I understand, I was just pointing out that it is a problem everywhere. It has especially gotten bad here in the US over the last decade for example.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Of course, they are.
I do not discuss indoctrination in general, but I comment on just one very specific statement.
I've said for a long time that this war is winnable for Ukraine. This offensive has shown that, as well; it has shown that the Ukrainian Army can dish it out as well as take it.
I don't, however, think it means the war will end any time soon. I think the best result from this Russian defeat is that Ukraine will be able to survive the winter solidly and hopefully launch a spring offensive to split the remaining Russian forces with a drive to the southern coast. Even then the Russians will have time to regroup and retrain over the winter, if this pans out.
Even after that, destroying the pockets will take time and blood -- and that's only if that hypothetical offensive is successful.
This war will continue, sadly, for quite some time, barring a major disaster on either side.
If not you, others deeply suspicious of my insightsOk...hell of a lot to unpack in that post. Please note, however, that I never said you were a Putin fan, nor did I infer or imply that you thought the Russian invasion was acceptable.
Of course we (US) did not camp around the world on our own. I was careful to cite Commonwealth s partners in our adventures. Given that, when has UK/Commonwealth planted he flag and invited the US to join rather than vice versa?Having been a warrior at the tip of the spear (ok, not quite the tip), for 20 years, plus working within, or directly in support the militaries of two western nations, I may offer a subtly different perspective. First, however, I want to pull the thread on the "reviled by everyone that doesn't depend on our security umbrella" and "we (US) have shed blood on every continent." You make it sound like the US does this on its own. Yes, the US is the 600lb gorilla on the stage but I find it frustrating when we entirely ignore the contribution of our Allies that help us (the US) achieve our political and military objectives. The Brits, Aussies and Canuks have shed blood on every continent. Many European nations contributed forces to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm in the opposite camp. I am continulally amazed that our faithful allies follow us in adventure after adventure in which no discernable and tangible national interest is served. I travelled extensively in Europe the old fashioned way - on a Norton Commando for two summers at 17 and 18. Originated at Lakenheath and returned there. Dad's generation were the warmest and most generous I ever met - even in France, but to a significant extent, to my generation, we (America) were bullies, hateful and 'fascist' based upon the lens of VietNam and our other arrogant based adventures in which we imposed our will vs USSR adventures on the geo-political stage.It's all to easy for America to expect everyone to do its bidding but I'm afraid that's never going to happen. Countries have differences of opinion about global issues. Even the Brits aren't in lock-step with America on everything. Just because they disagree, however, doesn't mean they're the enemy or that they revile the US. Having lived in Europe for 3 years, there is certainly a love-hate relationship between host nations and US forces, particularly in Germany. However, in general, the relationship is more positive than negative. There are some who protest outside our bases. Equally, there are some who will buy you a beer just because you're helping defend Europe.
Agreed - to a point. I am reminded however of Trump directly and accurately confronting various NATO allies that they in fact were NOT committing their agreed % of GDP.Again, you're taking a very binary view. The so-called "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War resulted in EVERY western nation reducing its defence budgets, INCLUDING the US. The analogy of "paying a share" to NATO is not accurate since the requirement is to expend a proportion of GDP on defence, not on paying money to NATO. The US forces in Europe have been drastically cut compared to the Cold War. For the past few decades, US forces have concentrated on GWOT and activities in the CENTCOM AOR. Therefore it's a bit strong to say America has been "paying for" other NATO member's contributions because, frankly, US forces in CENTCOM do NOTHING for NATO security.
Neither You, nor I have ANY insight and or tangible proof regarding what we 'will or won't' do directly or via proxy. It is an established fact that Gates and Soros and CDC/NIH were partcipants in Wuhan Lab dating at least back to 2007. Prove me wrong about Proxy labs and then address what I recall as Nuland's acknowledgement that we were 'operating labs' without specificity.Please, PLEASE don't go down the "US-funded bio labs route." The only thing that's happening there is pretty standard medical research. Having seen how xenophobic the US military can be, even with our strongest Allies, there is no way--I repeat NO WAY--the US is going to offshore any critical defence research, whether that's chem, bio, or anything else.
Don't know, don't care. But recall that the conversatons were circa 2014 during Obama admin and before Zelensky was a factor.As for Nuland et al, that recording says nothing except that the US had desires for the future of Ukrainian democratic leadership. EVERY country has these types of conversations because they're trying to figure out how to engage with that country after a democratic election. If the US was the puppet-master in Ukraine, how is it that Zelensky doesn't even get a mention in these recordings?
To listen to the cynical hawk 'familiar' on my shoulder, we wished to replace "the guy they controlled with the guy we controlled". Out of curiousity what is your metric on 'more corrupt' vs 'less corrupt'. If comparing Ukraine pre Zelensky vs Zelensky what do you propose as quantitatie metrics?Yes, the US worked tirelessly to separate Ukraine from Russia. So did the UK and other European Allies because all wanted to see the totalitarian Moscow-puppet in Kyiv replaced by a more democratic and less corrupt form of government. That was always going to upset Moscow....but that's what happens when you push freedom and democracy as an agenda.
Yes, Ukraine joining NATO was arguably a red line for Moscow. However, it highlights the illogic of Putin's actions. By invading Ukraine, Putin simply brought Russian forces CLOSER to NATO. Oh...and he persuaded Finland and Sweden to join. Again, Putin is a dictator who wants the entire world to do his bidding, and so he throws temper tantrums when anyone disagrees with him. I'm afraid that's life when democratic nations have their own ideas about how the world should operate (and that's far more than just the US).
He laid the eggs, built his stash, plotted the steps necessary to cripple the dollar, expand the Russia sphere of influence and hurt the NATO/US alliance. He didn't invite you (or me) to his thought processes.I entirely agree about Europe's over-dependency on Russian fuel. I've been saying it for years. I just never thought Putin was stupid enough to kill the goose that was laying golden eggs for his economy. Just shows how wrong I can be.
Yep - but what is the National interest for Poland? Trump convinced Germany of the danger, Germany took steps to wean and Biden Administration killed the Trump initiatives. Lets be clear - I admire Ukrainian People but don't make Zelensky out to be a People's Rights kinda democrat/republic leader. He is a despot also in this crisis.Yes, Ukraine could have shut down the pipelines. However...NEWSFLASH. So could Poland. So could Germany. Having a corrupt, autocratic government in Kyiv is far worse than having a democratically-elected one.
Looking forward to an exchangeThat's enough for now. I'll be back later to dig into the actual answer to my question about what the west should do about the Russia/Ukraine situation.
drgondog said:If not you, others deeply suspicious of my insights
drgondog said:Agreed - to a point. I am reminded however of Trump directly and accurately confronting various NATO allies that they in fact were NOT committing their agreed % of GDP.
Chris - help me understand your view of a Ukraine 'win' - or conversely a Russian 'win'. I am distinclty unclear on the concepts at the moment.Ukraine is in the best position. All they have to do is outlast Russia, and they are well on their way to doing that.
Chris - help me understand your view of a Ukraine 'win' - or conversely a Russian 'win'. I am distinclty unclear on the concepts at the moment.
As long as you are contemplating this, what is the US win? Help me by defining a US win as value add to the American People?
Chris - we may expend $trillion, draw down our readiness inventory to fight One conventional win, suffer the inflation that comes with unconstrained spending that requires the Fed to print money. Explain to our (US/American People in the steets/ the 'win'? or conversely 'why it doesn't matter'?The Ukrainians win when Russia is forced to end this war and leave Ukrainian lands.
A win for the US? This is not about the US winning. However, Vladolf Putler and Russian aggression being stopped here and now is in our best interest.
If all you want to do is talk to Chris, can you take this demonstrably-private convo to DMs?Chris - help me understand your view of a Ukraine 'win'
Chris - we may expend $trillion, draw down
Of course we (US) did not camp around the world on our own. I was careful to cite Commonwealth s partners in our adventures. Given that, when has UK/Commonwealth planted he flag and invited the US to join rather than vice versa?
Agreed - to a point. I am reminded however of Trump directly and accurately confronting various NATO allies that they in fact were NOT committing their agreed % of GDP.
CENTCOM and EVERY US theatre command contribute to NATO security, simply as a major mobile reserve to any self decreed 'hotspot'.
Neither You, nor I have ANY insight and or tangible proof regarding what we 'will or won't' do directly or via proxy. It is an established fact that Gates and Soros and CDC/NIH were partcipants in Wuhan Lab dating at least back to 2007. Prove me wrong about Proxy labs and then address what I recall as Nuland's acknowledgement that we were 'operating labs' without specificity.
To listen to the cynical hawk 'familiar' on my shoulder, we wished to replace "the guy they controlled with the guy we controlled". Out of curiousity what is your metric on 'more corrupt' vs 'less corrupt'. If comparing Ukraine pre Zelensky vs Zelensky what do you propose as quantitatie metrics?
How does that illustrate Illogic if his vision of Russia Controlled Ukraine is different pre-Zelensky, from his vision of Russia controlled post Zelensky?
He has not been 'vague' about intentions regarding Ukraine for last several years. Democratic, Republic, Marxist nstitutions have one thing in common - The People wish freedom to determine their path and a Rule of Law that they understand.
Seperate Putin from the equation - he plays to the RUSSIAN phobia about foe on border. You are looking at a spokesperson leader that understands his People - it doesn't matter how we view him.
He laid the eggs, built his stash, plotted the steps necessary to cripple the dollar, expand the Russia sphere of influence and hurt the NATO/US alliance. He didn't invite you (or me) to his thought processes.
Ukraine is in the best position. All they have to do is outlast Russia, and they are well on their way to doing that.
Chris - we may expend $trillion, draw down our readiness inventory to fight One conventional win, suffer the inflation that comes with unconstrained spending that requires the Fed to print money. Explain to our (US/American People in the steets/ the 'win'? or conversely 'why it doesn't matter'?
If all you want to do is talk to Chris, can you take this demonstrably-private convo to DMs?
I keep skipping past to see what the group is posting about the Russo-Ukraine war.
Well, let's see...there was Suez in the 1950s when Britain asked America to join but the US did everything in its power to scupper the entire operation.
There have also been plenty of operations where the US didn't want Allies along for the ride. The UK and Germany contributed aircraft to Op PROVIDE RELIEF but were explicitly excluded from joining the US HQ because the US didn't want those countries getting insights into what was happening with the parallel Op RESTORE HOPE. I know because I was there. I was supposed to be part of a small Brit team joining the US HQ in Mogadishu but the US commander refused to bring us in.
Simple fact is that, apart from the Falklands, the European powers haven't felt a need to throw their military weight around. However, they all came to America's support after 9/11, despite much of that support waning given the propensity for escalation and poor exit-strategy planning (e.g. invasion of Iraq).
I would also note that France (of all people) has done yeoman counter-terrorism work in Africa, and the Brits have dabbled there, too. Given that the US doesn't actually have assigned forces, other than SF, dedicated to USAFRICOM, I think it's significant that at least a couple of European Allies have led their own military ops in that theatre...and yet it doesn't get recognized.
Well, it helps to read the actual text of the NATO agreement about GDP %. It actually says, paraphrasing a little, "members shall strive to commit 2%." And the member nations were already ramping up their defence spending when the comments were made.
Again, let's go back to the realities of US contributions to Europe. There is a total of 7 USAF fast jet squadrons in Europe, one of which is non-op as it's re-equipping. The RAF alone has more fast jet squadrons, let alone adding all the other European partners. Take a look at US ground forces in Europe. How many divisions are deployed? None. Zero. Nada. There wasn't a command echelon below USAREUR until the HQ for V Corps was stood up and, even then, the original plan was for most of that HQ to be CONUS. Bear in mind all these "EUCOM" assets are actually shared with AFRICOM because the latter has no dedicated forces of its own (except SF), so the air, land, and maritime assets are doing double-duty with two separate command chains, which further dilutes available capability.
Yes, the entire weight of the US military could be brought to bear in Europe if necessary...theoretically. The truth is rather different. Once Op DELIBERATE FORCE ended, Europe ceased to be the focus for US military operations. Financial and manpower budgets were slashed so resources could be used elsewhere. I know of organizations that lost 50% of their manning pretty much overnight, while other functions ceased entirely or were merged to reduce manpower. A posting to EUCOM was known as the "wine and cheese" tour because the entire focus for the command was pushing deploying forces through to CENTCOM. It wasn't until Scaparotti became the EUCOM Commander that things started to change. In testimony to Congress in early 2017, he noted that EUCOM had made a "shift to deterrence and defense" to return "to our historic role as a warfighting command." That strongly implies that, prior to his tenure, EUCOM wasn't a warfighting command:
Scaparotti: Russia Pushing U.S. European Command Back to a Warfighting Focus
Since Russia seized Crimea and began using proxies to destabilize the Ukrainian government in 2014 and menace its neighbors with actions short of war, the senior American officer in Europe told the House Armed Services Committee.news.usni.org
It's no point having forces available if they can't deliver the warfighting punch...and to do that takes staff planning and operational execution, it takes practice in exercises at the scale of the anticipated fight (which hadn't been happening because the forces were all in CENTCOM). The fight in EUCOM is VERY different from the fight in CENTCOM. In the latter, the entire planning effort is built around a small-sized unit, often platoon-level, kicking in doors to pick off individual targets. EUCOM needs to prepare for operations involving multiple corps of ground forces that are attriting "classes of targets" and having to engage thousands of individual elements within those.
Again, I've seen first-hand how the US likes to control sensitive operations. It doesn't outsource things that it needs to keep to itself. The more people you bring in on a secret, the more likely it is that the secret will be revealed. That's why there are multiple security compartments at very high classification levels to minimise the number of people who are aware of the secret. There may be shadowy parts of the US Government doing stuff but, frankly, even the CIA has stepped back from wet work. That's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.
I'm not getting into an argument on the whole labs issue. I'll simply point you to two non-US stories, one of which finds no evidence that the US funded secret bio-labs in Ukraine, and the other demonstrating that the Covid outbreak in Wuhan likely came from cross-species infection and not from a lab (note the clustering of early cases around the market originally identified as the source). Feel free to disregard them but the conspiracy has to get VERY big if WHO and the BBC is part of it (ignoring the illogic that Nuland was stupid enough to admit to bio-weapon labs on an open line but the US government is smart enough to hide these "secret" labs...which are mentioned on the State Dept's own website!):
Ukraine war: Fact-checking Russia's biological weapons claims
The BBC finds no evidence for Russian claims that Ukraine is developing biological weapons with US support.www.bbc.com
Covid origin studies say evidence points to Wuhan market
One of the researchers said he hoped the studies would correct the false theory that it came from a lab.www.bbc.com
You're making a sweeping assumption that the US "controls" any leader of any foreign nation. As noted in my previous post, even the UK has differences of opinion compared to the US Government...and, frankly, there's no closer Ally to the US than dear old Blighty. The idea that the US Government can control what democratically-elected officials in foreign countries do is ridiculous. Can the US put a finger on the scales? Maybe a little...but there's the whole issue of democracy and people making their own choices.
In terms of corruption, I'll take the following. There are other corruption metrics out there but this one seems to be the most recognized for it's general integrity and consistency. It's not perfect (nothing is perfect) and Transparency International has had some issues using inappropriate funding sources. However, the index shows Ukraine making significant progress in countering corruption since 2014:
2021 Corruption Perceptions Index - Explore the results
How does your country measure up in the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index?www.transparency.org
Well, all the Russian talking heads keep saying that Ukraine IS Russia, hence the "special military operation" is "liberating" Russian territory from nazis. If we take that at face value, then the enemy is ALREADY on the border in the form of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania.
The entire argument is illogical. Yes, it plays into the "us-and-them" mantra that so often gets spouted by nationalists of all stripes. That doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean we should glibly accept it when it patently fails the giggle test.
It's funny that you talk about freedom and rule of law regarding Russia given that they have no free press, laws change at the whim of Putin, and there is no right to have an opinion different from that of Putin. The people don't have freedom. They're spoon-fed a message and have to jump in line every time the laws are changed without any due process or calibration (e.g. calling the "special military occupation" a war resulted in imprisonment, and even standing silently holding a blank sheet of paper was deemed a protest and the person was arrested).
The problem is that Putin's execution of the operation in Ukraine has been completely fumbled...and yet we're supposed to believe that he's a genius who can bring down the west by deliberately crippling the dollar and causing an energy and food crisis? Oh...and the energy crisis hurts Russia as much as it hurts anyone else.
Take a look at this recent analysis. I think it's pretty on-target:
How Putin’s War in Ukraine Has Ruined Russia | Journal of Democracy
May 2022 | In a matter of weeks, the Russian autocrat has erased his country’s prosperity in a feckless attempt to rebuild a doomed empire.www.journalofdemocracy.org
I'm going to leave out the rest of the comments because they get too political for my blood...except to point out (again) that countries don't jump up and down just because America says so, particularly the European democracies. They elect THEIR governments based on the will of THEIR people. Just because America doesn't like what they do doesn't invalidate their democratic processes.
I will note that Zelensky was elected by a generally-accepted fair and democratic process. As noted in the corruption index, Ukraine has made considerable strides in becoming a more transparent, less corrupt, society. Ukraine is far from perfect but calling Zelensky a despot is going too far, IMHO.
And good ole Putler was sitting back watching the weakening of NATO from within without having to fire a shot. No wonder he felt bold enough to invade. Alas it is all too political for me as well. I'm done with this part of the discussion.
I'm a big politics nerd, but I'd hate to see this thread shut down.
Sorry if I overstepped the line, Chris. I'm trying to navigate it carefully by providing sourced contributions. I'll probably back off now for fear of adding more heat than light to the conversation.