testtest

Ukraine Liberates Kherson

Hammer67

Master Class
Great news.

1spi6bkxgoqfq-2231918529.png
 

10mmLife

Moderator
Staff member
Founding Member
I don't know if I'm buying this whole Russian retreat as a victory as it's more likely a ploy for something more sinister. Russia is still claiming Kherson as it's territory after retreating and they have also stated that they will use tactical nukes against anyone threatening what they claim is their land. Hopefully Russia isn't giving up Kherson just to try and justify a nuclear response as a strong arm tactic.

I have no reservations about the length a homicidal dictator will go to.
 

KillerFord1977

Ronin
Founding Member
I don't know if I'm buying this whole Russian retreat as a victory as it's more likely a ploy for something more sinister. Russia is still claiming Kherson as it's territory after retreating and they have also stated that they will use tactical nukes against anyone threatening what they claim is their land. Hopefully Russia isn't giving up Kherson just to try and justify a nuclear response as a strong arm tactic.

I have no reservations about the length a homicidal dictator will go to.
Russia can claim all they want.
Their military is a shell of its former cold war status.
They drop any nuke, I am all in favor of nuke them. Screw em. Blast them, Iran and NK to hell and beyond. NY, NJ and LA need a history lesson anyway. Good luck finding food
 

Hammer67

Master Class
Their military is a shell of its former cold war status.
And that's only part of the picture. There has been a big exodus of people, esp. trained and schooled people, amounting to a massive brain drain. Combine this with lower birth rates and the fact that there are fewer young people in Russia in general. There is a capital exodus happening as well, and it started long before this conflict. There is no manufacturing to speak of in Russia, no "thing" that Russia makes that the rest of the world wants to buy. They export oil, wheat, and a few other things and that's about the extent of their economy. It's been a slow-rolling collapse for the last 30 years, briefly uplifted by a frenzy of corruption after the Soviet Union dissolved, and gangsters become oligarchs overnight, but that too is fading. I really believe that in a decade or two at the most, it's going to largely be a wasteland because so many people and industries have vacated and/or it will break up into a bunch of smaller tribal regions full of conflict and warlords....which is what most of its history was, prior to the 20th century.

This invasion of Ukraine was an act of desperation, while they still thought they had the capability to do so. They calculated wrong.
 

Talyn

Ronin
Founding Member
I don't know if I'm buying this whole Russian retreat as a victory as it's more likely a ploy for something more sinister. Russia is still claiming Kherson as it's territory after retreating and they have also stated that they will use tactical nukes against anyone threatening what they claim is their land. Hopefully Russia isn't giving up Kherson just to try and justify a nuclear response as a strong arm tactic.

I have no reservations about the length a homicidal dictator will go to.
Kherson wasn't a defendable position. The Russkies knew they couldn't adequately supply the forces on the west-bank of the river and knew retreating to the east bank of the river was a more defendable position vs. the isolated forces being starved & likely captured which would have looked far worse.

The Ukrainians had the upper hand with continued pressure of land forces and Long-Range Fires (aka HIMARS and artillery). They followed Sun Tzu's, The Art of War (Chapter 7 - Armed Struggle) ....“A surrounded army must be given a way out. The ancient rule of the charioteers says, “Surround them on three sides, leaving one side open, to show them a way to life. Show them a way to life so that they will not be in the mood to fight to the death, and then you can take advantage of this to strike them.”

We'll see what Ukraine does next.
 

Hammer67

Master Class
Good for them. Now if we can get somebody else, besides the US taxpayer, paying for so much of this expenditure.
I'd certainly support spreading the cost of this far more broadly across all of the allies who have a vested interest in making sure Russian aggression stops right where it is and doesn't keep advancing westward. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is much of a realistic possibility of that, due to a lot of really short-sighted decisions that many EU countries in particular have made in regards to funding defense for the last several decades (much like their energy decisions....). Many of them have little in the way of surplus arms or tech to export, because they intentionally haven't been producing much surplus. On top of that, the EU economy is in the tank and looking like it's going to get a lot worse, and so they are afraid to send large amounts of money to Ukraine.

I'm not making excuses for the EU (just the opposite, actually), but unfortunately that's the reality of where things are at. They've been, on the one hand, complaining about US dominance for years and rolling their eyes at us when it comes to conversations about defense, while at the same time implicitly expecting that if anything bad happens, the biggest military in the world will be there to protect them. As a result, they didn't spend much of their own money on getting serious about their own defense. And I'm calling out Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain specifically on that.

Not coincidentally, the European countries who have probably taken investing in defense the most seriously are the former Soviet-bloc countries, like Poland, Lithuania, etc, along with Nordic countries like Finland and Sweden, all of whom have been keenly aware that something like this was a possibility. Poland, in particular, has been helping Ukraine out a lot more so far than many western EU countries.
 
Last edited:

Talyn

Ronin
Founding Member
Many (politicians, TV pundits, etc.) don't realize that the majority of the munitions, and other gear/supplies, we're sending Ukraine are older supplies/versions vs. the latest & greatest. The term "draw-down" is used to tap into stocks of stuff in storage/minimal use, and the oldest is the first to be excessed to other places.

The "draw-down" authority places a $$ value on the items and when donated it goes as FMS sales or in the case of Ukraine war supplies. When Congress authorizes sales the total $$ amounts are used, and in the case of Ukraine the extra funds authorized as aid are actually used in the USA to replace the old stock with newer/fresher amounts back into US supplies.

In Western-based countries munitions/gear has both "born-on" and "replacement" dates. Once the latter is reached the items are either sold off in govt surplus sales, transferred to poorer countries, parted out, or in the case of munitions disassembled and destroyed on the tax-payers dime.

That's why surplus ammo shows up since they've been sold off as "Old Stock" once they reach their replacement date. It still goes bang but it's up for replacement with "fresher" stuff.

The Ukrainians don't care if it's old stock as long as it goes bang & kills the targets.
 

SaltyMonkey

Custom
I'd certainly support spreading the cost of this far more broadly across all of the allies who have a vested interest in making sure Russian aggression stops right where it is and doesn't keep advancing westward. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is much of a realistic possibility of that, due to a lot of really short-sighted decisions that many EU countries in particular have made in regards to funding defense for the last several decades (much like their energy decisions....). Many of them have little in the way of surplus arms or tech to export, because they intentionally haven't been producing much surplus. On top of that, the EU economy is in the tank and looking like it's going to get a lot worse, and so they are afraid to send large amounts of money to Ukraine.

I'm not making excuses for the EU (just the opposite, actually), but unfortunately that's the reality of where things are at. They've been, on the one hand, complaining about US dominance for years and rolling their eyes at us when it comes to conversations about defense, while at the same time implicitly expecting that if anything bad happens, the biggest military in the world will be there to protect them. As a result, they didn't spend much of their own money on getting serious about their own defense. And I'm calling out Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain specifically on that.

Not coincidentally, the European countries who have probably taken investing in defense the most seriously are the former Soviet-bloc countries, like Poland, Lithuania, etc, along with Nordic countries like Finland and Sweden, all of whom have been keenly aware that something like this was a possibility. Poland, in particular, has been helping Ukraine out a lot more so far than many western EU countries.
I appreciate your insightful post, but right now the shortcomings of the EU take a backseat to the unmitigated disaster we have here in the US. Our economy is in the tank; 40 year high inflation and coming diesel shortage that is going to make it worse, a energy crisis that has largely been self created, open borders and untold number of homeless US Veterans. We have got to get our financial house in order. Our Constitutional Republic is supposed to be one of checks and balances. How much of this has been voted on by our lawmakers and where’s the bottom line?
 

Hammer67

Master Class
I appreciate your insightful post, but right now the shortcomings of the EU take a backseat to the unmitigated disaster we have here in the US. Our economy is in the tank; 40 year high inflation and coming diesel shortage that is going to make it worse, a energy crisis that has largely been self created, open borders and untold number of homeless US Veterans. We have got to get our financial house in order. Our Constitutional Republic is supposed to be one of checks and balances.
Yup. Not denying any of our current domestic challenges, just addressing the challenges of getting our allies to pitch in more (as they should be). Although I still think we are going to find ourselves in the U.S. better off than many other parts of the world in the next few years, for a variety of reasons. But that's a different conversation.
 

SaltyMonkey

Custom
Yup. Not denying any of our current domestic challenges, just addressing the challenges of getting our allies to pitch in more (as they should be). Although I still think we are going to find ourselves in the U.S. better off than many other parts of the world in the next few years, for a variety of reasons. But that's a different conversation.
Good , we agree on something. now my question is .
How much of this has been voted on by our lawmakers and where’s the bottom line?
 

Talyn

Ronin
Founding Member
Congress (both Parties) authorized the expenditure of funds to assist Ukraine.

Ukraine is fighting & draining the Russians of resources vs. the US/NATO in an attack on NATO countries. And we're learning a lot about Russian military shortcomings, as well as a wake-up call to the Europeans to step-up their own defensive capabilities.

The current issues in the USA are due to a certain parties' "policy" decisions, not the war in Ukraine.
 

Bassbob

SAINT
Congress (both Parties) authorized the expenditure of funds to assist Ukraine.

Ukraine is fighting & draining the Russians of resources vs. the US/NATO in an attack on NATO countries. And we're learning a lot about Russian military shortcomings, as well as a wake-up call to the Europeans to step-up their own defensive capabilities.

The current issues in the USA are due to a certain parties' "policy" decisions, not the war in Ukraine.
I mostly agree. The blank check we gave Zolensky is not helping anything. We are funding over 75% of this and Zolensky is only a tad less of a corrupt POS than Putin is.
 

Hammer67

Master Class
I mostly agree. The blank check we gave Zolensky is not helping anything. We are funding over 75% of this and Zolensky is only a tad less of a corrupt POS than Putin is.
Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows. Regardless of corruption allegations, I'd much rather have Zelensky running Ukraine than Putin. And I have zero doubts that Putin would have stopped at Ukraine, had he been successful in the early days of this.
 

Talyn

Ronin
Founding Member
I mostly agree. The blank check we gave Zolensky is not helping anything. We are funding over 75% of this and Zolensky is only a tad less of a corrupt POS than Putin is.
I explained that above.

We haven't given Ukraine a blank check although the US has provided the lions share of the support. They're getting new old stock supplies not the latest stuff we have in the inventory.

The USA is replenishing its stocks with new stuff with the $$ authorized by Congress when we send old stock to Ukraine.

What we're giving them (HIMARS, M777's, Javelin's, etc.) have allowed them to push back on the Russians.

Please provide info on how Zelensky is as corrupt as Putin. He's a war time leader that's more capable than our POTUS.
 
Top