Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

VorZakone said:
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?
Click to expand...

Counter: Up until a month ago, the news media was claiming Biden was sharp as a tack. Now, that same media is clamoring for him to drop out. Should we trust the news media? Or just when what they report suits us?


PSA: I'm willing to continue discussing with @Raoul, @VorZakone, @AfonsoAlves, etc. At least you guys add value and argue in good faith.

Low-quality posters like No Name, Carolina Red, Krakenzero, Firestarter etc., who never contribute anything beyond their oh-so-brilliant snide comments, will be put on ignore. It's a waste of my time engaging with such intellectual giants. Sorry, LQPs, perhaps you can measure your considerable wits against each other.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks mate.
 
Suedesi said:
I'm sorry the WSJ is not a reputable source for you.
Click to expand...

Sorry but seriously:

Asking the Wall Street Journal to be fully understanding of matters of war, weapons performance, tactical and strategic doctrine, planning etc

is like asking the Financial Times to be capable of publishing medical research.

Have any of the WSJ journalists been through basic training, or actually taken part in any war games, trials, exercises, flags or such?
 
AfonsoAlves said:
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.
Click to expand...

https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...r-congress-missiles/085fb01495ec048f/full.pdf
https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA002760-23-DPC.pdf
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Sorry but seriously:

Asking the Wall Street Journal to be fully understanding of matters of war, weapons performance, tactical and strategic doctrine, planning etc

is like asking the Financial Times to be capable of publishing medical research.

Have any of the WSJ journalists been through basic training, or actually taken part in any war games, trials, exercises, flags or such?
Click to expand...
I think this is a bit harsh in the sense that journalists often cite expert opinions, no? If there's criticism, I think it's better to criticize the cited experts. I mean this in a broader sense, not necessarily the WSJ article on Western weapons. And yes, they can get things wrong, that is true.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Sorry but seriously:

Asking the Wall Street Journal to be fully understanding of matters of war, weapons performance, tactical and strategic doctrine, planning etc

is like asking the Financial Times to be capable of publishing medical research.

Have any of the WSJ journalists been through basic training, or actually taken part in any war games, trials, exercises, flags or such?
Click to expand...

To be fair to Suedesi the WSJ is quoting retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (not that I've any clue who that guy is).
 
Suedesi said:
Counter: Up until a month ago, the news media was claiming Biden was sharp as a tack. Now, that same media is clamoring for him to drop out. Should we trust the news media? Or just when what they report suits us?


PSA: I'm willing to continue discussing with @Raoul, @VorZakone, @AfonsoAlves, etc. At least you guys add value and argue in good faith.

Low-quality posters like No Name, Carolina Red, Krakenzero, Firestarter etc., who never contribute anything beyond their oh-so-brilliant snide comments, will be put on ignore. It's a waste of my time engaging with such intellectual giants. Sorry, LQPs, perhaps you can measure your considerable wits against each other.
Click to expand...
Bolded: I don't share the view that the media was claiming Biden was sharp as a tack but okay, aside from that, where do we go from here regarding the WSJ? They often cite the Institute of Lies.
 
VorZakone said:
I think this is a bit harsh in the sense that journalists often cite expert opinions, no? If there's criticism, I think it's better to criticize the cited experts. I mean this in a broader sense, not necessarily the WSJ article on Western weapons. And yes, they can get things wrong, that is true.
Click to expand...

The problem is the fact that experts are trained to "dumb it down" for the media.

For example, Ben Hodges uses the word "peer" to describe Russia which he actually means as "In the same order of magnitude of capability in specific areas", but a layman reading that will think "equals", whereas the reality in "technical" terms, "peer warfare" basically means, "Able to match at a strategic and tactical level in almost all battlefields".
 
@Suedesi you haven't answered my question.

You would not make a deal with someone who has broken deals with you before. So why should ukraine accept any kind of deal with russia if putin has proven time and again he's more than happy to break them when it favors him?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
To be fair to Suedesi the WSJ is quoting retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (not that I've any clue who that guy is).
Click to expand...

I commented on that already, He worked in the same NATO command office I did, I don't know him and never met him but I may ask about him.
 
Carolina Red said:
Please, post your refutation of the ISW. I look forward to it.
Click to expand...

Wait, the Neo-con ISW, run and staffed by pretty extreme hawks, established by Kim and Frederick Kagan (brother of Robert Kagan, the granddaddy of neocons and husband to Vicky Nuland), and funded by various corners of the arms industry—General Dynamics, Raytheon, lesser-known defense contractors, and other defense contractors that get Pentagon contracts—is a reliable source?

What planet do you come from?
 
Suedesi said:
Wait, the Neo-con ISW, run and staffed by pretty extreme hawks, established by Kim and Frederick Kagan (brother of Robert Kagan, the granddaddy of neocons and husband to Vicky Nuland), and funded by various corners of the arms industry—General Dynamics, Raytheon, lesser-known defense contractors, and other defense contractors that get Pentagon contracts—is a reliable source?

What planet do you come from?
Click to expand...
Refute the analysis… we’re waiting.

While you’re at it, could you also spare a moment to answer @maniak?
 
maniak said:
@Suedesi you haven't answered my question.

You would not make a deal with someone who has broken deals with you before. So why should ukraine accept any kind of deal with russia if putin has proven time and again he's more than happy to break them when it favors him?
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the answer - continue fighting.
 
Suedesi said:
Maybe that's the answer - continue fighting.
Click to expand...
Have you taken a look at the congressional procurement plans enshrined into law? Someone else kindly found it and linked it.

Do you still hold the opinion that Russia can out produce weapons compared to USA?
 
maniak said:
You're accusing folks of debating in bad faith and that's the answer you got?
Click to expand...

I mean, what else is there? If you can't trust Russia to honor a peace deal, then the alternative is to keep fighting, until one side capitulates, I suppose.

Do you see any other alternatives?
 
Suedesi said:
I mean, what else is there? If you can't trust Russia to honor a peace deal, then the alternative is to keep fighting, until one side capitulates, I suppose.

Do you see any other alternatives?
Click to expand...
My question is why are you in this thread supporting negotiations to reach a deal when we both know you can't trust putin to honor it. If you agree putin is not trustworthy, then you're supporting ukraine to basically give russia land and time to regroup and rearm without any real prospect peace will last.
 
Suedesi said:
I mean, what else is there? If you can't trust Russia to honor a peace deal, then the alternative is to keep fighting, until one side capitulates, I suppose.

Do you see any other alternatives?
Click to expand...

That's right. And the concern with a 2nd Trump term is that he will push for a ceasefire on current battle lines (ie. a win for Putin), then attempt to present it domestically that "I ended the Russia - Ukraine war". That's obviously not going to work for Ukrainians who are committed to getting all of their invaded territory back. Therefore the fighting will continue either way until one of the two sides runs out resources. If JD Vance and his neo-isolationist pals get their way, Ukraine will run out of resources before Russia, hence they would be tacitly facilitating a Russian win.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Have you taken a look at the congressional procurement plans enshrined into law? Someone else kindly found it and linked it.

Do you still hold the opinion that Russia can out produce weapons compared to USA?
Click to expand...

I did. Essentially, the law indicates a streamlined US approach to enhance the production and procurement of weapons to support Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. By allowing non-competitive contracts and facilitating multiyear procurement, the US aims to ensure a rapid and sustained supply of critical defense materials such as HIMARS, Javelins, and Stingers. Additionally, the law allows the Department of Defense to enter into multiyear contracts for the procurement of 155mm rounds to ensure a steady and reliable supply over several years.

Genuine question: How do you infer that authorizing the procurement of up to a certain number of widgets means that the US is actually capable of producing these quantities?
 
maniak said:
My question is why are you in this thread supporting negotiations to reach a deal when we both know you can't trust putin to honor it. If you agree putin is not trustworthy, then you're supporting ukraine to basically give russia land and time to regroup and rearm without any real prospect peace will last.
Click to expand...

To prevent risk of nuclear escalation which has the potential to wipe out the entire species…
 
Suedesi said:
To prevent risk of nuclear escalation which has the potential to wipe out the entire species…
Click to expand...
Asking ukraine to surrender part of the country because of a very unlikely hypothetical makes sense to you?
 
Suedesi said:
To prevent risk of nuclear escalation which has the potential to wipe out the entire species…
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to be nuking anyone,

The only way Russia uses nukes is if Ukraine's 95th Brigade finds itself in view of the belltower of the Kremlin.
 
Suedesi said:
To prevent risk of nuclear escalation which has the potential to wipe out the entire species…
Click to expand...

The irony here is that a nuclear confrontation is far more likely if Putin takes all of Ukraine and starts chipping away at Europe. There’s little to no chance Putin would do that to a country he is attempting to annex.
 
Raoul said:
The irony here is that a nuclear confrontation is far more likely if Putin takes all of Ukraine and starts chipping away at Europe. There’s little to no chance Putin would do that to a country he is attempting to annex.
Click to expand...

This is not a serious argument.
 
Suedesi said:
Genuine question: How do you infer that authorizing the procurement of up to a certain number of widgets means that the US is actually capable of producing these quantities?
Click to expand...

It’s a non issue because a war with China would likey be nuclear, and even if it wasn’t, it would involve technology and war fighting tactics that are far more advanced than what the US is sending Ukraine.
 
Raoul said:
He literally just tried to take over Ukraine 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

It's a baffling statement to make, given the incredible effort the Putin regime has gone to to portray Ukraine as a mistake, not a country, rightfully a part of Russia, etc. It is beyond doubt that Putin desires to annex Ukraine. He's also patently chipping away at Europe. Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkhazia), Crimea, Donbas, now the rest of Ukraine (put Transnistria in there as well). There's a reason Finland decided to join NATO, and it's not because they've historically been so fond of taking sides.

Just more ideologically tainted comments by Suedesi.
 
nimic said:
It's a baffling statement to make, given the incredible effort the Putin regime has gone to to portray Ukraine as a mistake, not a country, rightfully a part of Russia, etc. It is beyond doubt that Putin desires to annex Ukraine. He's also patently chipping away at Europe. Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkhazia), Crimea, Donbas, now the rest of Ukraine (put Transnistria in there as well). There's a reason Finland decided to join NATO, and it's not because they've historically been so fond of taking sides.

Just more ideologically tainted comments by Suedesi.
Click to expand...

Let’s see if Suedesi uses this as a teachable moment that he can learn from.
 
Raoul said:
It’s a non issue because a war with China would be nuclear, and even if it wasn’t, it would involve technology and war fighting tactics that are far more advanced than what the US is sensing Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Please don't obfuscate. I clearly stated that the core problem with the war in Ukraine is the West's inability to produce what's necessary for a successful conventional war. But instead of addressing this, he dazzled me with a screenshot of some law meant to streamline weapon procurement for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, as if that was the answer to everything. How convenient to sidestep the actual question! It's almost impressive how blatantly he ignored the main point. Bravo, really, for such a masterful dodge.
 
Suedesi said:
Please don't obfuscate. I clearly stated that the core problem with the war in Ukraine is the West's inability to produce what's necessary for a successful conventional war. But instead of addressing this, he dazzled me with a screenshot of some law meant to streamline weapon procurement for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, as if that was the answer to everything. How convenient to sidestep the actual question! It's almost impressive how blatantly he ignored the main point. Bravo, really, for such a masterful dodge.
Click to expand...

The odds of the US and China getting into a conventional war are slim to none. Both nations are nuclear powers and know that any conventional fighting would quickly escalate to nuclear. Therefore using a hypothetical conventional war with China as a straw man to deprive Ukraine the ability to defend themselves against Putin is a flimsy argument.
 
Suedesi said:
Take over with 170,000 soldiers? Really? He would need more than a million soldiers to take over and hold UA.
Click to expand...

He tried to take over Kyiv, which would’ve decapitated the Ukrainian government and military command and control. So the obvious answer to your first question is yes.
 
Suedesi said:
Take over with 170,000 soldiers? Really? He would need more than a million soldiers to take over and hold UA.
Click to expand...
Wait, you're now claiming that Putin didn't want to take over Ukraine entirely initially? I mean the man held press conferences and everything...
 
Suedesi said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...
And when putin breaks the deal, like he did before, and attacks again to grab more land, ukraine should just cede that land because of the risk of nuclear war? Or if putin attacks other neighboring nations, again like he did before, should those nations also give away their land to avoid a possible nuclear war?

Your suggestion is not a solution, it's just a cowardly way to delay the problem a few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.