LaxPower Back-Up Stick

“Name me A SINGLE CURRENT serving Republican that has publicly verified and offered their support to Putin?”

https://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007 ... 2aa2a35767

https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/20 ... ng-over-it

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:17 pm “Name me A SINGLE CURRENT serving Republican that has publicly verified and offered their support to Putin?”

https://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007 ... 2aa2a35767

https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/20 ... ng-over-it

Close, but derisively calling Zelensky a thug, as brutally wrong and misguided as that is, is not declaring support for Putin. Sure its close, but I can find Democrats who have likely done/said something of similar ilk. My point is, that it is just a large, serious accusation to level.

Joe

JoeMauer89 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:34 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:17 pm “Name me A SINGLE CURRENT serving Republican that has publicly verified and offered their support to Putin?”

https://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007 ... 2aa2a35767

https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/20 ... ng-over-it

Close, but derisively calling Zelensky a thug, as brutally wrong and misguided as that is, is not declaring support for Putin. Sure its close, but I can find Democrats who have likely done/said something of similar ilk. My point is, that it is just a large, serious accusation to level.

Joe

It’s close enough for most people, but you are obviously more tolerant of differing opinions.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:17 pm “Name me A SINGLE CURRENT serving Republican that has publicly verified and offered their support to Putin?”

https://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007 ... 2aa2a35767

Not to mention the original discussion that got hijacked was concerning the 6+ years of curious support by Paul and various Republicans for Russia and Putin. Before the yelling at posters and calling them crazy started.

There are tons of quotes supporting Russia and Putin for over half a decade. And documented money that was flowing from Russia into Republican campaigns. Both legal and sometimes illegal, which lead to indictments.

There were certainly Republicans and Republican talking heads who praised Putin's genius and sided with Russia at the start of the invasion along with pushing anti-Ukraine rhetoric. Most have pulled back on direct praise of Russia and support of Putin as the American public is strongly on Ukraine's side polling-wise. But you still have a lot of Ukraine and NATO blame going around, and "America First" comments that push for withdrawing support from Ukraine rather than actively praising Russia.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:42 pmThere were certainly Republicans and Republican talking heads who... sided with Russia at the start of the invasion...

Really ? Once the military invasion started on 2/24 ? (R)'s who supported Russian military success ? Examples ?

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:11 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:42 pmThere were certainly Republicans and Republican talking heads who... sided with Russia at the start of the invasion...

Really ? Once the shooting started ? (R)'s who supported Russian military success ? Examples ?

Tucker Carlson off the top of my head said he supported Russia. He had to walk that back later saying it was a "joke." Nick Fuentes, Roger Stone, Trump and a few others to varying degrees with pro-Putin and pro-Trump messaging. The anti-Ukraine voices included Cawthorne, Greene, JD Vance, Carlson, Steve Bannon, Navarro, Gaetz, Matt Rosendale, Charlie Kirk, Wendy Rogers, Lauren Witzke among others.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:32 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:11 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:42 pmThere were certainly Republicans and Republican talking heads who... sided with Russia at the start of the invasion...

Really ? Once the shooting started ? (R)'s who supported Russian military success ? Examples ?

Tucker Carlson off the top of my head said he supported Russia. He had to walk that back later saying it was a "joke." Nick Fuentes, Roger Stone, Trump and a few others to varying degrees with pro-Putin and pro-Trump messaging. The anti-Ukraine voices included Cawthorne, Greene, JD Vance, Carlson, Steve Bannon, Navarro, Gaetz, Matt Rosendale, Charlie Kirk, Wendy Rogers, Lauren Witzke among others.

Were they specifically advocating for Russian success or questioning if or how much the US should get involved to influence the outcome ?

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:11 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:42 pmThere were certainly Republicans and Republican talking heads who... sided with Russia at the start of the invasion...

Really ? Once the military invasion started on 2/24 ? (R)'s who supported Russian military success ? Examples ?

I know one guy.

What is the value in overtly stating our intent (via our Ukrainian proxy fighters) to destroy the ability of Russia to threaten their neighbors ?
Are our NATO allies saying that too ? Don't threaten it unless you intend to do it & have the means to deliver on the threat.

How is Ukraine going to keep their ports open ? Will we be providing them a Navy ?

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:07 am What is the value in overtly stating our intent (via our Ukrainian proxy fighters) to destroy the ability of Russia to threaten their neighbors ?
Are our NATO allies saying that too ? Don't threaten it unless you intend to do it & have the means to deliver on the threat.

How is Ukraine going to keep their ports open ? Will we be providing them a Navy ?

NATO, the EU, South Korea, Japan, and the United States are going to slowly degrade Russia’s military by denying what Russia needs for spare parts and maintenance.

It’s a deviously simple and devastatingly effective long-term strategy.

Virtually every military in the world, including that of the United States, struggles with spare parts and maintenance of their armed forces. Russia is practically an exemplar of the problem. The NATO and U.S. allies are simply going after the soft underside of the Russian military.

DocBarrister

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:42 am

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:07 am What is the value in overtly stating our intent (via our Ukrainian proxy fighters) to destroy the ability of Russia to threaten their neighbors ?
Are our NATO allies saying that too ? Don't threaten it unless you intend to do it & have the means to deliver on the threat.

How is Ukraine going to keep their ports open ? Will we be providing them a Navy ?

NATO, the EU, South Korea, Japan, and the United States are going to slowly degrade Russia’s military by denying what Russia needs for spare parts and maintenance.

It’s a deviously simple and devastatingly effective long-term strategy.

Virtually every military in the world, including that of the United States, struggles with spare parts and maintenance of their armed forces. Russia is practically an exemplar of the problem. The NATO and U.S. allies are simply going after the soft underside of the Russian military.

DocBarrister

That's indeed a major element, and might well be the most important part. Electronic components and technology will also remain severely restricted. We are also likely to see economic sanctions of all kinds remain as well. So, too, will we see the ongoing reduction and ultimately elimination of dependence on Russian energy sources though that may take some years to fully achieve.

The Biden Admin has been letting the events and public perception stay ahead of their own pressure and statements, so that they keep the allies in the fold, and don't provide a credible excuse for Putin to escalate to WMD. We've only ratcheted up the pressure and support as the public perception has called for it. What we're now saying is that we need to commit to preventing this from ever happening again. That's going to require long-term commitment.

So, we're also going to see the Westernization of western-allied eastern Europe's defense capabilities, systems, technology and training. More forward NATO capabilities.

For those who want a stock bet, the companies that produce all of this are going to have a bunch of very profitable years of revenue growth.

To Salty's practical questions re Navy etc, I would not be surprised if Ukraine becomes a NATO member and invites a NATO port of call and infrastructure...but maybe not. Might well be some other form of alliance.

I think this war could well be a multi-year grind, but that may be mistaken if Ukraine is successful first in repelling the Russian offensives in the east and south, and then starts breaking through...it may well be that the Russian forces' morale is such that they cut and run...but that's all hugely up in the air at this point.

More drones please!

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:09 am

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:42 am

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:07 am What is the value in overtly stating our intent (via our Ukrainian proxy fighters) to destroy the ability of Russia to threaten their neighbors ?
Are our NATO allies saying that too ? Don't threaten it unless you intend to do it & have the means to deliver on the threat.

How is Ukraine going to keep their ports open ? Will we be providing them a Navy ?

NATO, the EU, South Korea, Japan, and the United States are going to slowly degrade Russia’s military by denying what Russia needs for spare parts and maintenance.

It’s a deviously simple and devastatingly effective long-term strategy.

Virtually every military in the world, including that of the United States, struggles with spare parts and maintenance of their armed forces. Russia is practically an exemplar of the problem. The NATO and U.S. allies are simply going after the soft underside of the Russian military.

DocBarrister

That's indeed a major element, and might well be the most important part. Electronic components and technology will also remain severely restricted. We are also likely to see economic sanctions of all kinds remain as well. So, too, will we see the ongoing reduction and ultimately elimination of dependence on Russian energy sources though that may take some years to fully achieve.

The Biden Admin has been letting the events and public perception stay ahead of their own pressure and statements, so that they keep the allies in the fold, and don't provide a credible excuse for Putin to escalate to WMD. We've only ratcheted up the pressure and support as the public perception has called for it. What we're now saying is that we need to commit to preventing this from ever happening again. That's going to require long-term commitment.

So, we're also going to see the Westernization of western-allied eastern Europe's defense capabilities, systems, technology and training. More forward NATO capabilities.

For those who want a stock bet, the companies that produce all of this are going to have a bunch of very profitable years of revenue growth.

To Salty's practical questions re Navy etc, I would not be surprised if Ukraine becomes a NATO member and invites a NATO port of call and infrastructure...but maybe not. Might well be some other form of alliance.

I think this war could well be a multi-year grind, but that may be mistaken if Ukraine is successful first in repelling the Russian offensives in the east and south, and then starts breaking through...it may well be that the Russian forces' morale is such that they cut and run...but that's all hugely up in the air at this point.

More drones please!

Announcing some of those export controls in early March, Mr. Biden said his goal with Russia was to “sap its economic strength and weaken its military for years to come.” Now there are anecdotal reports — eagerly amplified by the White House — of the Russian military-industrial complex running short of parts.

“The Russian high-tech and defense sectors are being choked off from key inputs,” Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, told reporters as Mr. Biden headed to a meeting with NATO leaders a month ago. So far it is hard to measure the effects on actual weapons production, and it is unclear if the Russians will succeed in finding alternate sources of supply.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/25/us/p ... namic.html

DocBarrister

Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/ ... ssias-army

The might of the modern Russian army was supposed to show the world that President Vladimir Putin had restored his country to greatness after the humiliation of the Soviet collapse. Instead, poor progress and heavy losses in Ukraine have exposed deep flaws within Russia. For those threatened by Mr Putin’s aggression, a diminished army is a relief. Unfortunately, it also leaves a nuclear-armed power with a point to prove.

Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

So far, the invasion of Ukraine has been a disaster for Russia’s armed forces. About 15,000 troops have been killed in two months of fighting, according to Britain’s government. At least 1,600 armoured vehicles have been destroyed, along with dozens of aircraft and the flagship of the Black Sea fleet. The assault on the capital, Kyiv, was a chaotic failure.

Leon Trotsky wrote that “the army is a copy of society and suffers from all its diseases, usually at a higher temperature”. Fighting in the east and the south of Ukraine over the next few weeks will not only determine the course of the war, but it will also determine how much the Russian army can salvage its reputation—and the reputation of the society it embodies.

Our briefing this week sets out just how rotten the army has been. Russia’s defence budget, of over $250bn at purchasing power, is about three times that of Britain or France, but much of it is squandered or stolen. Mr Putin and his top commanders kept their invasion plans from senior officers, reflecting a crippling lack of trust. Disaffected troops, fed on out-of-date rations, have deserted their vehicles. Units have tortured, raped and murdered only to be honoured by the Kremlin. Russia has failed to win control of the skies or combine air power with tanks, artillery and infantry. Wallowing in corruption, unable to foster initiative or learn from their mistakes, its frustrated generals abandoned advanced military doctrine and fell back on flattening cities and terrorising civilians.

Ukraine’s highly motivated forces are a rebuke to these Russian failings. Despite being less numerous and less well armed, they resisted the invading army by passing decision-making to small, adaptable local units given up-to-the-minute intelligence. Even if the Russian campaign, now under a single commander, makes gains in Donbas, it will do so chiefly thanks to its sheer mass. Its claim to be a sophisticated modern force is as convincing as a tank turret rusting in a Ukrainian field.

For Mr Putin this is a crushing setback. That is partly because, although he controls a formidable propaganda machine to help drown out his critics, the loss of face threatens his standing at home. It is mostly because the use of military force is central to his strategy for making Russia count in the world.

Russia may be vast, but it is a medium-sized polity that still yearns to be a superpower. Its population ranks between Bangladesh and Mexico, its economy between Brazil and South Korea and its share of global exports between Taiwan and Switzerland. Although Russia enjoys some sympathy in non-aligned countries like South Africa and India, its soft power is ebbing—hastened by its display of incompetence and brutality in Ukraine.

To fill the gap between its power and aspirations—and to resist what he sees as America’s encroachment—Mr Putin has repeatedly turned to the only sphere where Russia can still purport to be world-class: military force. In the past 14 years he has invaded Georgia and Ukraine (twice) and fought in Syria. His mercenaries have deployed to Libya, the Central African Republic, Sudan and now Ukraine. Mr Putin is a global bully obsessed with his country’s inadequacies. Contrast that with China, which also has ambitions, but has so far been able to get results using its growing economic and diplomatic heft.

Humiliation in Ukraine weakens Russia’s last claim to superpower status. The war may yet drag on, and while it does Russia will not be able to mount big operations elsewhere. Equipment, ammunition and manpower are being used up fast. Restoring Russia’s forces to full strength and training them to avoid the mistakes in Ukraine could take years. Should sanctions remain because Mr Putin is still in power, the task will require even longer. Russian missiles are chock-full of Western components. The flight of talented, outward-looking Russians will weigh on the economy. All the while, the less that Russia can project military power, the less it will be able to disrupt the rest of the world.

That will be welcome. Yet, the invasion of Ukraine also holds lessons that are less comforting. For one thing, it shows that in pursuit of this strategy Mr Putin is willing to take risks that to many others—including many Russians—make no sense. Further decline in Russian power could lead to still more reckless aggression.

Ukraine also shows that in future wars if Russian forces cannot prevail on the battlefield, they will resort to atrocities. A weaker Russian army could be an even more brutal one. For those around the world facing Russian aggression, that is a terrible prospect.

Ultimately, weakness may lead Russia to the last arena where it is still indisputably a superpower: chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. From the start of this war, Mr Putin and his government have repeatedly brandished the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Mr Putin is rational, in that he wants his regime to survive, so the chances of their use probably remain slim. But as Russia’s armed forces run out of conventional options, the temptation to escalate will surely grow.

The message for the wider world is that Mr Putin’s military opportunism in Ukraine must be seen to fail by his own officers and strategists, who may then temper his next headstrong scheme. A stalemate in Donbas would merely set up the next fight and it could be even more threatening than today’s.

Yet, even if Mr Putin is defeated, he will remain dangerous. The message for nato is that it needs to update its tripwire defence. This rests on the idea that a Russian attempt to take a bite out of, say, the Baltic states may succeed at first, but would trigger a wider war which nato would eventually win. That defence involves the risk of miscalculation and escalation, which are more fraught than ever if Russia’s conventional forces are weak. Better to have a large forward force that Russia would find hard to defeat from the very start. The best way to be safe from Mr Putin and his rotten army is to deter him from fighting at all.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:17 pm Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

This comes across as defeatist.

Our EU allies are not "terrified", though we all certainly should be very worried about Putin taking this nuclear when he's otherwise defeated. EU certainly. But as previously said, if he does, NATO should/will utterly destroy his conventional capacities and create that no fly zone. Don't escalate to respond with nuclear. The world, not just NATO, will rally in horror.

On energy, Poland is leading the way and everyone else in NATO is scrambling as well. But the entire region has decided that they MUST decouple from energy from Russia...the only reversal of that would be Putin's overthrow.

As always, I remain consistent in my outlook: this is NOT our war so stay da f___k out of it.

Now Biden wants $33 billion in support for Ukraine: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-loo ... 022-04-28/



Evidently, the infrastructure, universal health care, and homelessness among the poor and the veterans are not top priority with him any longer.


My old pal called me from God's Country, Brooklyn just a short while ago and we chatted about the war and its consequences. In his daily walks and bike rides he passes by many homeless vets and panhandlers. Like me, he wonders whether these folks will ever get the attention and support from the government that is so readily given to governments overseas. He told me a neighbor heard that some wealthy Ukrainians tried to buy the apartment building he lives in and offered a truck load of money for it. That would have forced his pal to move out and find a new affordable dwelling which is difficult to do especially for a retiree like himself. Thousands of wealthy Ukrainians have already moved into the States while others of Latin origin languish at the Mexico-Texas border. As usual, the government employs its double standards when allowing entry and permanent residence status to foreigners such as Ukes and Afghans.

Sadly, the government will never learn that charity begins at home, not overseas.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:06 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:17 pm Our EU allies are terrified. They're not echoing our triumphalism. They're worried about surviving, not "winning".
They want a cease fire asap, so they can keep buying the Russian energy upon which their economies are still dependent.

SecDef can't promise a military victory when US forces are not involved.
He gave Putin the perfect talking point & justification for using a tac nuc.
He is creating false expectations among the US public.

Speak softly & wield a big stick, or better yet, give one to the Ukrainians.
No one can "win" without control of the airspace & the Black Sea.

This comes across as defeatist.

Our EU allies are not "terrified", though we all certainly should be very worried about Putin taking this nuclear when he's otherwise defeated. EU certainly. But as previously said, if he does, NATO should/will utterly destroy his conventional capacities and create that no fly zone. Don't escalate to respond with nuclear. The world, not just NATO, will rally in horror.

On energy, Poland is leading the way and everyone else in NATO is scrambling as well. But the entire region has decided that they MUST decouple from energy from Russia...the only reversal of that would be Putin's overthrow.

It is Russia … not Europe, NATO, the United States, South Korea, or Japan … that is terrified.

We see Russia’s fear in its tactical reset in Ukraine, Putin’s increasingly unhinged rhetoric, and escalating brutality against Ukrainian civilians.

Supporters of fascist strongmen, and we know there are some here, are watching the destruction of one of their idols.

This war in Ukraine might continue for a very, very long time. God forbid if Putin and Russia become desperate enough to employ weapons of mass destruction or even nukes. If they do that, it will be the end of Putin, and the end of Russia.

Unless Putin resorts to mass civilian genocides that would force even President Zalensky to surrender, Putin and Russia will lose this war.

What comes next may be even more terrifying … a Russian failed state that is no longer in complete control of its nuclear and military forces. Russia is already one massive criminal organization.

What happens if the organization and order vanish from a defeated Russia?

DocBarrister

No matter how you look at, it ain't pretty.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:27 pm As always, I remain consistent in my outlook: this is NOT our war so stay da f___k out of it.

Now Biden wants $33 billion in support for Ukraine: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-loo ... 022-04-28/



Evidently, the infrastructure, universal health care, and homelessness among the poor and the veterans are not top priority with him any longer.


My old pal called me from God's Country, Brooklyn just a short while ago and we chatted about the war and its consequences. In his daily walks and bike rides he passes by many homeless vets and panhandlers. Like me, he wonders whether these folks will ever get the attention and support from the government that is so readily given to governments overseas. He told me a neighbor heard that some wealthy Ukrainians tried to buy the apartment building he lives in and offered a truck load of money for it. That would have forced his pal to move out and find a new affordable dwelling which is difficult to do especially for a retiree like himself. Thousands of wealthy Ukrainians have already moved into the States while others of Latin origin languish at the Mexico-Texas border. As usual, the government employs its double standards when allowing entry and permanent residence status to foreigners such as Ukes and Afghans.

Sadly, the government will never learn that charity begins at home, not overseas.

There's certainly a fair critique to be had on spending. And priorities.

Looks like we'll spend 10-15% of the amount of our annual defense budget on helping Ukraine defeat Russia. Given the global ramifications, IMO that's worthwhile. Note that it's just a few grains of sand compared to what we just spent domestically on COVID.

But that doesn't eliminate the very valid critique of why we can't seem to solve other issues, too. It's really not the $, it's the will...and the belief that it'll be ineffective, in some quarters...

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:01 pm

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:27 pm As always, I remain consistent in my outlook: this is NOT our war so stay da f___k out of it.

Now Biden wants $33 billion in support for Ukraine: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-loo ... 022-04-28/



Evidently, the infrastructure, universal health care, and homelessness among the poor and the veterans are not top priority with him any longer.


My old pal called me from God's Country, Brooklyn just a short while ago and we chatted about the war and its consequences. In his daily walks and bike rides he passes by many homeless vets and panhandlers. Like me, he wonders whether these folks will ever get the attention and support from the government that is so readily given to governments overseas. He told me a neighbor heard that some wealthy Ukrainians tried to buy the apartment building he lives in and offered a truck load of money for it. That would have forced his pal to move out and find a new affordable dwelling which is difficult to do especially for a retiree like himself. Thousands of wealthy Ukrainians have already moved into the States while others of Latin origin languish at the Mexico-Texas border. As usual, the government employs its double standards when allowing entry and permanent residence status to foreigners such as Ukes and Afghans.

Sadly, the government will never learn that charity begins at home, not overseas.

There's certainly a fair critique to be had on spending. And priorities.

Looks like we'll spend 10-15% of the amount of our annual defense budget on helping Ukraine defeat Russia. Given the global ramifications, IMO that's worthwhile. Note that it's just a few grains of sand compared to what we just spent domestically on COVID.

But that doesn't eliminate the very valid critique of why we can't seem to solve other issues, too. It's really not the $, it's the will...and the belief that it'll be ineffective, in some quarters...

The $33 billion could certainly have been used elsewhere … for example, universal pre-k, free community college, job training, universal child care, and improved health care.

But it’s better than getting in a full blown war against Russia which could ultimately cost tens of trillions of dollars. Yes, tens of trillions. Needless to mention the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, military and civilian … and that’s only if WWIII remains a conventional war (a dubious prospect).

In that context, $33 billion is a small down payment (and rest assured, it is only a down payment) on the cost of defeating Russia and preserving a true “peace for our time.”

DocBarrister