He is in pretty good physical shape, so unless he is killed in a coup or has some sort of terminal illness, I expect him to live well into his 80s or even reach 90.
Last edited:
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
He is in pretty good physical shape, so unless he is killed in a coup or has some sort of terminal illness, I expect him to live well into his 80s or even reach 90.
How will you accomplish that?
By adequately arming the Ukrainians so they can push Putin out of Ukraine. Its not the US or NATO's job to do the war planning on behalf of the Ukrainians. They have already proven themselves more than competent at doing it themselves as long as they have the weapons to do it.
@Suedesi - any chance you can tell us how you’d make sure Russia abided by this peace deal / ceasefire this time?
I mean the calculus is simple.
The cost to Russia is exponentially higher than the cost to the West.
The West is currently jiggling around some prioritization and emptying out old storage vehicles and equipment whereas Russia has had to triple it's military budget and move to a war economy.
Over time, Russia will run out of money to sustain this war, much akin to the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The cost to Russia is exponentially higher than the cost to the West.
The West is currently jiggling around some prioritization and emptying out old storage vehicles and equipment whereas Russia has had to triple it's military budget and move to a war economy.
Over time, Russia will run out of money to sustain this war, much akin to the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Indeed. Either this, or Putin will get coup'd from within, which would probably stop the war.
The fact he only replies when it's convenient shows he has no idea how to defend his position.
How do you adequately arm the Ukrainians when the West can’t seem to produce the necessary armaments
So the West will win a war of attrition with Russia, in Ukraine. If that’s your strategy, it’s a losing one.
That’s not how it works. When Ukraine gets weapons from the US, they get them from existing weapons in the US arsenal. The billions that Congress has allocated for Ukraine is to replenish the US arsenal, not to build new weapons for Ukraine. It therefore serves a dual purpose of supporting Ukraine against Putin AND modernizing US weapons.
That seems like a very low probability event. A more probable outcome is that western resolve will wilt after US elections in November. Just calling it as I see it
…not answer a simple question?
Right. There are efforts to increase domestic production (the Norwegian government for example just signed a deal with a partially state owned producer to tenfold increase artillery ammunition production), but European aid also significantly relies on procuring equipment on the open market for Ukraine. From South Korea, for example. Its not as simple as "don't produce enough, can't supply Ukraine".
I'm not sure where you're getting this data from - but how about I share with you FY23 spend data on how much the US is procuring/plan to procure based on official US DoD documents
That is the congressional plan developed in FY23 up until FY27, in FY24 the numbers increased even more.
Now, can you give me some Russian procurement numbers to explain to me how they plan to somehow out-attrit the West when US alone is procuring all of this?
Where the feck are you getting these numbers from?
US have a multi year buy for 3850 PAC-3's and around 2000 PAC-2's. Congressional buys are usually 3 year plans so this averages out to around 2000 PAC-3/PAC-2's a year. (see above for the congressional purchases document)
You are seriously telling me that AFU are using 2000 interceptors on 2/3 Patriot batteries alone per month? Russia don't even have that many stand off munitions produced in a year
WSJ is horrifically inaccurate about the problems around GPS guidance. There's a lot of nuance there that requires me linking you papers that you won't read, but tl;dr it's grossly exaggerated. GPS spoofing isn't available on a wide front, and is localized to about 10-12% of the frontline, and those regions are usually rear-echelon staging regions because the EW suites used to spoof/jam GPS also jams GLONASS which means Russia cannot launch offensive operations in that region.
It's an utterly stupid question to begin with. In theory, you handle it by setting up some verification mechanisms (inspections), a bit of international oversight (your coalition of nations to oversee the peace deal implementation), a collection of enforceable sanctions for breaches, and constant diplomatic hand-holding. Assuming you can trounce them on the battlefield and compel them to accept those terms. Practically speaking, without a battlefield victory, you'll end up with a frozen conflict instead of a real peace agreement, meaning the frozen conflict is always at risk of thawing and flaring up again.
I'm not sure where you're getting this data from - but how about I share with you FY23 spend data on how much the US is procuring/plan to procure based on official US DoD documents
That is the congressional plan developed in FY23 up until FY27, in FY24 the numbers increased even more.
Now, can you give me some Russian procurement numbers to explain to me how they plan to somehow out-attrit the West when US alone is procuring all of this?
Here you go dude, straight from the mouth of the incoming new US administration - I don't bullshit!
More on Vance’s Munich trip
Which is why freezing it will be the west's last resort. Keeping this going is a lot more energy consuming for Russia than it is for any Nato country.
Sure, sanctions and diplomatic hand holding will make Russians not to try to conquer the rest of Ukraine in the future given the chance.
Instead of frozen conflict with Russia keeping occupied territory there should be a peace deal in which they keep the territory but with an international oversight. That sure will tell them.
Instead of frozen conflict with Russia keeping occupied territory there should be a peace deal in which they keep the territory but with an international oversight. That sure will tell them.
Why do you trust the words of a guy who literally isn't on any defense related committee over official procurement numbers produced by the DoD?
It’s a stupid question to ask how one would make sure Russia didn’t pull a 2008 / 2014 / 2022?
Sure thing big guySo basically you have 0 idea how your holy grail peace agreement would be worth the paper it’s written on. No wonder you want to avoid saying it.
I’ll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don’t count
It looks like the poster @Suedesi is having a mare once again. I get it, since geopolitics, war strategy and the concept that time is linear are all difficult subjects and not everyone is an expert on the matter.
Some of the sources Sudesi has posted have been insane too:
This is a quote from the WSJ article he posted:
Not even the staunchest pro China/Russia nationalist would argue that either of them are "peer" opponents of the west.
Russia's entire military doctrine for the past 20 years has been the acceptance that they cannot match the West on equal footing so they go for huge asymmetric methodology, cheap mass produced disposable equipment, lightweight, mobile (all on paper), with huge preferences for tube artillery over rocket artillery, a huge focus on Area-denial-of-access as opposed to a more formidable air force.
China has reached the status of "near-peer".
It's actually interesting, Ben Hodges spent time serving on SACEUR office, although over a decade before I did. I know very little about the man so might go digging about how some of my friends there think of him.
This is a quote from the WSJ article he posted:
Not even the staunchest pro China/Russia nationalist would argue that either of them are "peer" opponents of the west.
Russia's entire military doctrine for the past 20 years has been the acceptance that they cannot match the West on equal footing so they go for huge asymmetric methodology, cheap mass produced disposable equipment, lightweight, mobile (all on paper), with huge preferences for tube artillery over rocket artillery, a huge focus on Area-denial-of-access as opposed to a more formidable air force.
China has reached the status of "near-peer".
It's actually interesting, Ben Hodges spent time serving on SACEUR office, although over a decade before I did. I know very little about the man so might go digging about how some of my friends there think of him.
Isnt he great. He says a best possible peace deal for both parties should be achieved but when you ask him how exactly he calls it a most stupid question.It’s a stupid question to ask how one would make sure Russia didn’t pull a 2008 / 2014 / 2022?
So basically you have 0 idea how your holy grail peace agreement would be worth the paper it’s written on. No wonder you want to avoid saying it.
There was one Key and Peele skit "Front hand / back hand" where the dude kept asking for more slaps. Same thing here I feel.
I agree.
I haven't seen any DoD docs - if you could counter those figures, I'm happy to change my mind.
He posted them in a direct response to you
I'm not sure where you're getting this data from - but how about I share with you FY23 spend data on how much the US is procuring/plan to procure based on official US DoD documents
That is the congressional plan developed in FY23 up until FY27, in FY24 the numbers increased even more.
Now, can you give me some Russian procurement numbers to explain to me how they plan to somehow out-attrit the West when US alone is procuring all of this?
It’s a stupid question to ask how one would make sure Russia didn’t pull a 2008 / 2014 / 2022?
So basically you have 0 idea how your holy grail peace agreement would be worth the paper it’s written on. No wonder you want to avoid saying it.
I’ve already answered you; improve your reading skills and you'll see it.
I'm sorry the WSJ is not a reputable source for you.
I'm not sure where you're getting this data from - but how about I share with you FY23 spend data on how much the US is procuring/plan to procure based on official US DoD documents
That is the congressional plan developed in FY23 up until FY27, in FY24 the numbers increased even more.
Now, can you give me some Russian procurement numbers to explain to me how they plan to somehow out-attrit the West when US alone is procuring all of this?
TF is this? Have an actual link not a Nokia screenshot? FFS
Please, post your refutation of the ISW. I look forward to it.
The WSJ have often cited the Institute for the Study of War. Based on your view, should we not trust both anymore? Or just selectively when the argument they make is convenient?
Hypocrisy is relentless.
I am not sending you the US FY23 congressional contracts because
a) anyone who accesses that file outside designated work phones ( the 'nokia' you referred to) will be in immense trouble
b) Whilst the pages I linked to you are declassified, there are still pages on that document that are marked as classified. I will go to jail if I share the document with you.
c) The specific body of text is part of FY23's congressional budgetary authority document too, if you want to find it there, feel free.
Search "FY23 section 3501 multi year procurement contract" and you'll probably find a dodgy PDF on the 3rd page of google or something of the congressional budgetary law.