Posts by slyfox43

rowdyraven112 said:https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...aine-aid-bill/

He noted that international partners and allies were stepping up, sending unprecedented amounts of weapons and aid to Ukraine at this time. “It’s not all about us, it isn’t that we always have to be the Uncle Sam, the policeman who saves the world, particularly when it’s on borrowed money,” he added. “America can’t afford to be world’s policeman.”

And?

Are you suggesting that won't pass? The only real lever he has to stall things—given that certain procedures require total consensus—is potentially blocking the expedited reconciliation process for legislation coming out of the House of Representatives.

He lacks the power to block cloture or override a vote. He can spin whatever rhetoric he finds convenient, whether it makes sense or not, just to feed his own political brand and satisfy his base.

It’s much like how Tulsi Gabbard wraps her various reactionary, Moscow-friendly stances in the fashionable packaging of "pacifism" or "responsible statecraft."

Purely performative.

brightheron64 said:It just goes to show that even when Europe is suffering, there’s still that underlying reality of how dependent they are on Russian energy...

It’s actually much more entertaining to watch Americans lose their composure like this, especially when they have virtually nothing to do with what's happening with the Russians...
I just finished watching this video, and I have to say, it really gets you thinking about the sheer scale of what we're witnessing right now... It’s one thing to read the headlines, but seeing the actual implications laid out like this makes everything feel so much more immediate and heavy. You can almost feel the tectonic plates shifting under our feet, especially when you consider how these global power dynamics are being completely rewritten in real-time... It honestly leaves me wondering where all of this is headed, and whether we're even remotely prepared for the fallout...

By the way, things have hit a bit of a standstill over in the Senate, where $40 billion of Biden's aid for Ukraine is currently stuck in limbo... 😲

You don't seem to have much of a grasp on Senate procedures, do you?

A fast-track process wasn't even adopted, so saying it's stuck... well, it isn't. And—most importantly—this isn't just "Biden's aid to Ukraine," so thanks for playing.

There will be significantly less for them to actually break.

"Victims"... "threats"... what an exhausting little melodrama. Is everything alright over there?

The nations most likely to launch an attack can simply exercise their veto power to block any action.

Perfect.

Dana Robinson4 said:What do you think would happen to those weapons in a scenario where a mob forcibly removes a democratically elected president?

It’s all Kremlin fiction, so there’s really no point in bothering ourselves with hypothetical houses of cards built out of nothing but fog.

Lisa Jackson7 said:There’s no way to know for sure ahead of time—if you ask me, the real question is whether there's even any genuine international interest in promoting democracy through peaceful means, rather than the mess we saw in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Obviously, any response to those kinds of pushes has to come from a critical mass of motivated groups within the target country itself.

The fact is, when it came to building up democratic institutions and a solid civic political culture in the defeated Axis powers after World War II, having the winning anti-fascist coalition holding all the power levers definitely helped things along.

Is that an absolute prerequisite for success? Who knows—I hope it isn't and that there are other ways to make it work.
And is having a competing superpower around—like the USSR back then—a necessity? Again, I have no clue.

It’s not my place to claim that setting up even somewhat democratic or liberal regimes in Russia or China is easy—honestly, looking at their history, it might not even be possible anytime soon... the whole timeline proves it.

All I know is that it's worth a shot.
The payoff would be finally moving away from the constant threat of war.

I agree with everyone here. It is worth trying, but we have to remain grounded—both regarding our expectations of success and how we interpret shifting circumstances. Being too optimistic about the former often leads to overestimating the latter, largely due to the sunk cost fallacy.

From what I can see, the West has a pretty dismal track record on both counts, unless... they happen to hold the levers of power.

And sometimes even when they do. (Think Afghanistan, or Iraq—though one might view the latter with a bit more cautious optimism.)

It is also entirely possible that we are viewing the Marshall Plan through rose-colored glasses, when the reality on the ground was likely far messier.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The whole idea of "choosing" someone in politics is messy—it could mean anything from a subtle nudge to, say, giving Yeltsin a phone call and telling him to nominate Putin as his successor.

Besides, calling Yeltsin a democrat is a stretch at best. Not after that constitutional crisis back in '93, and definitely not after those "fair" elections in '96 where he probably swiped the win right from the Communist candidate, Zyuganov.
He had the oligarchs backing him, and even his buddy Bill Clinton gave him a hand. 😉

Does everything I just said mean I'm rooting for Zyuganov?
Not even close. I’m just suggesting—since you claim to be so "open-minded"—that you go read some of Anders Aslund's stuff on Russia in the 90s. It's hard to call him a "Putin lover."

You won't hear me arguing that there were viable alternatives in 1990s Russia that the West could have championed, which would have included Yeltsin. A Marshall Plan or anything of that magnitude requires a level of social control far beyond what the West—in my estimation—could theoretically exert in Russia at that time. Could things have gone better? Undeniably, though the real question is to what extent and by what means.

Lisa Jackson7, no offense intended, but I think you might be leaning a bit too heavily into confirmation bias.

Try taking a page out of my book and staying open to fresh perspectives and dissenting views. On that note, I just learned today how the villainous West essentially handpicked Hitler and Putin to take the reins. 😉

brightheron64 said:Without even realizing it, you're actually hitting on the truth here.

It’s just that this entire narrative started much earlier than you might think. Just as a side note, have you ever heard anything about the US Army in Alaska?

If you set aside those four specific war years between '41 and '45, the Russians have been a massive thorn in the side of the West since the Bolshevik Revolution. It's similar to how Napoleon was a constant headache for the European empires—you only have to look at how many wars and battles Napoleon initiated compared to how many monarchies he disrupted...

In the end, they eventually found a way to outmaneuver Napoleon. As for when they'll manage that with the Russians, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see...

You're trolling poorly again. To be clear, providing lukewarm support to the royalists—his own allies—during the Russian Civil War isn't quite the same thing as launching a full-scale invasion, and if you wanted to, you could find plenty of instances where Americans chose to act as a "thorn in someone's side" through diplomacy rather than force (whereas for direct military intervention, you can barely find one example here).

If it weren't for the USA, there would be far fewer Russians left today. But I suppose that doesn't fit neatly into your preferred political playbook, does it?

By demonstrating they can effectively dismantle Russian aggression, their sacrifices serve more than just their own defense; they are actively neutralizing a threat to stability across the entire Western world.

A weapon is ultimately defined by its intended purpose—it’s simply a matter of whose hands are gripping it. This setup is a win-win for both Ukraine and those providing the support. Both sides are finally breaking free from the corrosive influence of the Kremlin's nonsense.

A bio would be appropriate here.

Ever since they teamed up with the Associated Press, Reuters has been all too happy to push Russian disinformation. It looks like my colleague hasn't quite caught up on that development yet.

They call it "reputation laundering," though more often than not, the whole thing just ends up being a dirty mess.

Department of Defense:

Zachary Jackson4 said:How much more do they need? Their military is outdated, lacking morale, and severely short on manpower.

Even if we assume this somehow addresses the aging equipment, the shortage of troops, and the low morale, it still feels incomplete.👍

The M109 Paladins are on their way. https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik.../28264476.html

It seems America is pulling out all the stops too, with a C-5M touching down in Russia.

Rachel Richardson said:Oh, sure—you’ve got a swarm of Russian tanks bearing down on you, and your plan is to save them for tomorrow.🤣
You might not even be around tomorrow; that's not how this works.
You take every shot you can get and burn them all right now.

The idea that they actually deployed 7,000 of them—basically everything in their arsenal—seems a bit far-fetched to me, though I'm obviously not on the ground to verify.

Regardless, the priority should be putting every single resource available to work right now.

I find it a bit hard to swallow the idea that Ukrainians are burning through Javelins at such an astronomical rate. I’m not one to lean into conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were quietly stockpiling a portion of those supplies for a rainy day—perhaps as leverage in case Western pressure forces them into a peace deal that doesn't sit right with their interests.

If the situation were mine, I’d likely be doing the exact same thing if I had the means.

As for ramping up Javelin production, it’s entirely possible to accelerate the process if we actually make it a priority. The Defense Production Act is a powerful tool when it's used correctly.

wiredseal7 said:Looks like America might be shipping some of these helicopters over to Ukraine:
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/co...of-afghanistan

They’re actually pretty recent—manufactured around 2013.
The whole move feels a bit shady, though—likely a blatant breach of contract with the Russians, who were the original buyers.

Do we even have any Mi-8s left in our inventory? Not that I'm pushing for it—sending aircraft like this is a massive escalation waiting to happen.

By that logic, was sinking Moscow considered "piracy" too?

We all know seizing the Ukrainian fleet wasn't piracy... and don't even get me started on Crimea. Seizing assets and genocide are one thing, but behaving like they can just toss out legal contracts whenever it suits them??111!!111!!

gentlestag15 said:The Americans are sending

-11 Mi-17 helicopters
- 18 155mm howitzers along with 40,000 shells
- 300 Switchblade loitering munitions
- 2 AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel Air Surveillance Radars
- 10 AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Weapon-Locating radar
- 200 M113 APCs
- 100 HMMWV IMVs
-500 Javelin
That number of 200 M113 APCs really jumps out at me; I mean, who exactly is going to be using those for the Ukrainians?

Looking back, about 20-something Czech Dana 152mm howitzers and 20 of those Czech RM 70 Vampir armored vehicles made it into Ukraine before this.

They certainly won't be any less effective than the Humvees.