Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 1465 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
We have to be aware that the events leading up the bigger event are just as important as the bigger event itself. When Russia was blowing up Chechnya I was not happy, for instance. And in this war Russia has to try better to avoid civilian damage. Also, I am always calling for peace talks to be held rather than continuation of war. The counter argument is that Russia should let go of all territory gained and that is where things fall apart. You mean that the Russian territory gained after fighting not only Ukraine and all of NATO should be given back? From a moral point of view this *can* make sense in some situations but not from a logical point of view.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,430
1,622
136
We have to be aware that the events leading up the bigger event are just as important as the bigger event itself. When Russia was blowing up Chechnya I was not happy, for instance. And in this war Russia has to try better to avoid civilian damage. Also, I am always calling for peace talks to be held rather than continuation of war. The counter argument is that Russia should let go of all territory gained and that is where things fall apart. You mean that the Russian territory gained after fighting not only Ukraine and all of NATO should be given back? From a moral point of view this *can* make sense in some situations but not from a logical point of view.

Historically Russia/Soviet Union/Russia have been horrible to the countries on their borders. That is why those countries in Eastern freed from the control of the Soviet Union begged to be let into NATO and tried to westernize as quickly as possible. They know what Russia is capable of. Are you now saying the Eastern expansion of NATO was the west's fault because neighboring countries sought out protection from Russia because of their past experience with Russia?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,550
48,980
136
We have to be aware that the events leading up the bigger event are just as important as the bigger event itself. When Russia was blowing up Chechnya I was not happy, for instance. And in this war Russia has to try better to avoid civilian damage. Also, I am always calling for peace talks to be held rather than continuation of war. The counter argument is that Russia should let go of all territory gained and that is where things fall apart. You mean that the Russian territory gained after fighting not only Ukraine and all of NATO should be given back? From a moral point of view this *can* make sense in some situations but not from a logical point of view.
lol if Russia were actually fighting NATO we would not be having this discussion because the Russian army would no longer exist.

Regardless, Ukraine’s position on this is clear and perfectly logical. Russia’s word is worthless and so any promises it makes in exchange for peace can’t be trusted. It will just reconstitute and attack again.

Russia is now in a very hard place where they aren’t accomplishing their objectives but also have no way out of the war outside of surrender.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,031
7,446
136
I suspect Russia's objectives will slowly turn toward "We feel we have demonstrated what happens if the ethnic Russian population in Ukraine are mistreated and have graciously signed a peace treaty that includes language about their protection in exchange for a return of the land".

The longer this goes on as the western arms industry wakes up, Russia knows it will be outpaced in production and out developed in tech.

Their best hope was that decapitation strike, their second best hope was the US withdrawal from providing aid. Now I suspect their best hope will turn to just holding what they got.

How long before the depopulation of Donetsk and Luhansk is complete and large numbers of Russians can be shipped in for repopulation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drach

Drach

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2022
1,096
1,736
106
This is why the Putin trolls are here.
rh67e4deaovc1.png
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,662
2,095
126
We have to be aware that the events leading up the bigger event are just as important as the bigger event itself. When Russia was blowing up Chechnya I was not happy, for instance. And in this war Russia has to try better to avoid civilian damage. Also, I am always calling for peace talks to be held rather than continuation of war. The counter argument is that Russia should let go of all territory gained and that is where things fall apart. You mean that the Russian territory gained after fighting not only Ukraine and all of NATO should be given back? From a moral point of view this *can* make sense in some situations but not from a logical point of view.
Ah, ok, makes sense then. So I guess the US fucked up when we left Iraq and Afghanistan, that should be our territory now. Should they be the 51st and 52nd states, or more territories like PR?
 
Last edited:

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,634
3,159
136
This is why the Putin trolls are here.
rh67e4deaovc1.png
And the headline and description of bill is a complete lie. This is a nice big budget increase for the US military, with a bit snuck in along side to give cover of helping Ukraine.

-$20 billion of this is US spending on replenishing US military stockpiles (replacing mostly retired/expired weapons previously provided to Ukraine - that should have already been in spending/budget plans) ~ as far as I can tell, none of this actually goes to Ukraine.

-$15 billion is US spending on US forces, including training in Europe. A portion of which indirectly helps Ukraine (training and intelligence sharing), but mostly just funds ongoing US military operations.

-$2 billion is US spending to bolster air and maritime defenses around Ukraine (basically being ready if Ukraine loses...), none of these funds go to Ukraine.

-$14 billion is funding for US arms firms, to purchase weapons for Ukraine. This does help Ukraine, minus the significant portion pumping up the US arms industry profit margins.

So of the $61 billion, $51 billion goes to fund... the US industry-military complex. Of which only $14 billion is ultimately being used to provide weapons or support to Ukraine.

And the other $10 billion of the bill - actually goes to Ukraine! In direct support.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,556
5,074
136
A flat landscape with little to no cover, defended by dug in, determined people who have Western weapons and intel.

Sounds like the kind of nightmare that can cost you 1000 people a day, or more, easily.
One can hope!
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc will be so happy. What great news for politicians and weapons manufacturers. Politicians can get donations and military manufacturers can make billions through political favors. Win, win.


America's own former president tried to warn you about all of this but you didn't listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shervan360

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,550
48,980
136
Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc will be so happy. What great news for politicians and weapons manufacturers. Politicians can get donations and military manufacturers can make billions through political favors. Win, win.


America's own former president tried to warn you about all of this but you didn't listen.
And to think all that needed to happen to prevent this is for Russia to stop invading people. So sad.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,745
37,761
136
And to think all that needed to happen to prevent this is for Russia to stop invading people. So sad.

Indeed.

It's funny how people like him honestly seem to believe we mustn't let genocide and other war crimes on Ukrainian civilians distract us. The real offense and crime against humanity here is Boeing and Lockheed shareholders making money. Pay no attention to the Ukrainian cities being wiped off the map. Or the Ukrainian children being kidnapped. Or the Ukrainian civilians being tortured to death after they've been raped a few times.

Sadness abounds, actually increases a bit when I ponder if rail's posts are no act, that he really is this compromised upstairs. I mean, yikes. Poor guy.
 
Last edited:

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,671
5,401
136
And the headline and description of bill is a complete lie. This is a nice big budget increase for the US military, with a bit snuck in along side to give cover of helping Ukraine.

-$20 billion of this is US spending on replenishing US military stockpiles (replacing mostly retired/expired weapons previously provided to Ukraine - that should have already been in spending/budget plans) ~ as far as I can tell, none of this actually goes to Ukraine.

-$15 billion is US spending on US forces, including training in Europe. A portion of which indirectly helps Ukraine (training and intelligence sharing), but mostly just funds ongoing US military operations.

-$2 billion is US spending to bolster air and maritime defenses around Ukraine (basically being ready if Ukraine loses...), none of these funds go to Ukraine.

-$14 billion is funding for US arms firms, to purchase weapons for Ukraine. This does help Ukraine, minus the significant portion pumping up the US arms industry profit margins.

So of the $61 billion, $51 billion goes to fund... the US industry-military complex. Of which only $14 billion is ultimately being used to provide weapons or support to Ukraine.

And the other $10 billion of the bill - actually goes to Ukraine! In direct support.
Kinda sad, but yea, the US does need to arm up. Anyone looking at the world right now can see that as obvious as day.


And quite a lot is going to Ukraine. 10B + 14B is not nothing.


2 Billion to "air and maritime defenses" around Ukraine = US assets watching Russian movements and reporting them to Ukraine. Seems valuable to me.


$15 billion is US spending on US forces, including training in Europe. A portion of which indirectly helps Ukraine (training and intelligence sharing), but mostly just funds ongoing US military operations.
-> I think your understating this. I think this is the most important part by far. I think is the logistical tail for Ukraine. How munitions and everything gets moved through Europe to battlefields in Ukraine.


$20 billion of this is US spending on replenishing US military stockpiles (replacing mostly retired/expired weapons previously provided to Ukraine - that should have already been in spending/budget plans) ~ as far as I can tell, none of this actually goes to Ukraine.
-> yea, this is super curious. But it begs the question, where did the original money go?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zor Prime

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,745
37,761
136
Finally. Took way to long.

The Putin Caucus makes everything take longer, but on the plus side they probably won't get the opportunity to obstruct Ukraine's defense like this again. November is going to be a turkey shoot for Dems at this rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dainthomas

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,577
4,657
136
Kinda sad, but yea, the US does need to arm up. Anyone looking at the world right now can see that as obvious as day.


And quite a lot is going to Ukraine. 10B + 14B is not nothing.


2 Billion to "air and maritime defenses" around Ukraine = US assets watching Russian movements and reporting them to Ukraine. Seems valuable to me.


$15 billion is US spending on US forces, including training in Europe. A portion of which indirectly helps Ukraine (training and intelligence sharing), but mostly just funds ongoing US military operations.
-> I think your understating this. I think this is the most important part by far. I think is the logistical tail for Ukraine. How munitions and everything gets moved through Europe to battlefields in Ukraine.


$20 billion of this is US spending on replenishing US military stockpiles (replacing mostly retired/expired weapons previously provided to Ukraine - that should have already been in spending/budget plans) ~ as far as I can tell, none of this actually goes to Ukraine.
-> yea, this is super curious. But it begs the question, where did the original money go?
Beware:
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,430
1,622
136
Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc will be so happy. What great news for politicians and weapons manufacturers. Politicians can get donations and military manufacturers can make billions through political favors. Win, win.



America's own former president tried to warn you about all of this but you didn't listen.

Just think, Russia was stupid enough to enable all of this by invading Ukraine.


F3fbRHsXUAEXCHD - Meme.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,745
37,761
136
Makes sense.

S-300/400 isn't as effective and flexible as Russia would have the world believe, but taking on 4th gen aircraft is something it does well enough.

Anytime Russia loses complex, hard to replace systems though

DvDqdB6.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: uclaLabrat

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,533
7,590
136
Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc will be so happy. What great news for politicians and weapons manufacturers. Politicians can get donations and military manufacturers can make billions through political favors. Win, win.
Your entire country is geared and mobilized for total war.
Yet you pretend we should not match one tenth of your effort.
Nice try, Kremlin. You fucking suck.
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,370
2,801
136
AFU seems to be exerting some new effort to exterminate Russian long range AD. Probably in anticipation of F-16s.
I've been thinking the exact same thing all this week. Maybe russia isn't the only one planning a spring offensive.
 

Zor Prime

Golden Member
Nov 7, 1999
1,023
588
136
Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc will be so happy. What great news for politicians, weapons manufacturers and their investors.
There ya go. Modified your text a hair. All you have to do is invest and you can be happy, too.