War in Ukraine

Mark B said:
Perception is reality to most people. They perceive the world to exist and function in accordance with their beliefs so they see the events of the world in a way that validates their thinking.

But this isn't a new phenomenon, this is the story of human history since they first started writing things down. We talk about the approved history amongst the tribe for what we think the action meant and then adjust the narrative afterwards to approve the party line.

Add the in joys of social media where even the craziest of us can find people who share their delusions and their chosen echo chamber validates their thinking. This is especially true of the virtue signalers who are screaming to defeat Russia but couldn't be bothered to take the bus to Ukraine and join up.

On a happier note though, I can tell you who the biggest losers and winners will be in Ukraine-Russia in the end.

Ukraine-Russia:
Losers:
- Both Ukraine and Russia. Both were in a demographic death spiral before the war started and it has only gotten drastically worse. You cannot make babies with dead soldiers and wounded ones are less attractive to women.
- Economically, both are in trouble but Ukraine will come back quicker because of European assistance. Russia is economically screwed for the next century at this point.
- Credibility of both is also completely shot at this point and will only be getting worse. The Ukrainian darlings are not the sweethearts that people made up as the main reason why they aren't allowed in NATO wasn't because of Russia but because Ukraine is insanely corrupt.
- European Union: They are not a peer of China and the US until they have force to back it up. Nations are also forced to put more into defense then into the social programs then they wanted to.

Winner: Biggest winner will be China, followed by Poland, NATO and the US.
- Russia is a client start of China at this point and will get economically worse. The Chinese are not Russia's friend and Chinese businesses have been taking advantage of Russia not having options to buy from.
- Poland has gone absolutely nuts in rearming. The Poles want revenge for Katyn and the Soviet occupation after the war. Their investments are impressive and with help, they are a threat to Russia's territorial ambitions going west.
- NATO again has purpose and meaning. Trump being a gigantic p**** is not helping people feel good about it right now or comfortable with the future direction, but Europe is investing in defense against and being more then just the +1 date for the Americans. Europeans have some of the best soldiers in the world, about time they received the tools to showcase those skills.
- US is making out both economically (oil production and missiles) as well as alliance wise as European defense investment has allowed the US to start switching its focus to other regions, especially the Pacific as it gears up for its future fight against China.
Click to expand...

I don't think NATO has ever been more divided.
The US openly derides the Europeans.
Hungary and Slovakia almost openly support Russia.
Turkey, Spain and some others back Palestine. The US backs Israel.
There's major fault lines on every major issue.
 
McAhuna said:
I don't think NATO has ever been more divided.
The US openly derides the Europeans.
Hungary and Slovakia almost openly support Russia.
Turkey, Spain and some others back Palestine. The US backs Israel.
There's major fault lines on every major issue.
Click to expand...
There are currently disagreements, but It has been worse in the past, for example:

  • The Cyprus Crisis (1974): The closest NATO members came to direct military conflict occurred when Turkish troops invaded and occupied northern Cyprus following a Greek-backed military coup on the island. Both Greece and Turkey mobilized forces against each other, leading to a tense standoff within the alliance's southern flank.
  • The Cod Wars (1958–1976): A series of diplomatic and maritime disputes over fishing rights in the North Atlantic took place between the United Kingdom and Iceland. While naval and coast guard ships rammed each other and cut nets, it did not escalate to formal war, though Iceland briefly threatened to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  • The Suez Crisis (1956): The UK and France launched a military intervention in Egypt, which sharply divided the alliance and strained relations with the United States, though it did not involve fighting between members.
  • The Turbot War (1995): A bloodless fisheries dispute over Greenland halibut quotas occurred between Canada (supported by the UK) and Spain (part of the European Union/NATO).
Not to mention France leaving for decades and kicking NATO out of France (where NATO had been HQ’d at the time).
 
Mark B said:
There are currently disagreements, but It has been worse in the past, for example:

  • The Cyprus Crisis (1974): The closest NATO members came to direct military conflict occurred when Turkish troops invaded and occupied northern Cyprus following a Greek-backed military coup on the island. Both Greece and Turkey mobilized forces against each other, leading to a tense standoff within the alliance's southern flank.
  • The Cod Wars (1958–1976): A series of diplomatic and maritime disputes over fishing rights in the North Atlantic took place between the United Kingdom and Iceland. While naval and coast guard ships rammed each other and cut nets, it did not escalate to formal war, though Iceland briefly threatened to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  • The Suez Crisis (1956): The UK and France launched a military intervention in Egypt, which sharply divided the alliance and strained relations with the United States, though it did not involve fighting between members.
  • The Turbot War (1995): A bloodless fisheries dispute over Greenland halibut quotas occurred between Canada (supported by the UK) and Spain (part of the European Union/NATO).
Not to mention France leaving for decades and kicking NATO out of France (where NATO had been HQ’d at the time).
Click to expand...

There have been squabbles for sure. But all of the above were in peripheral theatres - Iceland, Cyprus, Egypt.

The splits now seem much more fundamental and cutting across the two big conflicts of the 21st century.

NATO and the EU look likely to be the biggest losers in any scenario. Their credibility is completely shot.
 
Definitions of traitor on Planet Spindle

Blowing up the gas pipeline infrastructure of our own side. Assisting in the cover-up through media, websites, etc = Definitely NOT traitorous behaviour

Fellow Palace fans discussing the war and possible scenarios = Traitors!!!
 
He highlighted drone use and welcomed an attack on British civilians not the blowing of an unused pipeline in the Baltic you complete div
 
Spindle said:
He highlighted drone use and welcomed an attack on British civilians not the blowing of an unused pipeline in the Baltic you complete div
Click to expand...

Learn to read and apply basic comprehension skills.

Saying Putin would be justified in making an attack is not the same as welcoming it.
 
Russia can produce more than 200 cruise and ballistic missiles per month and has another 1,900 in reserve, according to the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.

According to GUR, the Russian Armed Forces currently have:
▫️600 Oniks;
▫️450 Kalibrs;
▫️400 S-400 missiles (ballistic);
▫️130 Iskanders (ballistic);
▫️120 Zircons;
▫️100 Kh-101;
▫️50 North Korean missiles (ballistic);
▫️50 Kinzhals.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Russia can produce more than 200 cruise and ballistic missiles per month and has another 1,900 in reserve, according to the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.

According to GUR, the Russian Armed Forces currently have:
▫️600 Oniks;
▫️450 Kalibrs;
▫️400 S-400 missiles (ballistic);
▫️130 Iskanders (ballistic);
▫️120 Zircons;
▫️100 Kh-101;
▫️50 North Korean missiles (ballistic);
▫️50 Kinzhals.
Click to expand...
My issue with Ukrainian estimates is that they are only slightly more credible then Russian ones. As a standard rule, I don't believe what they say unless their is picture/video evidence (Oryx has done great at this) or the UK/US have validated the claims independently.

I would also not be surprised if the majority microchips made by JSC Mikro and Angestrem (the two big Russian microprocessor manufacturers) are going almost exclusively into missiles and military aircraft, which is why Russian domestic aircraft came up a 113 civilian aircraft short of their 127 aircraft goal. I wonder how many of the Chinese chips are why the missiles struggle to actually hit their targets.
 
Mark B said:
My issue with Ukrainian estimates is that they are only slightly more credible then Russian ones. As a standard rule, I don't believe what they say unless their is picture/video evidence (Oryx has done great at this) or the UK/US have validated the claims independently.

I would also not be surprised if the majority microchips made by JSC Mikro and Angestrem (the two big Russian microprocessor manufacturers) are going almost exclusively into missiles and military aircraft, which is why Russian domestic aircraft came up a 113 civilian aircraft short of their 127 aircraft goal. I wonder how many of the Chinese chips are why the missiles struggle to actually hit their targets.
Click to expand...

I posted their estimates but I likewise have doubts.

Then again, the side that tends to be losing lies more than the side winning for obvious reasons. Russia obviously have large amounts of missiles as evidenced by what's been regularly used. Ukraine's main strength is drones, which they only slightly outmatch Russia in.

Russia is being helped in shortages by China and India and don't seem to have suffered that much in military capacity by sanctions.....though it's certainly made things difficult for them domestically, while also hurting us.
 
McAhuna said:
I don't think NATO has ever been more divided.
The US openly derides the Europeans.
Hungary and Slovakia almost openly support Russia.
Turkey, Spain and some others back Palestine. The US backs Israel.
There's major fault lines on every major issue.
Click to expand...
Under new management.

Europe is adapting to life without the US. To an extent.

Take the US naval fleet. Technically,. second behind China in boat numbers; but it's tonnage - the better indicator - is many times greater. In fact, more than the next X number of navies combined.

And here's the kicker. This is not something Trump has inherited that he proposes to scale back on as part of an America First policy. They propose to build hundreds more boats. It would be more than that, but production is capped by industrial capacity, not budget.

True, maintaining the industrial military complex keeps many in employment, cash in the coffers and politicians in jobs. However, while I accept that the US has a large coastline, its assets do not require a navy that size, especially given the opposition.

No, this projection of power enables the US to fulfil its NATO commitments and protect its allies. But for those commitments, e.g. China would have taken Taiwan years ago. All the while, The US publicly derides its European allies and plays to its base while simultaneously doing what it has since the War.

The US is levering us to spend more. And is right to do so.
 
Stirlingsays said:
I posted their estimates but I likewise have doubts.

Then again, the side that tends to be losing lies more than the side winning for obvious reasons. Russia obviously have large amounts of missiles as evidenced by what's been regularly used. Ukraine's main strength is drones, which they only slightly outmatch Russia in.

Russia is being helped in shortages by China and India and don't seem to have suffered that much in military capacity by sanctions.....though it's certainly made things difficult for them domestically, while also hurting us.
Click to expand...
It is underappreciated by most people in the West how much of an economic client state Russia has become of China.

The sanctions had the effect of speeding up the Russian return to being an agrarian society. The other is that Russia is in the process of moving its defense manufacturing to India. Russian advisors and engineers to to Indian firms who will build Russian weapons under Indian license to get around US/European sanctions.
 
silvertop said:
Under new management.

Europe is adapting to life without the US. To an extent.

Take the US naval fleet. Technically,. second behind China in boat numbers; but it's tonnage - the better indicator - is many times greater. In fact, more than the next X number of navies combined.

And here's the kicker. This is not something Trump has inherited that he proposes to scale back on as part of an America First policy. They propose to build hundreds more boats. It would be more than that, but production is capped by industrial capacity, not budget.

True, maintaining the industrial military complex keeps many in employment, cash in the coffers and politicians in jobs. However, while I accept that the US has a large coastline, its assets do not require a navy that size, especially given the opposition.

No, this projection of power enables the US to fulfil its NATO commitments and protect its allies. But for those commitments, e.g. China would have taken Taiwan years ago. All the while, The US publicly derides its European allies and plays to its base while simultaneously doing what it has since the War.

The US is levering us to spend more. And is right to do so.
Click to expand...
I think you are spot on with your analysis. The US wants a strong navy because that is the easiest way to prevent a war with China, the US being able to cut off the sea lines of communication. You are correct in that the US' ability to force project is of benefit to NATO. The initial hurdle for less US involvement will be removing NATO from a having a US communications systems architecture backbone to support NATO Command and Control. There are modern technological solutions available now that weren't around a decade ago that should assist. The ones that NATO won't be able to replace are intelligence, aviation and long range fires, but those warfighting functions aren't what is primarily being drawn down by the US right now anyway.

If you listen one group of people who have not been complaining are the European military personnel who are finally getting their budget requests filled after decades of austerity and cuts. And the funding challenges go back decades as militaries across Europe had to make due with legacy equipment while their American partners would show up with crazy amounts of modern equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top