DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ukraine and Russia

There's one last wrinkle to your argument here... how much of the stuff we were giving away was going to get tossed in the trash anyway? Their bread and butter tank systems are super-duper old Soviet-era systems. The Abrams we sent them... weren't they old revisions that weren't going to be upgraded to our current standard? Please correct me if I'm wrong... but I thought that was the case. The F-16 is on the back-end of its service life for the US military. Not sure where the HIMARS launcher is... but the point I'm trying to make is that we are pulling from the back-end of our equipment, not the front. Early on, we were also sending some of our better equipment to our NATO allies in order for them to send their old stuff to Ukraine.

Which opens another question, how much are we really "supporting Ukraine" if we're really giving them the "junk" we wanted rid of anyways?

The messaging on Ukraine has been kind of lousy--vague and/or contradictory. Probably doesn't help that the face of our country frequently says things that leave one wondering if he's still all there upstairs.

What did he say that is not accurate? Are you trying to claim that after most of Europe had already been invaded by Hitler that America didn't know what he was? Yet people didn't support getting involved until they joined with Japan and Pearl Harbor was attacked. You may not like the way he worded it but it's accurate as it can be.

So let me get this straight. So when you thought they were giving them our best weaponry you thought we were depleting our own stockpiles. You thought that was bad. Now that someone claims it is our more outdated weaponry you question if they're really supporting Ukraine.

You're pretty good at these damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. I mean it's nothing more than the contrarian angle no matter which way things go but you have it down pat.

It has nothing to do with being OK with dictators.

So you sit on your hands while watching a dictator trying to take over the world but you're not okay with it? I was brought up that actions speak louder than words and the words you're posting does not add up to the actions our nation took at the time. And then of course a lot of people were listening to Charles Lindbergh and his ilk at the time. Did you forget how many Nazi's there were in America at that time?

American Nazism and Madison Square Garden

Before World War II, the German-American Bund was one of the most successful pro-Nazi organizations in the United States. On February 20, 1939, American Nazis gathered at Madison Square Garden for a mass rally for “true Americanism.”

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazism-and-madison-square-garden

Rewriting history and selectively leaving the inconvenient parts out has been and still is quite popular. But that won't change any of it.

Some folks need to review a few Youtube videos- check out Nazis in Madison Square Garden pre-WW2, check out Isolationist videos of same era- America has been diverse forever. Most US citizens didn't want to get involved with WW2 even after Hitler invaded. Today, I understand why we support Ukraine- I just hate the national treasure we've poured into Afgan, Iraq, etc.- when does the funding end with our own homeless, borders and infrastructure issues. I don't have an answer.

I don't think I said we were sending them junk. Our military is known for spending big to stay on the bleeding edge of technology. We are constantly producing and updating and sometimes large chunks of equipment become outdated.

Ukraine and Russia were/are slapping defunct turrets on top of tractors and having to tow around their weapons systems.

You did say things we were going to "toss in the trash" and I just kept rolling with it. You were probably keeping in line with what I posted earlier. When I was in, some people in the military got rid of/scrapped a bunch of perfectly fine stuff so they could buy new to justify future budget allocations.

I'm not so much saying, "the old equipment is worthless" as saying, "we could be sending better equipment." I'm not even saying we should be sending better equipment, just noting that its something else to consider as "we" try to figure out how to best resolve the situation over there.

I think what he was getting at was that we were sending combat-ready block levels that are somewhat outdated in terms of the modernization spectrum vs cutting edge and that's understandable for several reasons. One of which, the modernized versions have not been tested as thoroughly as the combat-ready blocks. As far as storage and stockpiles and whatnot, I know for a fact - as close as you can get without actually viewing the stockpiles first person - admittedly - that we have plenty of ammunition stockpiled.

One of the other things too is that our combat methodology had advanced in a manner anticipating the next phase of warfare, unlike the attrition style that is being fought there, so by that practice, a lot more of the traditional warfare items that we had became much more expendable in terms of a needs/capacity type thing. The way they are fighting over there we had viewed as yesterday's war.

Great post and insight. It's not a matter of 'junk' or obsolete, it's a matter of expendable in terms of the changing landscape of how we fight.

Doesn't Russia's performance (only being able to fight "yesterday's war") kind of challenge how we are trying to modernize our military? Do we really have the advantage we think we do when (if push comes to shove) we're going to be fighting trench warfare anyway?

Thanks man. Yeah, it was probably an oversimplification on my part, but that's essentially it. It also affects our storage level needs.

The war has also really affected our strategic thinking as well in terms of asymmetric value. By that I mean, if you have a tank that costs $10M that can easily be taken out by a missile that costs $50-$70K, then you have an issue on your hands. Do the tanks really get their money's worth at that point? The Russians are finding that out the hard way right now.

We had gone beyond that approach, even starting in Gulf 1. The name of our game is that you take over the skies first and foremost and then have your planes and cruise missiles pave the way for your ground forces. Russia really botched up during the initial invasion and tried to be Zhukov 2.0 in their invasion and never took over the skies, and really became thwarted by that asymmetry I just mentioned.

Good question. I can't say for sure since you're getting outside of my wheel house of expertise. Someone who actually saw combat may know better than me. What I can say is that I can't imagine us ever fighting a scenario like Russia is fighting. It really doesn't come down to capability as much as it boils down to strategy and tactics. To that end:

1) Why Russia came in like they wanted to be Erwin Rommel in 2022 is beyond me. They rolled across the border with tanks vs having their Su-57s take out aerial defenses and establishing air superiority and later air supremacy. By the time they did activate their air strikes, the Ukrainians had already moved stuff around and keep doing so. Russia seems hesitant to even send their advanced aircraft into combat for fear of it getting shot down. Contrast that with our strategy in our recent warfare and it's almost the exact opposite. Everyone remembers when the Iraqis were waiting for us with the world's fourth largest army in Gulf 1, and we said, nah, we're rolling out our F-117's instead, and followed that up with A-10s when we knew they could fly without being harmed. It was devastating asymmetry in our favor at that point.

2) Maybe it's a trickle-down of a dictatorship, but Russia also doesn't give a whole lot of autonomy to their NCOs and their frontline commands. They also didn't establish good comms. That's when you started hearing about the generals needing to go to the front and then getting sniped. They essentially had to get in that trench setup from the get-go because they didn't know what they were supposed to do and had to survive somehow in their current positions when they realized the Ukrainians weren't just going to let them walk into Kyiv.

3) Their modernization is way behind ours. I think that was most shocking to me. For a long time we had heard reports about what their modernized capabilities were and it appeared to be grossly inflated. Now, you can see what our "somewhat modernized" combat-ready equipment does to theirs, even when it's being operated by noobs.

It's the proverbial playing chess vs playing checkers. For a long time, we thought they were playing chess when they were just playing checkers with chess pieces. They still have their fallback scare tactic - which still appears to be effective to some degree - of the nuclear element, but it's pretty big egg on their face to be bogged down in trench warfare with a proximate neighbor, a position I hope we would never see ourselves involved in.

to add to this, Russia is fighting an old school war because they have no choice. they have modern weapons for a traditional conflict. but as i've stated before, banging out in the middle of nowhere is a lot different than trying not to level everything in site due to attempts at occupation. on ukraine's side, playing defense is a lot different than playing offense, as far as the mentality goes. especially considering that on both sides of the conflict, we're talking about militaries now filled with inexperienced soldiers. Russia is trying to get more modern weapons for urban combat, and the evidence is right there looking at Iran sending them drones and such. Trench warfare is something that only affective if your enemy is stuck on the ground. advanced warfare only works if you're going against the enemy you've been training to fight. Russia's military isn't built for urban combat and and quick maneuvers. it's designed to be in a slug fest, which is why their offensive execution was a disaster, but their defensive positions are extremely hard for Ukrainian forces to break through.

again, we have drones for that. nevermind F-35's and all the other toys we have. drone strikes are more precise than constant shelling. the war of attrition only matters if your enemy is also at a disadvantage and has to use similar tactics. There is no disadvantage between the US and NATO vs Russia.

we also have to remember that the technology is only as good as the soldier's creativity in using them. despite not having a Navy, Ukraine was able to attack a major Russian Navy Base in the black sea, and force their most advanced ships to another port. that comes with using surface to air missiles in an unconventional way, as well as other tricks i'm not aware of obviously.

and that's all dependent on us engaging in the SAME battlefield that currently exist. why would we do that?

everybody needs to open a map and locate where our new NATO members are in relation to Russia. i'd have serious concerns about who's training NATO troops if we got into a conflict with Russia and managed to screw that up.

We still have people who deny the that Trump and Hitler are basically the same guy.

Mmmm yes Russia is still a communist country. Take a lesson in communism. Geez

Communist countries don't have stock exchanges. You know, like, the Moscow Exchange.

Do some research. I mean, type "Is Russia a communist country?" into Google and look around. It's not hard.

Communism and Authoritarianism are two different things.

Enough of this already. We just witnessed over 1,000 Jews killed for being Jewish. The largest single massacre since Hitler. Hitler invaded countries as well as exterminating 6 million Jews. There is no equivalent for him.

I agree with you. Trying to compare the two is ridiculous. The only actual comparison I can make is that the same people who feel Hitler was right, white supremacists and Neo Nazi's, all seem to support trump.

Trump is Mussolini, not Hitler.

Putin is more hitler if we’re looking at this from historical context.

Putin the communist dictator is in charge of the Russian exchange.

Putin's not a member of the communist party any more. (Everyone was in the USSR if they wanted to continue breathing, but the USSR is gone.) And I'd already explained that, too

That’s what you think. Putin is a ruthless communist loyalist and KGB all the way. Sorry you can’t see he’s trying to bring all of that back. Ukraine is just the beginning.

What about his Government is communist?

Ruthless, yes.(Former) KGB, yes. Neither of those have anything to do with communism. He's trying to do the Russian version of MAGA, but he knows communism won't do that. He's a pragmatic, ethnocentric, authoritarian nationalist. None of that is communist. One could be communist and those things (pragmatic is debatable), but Putin's not communist.

Is Trump a communist to you?

So PUTIN used to be communist but that skunk changed his stripe when Russia had a minute of democracy, so he could come roaring back into to power as the Authoritarian, no longer commie leader? Lol. Putin is Stalin light, like Bud Light is to vodka… a watered down crappier version of the same poison.

I don’t think he’s trying to juxtapose the personality or sociopathy between the two, but the way they came into power and the resulting Governmental setups are vastly different. If anything, Putin would mirror a rise to power more in line with Hitler’s. He had his team of oligarchs who essentially “privatized” state companies to their own gain, where Putin skims off the top, vs Stalin who took advantage of a more pure communist movement to put himself in power.

Both authoritarian, both paranoid, both disregard humanity outside of their own sense of self. Different governments.

this has nothing to do with trump but since you brought him up.

No trump is a want to be Hitler And he’s merely a deplorable unpunished self admitted rapist.