Ukraine War and Politics

[cycleguy2300]

<>

The USS Hornet was at sea in January 1942. . . . . .

<>

Yes, but to my memory the Hornet was unable to land anyone on the beaches...

It was a sucessful propaganda move, but militarily it was no more than middle finger. The loss of all 16 bombers and putting an aircraft carrier at great risk for no tangible militarily gains, by any objective measure would have been a failure.

China can't mount an invasion of Taiwan, we have years before China could, if interested mount an invasion there, and even if they could, China economically China needs international sales to stay open. They cannot afford a war with the USA

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

A good read from the The Institute for the Study of War, one of the better unclassified sources of analysis (full report at title link)...

The Kremlin’s Occupation Playbook: Coerced Russification and Ethnic Cleansing in Occupied Ukraine

The war in Ukraine is primarily a war for control of people, not land. Russian President Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine twice not mainly because he desires Ukraine’s land, but rather because he seeks to control its people. Putin’s project, explicitly articulated in the 2021 article he published justifying the 2022 full-scale invasion, is the destruction of Ukraine’s distinctive political, social, linguistic, and religious identity. Putin seeks to make real his false ideological conviction that Ukrainians are simply confused Russians with an invented identity, language, and history that a small, Western-backed minority is seeking to impose on the majority of inhabitants. He sees language as one of the primary determinants of ethnicity—Russian speakers, he claims, must be Russians regardless of the state they live in. The Russian Federation has claimed special rights to protect Russians in the former Soviet states since the 1990s, although the Kremlin did not act on those claims until Putin became president. Putin’s aim to destroy Ukrainian identity, language, and culture is thus one of the primary objectives of his entire enterprise.

The stakes of this war thus transcend hectares of land. They include the lives, freedom, and identities of nearly five million Ukrainians currently living under Russian occupation, the nearly five million more whom the Kremlin has illegally deported to Russia and the additional millions who have fled their homeland to other parts of Ukraine or abroad. Dry, abstract, “realist” discussions about pressuring Ukraine to make “concessions”—to “trade land for peace”—ignore the reality of the war. This war is about people as well as land, and Western leaders cannot dismiss the consequences of the policies they pursue and demand.

Russia first experimented with its occupation playbook in 2008 when it invaded Georgia and occupied the Georgian territories of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia “republics.” Russia further developed means and methods of occupation in Ukraine after it invaded and seized Crimea and parts of Donbas in 2014. The international community denounced the 2014 invasion, refused to recognize Russia’s claims to these areas, and heavily sanctioned involved Russian actors. The international response, however, failed to discourage Russia from continuing its occupation of Ukraine and setting conditions for the 2022 full-scale invasion. Russia succeeded in forcing the international community to accept and internalize the 2014 occupation enough that many even in the West now view the 2014 territories as different from the rest of Ukraine.

Russia is now applying these means and methods of occupation on an expanded scale in the Ukrainian territories it occupied since the full-scale invasion that began on February 24, 2022. The Kremlin’s occupation design aims to eliminate Ukrainian identity by forcibly integrating occupied Ukraine into Russia socially, culturally, linguistically, politically, economically, religiously, and bureaucratically. Moscow ultimately seeks to persuade Kyiv and its supporters that the forced integration of Ukraine into Russia, and the resulting elimination of Ukrainian identity, are permanent and irreversible so that the Kremlin can fully subjugate these territories and people for its own gain.

Putin also seeks to use Ukraine as a source of mobilizable manpower in part to address Russia's demographic issues. Russia has been struggling since the beginning of the 1990s with a demographic crisis, caused by declining birthrates, an aging population, low life expectancy (particularly amongst males of working age), and high levels of emigration. The war has somewhat exacerbated Russia’s demographic challenges because 800,000- 900,000 Russians fled the country after the start of the war, including up to 700,000 who ran after Putin ordered partial mobilization in September 2022. Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) data shows that Russia’s labor shortage amounted to 4.8 million people in 2023, a problem that has reduced Russia’s economic output. Rosstat also estimated in 2023 that Russia’s population will decline naturally at a rate of more than 600,000 people per year until 2032.

Rosstat reported that the Russian population was 146 million as of January 1, 2023. Five million Ukrainians living in Russian-occupied areas, plus the 4.8 million Ukrainians whom Russia has deported into the Russian Federation, thus comprise about 7 percent of the current Russian population. Russian efforts to control Ukrainian land and seize its people are therefore in part intended to offset Russia’s population decline and workforce shortages.

 

[majormadmax]

<>

The USS Hornet was at sea in January 1942. . . . . .

<>

"With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, Hornet returned to Norfolk and in January had its anti-aircraft armament substantially upgraded. Remaining in the Atlantic, the carrier conducted tests on February 2 to determine if a B-25 Mitchell medium bomber could fly from the ship. Though the crew was perplexed, the tests proved successful. On March 4, Hornet departed Norfolk with orders to sail for San Francisco, CA. Transiting the Panama Canal, the carrier arrived at Naval Air Station, Alameda on March 20. While there, sixteen U.S. Army Air Forces B-25s were loaded onto Hornet's flight deck.

When the Hornet departed San Francisco Bay on 2 April 1942, the sailors though they would simply be delivering the aircraft to Pearl Harbor. After all, the Hornet passed under the Golden Gate Bridge in broad daylight with the bombers in plain sight on the flight deck.

Tom Varnando, one of those sailors said, "Traffic was just stopped there, it was just a mass of people on the bridge. We went right under them. I thought, "Well, we're not going on a secret mission because they wouldn't do this."

But they would. A day into the cruise the crew got the news. They weren't going to Pearl Harbor. They were going to bomb Japan..."

 

[Havok1]

Care to explain how?

"This is incorrect" is a conclusion and not argument, unless you are about 4... I think that is about when the belief saying "No it isnt" over and over is "argument" peaks for most...

Really, "I disagree" would have been a more accurate statement and while curiosity would have still prompted me to ask why, the statement stands on its own, at least more so than the one you made.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

The equipment is for whoever we need to use it against. Most of what has been sent has been used by our military against enemies that are not Russia.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

Yes, but to my memory the Hornet was unable to land anyone on the beaches...

It was a sucessful propaganda move, but militarily it was no more than middle finger. The loss of all 16 bombers and putting an aircraft carrier at great risk for no tangible militarily gains, by any objective measure would have been a failure.

China can't mount an invasion of Taiwan, we have years before China could, if interested mount an invasion there, and even if they could, China economically China needs international sales to stay open. They cannot afford a war with the USA

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

<>

I understand what you are saying, but History has many tales of those who believed themselves “safe”.

<>

 

[cycleguy2300]

<>

I understand what you are saying, but History has many tales of those who believed themselves “safe”.

<>

True.

I am just saying I thing we have plenty to share with someone fighting our cause/enemy...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Common/enemy
FIFY

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

True.

I am just saying I thing we have plenty to share with someone fighting our cause/enemy...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

<>

Yes, of course, IF current “Russia’’ were the Soviet Union.

But, I believe that our MIC has vilified post-Soviet Russia to greatly undeserved degree.

Indeed, sympathies aside, who has been more prudent recently: Putin/Medvedev/Lavrov; or, Obama/Biden/Hillary/Kerry ?

We smother in lying propaganda here in the USA’s perverted “Free Press” !

leVieux

<>

 

[majormadmax]

Open source reporting...

Ukrainian military observers indicated that the Russian defense industrial base (DIB) is not as productive as Russian authorities portray it to be, but that the Russian DIB is still capable of sustaining Russia’s war effort. Ukrainian military observers reported on February 11 that the Russian Security Council’s own DIB production data for 2023 indicates that the Russian DIB reached a peak output in September 2023 that was 38.9 percent higher than its average 2022 monthly output and has steadily declined in the following months. The Russian DIB is struggling to compensate for moderately- and highly-skilled labor shortages and Russia’s inability to obtain the necessary industrial production equipment, spare parts, and servicing to sustain the pace and breadth of DIB production efforts.

Russia’s current limited DIB production capacity and insufficient serial tank production lines are not guarantees that Russia will struggle to produce enough materiel to sustain its war effort at its current pace or in the long term. Russia’s ability to modernize and use tanks retrieved from storage still gives Russian forces an advantage on the battlefield in the overall number of available tanks. Mashovets noted that some newly-produced tanks such as the T-14 Armada are poorly produced whereas older tanks such as T-72s (which Russia actively repairs) are more reliable.

Russia has lost more than 3,000 tanks in Ukraine - the equivalent of its entire pre-war active inventory - but has enough lower-quality armoured vehicles in storage for years of replacements, a leading research centre said on Tuesday. Ukraine has also suffered heavy loses since Russia invaded in February 2022, but Western military replenishments have allowed it to maintain inventories while upgrading quality, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said.

Even after the loss of so many tanks - including an estimated 1,120 in the past year - Russia still has about twice as many available for combat as Ukraine, according to the IISS's annual Military Balance, a key research tool for defence analysts. "Moscow has been able to trade quality for quantity by pulling thousands of older tanks out of storage at a rate that may, at times, have reached 90 tanks per month," said the report.

Russia's stored inventories meant Moscow "could potentially sustain around three more years of heavy losses and replenish tanks from stocks, even if at lower-technical standard, irrespective of its ability to produce new equipment.” Given the losses sustained by both sides and the attritional character of the trench warfare, IISS experts said the current stalemate was likely to persist. "Neither side can do a large-scale attack without incurring very heavy casualties, and that's likely to continue for the foreseeable future," IIIS land warfare analyst Barry said.

Institute for the Study of War

Ukraine has been defending itself against illegal Russian military intervention and aggression for 10 years. Russia violated its commitments to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity and began its now decade-long military intervention in

www.understandingwar.org

 

[wiredgeorge]

Just wanted to note that Biden claims most of the Ukraine foreign aid money would actually be spent here in the State; almost $40B ramping up munitions and armament capabilities. That means he is paying defense contractors billions of dollars to expand? Don't we already have the capability to build this stuff? This sounds like deep-state lobbies have Biden's ear. Watch all the Congressionals move to buy stock in these companies.

 

[Havok1]

Just wanted to note that Biden claims most of the Ukraine foreign aid money would actually be spent here in the State; almost $40B ramping up munitions and armament capabilities. That means he is paying defense contractors billions of dollars to expand? Don't we already have the capability to build this stuff? This sounds like deep-state lobbies have Biden's ear. Watch all the Congressionals move to buy stock in these companies.

The money might be getting spent here but it’s still for products that are getting sent to another country.

The Congress critters aren’t just buying the stock now, they were doing it back when they were still getting Russia warmed up for the proxy war.

Congress' war profiteers have Lockheed Martin, Raytheon investments

War is "big business to our leaders," says Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of 20 lawmakers Insider identified with defense industry investments.

www.businessinsider.com

As an example, we can also see that the defense industry makes up many of Rutherfords top campaign contributors.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/john-rutherford/contributors?cid=N00039777&cycle=2024

 

[cycleguy2300]

<>

Yes, of course, IF current “Russia’’ were the Soviet Union.

But, I believe that our MIC has vilified post-Soviet Russia to greatly undeserved degree.

Indeed, sympathies aside, who has been more prudent recently: Putin/Medvedev/Lavrov; or, Obama/Biden/Hillary/Kerry ?

We smother in lying propaganda here in the USA’s perverted “Free Press” !

leVieux

<>

In what way has post-soviet russia been unjustly villified?

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Just wanted to note that Biden claims most of the Ukraine foreign aid money would actually be spent here in the State; almost $40B ramping up munitions and armament capabilities. That means he is paying defense contractors billions of dollars to expand? Don't we already have the capability to build this stuff? This sounds like deep-state lobbies have Biden's ear. Watch all the Congressionals move to buy stock in these companies.

We give Ukraine existing inventory for the most part. Good for us because things have expiry dates. Items that would be surplused and often destroyed (at a not insignificant cost) get to be used for a good cause and we get fresh stuff in our inventory.

If your at the range and a buddy needs some ammo, you may "budget" that cost, but you dont drive to the store to buy it if you have a few boxes on hand. You pass the ammo and buy more later.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

About to vilify post-soviet russia here:

https://static.poder360.com.br/2022/02/2014-Coup-1.pdf

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

We give Ukraine existing inventory for the most part. Good for us because things have expiry dates. Items that would be surplused and often destroyed (at a not insignificant cost) get to be used for a good cause and we get fresh stuff in our inventory.

If your at the range and a buddy needs some ammo, you may "budget" that cost, but you dont drive to the store to buy it if you have a few boxes on hand. You pass the ammo and buy more later.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

If that were true then we would have been planning for that replacement already and we would not be facing the low inventories that we are currently. The reason for the drawdown is because it’s a faster way to transfer equipment than waiting for new equipment to be produced. It has absolutely nothing to do with expiration.

 

[cycleguy2300]

If that were true then we would have been planning for that replacement already and we would not be facing the low inventories that we are currently. The reason for the drawdown is because it’s a faster way to transfer equipment than waiting for new equipment to be produced. It has absolutely nothing to do with expiration.

Yes, transferring equipment is faster than the process of procurement and production, but expiration is a factor for some items, but not all. If we are surplusing equipment sooner than originally planned to send over to Ukraine, that would also still drop inventory since the replacement wouldnt be there yet and wont be presumably until to original planned date.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[popper]

Majorax's map shows exactly what Ru wants from Ukraine. Control of people comes after control of economy! They control exports (sea routes), they control the country. Note Poland is blockading land routes. Comments by the 'expert' groups that are PAID for their studies are stupid. Ru controls 30% of Black Sea coast! Adding Ukraine - 50%. As Turkey is essentially on RU side, 80%. if RU controls Baltic, then UK, Med and US coastlines are only ones NOT controlled by Commies.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Majorax's map shows exactly what Ru wants from Ukraine. Control of people comes after control of economy! They control exports (sea routes), they control the country. Note Poland is blockading land routes. Comments by the 'expert' groups that are PAID for their studies are stupid. Ru controls 30% of Black Sea coast! Adding Ukraine - 50%. As Turkey is essentially on RU side, 80%. if RU controls Baltic, then UK, Med and US coastlines are only ones NOT controlled by Commies.

The major energy field are in eastern Ukraine... this war is about russian power. Get the energy and get the means to control access (ports)

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[wiredgeorge]

Meet the Congress Members Trading Defense Stocks While Shaping Military Policy

Congress continues to approve defense budgets beyond what even the Pentagon even asks for.

truthout.org

At least 15 lawmakers who shape US defense policy have investments in military contractors

The lawmakers serve on the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

www.businessinsider.com