s Kosovo intervention as a precedent, is aiming to send a similar message. But the takeaway lesson is surely that Russia has dialed back its war aims, even as the conflict’s hardships affect a broader swath of Ukraine’s civilian population.
Back in February, Putin ordered lightly-armed troops to invade much of Ukraine, leaving the country’s infrastructure intact in the seeming belief the war would end in days with a puppet government installed. In destroying Ukraine’s power grid, Putin is signalling, perhaps unintentionally, acceptance that his broadest ambitions will not be realized. Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure is now a target precisely because the country will not become part of Russia’s sphere of influence. The escalation of the bombing is in its own way a quiet admission of defeat.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-s ... 1667242695
OPINION I GLOBAL VIEW
The High Cost of Low American Military Spending
Ukraine’s lesson: Deterrence isn’t about preventing only nuclear war.
by Walter Russell Mead, Oct. 31, 2022
Vladimir Putin has reminded us of a forgotten lesson of the Cold War: Deterrence isn’t merely about preventing nuclear war.
The U.S. and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization failed to deter Mr. Putin from launching a conventional war in February, and the costs of that failure—in blood and tears, in the military and economic support needed to keep Ukraine in the fight, in the economic shocks reverberating across Europe, in the food and fuel inflation threatening to destabilize governments across the Global South—continue to mount.
If conventional deterrence also fails against China, and Beijing attacks Taiwan, the costs will be even higher. Ukrainians at least were able to flee from the war zone. Trapped on their island, the people of Taiwan would have no place to go as war engulfed their homes. The shock to the world economy would be almost immeasurably greater. The importance of the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea to world commerce eclipses that of the Black Sea. It isn’t only computer chips whose global supply chain would be crippled by war over Taiwan. Everything made in China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan would become scarce. Global financial markets would tank. Japan and Korea would face critical shortages of fuel and food. Africa and Latin America would face massive economic damage.
Meanwhile, the failure to deter Russia is leading to increased American spending in Europe. We have sent around $20 billion to Ukraine since the invasion began and have dispatched an additional 20,000 troops to Eastern Europe. All this makes sense, but the contrast with our Asian commitments is sobering. Senators are currently working to send Taiwan $10 billion in U.S. aid over the next 10 years, half of what Ukraine has received in eight months of war. The U.S. announced plans to send six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to Australia Monday morning, but the impact was offset by news that up to half the American combat aircraft stationed in Japan will be withdrawn, with no agreed Pentagon plan for permanent replacements.
The threats in Asia are growing quickly. As China proceeds with an aggressive and ambitious military buildup, as North Korea’s nuclear arsenal relentlessly grows and as the Sino-Russian entente deepens, the U.S. can’t afford to treat East Asia as a secondary theater. Political, diplomatic and economic stability in East Asia can come only after a return to something like the military predominance that 15 years of ineffectual American policy has frittered away.
The U.S. can’t bear the entire cost of deterring the revisionist powers from conventional as well as nuclear war, and our allies will have to increase their efforts in the common cause. But even with such countries as Japan and Germany implementing robust increases in defense spending, America’s own spending must rise.
This isn’t what Team Biden wants. Current plans call for significant reductions in inflation-adjusted defense spending over the next decade.
The fiscal squeeze is real. A decade of ultralow interest rates led many politicians to think fiscal discipline was no longer an issue. That was a serious mistake. According to the Congressional Budget Office, annual interest payments on federal debt, currently at the eye-popping level of $399 billion, are expected to reach $1.2 trillion (3% of gross domestic product) by 2032. Meanwhile, entitlement costs will continue to rise, and domestic interest groups aren’t going to stop developing clever new ways for Uncle Sam to spend more money on the home front.
None of this is a secret. The Chinese can see the numbers as clearly as we can. However tough we talk, if we and our allies fail to provide an adequate military defense of our core interests in the Indo-Pacific, sooner or later deterrence will fail.
Deterring great-power adversaries isn’t something you do with the back of your hand. Deterring the Soviet Union was a whole-of-government effort, and there were times when American presidents and Congresses had to limit domestic spending to meet the demands of the Cold War. America rose to the challenge in part because so many people still remembered the horrors of World War II and understood in their guts that even the most expensive deterrence policies are safer and cheaper than a great-power war.
When major powers fight, even conventional wars are unacceptably costly, disruptive and brutal. Their economic and political consequences are unpredictable. And as the Russian president reminds us every time he rattles his nuclear saber, there are no guarantees a conventional war won’t escalate into something more serious.
When it comes to war, an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. But as an old Roman writer put it 1,600 years ago: If you want peace, you must prepare for war. At the moment, America’s preparations fall woefully short.
