WWIII? Or just a little fuckery?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Thanks for keeping us all up to date, lib.

With the war in Ukraine continuing into its third month . . .

Today is Day 144 of the invasion so it's getting close to starting the sixth month . . .

Regardless, the main point is real enough. Other stories - inflation, the wider effects of the war such as food shortages, climate, Kim Kardashian's new nail polish, whether TFG threw a punch at the SS guy who told him no, we're not going to the Capitol - have displaced Ukraine from the front page of people's consciousness. At some point Putin will declare victory and leave a ruined country behind and there will not be a damned thing we can do about it. We saw what a tin pot dictator like MBS could do in Saudi Arabia (Khashoggi) and Biden is powerless. He could say we're not going to buy any more of your oil and they will leave it in the ground and gas prices will hit $10 a gallon and Biden and the Dems will be out of work and we will be begging that nice MBS to let bygones be bygones and please please give us some oil. Arabian Light Crude is selling for about three times what was just two years ago, and despite his asshole tendencies MBS is not stupid. Oil in the ground is more valuable than oil already sold. We can't lob nuclear missiles at Putin and no way will NATO put boots on the ground to counter the Russians. That's probably what Putin wants at this stage of the war because if that happens, the few war-induced political divisions in Russia will magically heal.

[Big RR]

We have always had a difficult relationship with SA (and many other Arab states; we overlook a lot to get their oil, but then they overlook our rampanr support of Israel and shipment of arms to them regardless of how we feel about the current Israeli policy (e.g., we bitch about expanding west bank settlements, but do little to deter them). That's become the nature of ME diplomacy, pretending to look the other way and not see what is going on, and when oil (and its profits) is/are at stake, both sides can do a lot of this pretending. Not much else can be really done--we have no real alternative fuels with broad based availability (for all the hype on electric cars, much electricity is generated from fossil fuels), and we're not going to change until the oil is gone or becomes cost prohibitive, so that's the position we backed ourselves into.

As for Putin and the Ukraine, we are likely in an unwinnable situation. All we can do is to help supply the Ukraine with weaponry to keep the Russians at bay (and Biden has to do a better job to sell this to the American people or they maay well tire of it), but use of nuclear weapons would be asinine, and putting boots on the ground makes very little sense as well, unless we want to jut get into another Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan. It comes down to who will blink first, the Russians or the West, and what will then happen. If Putin just says he won and takes his ball and goes home, we will likely aid in the rebuilding/rearming of Ukraine, so he will have won little, if anything at all. If h keeps fighting, I have to bet the Russian people and other leaders will eventually get sick of it and force some sort of withdrawal; there's no real win for him either. thsi is pretty much what war has become in this time, no victors and no spoils.

[BoSoxGal]

No victors, no spoils - but meanwhile Putin engages in an age old amusement of the Russian state in its various forms: the mass famine of millions of innocents.

[Scooter]

Of course, if Republicans gain control of either house of Congress in November, that will be an end to all aid to Ukraine. And if Trump is elected in 2024, he will begin sending aid to Russia.

[Jarlaxle]

Another fever dream by Scooter.

[Sue U]

Of course, if Republicans gain control of either house of Congress in November, that will be an end to all aid to Ukraine. And if Trump is elected in 2024, he will begin sending aid to Russia.

Another fever dream by Scooter.

I think that's actually pretty likely, especially if Zelinskyy remains president of Ukraine. Trump believes Zelinskyy stabbed him in the back in the "drug deal" (quoting John Bolton) to withhold US military aid until Zelinskyy agreed to smear Biden. Trump is certainly petty enough, vindictive enough and enough of an asshole to take "revenge" on the entire country.

[Joe Guy]

Of course, if Republicans gain control of either house of Congress in November, that will be an end to all aid to Ukraine. And if Trump is elected in 2024, he will begin sending aid to Russia.

It would not surprise me at all for Trump to say what goes on between Russia and Ukraine is none of our business and then stop further aid from going to Ukraine. Trump's supporters would admire his ability to save money for the U.S. and save us from the threat of war. They would then occupy Mt Rushmore and sculpt his face on to it and shoot anybody who tried to stop them.

After the occupation and sculpting was complete they would claim any shots that killed people came from antifa, security guards and the FBI.

[liberty]

We have always had a difficult relationship with SA (and many other Arab states; we overlook a lot to get their oil, but then they overlook our rampanr support of Israel and shipment of arms to them regardless of how we feel about the current Israeli policy (e.g., we bitch about expanding west bank settlements, but do little to deter them). That's become the nature of ME diplomacy, pretending to look the other way and not see what is going on, and when oil (and its profits) is/are at stake, both sides can do a lot of this pretending. Not much else can be really done--we have no real alternative fuels with broad based availability (for all the hype on electric cars, much electricity is generated from fossil fuels), and we're not going to change until the oil is gone or becomes cost prohibitive, so that's the position we backed ourselves into.

As for Putin and the Ukraine, we are likely in an unwinnable situation. All we can do is to help supply the Ukraine with weaponry to keep the Russians at bay (and Biden has to do a better job to sell this to the American people or they maay well tire of it), but use of nuclear weapons would be asinine, and putting boots on the ground makes very little sense as well, unless we want to jut get into another Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan. It comes down to who will blink first, the Russians or the West, and what will then happen. If Putin just says he won and takes his ball and goes home, we will likely aid in the rebuilding/rearming of Ukraine, so he will have won little, if anything at all. If h keeps fighting, I have to bet the Russian people and other leaders will eventually get sick of it and force some sort of withdrawal; there's no real win for him either. thsi is pretty much what war has become in this time, no victors and no spoils.

I agree we can't win, but we can lose. If Putin wins in Ukraine, it will be a bad day for everyone who loves liberty and freedom, regardless of ideology, race, or culture. The only hope is that he has been so stung by the resistance that Ukraine has put up that he would be reluctant to engage in another struggle. But there's no assurance that would be the case. We know from history that successful aggression usually leads to more attacks. There can never be enough for the aggressor; he will always want more. There is talk among Putin's inner circle that Alaska was stolen from Russia through fraud. And considering the people involved in the deal, it might be true. What will come of that? Before you laugh it off, think about this: The Russians have been preparing for war in the Arctic for decades, and we have not.

[Big RR]

I would think Putin would be smart enough to realize that he'd be risking an awful t if he attached Alaska; I think the US not raising the stakes to nuclear exchanges for the Ukraine was a pretty good bet; not so with an attack on a US state. Sure, there would be some debate, but I doubt we'd really fight an extended ground war in Alaska and not attack his territory with nuclear weapons, and I think he might also have that doubt. He might be crazy enough to try, but I doubt it. Sadly, that would be something from which no winners would arise.

[BoSoxGal]

War started on February 24 and it was all war all the time for a couple of months but recently it doesn’t even rate an update on the morning political talk shows.

But then we are in the midst of a battle for our own democracy and just finding out that the presidents secret police services are all in for the MAGA guy.

It’s surreal watching this unfold on TV and social media. Our country is unraveling in real time. I’m more convinced by the day that the MAGA guy is coming back and hell is coming with him.

[Bicycle Bill]

Where's Jim Phelps and his IMF team when we really need them? They cold have taken care of Putin in less than an hour (50 minutes before commercials).

The MAGA guy and his crew? For him, they might have needed a two-parter.

-"BB"-

[liberty]

How US-made mobile-rocket artillery could change the battlefield in Ukraine
PUBLISHED FRI, JUL 29 202212:50 PM EDTUPDATED FRI, JUL 29 20229:38 PM EDT
Brad Howard@BRADHOWARDNYC
l



Why Ukraine wants this high-tech American rocket launcher
Artillery has quickly become the most important weapon in Ukraine’s war with Russia.

Ukrainian forces have begun to use newer Western artillery, like the M777 Howitzer, in the battlefield. But a different kind of weapon has had a bigger impact. The American-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, aka HIMARS, has been a major high-tech upgrade for Ukraine’s military.

“The introduction of the HIMARS rocket artillery to Ukraine has been significant,” said George Barros, a geospatial analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “That has changed the battlefield quite a lot. And it really goes to show that Western aid to Ukraine is not just paper pushing or symbolic.”
Ukrainian forces claimed to have already used the HIMARS to take out ammunition dumps, command posts and other high-value targets. Providing this high-tech system could help Ukraine blunt Russian advances and change the direction of the conflict.

“What the United States needs to do is to have a strategy to bring this war to an early end,” said George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute. “That means not only convincing the Russians that they can’t win on the battlefield but also showing them that should they make concessions at the negotiating table.”

[BoSoxGal]

Here’s a great story about a Ukrainian pensioner who allegedly shot down a high tech Russian military jet with his long rifle.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... medal.html

It seems too good to be true, but I choose to believe it.

[liberty]

At the moment, Ukrainians are winning, and God willing, they may push the Russians out soon, and this war will be over. But if you think the Russians were paper tigers, you're fooling yourself. Russia is no paper tiger. The Russians have made stupid mistakes, like wasting their long-range weaponry on civilian targets. That was not only immoral but also militarily stupid. They should have saved that capability for militarily significant targets. But their biggest problem is the Ukrainians themselves. It's not that the Russians are so weak; it is that the Ukrainian people are so strong. The Ukrainians have suffered much more than we'd be willing to suffer. I suspect by now we'd be suing for peace. Don't get me wrong, The United States has an outstanding military, but they're not that big, and we have no significant civilian backup. In Ukraine, the Russians could wipe out the entire Ukrainian army, and civilians would be lined up behind him to take their place. That is somewhat of an exaggeration, but it does make my point Ukrainians are tough people, and we are not.

[BoSoxGal]

We don’t really know what Americans are capable of given that they’ve not really experienced the deprivation of war (not counting the underfunding of everything else in order to funnel massive treasury riches to the MIC) since Vietnam and haven’t dealt with invasion since the very early 1800s.

I’ve seen plenty of footage from Ukraine - there are plenty of pudgy middle aged men fighting and plenty of elders pitching in too. Pensioners shooting Russian fighter jets out of the sky and babushkas making Molotov cocktails by the hundreds. These are ordinary people stepping up for their country. Yes Ukraine has a centuries long history of suffering under the yoke of one despot or another and dying by the millions so their endurance for the anguish of war is programmed in and that creates the resilience necessary to resist.

Do I agree that Americans couldn’t do it? No, I don’t. Some Americans couldn’t do it - just like millions of Ukrainians fled to other countries so would millions of Americans. But millions more would stay and fight. How long could they endure? I think we never know the true tenor of a person until they are put to the ultimate test. I have no doubt that as in most countries around the world, some people would be up for the task, especially in defense of homeland.

Russia can’t beat Ukraine because the troops are demoralized. They don’t want to kill Ukrainians, except for the depraved among the ranks who would kill anyone for the fun of killing. Most have no heart for this fight. They *would* have heart in defense of the motherland, but this war is not really that no matter what nonsense Putin feeds to the propaganda peddlers. When the Russian mothers figure out the death toll of Russian husbands and sons, Putin will be DONE. It’s just a matter of time.

[Bicycle Bill]

But their biggest problem is the Ukrainians themselves. It's not that the Russians are so weak; it is that the Ukrainian people are so strong. The Ukrainians have suffered much more than we'd be willing to suffer. I suspect by now we'd be suing for peace. Don't get me wrong, The United States has an outstanding military, but they're not that big, and we have no significant civilian backup. In Ukraine, the Russians could wipe out the entire Ukrainian army, and civilians would be lined up behind him to take their place. That is somewhat of an exaggeration, but it does make my point Ukrainians are tough people, and we are not.

Boy, aren't you just a pleasant little ray of sunshine?   I haven't seen such a defeatist attitude or read such half-baked nonsense in my life.  First it was the 'people of the steppes', now it's the Ukrainians that could supposedly wipe up the US people like Nancy Walker wiped up kitchen messes as the pitchwoman for Bounty.  Next you'll probably hold up the Swiss where, at age 18, all the men who are 'fit for service' are trained and then conscripted into the militia until age 35, as being the next bunch of 'freedom fighters' who could walk in and take over America if they ever decided to do so.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

Now, now, Bill. We all tend to judge others by our own standards . . . so when lib says "more than we'd be willing to suffer"; "we'd be suing for peace"; "Ukrainians are tough people, and we are not" you can bet that "we" means "I".

[liberty]

But their biggest problem is the Ukrainians themselves. It's not that the Russians are so weak; it is that the Ukrainian people are so strong. The Ukrainians have suffered much more than we'd be willing to suffer. I suspect by now we'd be suing for peace. Don't get me wrong, The United States has an outstanding military, but they're not that big, and we have no significant civilian backup. In Ukraine, the Russians could wipe out the entire Ukrainian army, and civilians would be lined up behind him to take their place. That is somewhat of an exaggeration, but it does make my point Ukrainians are tough people, and we are not.

Boy, aren't you just a pleasant little ray of sunshine?   I haven't seen such a defeatist attitude or read such half-baked nonsense in my life.  First it was the 'people of the steppes', now it's the Ukrainians that could supposedly wipe up the US people like Nancy Walker wiped up kitchen messes as the pitchwoman for Bounty.  Next you'll probably hold up the Swiss where, at age 18, all the men who are 'fit for service' are trained and then conscripted into the militia until age 35, as being the next bunch of 'freedom fighters' who could walk in and take over America if they ever decided to do so.

-"BB"-

First of all, Bill, you, the old Meade, and I are militarily irrelevant. Our day has come and gone; when I was a young man, I joined the struggle even though, at the time, I was said to be a dead patriotic fool and a potential war criminal. But I joined anyway, but that's in the past now.

My second point is that Alaska will not be a concern for a while, thanks to the Ukrainians. They have managed to weaken the Russians; they may take as much as a decade to rebuild offensive capability. Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Putin might have massive stores of war materials stored in secret locations in the Arctic, as far as I know. But even if he did, I can't see him taking a chance using those materials without the assurance he could resupply.

[ex-khobar Andy]

You hear enough stories of 'ordinary' people doing heroic things, like the pizza guy who went into a burning building and saved five kids to know that many more than military types are capable of self sacrifice. I have on my wall a certificate from the Carnegie Trust Heroes Fund commemorating my wife's uncle who, at the age of 12 in 1932, dived into a swollen river in a vain attempt to save his brother. Both died. I don't know if there is anyone still alive who remembers young Anthony Illingworth, but as long as we have descendants his name will be remembered and that certificate will be on a wall somewhere. I have no doubt that if the Russians invaded (I think that is Lib's scenario but it is sometimes difficult to discern exactly where he is coming from) libs and MAGAs alike would be shooting and we'd probably borrow their guns and they would willingly lend them. Yes some - of both stripes - would head for Canada or wherever but I think the resistance would be strong.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.

You know that I rarely agree with you Lib but you're right on the money this time.