Page 101 of 110

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Fri February 21, 2025 7:44 pm
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Fri February 21, 2025 8:05 pm
by simple schoolboy
tragabigzanda wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
bada wrote:Neither Ukraine nor any of their neighbors are obligated to capitulate to Russia because they have a fantasy about remaining a continental power and only feel secure when their borders go up against mountains and seas. Russia is worried about an invasion from the West that was never going to happen. The West only cares about maintaining the maritime order and making money. Europe would have loved if Russia joined in. The only country Russia has to worry about is their current ally China who would like nothing more than to take large swaths of Russian territory. Blaming countries that desperately wanted to be in NATO and enjoy western security because they have a long history of Russia doing horrible things to them is an odd take but a lot of people lean that way. It's a shame Trump is one of them. I'm not against the idea that Europe should be paying for and defending themselves and not relying on the U.S. in theory but I wonder what that looks like in practice. U.S. will lose a lot of influence and strong militaries in Europe tend to have historically bad results. There is undoubtably a ton of fraud, abuse and probably an ungodly amount of aid money that had gone into a few guys pockets and I'm sure Zelensky is neck deep in it but I'd still back them.
It looks like the US selling a shitload of next-gen warfighter tech to Europe. Leadership from both parties will benefit hugely from this.


‘It looks like ‘ ?

Who’s buying? Do you have a link?
I think you’re absolutely right to be skeptical. Trump’s prior trade wars did not have the intended consequence of driving massive US exports; while some kd that happened, it’s also true that countries used the Covid logistics realignment to find new sources for their goods.

EU has been historically under militarized, so the bet is that once they’re forced to defend their assets without US oversight (Burt cackles in the background), they’ll be too behind the innovation curve and will have to rely on US miltech. But their agility during Covid has demonstrated they at least have the capacity to not rely on the US for every widget. Time will tell.
They also have a long history of multinational projects that one or more nation backs out of at the last minute and destroys the entire economic case for the project (Eurofighter, Tornado, etc. etc.). Maybe this time they can all play nice together and put together a superior F-35 alternative.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Fri February 21, 2025 8:07 pm
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 3:51 am
by BurtReynolds
Bi_3 wrote:I saw earlier today on tweeter that someone asked what the steelman argument for continuing the war is and both the answers and responses were seriously lacking. What is the steelman for continuing to fight?
I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 4:34 am
by dimejinky99
tragabigzanda wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
bada wrote:Neither Ukraine nor any of their neighbors are obligated to capitulate to Russia because they have a fantasy about remaining a continental power and only feel secure when their borders go up against mountains and seas. Russia is worried about an invasion from the West that was never going to happen. The West only cares about maintaining the maritime order and making money. Europe would have loved if Russia joined in. The only country Russia has to worry about is their current ally China who would like nothing more than to take large swaths of Russian territory. Blaming countries that desperately wanted to be in NATO and enjoy western security because they have a long history of Russia doing horrible things to them is an odd take but a lot of people lean that way. It's a shame Trump is one of them. I'm not against the idea that Europe should be paying for and defending themselves and not relying on the U.S. in theory but I wonder what that looks like in practice. U.S. will lose a lot of influence and strong militaries in Europe tend to have historically bad results. There is undoubtably a ton of fraud, abuse and probably an ungodly amount of aid money that had gone into a few guys pockets and I'm sure Zelensky is neck deep in it but I'd still back them.
It looks like the US selling a shitload of next-gen warfighter tech to Europe. Leadership from both parties will benefit hugely from this.


‘It looks like ‘ ?

Who’s buying? Do you have a link?
I think you’re absolutely right to be skeptical. Trump’s prior trade wars did not have the intended consequence of driving massive US exports; while some kd that happened, it’s also true that countries used the Covid logistics realignment to find new sources for their goods.

EU has been historically under militarized, so the bet is that once they’re forced to defend their assets without US oversight (Burt cackles in the background), they’ll be too behind the innovation curve and will have to rely on US miltech. But their agility during Covid has demonstrated they at least have the capacity to not rely on the US for every widget. Time will tell.

EU are talking about forming an EU armed force in reaction to all this. I did wonder with Trump shittihg all over that relationship who they would buy the military hardware from? Trump screaming about NATO countries not paying their way, he’s actually saying buy US military hardware! Turns out the EU doesn’t have to at all. France (of all countries) is the fourth largest weapons manufacturer in the world. And all these.
No shortage of very capable European suppliers: Rheinmetall, Thales, Dassault, Airbus, SaaB, Nexter, Schneider, Eurenco, EuroTorp, Euromissile, Panhard, Naval Group, ACMAT etc

Think the UK has a good few of their own too.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 4:42 am
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 4:59 am
by dimejinky99
tragabigzanda wrote:Yes but there are lots of component inputs that could be sourced from US

But that’s not going to happen now is it? EU or any component country isn’t going to buy billions in hardware off the guy who’s threatening tariffs and a trade war etc. I can assure you of that. Hungary might. But that’s it. They’re going the right way about being expelled from the EU too. Putin owns that guy. Balls deep.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 5:09 am
by tragabigzanda
FUCK ICE

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 5:22 am
by dimejinky99
tragabigzanda wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:Yes but there are lots of component inputs that could be sourced from US

But that’s not going to happen now is it? EU or any component country isn’t going to buy billions in hardware off the guy who’s threatening tariffs and a trade war etc. I can assure you of that. Hungary might. But that’s it. They’re going the right way about being expelled from the EU too. Putin owns that guy. Balls deep.
I don’t think there are any absolutes to be found with hardware purchases. You’re talking about thousands if not millions of specific components — from raw minerals to microchips, then large components and finished products. Places with access to capital and strategic trade route locations and arrangements will do more of the high value work; the other places will do more of the upstream stuff like mining and mineral processing.

Some stuff will be sourced from the US, and it’ll be the best stuff on the market, which is kind of important when you’re building war tech. Some of the other best stuff will definitely be sourced from elsewhere.

There won’t be much sentiment behind any of this. Price, scale, and technical advantage will continue to rule the marketplace; it’s just that the lines of production are being redrawn.
Fair. But does any EU country need any of that from the US? When it comes to military at least? Would be good to know how much they’ve bought up to now and before all this happened.
Tangent but. Outside of that Ireland does a huge amount of chip and pharmaceutical production predominantly US multinationals based here. He’s threatening tariffs on that stuff and more. How do tarrifs work on products made by US companies but produced elsewhere?
Seems counterintuitive. The plan seems to be to force those companies to repatriate to the US and bring the jobs and income back there. But the skills base isn’t there it seems and they’re just going to wait him / his term out. If he doesn’t stay on for a third term that is.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 4:34 pm
by Bi_3
BurtReynolds wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:I saw earlier today on tweeter that someone asked what the steelman argument for continuing the war is and both the answers and responses were seriously lacking. What is the steelman for continuing to fight?
I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.
That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sat February 22, 2025 7:51 pm
by dimejinky99
This will really piss him off.

EU considers confiscating part of Russia’s frozen $280 billion, Bloomberg reports

https://kyivindependent.com/eu-consider ... g-reports/

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 1:27 pm
by Anders

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 6:39 pm
by bada
Bi_3 wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:I saw earlier today on tweeter that someone asked what the steelman argument for continuing the war is and both the answers and responses were seriously lacking. What is the steelman for continuing to fight?
I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.
That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.
The most basic steelman is you can't allow a country to expand its territory through armed invasion.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 6:48 pm
by Anders
bada wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:I saw earlier today on tweeter that someone asked what the steelman argument for continuing the war is and both the answers and responses were seriously lacking. What is the steelman for continuing to fight?
I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.
That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.
The most basic steelman is you can't allow a country to expand its territory through armed invasion.
Rape and slaughter their way through a country, hundreds of thousands of dead, children sent to russification-camp, kidnapped from their parents, cities in ruins. millions on the run, 20% of Ukraine under Russian control, a Russia that has also attacked several other areas, massive disinformation campaign for years, killed their own opposition and own journalists, and worked together with Iran and North Korea in this war.

«whAtS tHe stEElman for conTinUing tHis wAr?»

Let’s just give Russia everything they want. They are such good guys. Let’s give them Moldova, Georgia and Belarus as well. Let’s give them our money again.

What a horrible world to live in.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 6:53 pm
by Anders

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 7:32 pm
by Bi_3
bada wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:I saw earlier today on tweeter that someone asked what the steelman argument for continuing the war is and both the answers and responses were seriously lacking. What is the steelman for continuing to fight?
I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.
That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.
The most basic steelman is you can't allow a country to expand its territory through armed invasion.
Morally, I agree. Russia should be made to suffer for what they have done and as a deterrent for others. BUT. This implies someone has the responsibility to purge Russian forces from occupied territory. Who bears this responsibility? More specifically, whose soldiers fight Russia? There are over 6M refugees and over 3M internally displaced Ukrainians. About 1 in 25 of the combat age males in country (pre-war) has been killed or seriously injured vs about 1 in 50 for Russia. Either someone comes in to fight alongside Ukraine or Russia can outlast them. Who is going to do it? NATO? Again, morally I totally agree. But from a realism viewpoint I'm not sure that's achievable without exhausting all of Europe's entire defensive capabilities.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 7:38 pm
by dimejinky99
Anders wrote:


He should have pointed out most of that money stayed in the US and went to the weapons industry. It didn’t end up in Ukrainian coffers at all.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Sun February 23, 2025 8:00 pm
by Anders
dimejinky99 wrote:
Anders wrote:


He should have pointed out most of that money stayed in the US and went to the weapons industry. It didn’t end up in Ukrainian coffers at all.
That’s true.

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Mon February 24, 2025 8:15 am
by dimejinky99
Australia, New Zealand impose new sanctions against Russia.

Australia has introduced the most extensive package of sanctions since the beginning of the all-out war, while New Zealand imposed restrictions on over 50 individuals and entities

https://kyivindependent.com/australia-n ... st-russia/

Re: Ukraine

Posted: Mon February 24, 2025 11:32 am
by Higgs
"Take that Russia!" Yelled the ants.