All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

Actually, by law not less than 11.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
Correct?

And there are less expensive ways to achieve this...https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

mmm, has Congress authorized our support for Ukraine?
Yes, right?

Again, I'm fine with the "lean" but you made some rather absolutist statements with which I disagree.

I'm all for more debate too, but I reject the notion that we or an ally must be directly attacked in order for it be in Ameriac's interest to act.

[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 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?

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

[a fan]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

[MDlaxfan76]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

[cradleandshoot]

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?

Didn't the evil empire fall because of all that money RR spent on defense?? Ronnie and Tip sure knew how to wheel and deal didn't they?

[a fan]

mmm, has Congress authorized our support for Ukraine?
Yes, right?

Again, I'm fine with the "lean" but you made some rather absolutist statements with which I disagree.

I'm all for more debate too, but I reject the notion that we or an ally must be directly attacked in order for it be in Ameriac's interest to act.

Correction: Act MILITARILY. I'm open to all forms of economic and diplomatic recourse.

If Ukraine was important to keep safe from Russia? All we had to do is bring them into NATO. Boom, done. This whole war would NEVER have happened.

Get it? That's quite an upside, don't you think?

And we're making the same mistake with Taiwan...where we are arming them, and our leaders are saying---out loud, where XI can hear them----that we should arm them to the point where Xi can't invade.

Do you not see this is PROVOKING a response?

Same thing happened in Ukraine. Putin was cool up until Trump started arming them..and then Biden said he was gonna arm them more.

What happened next? And yes, this is all Putin's fault, but we sent a message: "hey bud, if you want to invade Ukraine, your window is closing, because the US is starting to arm them to the teeth."

[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?

Didn't the evil empire fall because of all that money RR spent on defense?? Ronnie and Tip sure knew how to wheel and deal didn't they?

That's one way to look at it.

The other is that the Soviet controlled kleptocracy was doomed to fail, because its trading partners (for everything from potatoes, to intellectual property) were severely limited, and production sucked. Couldn't match US's GDP as a result.

[cradleandshoot]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

True that, the cost of maintaining a 12th carrier group would be a budget buster.

[cradleandshoot]

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?

Didn't the evil empire fall because of all that money RR spent on defense?? Ronnie and Tip sure knew how to wheel and deal didn't they?

That's one way to look at it.

The other is that the Soviet controlled kleptocracy was doomed to fail, because its trading partners (for everything from potatoes, to intellectual property) were severely limited, and production sucked. Couldn't match US's GDP as a result.

I've heard it said that RR spent the Soviet Union into submission.

[old salt]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

[old salt]

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.

I've been consistently critical of US policy, dating as far back as 1992 re. NATO expansion & our policy on the dismemberment of Russia & US involvement in color revolutions & regime change as far back as 2004. That includes both (R) & (D) admins. You weren't here in 2014.
I still differ with most current (R)'s on Ukraine.

You are a complete partisan, anti-any (R) who does not meet your anti-MAGA putiry litmus test.
You don't rise to the level of a RINO.

[old salt]

Ukraine's national identity ?

I caught this re-air on NPR yesterday. Though almost a year old, it's still entertaining, informative & relevant.
Very balanced (well done NPR). It supports both Russia's & Ukraine's interpretation of their shared history.
In the final analysis, they're still just Slavic Cossack cousins, feuding over the seat of control.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/10860389 ... dependence

Throughline: Ukraine's Dangerous Independence

March 13, 2022, 45-Minute Listen

Months before Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, he published an essay on the Kremlin website called "On The Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine." In it, he suggested that Ukrainians don't really have their own identity — and that they never have. Historian Serhii Plokhii says that couldn't be further from the truth. The histories of the two countries are deeply intertwined, but Ukrainian identity is unique. In this episode NPR's Throughline explores that identity: how it formed, it's relationship to Russia, and how it helps us understand what's happening now.

[DocBarrister]

Ukraine's national identity ?

I caught this re-air on NPR yesterday. Though almost a year old, it's still entertaining, informative & relevant.
Very balanced (well done NPR). It supports both Russia's & Ukraine's interpretation of their shared history.
In the final analysis, they're still just Slavic Cossack cousins, feuding over the seat of control.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/10860389 ... dependence

Throughline: Ukraine's Dangerous Independence

March 13, 2022, 45-Minute Listen

Months before Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, he published an essay on the Kremlin website called "On The Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine." In it, he suggested that Ukrainians don't really have their own identity — and that they never have. Historian Serhii Plokhii says that couldn't be further from the truth. The histories of the two countries are deeply intertwined, but Ukrainian identity is unique. In this episode NPR's Throughline explores that identity: how it formed, it's relationship to Russia, and how it helps us understand what's happening now.

Ukraine is an independent nation with its own culture and language.

You really need to understand that fundamental fact if you ever want to be taken seriously in this discussion.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

mmm, has Congress authorized our support for Ukraine?
Yes, right?

Again, I'm fine with the "lean" but you made some rather absolutist statements with which I disagree.

I'm all for more debate too, but I reject the notion that we or an ally must be directly attacked in order for it be in Ameriac's interest to act.

Correction: Act MILITARILY. I'm open to all forms of economic and diplomatic recourse.

If Ukraine was important to keep safe from Russia? All we had to do is bring them into NATO. Boom, done. This whole war would NEVER have happened.

"We", if you mean the USA, did not and does not have that unilateral authority...and if you recall, there was a general dismissal of the threat Putin represented by many, whether the folks who favor the "strong man Christian nationalist" autocracy or those who think Russia is so weak as to not have to be concerned.

Get it? That's quite an upside, don't you think?

And we're making the same mistake with Taiwan...where we are arming them, and our leaders are saying---out loud, where XI can hear them----that we should arm them to the point where Xi can't invade.

Do you not see this is PROVOKING a response?

Nope; we know that China has an explicit unification objective that includes the subjugation of Taiwan...we've been trying to manage all this with 'strategic ambiguity' while creating economic incentives for China to not use military force re Taiwan...but Xi's moves have made this increasingly difficult to balance...I thought you think that just having a treaty is sufficient? so, you want us to have a treaty? Don't need to supply them with defensive weapons?

Same thing happened in Ukraine. Putin was cool up until Trump started arming them..and then Biden said he was gonna arm them more.

What the heck? Putin took Georgia, then Crimea and Donbas...pre Trump. He was coming, everything he said communicated the intent, but if anything Trump's win slowed that down as it gave room for another way to dismantle the democracy movement, and to divide NATO.

What happened next? And yes, this is all Putin's fault, but we sent a message: "hey bud, if you want to invade Ukraine, your window is closing, because the US is starting to arm them to the teeth."

No, we didn't actually start to "arm them to the teeth" materially until immediately before the invasion when we had the intelligence that the invasion was very imminent...Putin had already massed troops. We were very late in getting Ukraine what they needed other than some, not a lot, of javelins.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

I've been consistently critical of US policy, dating as far back as 1992 re. NATO expansion & our policy on the dismemberment of Russia & US involvement in color revolutions & regime change as far back as 2004. That includes both (R) & (D) admins. You weren't here in 2014.
I still differ with most current (R)'s on Ukraine.

You are a complete partisan, anti-any (R) who does not meet your anti-MAGA putiry litmus test.
You don't rise to the level of a RINO.

well, you are correct that I'm strongly anti-MAGA.
Anti-white nationalist Christian too.

You want to pretend you've been consistent, but in my case I've been watching/reading you for a good decade now...and major only consistency I see is anti-Dem. On everything.

But also apologist for strong man White christian nationalism, here and abroad, with isolation as the response when it comes to such autocrats abroad, but "coincidentally" a totally different response to China.

[MDlaxfan76]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.

You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

[a fan]

mmm, has Congress authorized our support for Ukraine?
Yes, right?

Again, I'm fine with the "lean" but you made some rather absolutist statements with which I disagree.

I'm all for more debate too, but I reject the notion that we or an ally must be directly attacked in order for it be in Ameriac's interest to act.

Correction: Act MILITARILY. I'm open to all forms of economic and diplomatic recourse.

If Ukraine was important to keep safe from Russia? All we had to do is bring them into NATO. Boom, done. This whole war would NEVER have happened.

"We", if you mean the USA, did not and does not have that unilateral authority...and if you recall, there was a general dismissal of the threat Putin represented by many, whether the folks who favor the "strong man Christian nationalist" autocracy or those who think Russia is so weak as to not have to be concerned.So split 'em off, and make our own treaty with them. We already stuck our noses in it to pull their nukes away....why did we half (ss it?

Get it? That's quite an upside, don't you think?

And we're making the same mistake with Taiwan...where we are arming them, and our leaders are saying---out loud, where XI can hear them----that we should arm them to the point where Xi can't invade.

Do you not see this is PROVOKING a response?

Nope; we know that China has an explicit unification objective that includes the subjugation of Taiwan...we've been trying to manage all this with 'strategic ambiguity' while creating economic incentives for China to not use military force re Taiwan...but Xi's moves have made this increasingly difficult to balance...I thought you think that just having a treaty is sufficient? so, you want us to have a treaty? Don't need to supply them with defensive weapons?
If we have a treaty with Taiwan? That's it, China can't invade. Period. But more to a point....why would we possibly care if China "took over" Taiwan? One of two things would happen------goods would keep flowing from Taiwan to the US, because money. Or? We'd stop trading with China, and accelerate our move away from Chinese goods. We win either way.

Same thing happened in Ukraine. Putin was cool up until Trump started arming them..and then Biden said he was gonna arm them more.

What the heck? Putin took Georgia, then Crimea and Donbas...pre Trump. He was coming, everything he said communicated the intent, but if anything Trump's win slowed that down as it gave room for another way to dismantle the democracy movement, and to divide NATO.You can't explain why he waited. If he was "always coming", why didn't he simply take all of Ukraine when he rolled through Crimea? There's no rational answer for that. If Putin was "always" take all of Ukraine...there's no rational explanation of why he didn't do that at any point between 2014 and 2022. Plainly SOMETHING changed that spurred him to invade...what was that thing? My contention is that it's US arms, and it's obvious as heck that that's what did it.

What happened next? And yes, this is all Putin's fault, but we sent a message: "hey bud, if you want to invade Ukraine, your window is closing, because the US is starting to arm them to the teeth."

No, we didn't actually start to "arm them to the teeth" materially until immediately before the invasion when we had the intelligence that the invasion was very imminent...Putin had already massed troops. We were very late in getting Ukraine what they needed other than some, not a lot, of javelins.So you're telling me that Trump arming Ukraine didn't send a single message to Putin? Not one? And the right before the ramp up to the invasion....fall of 2021.....US was under discussions to send even more arms and training to Ukraine...and you're seriously telling me that think that this was an irrelevant detail to Putin? It's a footnote?

[old salt]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.

You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

When was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.

[DocBarrister]

New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.

So you get the last word?

Yeah, ok. You get the last word.

nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.

...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.

Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html

We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse

Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.

You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/

When was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.

I wouldn’t want a 12th aircraft carrier strike force. The cost to build and operate such a strike group is prohibitive.

https://themaritimepost.com/2021/07/vid ... ships/amp/

There is also the often-stated risk of putting too many eggs into too few baskets. An aircraft carrier strike force is such a massive, concentrated investment of personnel and resources that losing even one such group would be a national military catastrophe.

I would rather spend the same amount of money and personnel in building and operating more guided missile cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, as well as more air defense systems.

If we want more aircraft carriers, let’s build more amphibious ships … light aircraft carriers in all but name.

It’s pretty clear now that China’s military can overwhelm the air defenses of any aircraft carrier strike group. The PLA and PLA Navy has lots of missiles. Part of the U.S. strategy should be increasing the number of potential targets and distributing the risk among a larger number of smaller naval assets.

This isn’t my idea. In military parlance, it might be called a strategy of a more broadly distributed fleet architecture.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

A larger number of smaller ships and other military platforms rather than a smaller number of large ships and military assets … that seems the better way to go.

DocBarrister