Re: Ukraine
Posted: Fri February 21, 2025 7:44 pm
FUCK ICE
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.tragabigzanda wrote: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.dimejinky99 wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:It looks like the US selling a shitload of next-gen warfighter tech to Europe. Leadership from both parties will benefit hugely from this.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 ‘ ?
Who’s buying? Do you have a link?
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.
I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.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?
tragabigzanda wrote: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.dimejinky99 wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:It looks like the US selling a shitload of next-gen warfighter tech to Europe. Leadership from both parties will benefit hugely from this.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 ‘ ?
Who’s buying? Do you have a link?
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.
tragabigzanda wrote:Yes but there are lots of component inputs that could be sourced from US
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.tragabigzanda wrote: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.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.
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.
That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.BurtReynolds wrote:I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.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?
The most basic steelman is you can't allow a country to expand its territory through armed invasion.Bi_3 wrote:That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.BurtReynolds wrote:I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.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?
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.bada wrote:The most basic steelman is you can't allow a country to expand its territory through armed invasion.Bi_3 wrote:That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.BurtReynolds wrote:I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.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?
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.bada wrote:The most basic steelman is you can't allow a country to expand its territory through armed invasion.Bi_3 wrote:That makes some sense, but it also seems like that strategy favors China's goals vs Ukraine's.BurtReynolds wrote:I think the strongest argument is to bleed out Russia as long as possible so they can't invade any other eastern countries.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?
Anders wrote:
That’s true.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.