All Things Russia & Ukraine

[a fan]

afan (who still hasn't figured out how to use the quote function, after 14.5k posts) thinks all wars are the same.

And Old Salt, even though he's an academy grad, still doesn't understand what treaties are for, or why they are important. And doesn't understand that yes, wars should all be the same in the US.

Was the US or its treaty bound allies attacked? If the answer is yes, then we're supporting that side in a war, and we go to Congress to vote for said war.

If not? We should stay out of it. This sh(t is literally in our Constitution....power to sign treaties. If it's important to "support" a war, as you say? Here's how it works: we sign a treaty, and ratify it. Then we're on the hook for this "important" country.

We stopped doing that, and started calling things "police actions" and other such lies so that military geniuses like Old Salt could end run the Constitution based on what "some guy in a think tank" thinks, rather than what our elected Congress thinks. This makes it REAALLY easy to foment and enable war everywhere on the globe.

And this entire line of thinking has led to nonstop war since WWII, while our own kids can't add and subtract because we're blowing all their money in places that these same kids couldn't find on a map if you gave them their entire lifetimes to do it. Sweet!


But sure, OS has this all figured out. And I'm the stupid one here.

And yes, your evaluations are 100% based on the party in the White House. 100%. And there isn't a single poster here who doesn't know this.

But sure, I'm making it all up. Oh, and you're telling me what I think....that's an Old Salt no-no, remember?

[old salt]

Oh, and you're telling me what I think....that's an Old Salt no-no, remember?

Like it Dude ? That's how you roll, my man.

[a fan]

Oh, and you're telling me what I think....that's an Old Salt no-no, remember?

Like it Dude ? That's how you roll, my man.

It doesn't bother me. And it's not the first time you've done it. And you do it to other posters.

But sure, I'm the bad guy.

[Farfromgeneva]

Oh, and you're telling me what I think....that's an Old Salt no-no, remember?

Like it Dude ? That's how you roll, my man.

It doesn't bother me. And it's not the first time you've done it. And you do it to other posters.

But sure, I'm the bad guy.

You’re playing tennis with a lesser able person who’s just keeping it in play and waiting for an unforced error. You do understand that I presume.

[old salt]

And Old Salt, even though he's an academy grad, still doesn't understand what treaties are for, or why they are important. And doesn't understand that yes, wars should all be the same in the US.

Was the US or its treaty bound allies attacked? If the answer is yes, then we're supporting that side in a war, and we go to Congress to vote for said war.

If not? We should stay out of it. This sh(t is literally in our Constitution....power to sign treaties. If it's important to "support" a war, as you say? Here's how it works: we sign a treaty, and ratify it. Then we're on the hook for this "important" country.

We stopped doing that, and started calling things "police actions" and other such lies so that military geniuses like Old Salt could end run the Constitution based on what "some guy in a think tank" thinks, rather than what our elected Congress thinks. This makes it REAALLY easy to foment and enable war everywhere on the globe.

And this entire line of thinking has led to nonstop war since WWII, while our own kids can't add and subtract because we're blowing all their money in places that these same kids couldn't find on a map if you gave them their entire lifetimes to do it. Sweet!

When's the last time the US went to war based on a treaty alliance ?

Treaty alliances are what prompted the nations of Europe to mobilize & go to war in 1914, when an Austrian Archduke was assassinated.

Was the US attacked on 9-11-01 ?

[a fan]

And Old Salt, even though he's an academy grad, still doesn't understand what treaties are for, or why they are important. And doesn't understand that yes, wars should all be the same in the US.

Was the US or its treaty bound allies attacked? If the answer is yes, then we're supporting that side in a war, and we go to Congress to vote for said war.

If not? We should stay out of it. This sh(t is literally in our Constitution....power to sign treaties. If it's important to "support" a war, as you say? Here's how it works: we sign a treaty, and ratify it. Then we're on the hook for this "important" country.

We stopped doing that, and started calling things "police actions" and other such lies so that military geniuses like Old Salt could end run the Constitution based on what "some guy in a think tank" thinks, rather than what our elected Congress thinks. This makes it REAALLY easy to foment and enable war everywhere on the globe.

And this entire line of thinking has led to nonstop war since WWII, while our own kids can't add and subtract because we're blowing all their money in places that these same kids couldn't find on a map if you gave them their entire lifetimes to do it. Sweet!

When's the last time the US went to war based on a treaty alliance ?

This is why they put this into the Constitution. They wanted it to be DIFFICULT to wage war. And DIFFICULT to pass treaties. And all of it had to pass the will of the people's representatives in a vote.

And btw----what the heck does that tell you about our treaties? They're an almost iron clad way of preventing war, because everyone knows the deal. Pretty impressive, really. And you just made my point, thank you....

[old salt]

And Old Salt, even though he's an academy grad, still doesn't understand what treaties are for, or why they are important. And doesn't understand that yes, wars should all be the same in the US.

Was the US or its treaty bound allies attacked? If the answer is yes, then we're supporting that side in a war, and we go to Congress to vote for said war.

If not? We should stay out of it. This sh(t is literally in our Constitution....power to sign treaties. If it's important to "support" a war, as you say? Here's how it works: we sign a treaty, and ratify it. Then we're on the hook for this "important" country.

We stopped doing that, and started calling things "police actions" and other such lies so that military geniuses like Old Salt could end run the Constitution based on what "some guy in a think tank" thinks, rather than what our elected Congress thinks. This makes it REAALLY easy to foment and enable war everywhere on the globe.

And this entire line of thinking has led to nonstop war since WWII, while our own kids can't add and subtract because we're blowing all their money in places that these same kids couldn't find on a map if you gave them their entire lifetimes to do it. Sweet!

When's the last time the US went to war based on a treaty alliance ?

This is why they put this into the Constitution. They wanted it to be DIFFICULT to wage war. And DIFFICULT to pass treaties. And all of it had to pass the will of the people's representatives in a vote.

And btw----what the heck does that tell you about our treaties? They're an almost iron clad way of preventing war, because everyone knows the deal. Pretty impressive, really. And you just made my point, thank you....

Fair enough. I get it. You're a pacifist, against ALL wars. I respect that. It's admirable, if not realistic.

Since wars are still inflicted upon us, why must you disrupt all discussion of them with your hectoring & partisan political party score keeping.

It matters to some of us how & why these wars are waged, & NO, it is not all based on partisan politics as you continue to insist.

One war inevitably leads to another, at some point in the near or distant future.
That's why military strength, as a deterrent, matters, ...& must be employed judiciously.
...after all, who's supposed to enforce the rules based order.

[a fan]

Fair enough. I get it. You're a pacifist, against ALL wars. I respect that. It's admirable, if not realistic.

It's 100% realistic. And Constitutional, for that matter.

And I didn't say that I was against all wars. I have the same standards: 1. were we attacked? 2. was a treaty bound ally attacked? 3. Did Congress vote to go to war? If the answer is yes, I'm good. WWII made perfect sense.

Since wars are still inflicted upon us, why must you disrupt all discussion of them with your hectoring & partisan political party score keeping.

You call it disruption, I call it discussion, and calling out partisan goalpost moving. But you're asking me politely to tone it down, and back off...in so many words. And as always, I will oblige. Let me know if I go over the line, and I'll tone it down.

But you can keep me from "disrupting" by not having two sets of rules. If, for example, the last time a Republican POTUS went to war in Iraq, instead of paying for it by raising taxes......they instead CUT taxes? You and your party don't get to complain about money and spending the next go around. You've proven you don't give a sh(t about that, and are inventing complaints because a Dem is in office. Stick to the REAL policy disagreements, not newly invented ones. Do that? We're good.

It matters to some of us how & why these wars are waged, & NO, it is not all based on partisan politics as you continue to insist.

That's fair. Don't throw stones at Biden that you didn't throw at Trump, and we're good.

One war inevitably leads to another, at some point in the near or distant future.

That's right! Which is yet another reason I believe what I believe.

That's why military strength, as a deterrent, matters, ...& must be employed judiciously.

Again, I agree. We haven't been judicious....not even close.....since WWII. All that money that could've been spent investing in our own people. It drives me nuts.

[old salt]

But you can keep me from "disrupting" by not having two sets of rules. If, for example, the last time a Republican POTUS went to war in Iraq, instead of paying for it by raising taxes......they instead CUT taxes? You and your party don't get to complain about money and spending the next go around. You've proven you don't give a sh(t about that, and are inventing complaints because a Dem is in office. Stick to the REAL policy disagreements, not newly invented ones. Do that? We're good.

Biden is CinC now. It's impossible to discuss how this war is conducted now, without it reflecting on the current CinC.

Continued whataboutism references to past CinC's are an unnecessary diversion.

It's ALWAYS relevant to debate the utility of current military spending on current circumstances, notwithstanding past military spending on past circumstances. As I continue trying to point out, each conlict, real or potential, is a discrete event.
Look how no one in power in the West (or Ukraine) really expected Putin to invade, until our 11:59 intel indicated otherwise.
Past planning could not have realistically anticipated the depletion of our military stockpiles this war has caused.

[old salt]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/24/opinions ... index.html

Opinion: There is a path to ending the Ukraine war

Opinion by Fareed Zakaria, February 24, 2023

One year into Russia’s naked aggression against Ukraine, it has become clear that neither side is strong enough to win the war nor weak enough to sue for peace. The conflict has settled into a stalemate. After making impressive gains, Ukraine’s armed forces have not made significant advances in months. Russia meanwhile has dug into the territories it occupies, and its further attacks are having little success so far.

The numbers tell the story. According to a Washington Post analysis, Russia occupied about 7% of Ukrainian territory when it launched its invasion in February 2022. It swept into eastern Ukraine, and in a month it was holding 22% of the country. Then came Ukrainian counter-offensives, which by mid-November had taken back about a third of those gains. In the last three months, nothing significant has changed. Ukraine and Russia are both planning new moves, but it would take massive victories to fundamentally change the situation. To put it another way, Ukraine would need to recover roughly twice as much territory as it was able to last year, just to get back the lands conquered since the 2022 invasion.

Russia’s performance in the war has been poor, but it is doing better, especially at holding territory. Russia has also been able to stabilize its economy, which the IMF projects will do better this year than the UK’s or Germany’s. Russia is trading freely with such economic behemoths as China, and India, as well as neighbors like Turkey and Iran. Because of these countries and many more, outside of the advanced technology sector, it has access to all the goods and capital it lost through the Western boycott. There is now a huge world economy that does not include the West, and Russia can swim in those waters freely. The long-term costs of the war and the effects of the sanctions are real but slow. This kind of isolation and pain rarely changes a dictatorship’s policies – look at North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela.So, what is the path forward? In the short run, there is only one answer for the West and its allies – give Ukraine more weapons and money. If the decision has been made that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression must not be rewarded, then take all steps to make that a reality. With almost every weapons system requested by Ukraine, there is a pattern of ambivalence first, then delay, and then finally agreement. Why not send more, sooner? The next three months are crucial, as the winter thaws and makes troop movements easier.

All that said, however, it is difficult to imagine a World War II style total victory. Most wars end in negotiations. This one is unlikely to be different. The task for the West is to ensure that Ukraine has enough success and momentum on the battlefield that it enters those negotiations with a very strong hand. Only dramatic Ukrainian victories – like cutting off Crimea – will likely bring Putin to the negotiating table.

Is there a way to end the hostilities? On paper, yes. It’s possible to imagine a cease-fire that returns all lands captured since February 2022 to Ukraine. Those taken earlier, like Crimea in 2014, would be subject to international arbitration, including local referendums that would be conducted by international groups, not the Russian government. In addition, Ukraine would get security guarantees from NATO, though they would not apply to those disputed territories. That tradeoff – to put it simply, Crimea and parts of the Donbas for de facto NATO and EU membership – is one that could be sold to Ukrainians because they would achieve their long-cherished goal of becoming part of the West. It could be acceptable to Russia because it could claim to have protected some Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.

There are many who believe that the war can end with a total Ukrainian victory. I hope so, but I doubt it. In 2021, Russia was more than three times bigger than Ukraine in population, almost 15 times bigger in GDP, and spent 10 times more on its defense budget. Russians have been known to have a high capacity for pain in wartime. ...while Russia’s economy is in slow decline, Ukraine’s has fallen off a cliff. GDP contracted by about 30% in 2022, and the government is spending more than double what it takes in (thanks to Western aid).

More than 13 million people are displaced, about 8 million of them abroad. The war is taking place on Ukrainian soil, with its cities being bombarded to rubble, its factories razed, its people turned destitute. If the war grinds on like this for years, it will be worth asking – are we letting Ukraine get destroyed in order to save it?

[a fan]

It's ALWAYS relevant to debate the utility of current military spending on current circumstances, notwithstanding past military spending on past circumstances. As I continue trying to point out, each conlict, real or potential, is a discrete event.

Ok. But if that's your view....that the financial past is irrelevant, and the present is all that matters....you understand what that means? That means Biden should not care about finances or long term thinking. He's on the hook for RIGHT NOW, and that's it. Nothing more.

If that's the case.....you shouldn't be complaining about giving money to Ukraine. Biden has access to that money right now....and who cares about the future. Move on. Worry about your next "discrete event" when it arrives, and don't blame the next President for what he was handed.

I think this is a bananas way to view our country, but if this is honestly your view? Stick to it, and don't come back later complaining about what happened in the past....and we're good.

This also means no more of your complaining about a POTUS getting "a hollowed out military". Each event is discrete now. That means that there's no blaming the past for what the new POTUS is handed in 2024.

You set the rules. Now stick to them.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/24/opinions ... index.html

Opinion: There is a path to ending the Ukraine war

Opinion by Fareed Zakaria, February 24, 2023

One year into Russia’s naked aggression against Ukraine, it has become clear that neither side is strong enough to win the war nor weak enough to sue for peace. The conflict has settled into a stalemate. After making impressive gains, Ukraine’s armed forces have not made significant advances in months. Russia meanwhile has dug into the territories it occupies, and its further attacks are having little success so far.

The numbers tell the story. According to a Washington Post analysis, Russia occupied about 7% of Ukrainian territory when it launched its invasion in February 2022. It swept into eastern Ukraine, and in a month it was holding 22% of the country. Then came Ukrainian counter-offensives, which by mid-November had taken back about a third of those gains. In the last three months, nothing significant has changed. Ukraine and Russia are both planning new moves, but it would take massive victories to fundamentally change the situation. To put it another way, Ukraine would need to recover roughly twice as much territory as it was able to last year, just to get back the lands conquered since the 2022 invasion.

Russia’s performance in the war has been poor, but it is doing better, especially at holding territory. Russia has also been able to stabilize its economy, which the IMF projects will do better this year than the UK’s or Germany’s. Russia is trading freely with such economic behemoths as China, and India, as well as neighbors like Turkey and Iran. Because of these countries and many more, outside of the advanced technology sector, it has access to all the goods and capital it lost through the Western boycott. There is now a huge world economy that does not include the West, and Russia can swim in those waters freely. The long-term costs of the war and the effects of the sanctions are real but slow. This kind of isolation and pain rarely changes a dictatorship’s policies – look at North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela.So, what is the path forward? In the short run, there is only one answer for the West and its allies – give Ukraine more weapons and money. If the decision has been made that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression must not be rewarded, then take all steps to make that a reality. With almost every weapons system requested by Ukraine, there is a pattern of ambivalence first, then delay, and then finally agreement. Why not send more, sooner? The next three months are crucial, as the winter thaws and makes troop movements easier.

All that said, however, it is difficult to imagine a World War II style total victory. Most wars end in negotiations. This one is unlikely to be different. The task for the West is to ensure that Ukraine has enough success and momentum on the battlefield that it enters those negotiations with a very strong hand. Only dramatic Ukrainian victories – like cutting off Crimea – will likely bring Putin to the negotiating table.

Is there a way to end the hostilities? On paper, yes. It’s possible to imagine a cease-fire that returns all lands captured since February 2022 to Ukraine. Those taken earlier, like Crimea in 2014, would be subject to international arbitration, including local referendums that would be conducted by international groups, not the Russian government. In addition, Ukraine would get security guarantees from NATO, though they would not apply to those disputed territories. That tradeoff – to put it simply, Crimea and parts of the Donbas for de facto NATO and EU membership – is one that could be sold to Ukrainians because they would achieve their long-cherished goal of becoming part of the West. It could be acceptable to Russia because it could claim to have protected some Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.

There are many who believe that the war can end with a total Ukrainian victory. I hope so, but I doubt it. In 2021, Russia was more than three times bigger than Ukraine in population, almost 15 times bigger in GDP, and spent 10 times more on its defense budget. Russians have been known to have a high capacity for pain in wartime. ...while Russia’s economy is in slow decline, Ukraine’s has fallen off a cliff. GDP contracted by about 30% in 2022, and the government is spending more than double what it takes in (thanks to Western aid).

More than 13 million people are displaced, about 8 million of them abroad. The war is taking place on Ukrainian soil, with its cities being bombarded to rubble, its factories razed, its people turned destitute. If the war grinds on like this for years, it will be worth asking – are we letting Ukraine get destroyed in order to save it?

What do the Ukrainian people think about that last question?

Sure seems that they overwhelmingly support their current and ongoing resistance, over the alternative they see from Putin's Russia.

Nah, we should just pressure them to surrender...

I do think there's a valid argument to help them more, faster, so that the ultimate costs will be less, but there are considerations beyond the US' unilateral control that I very much doubt we have complete insight on. For instance, the IC has been blowing the horn hard that China is considering military support for Russia...apparently we hope that the Chinese are more concerned about economic relations with the West and with other parts of the world that continue to support Ukraine than they are with the Russian alliance, so may pull back from that choice...but would that be harder if we announced F-16's after announcing Abrams? A tightrope, I think...

[old salt]

It's ALWAYS relevant to debate the utility of current military spending on current circumstances, notwithstanding past military spending on past circumstances. As I continue trying to point out, each conlict, real or potential, is a discrete event.

Ok. But if that's your view....that the financial past is irrelevant, and the present is all that matters....you understand what that means? That means Biden should not care about finances or long term thinking. He's on the hook for RIGHT NOW, and that's it. Nothing more.

If that's the case.....you shouldn't be complaining about giving money to Ukraine. Biden has access to that money right now....and who cares about the future. Move on. Worry about your next "discrete event" when it arrives, and don't blame the next President for what he was handed.

I think this is a bananas way to view our country, but if this is honestly your view? Stick to it, and don't come back later complaining about what happened in the past....and we're good.

This also means no more of your complaining about a POTUS getting "a hollowed out military". Each event is discrete now. That means that there's no blaming the past for what the new POTUS is handed in 2024.

You set the rules. Now stick to them.

You make up ridiculous rules.Totally disingenuous, misrepresentation. Not worthy of reply.

You deny a hollowed out military, thanks to sequester budget caps, then rant when over-tasked, underfunded, undertrained ships run into other ships.

The military is funded based on the anticipated threats. Apparently nobody anticipated a WW-I style artillery proxy war stalemate.
I don't fault DoD planners of any admin for that. As you've pointed out, thanks to the Budapest Memo, we're obligated to help Ukraine defend themselves. They long ago cashed the check we wrote for their nucs. We're still making good on our commitment to provide the support necessary for them to survive as an independent nation. That does not include recovering all the territory they negligently failed to defend.

[MDlaxfan76]

Boy, I guess I couldn't really disagree more...with the both of you!

Salty,
You are indeed a complete partisan, never finding fault with the current GOP (at each point in time) and always finding fault in the Dems, at each point in time. Grossly hypocritical in your critiques.

And it's absolutely ridiculous to hold the people of Ukraine who are so bravely and resiliently fighting back what ordinarily would be considered an overwhelmingly stronger, and clearly brutal, dictatorial foe.... at first with a woefully less powerful, in every sense, military capacity...but rather with sheer courage and tenacity... complicit with the failure of the earlier generation of Ukrainian 'leadership' so fully corrupted by the Russian oligarchy to arm themselves against a nuclear power with many multiples of their size in every sense.

That's nonsense.

Our support is not merely about Ukraine and its sovereignty, but rather the principle of sovereignty and the international rule of law in the face of criminal aggression. That principle has enormously benefited the United States, its economy and its people, for 70+ years and, hopefully, for many decades to come.

a fan,
I strongly disagree that the US should only act in international affairs when our country is attacked or an ally subject to treaty is attacked. Our role in the world is much more expansive than that, and should be, for the reasons given immediately above.

Whether soft or hard power, a threat to, or attack on, that international system is a threat to, or attack on, America's interests for generations to come.

While I agree with you about the importance in our democratic, constitutional system to engage in significant hard power actions only when legislatively endorsed, what we are doing for Ukraine has this involvement and endorsement.

[a fan]

It's ALWAYS relevant to debate the utility of current military spending on current circumstances, notwithstanding past military spending on past circumstances. As I continue trying to point out, each conlict, real or potential, is a discrete event.

Ok. But if that's your view....that the financial past is irrelevant, and the present is all that matters....you understand what that means? That means Biden should not care about finances or long term thinking. He's on the hook for RIGHT NOW, and that's it. Nothing more.

If that's the case.....you shouldn't be complaining about giving money to Ukraine. Biden has access to that money right now....and who cares about the future. Move on. Worry about your next "discrete event" when it arrives, and don't blame the next President for what he was handed.

I think this is a bananas way to view our country, but if this is honestly your view? Stick to it, and don't come back later complaining about what happened in the past....and we're good.

This also means no more of your complaining about a POTUS getting "a hollowed out military". Each event is discrete now. That means that there's no blaming the past for what the new POTUS is handed in 2024.

You set the rules. Now stick to them.

You make up ridiculous rules.Totally disingenuous, misrepresentation. Not worthy of reply.Don't use the phrase "discrete event" if you don't know what that means. Either the past is relevant to the current situations, or it isn't. You can't seem to make up your mind as to which one you're choosing here. Get back to me when you do.

You deny a hollowed out military, thanks to sequester budget caps, then rant when over-tasked, underfunded, undertrained ships run into other ships.
I laugh at you jumping to the conclusion that the "reason" boats started running into each other is the sequester, and not simple mismanagement. Has the Pentagon EVER passed an audit, OS? But sure, the sequester is what did it, no question. Not mismangemen of the assets we have, but literally can't account for like every other organization on Earth does.

The military is funded based on the anticipated threats. Apparently nobody anticipated a WW-I style artillery proxy war stalemate.
I don't fault DoD planners of any admin for that. As you've pointed out, thanks to the Budapest Memo, we're obligated to help Ukraine defend themselves. They long ago cashed the check we wrote for their nucs. We're still making good on our commitment to provide the support necessary for them to survive as an independent nation. That does not include recovering all the territory they negligently failed to defend.That's all great. But in this discrete event, Biden has plenty of access to cash for funding it. There's no worry there. That's my point, using the rules you handed me. Move on, and find something else to discuss.

[a fan]

a fan,
I strongly disagree that the US should only act in international affairs when our country is attacked or an ally subject to treaty is attacked. Our role in the world is much more expansive than that, and should be, for the reasons given immediately above.

Whether soft or hard power, a threat to, or attack on, that international system is a threat to, or attack on, America's interests for generations to come.

While I agree with you about the importance in our democratic, constitutional system to engage in significant hard power actions only when legislatively endorsed, what we are doing for Ukraine has this involvement and endorsement.

If the goal was to protect Ukraine from a Russian invasion? Then we should have brought them into NATO years ago. Or formed our own treaty with them, sans NATO.

My path is much simpler to take than you wish to admit. Put your cards on the table (the US), is what I'm saying.

Look at how rock solid NATO is? Since it was formed? A NATO nation has never been attacked by another country. It WORKED. Brilliantly.

And caused the fall of the Soviet empire. Double brilliance.

So if you think a country is in our interest? Great. Make a treaty with them, and spell it out. If we can't manage to do that? Obviously the county isn't really in our interest, now is it?

[old salt]

You deny a hollowed out military, thanks to sequester budget caps, then rant when over-tasked, underfunded, undertrained ships run into other ships.
I laugh at you jumping to the conclusion that the "reason" boats started running into each other is the sequester, and not simple mismanagement. Has the Pentagon EVER passed an audit, OS? But sure, the sequester is what did it, no question. Not mismangemen of the assets we have, but literally can't account for like every other organization on Earth does.

The US is required by law to have 12 aircraft carriers. Our multi-year strategic plans are based on that level.
Several years (& still) of 12 carrier carrier battle group tasking, with only 11 (or 10) carriers in commission, & insufficient escorts for even that number, thanks to new construction delays required by sequester caps, finally took their toll in accidents, after too much time at sea on tasking with insufficient available at sea time for training. Further exacerbated by adding a ballistic missile defense requirement which required dedicated destroyer deployments to the E Med & homeporting 4 (now 6} destroyers to Spain.

Rode hard & put away wet. Chain reaction to sequester budget cap underfunding + overtasking.
Our Navy ships still spend so much more time at sea & away from homeport than ships of any other Navy.
No longer hollowed out, but still weary.

[MDlaxfan76]

a fan,
I strongly disagree that the US should only act in international affairs when our country is attacked or an ally subject to treaty is attacked. Our role in the world is much more expansive than that, and should be, for the reasons given immediately above.

Whether soft or hard power, a threat to, or attack on, that international system is a threat to, or attack on, America's interests for generations to come.

While I agree with you about the importance in our democratic, constitutional system to engage in significant hard power actions only when legislatively endorsed, what we are doing for Ukraine has this involvement and endorsement.

If the goal was to protect Ukraine from a Russian invasion? Then we should have brought them into NATO years ago. Or formed our own treaty with them, sans NATO.

My path is much simpler to take than you wish to admit. Put your cards on the table (the US), is what I'm saying.

Look at how rock solid NATO is? Since it was formed? A NATO nation has never been attacked by another country. It WORKED. Brilliantly.

And caused the fall of the Soviet empire. Double brilliance.

So if you think a country is in our interest? Great. Make a treaty with them, and spell it out. If we can't manage to do that? Obviously the county isn't really in our interest, now is it?

That's an entirely 'reasonable' position, just not a practical reality in a world in which we do not have unilateral control.

Nor perfect foresight.

But as a directional 'lean', I have no issue with that position.

With the caveat that I prefer a world in which our actions are circumscribed by our own democratic and constitutional processes, and our power in the world is achieved through influence and persuasion not absolute control.

In other words, we don't get perfection just because we want it.

[a fan]

You deny a hollowed out military, thanks to sequester budget caps, then rant when over-tasked, underfunded, undertrained ships run into other ships.
I laugh at you jumping to the conclusion that the "reason" boats started running into each other is the sequester, and not simple mismanagement. Has the Pentagon EVER passed an audit, OS? But sure, the sequester is what did it, no question. Not mismangemen of the assets we have, but literally can't account for like every other organization on Earth does.

The US is required by law to have 12 aircraft carriers. Our multi-year strategic plans are based on that level.
Several years of 12 carrier carrier battle group tasking, with only 11 (or 10) carriers in commission, & insufficient escorts for even that number, thanks to new construction delays required by sequester caps, finally took their toll in accidents, after too much time at sea on tasking with insufficient available at sea time for training. Further exacerbated by adding a ballistic missile defense requirement which required dedicated destroyer deployments to the E Med & homeporting 4 (now 6} destroyers to Spain.

Rode hard & put away wet. Chain reaction to sequester budget cap underfunding + overtasking.
Our Navy ships still spend so much more time at sea & away from homeport than ships of any other Navy.
No longer hollowed out, but still weary.

Okay, okay....I could offer an easy retort, but let's not do that. Agree to disagree, lets move on.

Look, my man....I'm TRYING to do what you asked, and not "hector" the discussion. Let's move the heck on, and not get bogged down in old discussions we've had. I'm TRYING to respect your wishes and keep the board moving. But I need your help to do that.

Cool?

[a fan]

That's an entirely 'reasonable' position, just not a practical reality in a world in which we do not have unilateral control.

Nor perfect foresight.

But as a directional 'lean', I have no issue with that position.

With the caveat that I prefer a world in which our actions are circumscribed by our own democratic and constitutional processes, and our power in the world is achieved through influence and persuasion not absolute control.

In other words, we don't get perfection just because we want it.

My path doesn't offer perfection! I'm confident bad stuff will still go down if I had my way with using Congress to decide what's in our interest.

What it offers is more thought, more debate, and more discussion by our representatives to decide what "American interests" are.

The Constitution gave this power to our Congress for a freaking reason, my man!

SInce WWII, we allowed the CIA and the POTUS to decide what "our interests" are. This is not how our government was structured. And we've paid a very dear price for letting this happen.

They CIA and the POTUS have made us feel that this is "normal". It's not. And we need to stop doing it.