Russia Invades Ukraine

[sixstar]

I appreciate the thought that went into your response.

Some background on Russia. America's concern for Russia was very low until the Crimea invasion in 2014. Russia demonstrated advanced technologies that surpassed US technologies which catalyzed a panic and a deluge in R&D as the US realized that they were spending too heavily in old technology to operate against insurgents. Afghanistan occupation was a huge draw on American DoD resources, hence the desire to withdraw - money needed to be allocated elsewhere to keep pace with the "near-peer" threats. Bottom line: DoD realized they were asleep at the wheel.

In many cases, budget authorities pointed to Russia as a driving requirement for new technology investments to modernize US gear, even though Russia was still seen as a fractional threat compared to China. Everyone loves a good excuse for spending - especially the defense industrial base. And there's precedent to show that military spending can spur an economy, obviously.

The likelihood that Russia would ever invade the US is miniscule. Their interests lie in reviving the USSR first, second, and third-most.

I do not believe that the US orchestrated Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but they have opportunistically used this for strategic advantage. Primarily, intelligence. Secondarily, political weakening of the Russian populace, and thirdly military attrition. This isn't about Ukraine's sovereignty or its people. Ukraine is a pawn that extracts intelligence of modern Russia military logistics, TTPs, and technology. This intelligence is paramount to US strategy. The attrition is just a bonus. Russia annexing Ukraine makes them slightly more of a threat to NATO, but no more of a threat to the US, other than our involvement with NATO. But Russia is thinning quickly, so even if they were to annex Ukraine, they would be far too weak to realistically threaten NATO for decades.

So, let's talk money then.
The US spent ~$2.3T over 21 years in Afghanistan. An average of $110.1B/year
Thus far in 2022, US has spent: $110B on Ukraine

How much will we spend in 2023 and beyond? Nobody knows.

Are we "defeating" Russia? No.
Are we "weakening" Russia? Yes.
Are we strengthening the relative position of the US? Yes.
Is Russia primary threat for the US? No.
If China is a 10, what is Russia? about a 4.
Is this costing peanuts? Depends on how long this goes.

 

[Irish#1]

1. Europe depends on Russia for energy. Europe is not as economically stable this century via the Great Recession. Makes it a lot harder for the US to have a grip on the financial and payment systems with all of that hanging over everyone's heads. We probably don't even know the full economic ramifications just yet, though, direct and indirect.

Russia is a threat to our allies and to us. US NSD calls them an "acute threat." Putin isn't someone we can rely on as an ally or partner and he has a particular interest is sowing division among Americans politically. Obviously we're better divided to him than united. He should be taken seriously and from a strategic standpoint, a weakened Putin is better for everyone, especially the United States. We send a message of our resolve to our allies and enemies alike.

Militarily, Russia is being drained of resources, but they still have nuclear capability. That should be taken seriously, especially if they are pursuing nuclear modernization. they're not the threat they were during the Cold War, but a serious nuclear threat in addition to the cyber hacking capabilities.

2. On a scale 1-10, what is the likelihood that Russia would ever attack the US unprovoked?

Haven't a fucking clue. I'm sure our military and intelligence people know this better than I could answer it. Nuclear? Militarily? Space? Cyber hacking? Disinformation to the American public?

3. What are the top 5 reasons that the US should be attacking Russia via Ukraine right now?

1. Ukraine holding off Russia and potentially winning stops the war from spreading and spilling over into nearby countries.
2. NDS calls Russia an acute threat. The more money they spend fighting, the more materials they use and lose, the more men that they lose on the battlefield downgrades them as an overall threat.
3. Ukraine succeeding vs Russia is better for the global economy, especially for Europe, which makes it good for us and everyone.
4. Putin undermines American values, democracy in particular. We can't be the world police, but we should still stand for something decent.
5. Sovereignty, secure borders and defense. Stuff we take for granted here.

4. How much has the US spent supporting Ukraine vs. the war in Afghanistan?

I assume this question can be answered by everyone here with the capability of looking it up.

5. What is the end criteria, and how much more money is required to achieve this end goal? How long will this take?

Defend and preserve democracy and sovereignty, our values, around the world. Ukraine is an ally. I am concerned about our troops being redeployed from where they already are in the world to that region the further this goes on and would like to avoid that. Ukraine becomes an even stronger ally in the end, particularly militarily, with a victory and support. One threat gets put back into the box.

How much money it takes, I don't know, but we obviously can't go on forever giving it. Nor can all the other nations providing support, most of whom have even higher inflation than the US does right now. I also don't know how long it takes because the Ukraine has been essentially crippled in every aspect of their existence. What does reconstruction and recovery look like after a victory? A decade? Two decades?

Nice post Jiggafini.

IMO, Putin started the war because his ego wants him to be looked at as an equal to Lenin and Stalin when all is said and done. The only way to do that is to try and replicate the USSR or expand Russia past its current borders. He won't go east and piss off China and I think he underestimated (because of Crimea) the reaction of the NATO countries when trying to take Ukraine.

 

[Irish#1]

I appreciate the thought that went into your response.

Some background on Russia. America's concern for Russia was very low until the Crimea invasion in 2014. Russia demonstrated advanced technologies that surpassed US technologies which catalyzed a panic and a deluge in R&D as the US realized that they were spending too heavily in old technology to operate against insurgents. Afghanistan occupation was a huge draw on American DoD resources, hence the desire to withdraw - money needed to be allocated elsewhere to keep pace with the "near-peer" threats. Bottom line: DoD realized they were asleep at the wheel.

In many cases, budget authorities pointed to Russia as a driving requirement for new technology investments to modernize US gear, even though Russia was still seen as a fractional threat compared to China. Everyone loves a good excuse for spending - especially the defense industrial base. And there's precedent to show that military spending can spur an economy, obviously.

The likelihood that Russia would ever invade the US is miniscule. Their interests lie in reviving the USSR first, second, and third-most.

I do not believe that the US orchestrated Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but they have opportunistically used this for strategic advantage. Primarily, intelligence. Secondarily, political weakening of the Russian populace, and thirdly military attrition. This isn't about Ukraine's sovereignty or its people. Ukraine is a pawn that extracts intelligence of modern Russia military logistics, TTPs, and technology. This intelligence is paramount to US strategy. The attrition is just a bonus. Russia annexing Ukraine makes them slightly more of a threat to NATO, but no more of a threat to the US, other than our involvement with NATO. But Russia is thinning quickly, so even if they were to annex Ukraine, they would be far too weak to realistically threaten NATO for decades.

So, let's talk money then.
The US spent ~$2.3T over 21 years. An average of $110.1B/year
Thus far in 2022, US has spent: $110B on Ukraine

How much will we spend in 2023 and beyond? Nobody knows.

Are we "defeating" Russia? No.
Are we "weakening" Russia? Yes.
Are we strengthening the relative position of the US? Yes.
Is Russia primary threat for the US? No.
If China is a 10, what is Russia? about a 4.
Is this costing peanuts? Depends on how long this goes.

Also a good post.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

1. Europe depends on Russia for energy. Europe is not as economically stable this century via the Great Recession. Makes it a lot harder for the US to have a grip on the financial and payment systems with all of that hanging over everyone's heads. We probably don't even know the full economic ramifications just yet, though, direct and indirect.

Russia is a threat to our allies and to us. US NSD calls them an "acute threat." Putin isn't someone we can rely on as an ally or partner and he has a particular interest is sowing division among Americans politically. Obviously we're better divided to him than united. He should be taken seriously and from a strategic standpoint, a weakened Putin is better for everyone, especially the United States. We send a message of our resolve to our allies and enemies alike.

Militarily, Russia is being drained of resources, but they still have nuclear capability. That should be taken seriously, especially if they are pursuing nuclear modernization. they're not the threat they were during the Cold War, but a serious nuclear threat in addition to the cyber hacking capabilities.

2. On a scale 1-10, what is the likelihood that Russia would ever attack the US unprovoked?

Haven't a fucking clue. I'm sure our military and intelligence people know this better than I could answer it. Nuclear? Militarily? Space? Cyber hacking? Disinformation to the American public?

3. What are the top 5 reasons that the US should be attacking Russia via Ukraine right now?

1. Ukraine holding off Russia and potentially winning stops the war from spreading and spilling over into nearby countries.
2. NDS calls Russia an acute threat. The more money they spend fighting, the more materials they use and lose, the more men that they lose on the battlefield downgrades them as an overall threat.
3. Ukraine succeeding vs Russia is better for the global economy, especially for Europe, which makes it good for us and everyone.
4. Putin undermines American values, democracy in particular. We can't be the world police, but we should still stand for something decent.
5. Sovereignty, secure borders and defense. Stuff we take for granted here.

4. How much has the US spent supporting Ukraine vs. the war in Afghanistan?

I assume this question can be answered by everyone here with the capability of looking it up.

5. What is the end criteria, and how much more money is required to achieve this end goal? How long will this take?

Defend and preserve democracy and sovereignty, our values, around the world. Ukraine is an ally. I am concerned about our troops being redeployed from where they already are in the world to that region the further this goes on and would like to avoid that. Ukraine becomes an even stronger ally in the end, particularly militarily, with a victory and support. One threat gets put back into the box.

How much money it takes, I don't know, but we obviously can't go on forever giving it. Nor can all the other nations providing support, most of whom have even higher inflation than the US does right now. I also don't know how long it takes because the Ukraine has been essentially crippled in every aspect of their existence. What does reconstruction and recovery look like after a victory? A decade? Two decades?

This thread…. Russia are bad actors. Their action harms everyone of the good actors on this planet.

 

[sixstar]

Wait till you hear what they are doing in Afghanistan these days.

The world has no shortage of bad actors.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Wait till you hear what they are doing in Afghanistan these days.

The world has no shortage of bad actors.

There are a shortage of bad actor with lots of military equipment and nuclear weapons.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

This book was published in October 2015. So much of what the author said at the time has come to fruition. Highly recommend it.

 

[Bishop2b5]

This book was published in October 2015. So much of what the author said at the time has come to fruition. Highly recommend it.

Garry's an interesting guy. Liberal in some ways and very conservative in others. Definitely smart. He was an active contributing editor to the WSJ for years, occasional guest on Letterman (he's entertaining and can be funny), and author of a few successful book on subjects other than chess, such as the one above. He's arguably the greatest chess player in history (at worst in the top 3) with an IQ in the 190's. He definitely HATES Putin with a passion, and the feeling is mutual. Garry campaigned for President of Russia several years ago on a platform of getting rid of Putin and his Stalin 2.0 regime. Putin had him thrown into jail for a while. Few people on the planet are better at analyzing all the facts in a situation and looking at it objectively. I don't always agree with his views, but he's usually right and you can bet he put some serious thought into any work he publishes.

 

[calvegas04]

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

 

[sixstar]

I haven't heard the speech, but the follow-up tweets indicate a neutral line, not a pro-Russian line. Summary tweet might be misleading based on the excerpts:



Anyone have the actual transcript?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

This is pretty much what GOP and Trump did. Never criticize. Never say anything negative in public. Pretty clear indications that a policy shift is occurring specifically as it relates compared to previous admin. Anything that gives room to breathe to Putin is favorable to him and his kleptocratic terroristas

 

[sixstar]

A non-interventionalist approach is not the same as taking a "pro-Russian" line.

Don't confound the two.

 

[calvegas04]

russia is weird as fuck... glad they are losing the war

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

A non-interventionalist approach is not the same as taking a "pro-Russian" line.

Don't confound the two.

When they are actively invading countries it absolutely is supporting their agenda. By not admonishing them publicly or otherwise addressing their bad actions it’s at best tacit approval and gives them room to operate than they previously had politically and militarily.

 

[sixstar]

So do you think that a strongly worded letter from Israel will discourage Russia from invading Ukraine, yes or no?
If the Israel FM wrote a letter admonishing Russia tomorrow, would you claim that he is anti-Russia, yes or no?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

So do you think that a strongly worded letter from Israel will discourage Russia from invading Ukraine, yes or no?
If the Israel FM wrote a letter admonishing Russia tomorrow, would you claim that he is anti-Russia, yes or no?

It would at least show Israel isn’t with them.

If he wrote something counter to what he just said head going to do then not at first. No. He just said publically that their policy in Russiais is softening and a a hard right turn from the previous FMs stance. Him writing a letter tomorrow doing a 180 would give most everyone in the world whiplash. Lol

In any event Israel softening their stance on Russia is bad for us as allies. It’s consequently also what the GOP will do once they take the House. Guaranteed. I’ll be shocked if the money to Ukraine continues coming with them in control considering they already changed their platform back in 2016 and Trump never once said a single bad word about Putin publically, canceled or undid longtime policies that benefitted only Russia and even had plans to pull us out of NATO completely.

 

[sixstar]

It would at least show Israel isn’t with them.

Which accomplishes what?

He just said publically that their policy in Russiais is softening and a a hard right turn from the previous FMs stance.

Did he? Can you provide the transcript of what he said?

In any event Israel softening their stance on Russia is bad for us as allies.

Why?

I’ll be shocked if the money to Ukraine continues coming with them in control

What is the maximum amount of money we would spend on assisting Ukraine? Give me a number, not a sentence.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Which accomplishes what?



Did he? Can you provide the transcript of what he said?



Why?



What is the maximum amount of money we would spend on assisting Ukraine? Give me a number, not a sentence.

All of these have already been answered by me but here is a link as to Israel's possible thinking considering Russia's actions in Syria, why Israel wouldnt sell Ukraine their Iron Dome defense system, and as to the money who the duck knows how much it will take. 😂 As much as it takes is my answer. Probably in the realm of eleventy trillion will be sufficient.

 

[RDU Irish]

Talk is cheap. I never understand why people give two shits what some politician says. If you want to take it to Russia - unleash the American energy sector to crater global oil/gas prices. Put sanctions on the Russian produced fertilizers that were proven to be dumped in the US harming our domestic producers for years but decided not to do anything because now prices are higher and that might hurt the politically powerful farmers (who are making record profits). Wage economic war instead of laundering money through the Ukraine for the "big guy".

Crimea river.

 

[RDU Irish]

Eleventy trillion if needed - but we can't burn a little more oil and gas because Greta says so.

 

[sixstar]

All of these have already been answered by me

No, you haven't addressed them explicitly. You are speaking in platitudes; I want specifics.

but here is a link as to Israel's possible thinking considering Russia's actions in Syria, why Israel wouldnt sell Ukraine their Iron Dome defense system

Israel is looking out for Israeli interests. Why is this condemnable?

, and as to the money who the duck knows how much it will take. 😂 As much as it takes is my answer.

As much as it takes?
So, are you okay if the US goes bankrupt supporting Ukraine, yes or no?
Are you okay if the US spurs 20% inflation and quadruples the debt deficit, yes or no?

At the end of the day, you can't just live in a hypothetical world. Decisions result in consequences. Your comments indicate that you support continual dumping of money into Ukraine with no end in sight, so you aren't considering the downstream consequences. Then you condemn a country for taking a non-interventionalist approach because they are concerned of the potential consequences.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

No, you haven't addressed them explicitly. You are speaking in platitudes; I want specifics.

I'd like you to specifically answer why the do nothing approach regarding a very bad actor with a massive military and nuclear weapons is acceptable. I want specifics.

Israel is looking out for Israeli interests. Why is this condemnable?.

Becasue its laying down to Putin. They previously had a a harder line stance. Now its less so. I cant help you understand the significance of showing your belly to Putin. The appeasement of Putin and his terrorist kelptocracy has basically resulted in him taking miles when you give an inch. If you read the article you would see that one of Russia's aims in Syria was to put geographical and political pressure on Israel, arguably the USs strongest allies in the ME. Russia controls Syrian airspace and Israel has to have access to it. Russia's presence in Syria has driven a political wedge between Israel and the US. That was the point. Russia had little business in Syria before this but we had Syria then we had Crimea, then we had Ukrainian invasion. He must be stopped and he is testing boundaries.

As much as it takes?
So, are you okay if the US goes bankrupt supporting Ukraine, yes or no?
Are you okay if the US spurs 20% inflation and quadruples the debt deficit, yes or no?

At the end of the day, you can't just live in a hypothetical world. Decisions result in consequences. Your comments indicate that you support continual dumping of money into Ukraine with no end in sight, so you aren't considering the downstream consequences. Then you condemn a country for taking a non-interventionalist approach because they are concerned of the potential consequences.

Im just kidding I know exactlyhow much it will take but Im not telling you. Im currently advising the US on this matter and its top secret. lol
All the reaganites never batted an eye when we were relentlessly funding Cold war activities to bankrupt Russia during the 80s. A similar strategy today for pennies on the dollar is now an issue. But its more likely that the conservative take on interventionism has softened rather than maintaining our global hegemony.

Ultimately the entire world knows a weak Russia is the best Russia.

 

[sixstar]

I'd like you to specifically answer why the do nothing approach regarding a very bad actor with a massive military and nuclear weapons is acceptable. I want specifics.

A country must focus on its priorities. Simple as that. The R/U conflict might not be a top priority for every nation that has more pressing national security issues. The US doesn't have to worry about offensive military attacks on our immediate borders; Israel does.

Becasue its laying down to Putin. They previously had a a harder line stance. Now its less so. I cant help you understand the significance of showing your belly to Putin. The appeasement of Putin and his terrorist kelptocracy has basically resulted in him taking miles when you give an inch. If you read the article you would see that one of Russia's aims in Syria was to put geographical and political pressure on Israel, arguably the USs strongest allies in the ME. Russia controls Syrian airspace and Israel has to have access to it. Russia's presence in Syria has driven a political wedge between Israel and the US. That was the point. Russia had little business in Syria before this but we had Syria then we had Crimea, then we had Ukrainian invasion. He must be stopped and he is testing boundaries.

Ever play poker? Do you say everything that you think, or do you hold important information close to your chest? You are projecting that an external response is necessary to establish a belief. Did Israel broadcast its involvement with Stuxnet?

All the reaganites never batted an eye when we were relentlessly funding Cold war activities to bankrupt Russia during the 80s. A similar strategy today for pennies on the dollar is now an issue.

I'm not talking about the 80s; I'm talking about today.
And it's not pennies on the dollar. The US spent as much on Ukraine this year as they did on average per year in Afghanistan.

Ultimately the entire world knows a weak Russia is the best Russia.

Sure, but everything costs something. The question isn't whether a weakened Russia is good. It is. The question is how much does it cost, and is that cost worth it. Your stance is that no cost is too high. I disagree.

 

[RDU Irish]

I'd like you to specifically answer why the do nothing approach regarding a very bad actor with a massive military and nuclear weapons is acceptable. I want specifics.


Becasue its laying down to Putin. They previously had a a harder line stance. Now its less so. I cant help you understand the significance of showing your belly to Putin. The appeasement of Putin and his terrorist kelptocracy has basically resulted in him taking miles when you give an inch. If you read the article you would see that one of Russia's aims in Syria was to put geographical and political pressure on Israel, arguably the USs strongest allies in the ME. Russia controls Syrian airspace and Israel has to have access to it. Russia's presence in Syria has driven a political wedge between Israel and the US. That was the point. Russia had little business in Syria before this but we had Syria then we had Crimea, then we had Ukrainian invasion. He must be stopped and he is testing boundaries.


Im just kidding I know exactlyhow much it will take but Im not telling you. Im currently advising the US on this matter and its top secret. lol
All the reaganites never batted an eye when we were relentlessly funding Cold war activities to bankrupt Russia during the 80s. A similar strategy today for pennies on the dollar is now an issue. But its more likely that the conservative take on interventionism has softened rather than maintaining our global hegemony.

Ultimately the entire world knows a weak Russia is the best Russia.

So you are saying you appreciate Trump's foreign policy that checked Russian aggression while Obama and Biden have sown the seeds of war?

 

[Irish#1]

I'd like you to specifically answer why the do nothing approach regarding a very bad actor with a massive military and nuclear weapons is acceptable. I want specifics.


Becasue its laying down to Putin. They previously had a a harder line stance. Now its less so. I cant help you understand the significance of showing your belly to Putin. The appeasement of Putin and his terrorist kelptocracy has basically resulted in him taking miles when you give an inch. If you read the article you would see that one of Russia's aims in Syria was to put geographical and political pressure on Israel, arguably the USs strongest allies in the ME. Russia controls Syrian airspace and Israel has to have access to it. Russia's presence in Syria has driven a political wedge between Israel and the US. That was the point. Russia had little business in Syria before this but we had Syria then we had Crimea, then we had Ukrainian invasion. He must be stopped and he is testing boundaries.


Im just kidding I know exactlyhow much it will take but Im not telling you. Im currently advising the US on this matter and its top secret. lol
All the reaganites never batted an eye when we were relentlessly funding Cold war activities to bankrupt Russia during the 80s. A similar strategy today for pennies on the dollar is now an issue. But its more likely that the conservative take on interventionism has softened rather than maintaining our global hegemony.

Ultimately the entire world knows a weak Russia is the best Russia.

Trump and now Reagan. lol Of course with the new Congress, the Repubs are going to go full treason and have a tug party with Putin.

No worries, because Joe's got that money machine and we know he knows how to use it.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Trump and now Reagan. lol Of course with the new Congress, the Repubs are going to go full treason and have a tug party with Putin.

No worries, because Joe's got that money machine and we know he knows how to use it.

They have already done sedition and treason. Lol.

 

[Irish#1]

They have already done sedition and treason. Lol.

sure

 

[calvegas04]

US, Germany, France announced more firepower being sent to Ukraine. UK possibly sending tanks. All on the day putin asked for a ceasefire lol

 

[Irish#1]

Putin thinks he's being clever, but everyone sees right through this one.

Putin's unilateral ceasefire "intended to damage Ukraine's reputation," says think tank ISW​

From CNN's Amy Woodyatt

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of a 36-hour unilateral ceasefire is "likely an information operation intended to damage Ukraine’s reputation," according to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
The unilateral ceasefire from 12 p.m. (4 a.m. ET) Friday until midnight (9 p.m. ET) Saturday was not agreed to by Kyiv, and has been dismissed by Ukraine and the US as a cynical ploy.

"Putin could have been seeking to secure a 36-hour pause for Russian troops to afford them the ability to rest, recoup, and reorient to relaunch offensive operations in critical sectors of the front," the ISW said in it's assessment, released Thursday. It added that a pause in hostilities "would disproportionately benefit Russian troops."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also accused Moscow of seeking to use the Orthodox Christmas holiday as "cover" to resupply and stop Ukrainian advances in the eastern Donbas region.
"Putin cannot reasonably expect Ukraine to meet the terms of this suddenly declared ceasefire and may have called for the ceasefire to frame Ukraine as unaccommodating and unwilling to take the necessary steps towards negotiations," the ISW noted.
The ISW added: "Suddenly announcing a ceasefire with Ukraine that should have been negotiated well in advance in observance of Russian Orthodox Christmas will allow Russia to frame Ukraine as infringing on the right of believers to celebrate the holiday as hostilities will likely continue into January 6 and 7."
This, the ISW said, would allow Moscow to support the "baseless" narrative that Ukraine is persecuting Orthodox Christians and Russian speakers, which Putin has used to justify his illegal invasion of Ukraine.