Ukraine….what’s our endgame here

[Gmoney4WW]

Interesting that Reagan and Dubya were the two biggest in terms of % plus Dubya was responsible for much of Obama’s increase. Unlike Dubya, Obama handed off a stable growing economy that had recovered from the financial disaster he was handed.

Yes Obama took over an ailing economy that had the great recession and war efforts on it's tab.

But the last year of his Presidency jumped back up to the levels of the first 3 years of budget deficit that he had as President. The final year at +1.42T, was second only to the first year, at 1.62T.

He was no slouch as far as adding to the deficit was concerned.(Even if Noble did 'forget' to notice that Bush did hand Obama the great recession. Crying, laughing emoji expected?)

I would say that most any President that wins a second term, worries less about the deficit during the second term. They can jack it up with less consequences.

 

[noble cane]

Yes Obama took over an ailing economy that had the great recession and war efforts on it's tab.

But the last year of his Presidency jumped back up to the levels of the first 3 years of budget deficit that he had as President. The final year at +1.42T, was second only to the first year, at 1.62T.

He was no slouch as far as adding to the deficit was concerned.(Even if Noble did 'forget' to notice that Bush did hand Obama the great recession. Crying, laughing emoji expected?)

I would say that most any President that wins a second term, worries less about the deficit during the second term. They can jack it up with less consequences.

I didnt forget.. just like i didnt forget that Reagan had to deal with the economic hangover from VN and Carters recession..

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I didnt forget.. just like i didnt forget that Reagan had to deal with the economic hangover from VN and Carters recession..

Then why did you make such a fine point about his deficit spending? When I was simply addressing within the limited subject, his military spending, not the unrelated overall budget.(Rhetorical question, which I know you will answer anyway.)

 

[noble cane]

Then why did you make such a fine point about his deficit spending? When I was simply addressing within the limited subject, his military spending, not the unrelated overall budget.(Rhetorical question, which I know you will answer anyway.)

Rhetorically answered. You cant spend on a deficit and claim that one part of your budget didnt affect it. Especially when you escalate the war in Afghanistan and become a trigger happy drone commander.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Rhetorically answered. You cant spend on a deficit and claim that one part of your budget didnt affect it. Especially when you escalate the war in Afghanistan and become a trigger happy drone commander.

I was addressing Obama's military spending, and that was all I was addressing. I don't give a rat's ass whether you want to bring in overall spending on everything else, and act falsely like that had any affect positive or negative on military spending.(You are addressing the kitchen sink, and that has nothing to do with how much he spent on the military.)

With all your trigger happy mentioning of Afghanistan, the budget still went down on overall military spending. Which was the only point I was utilizing. As a % of Gdp it went up for the 1st year of his presidency, and then maintained it's level at about what it was for a year, and proceeded to sink for the remaining 6 years of his presidency.(to levels lower than it started out) The actual monetary expenditure rose for 3 years and then sank for almost 5 years.(once again, to levels lower than it started out)

This one president reduced spending on the military for the first time in many years. Whether that was wise is another question, but that is not the issue I'm addressing.

Tough to argue with a true believer...

...and their alternate and superfluous facts.

Done.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Blame that on Bush, and all the presidents before him, like Reagan. The only president you can't blame it on is Obama. If Obama had taken action against Crimea, then maybe you could blame it on Obama. And after Obama you can blame it on Trump and Biden. Gotta place the blame game 'on borrowed from future generations' on the proper 'peoples'.

Not on the military. I'm speaking strictly about the expenses on the military.

Every president increases the debt. The last one I remember not increasing it was Clinton. But he was flying in the clear blue skies of the tech industries birth.

Just a reminder of the point I was inflecting on.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Just saw this report on present state of weapons and ammo for Russia.(Also saw report by Ukraine that they have destroyed significant amount of weapons in railway station in Luhansk, including three S300 units that they have recently been bombing civilian areas with in retaliation for the Crimea bridge bombing.)

• Russia’s equipment shortfalls are forcing Moscow’s battlefield decisions: “They have to make critical choices about what they can do on the battlefield because they don’t have the tanks they need, they don’t have the equipment they need to make helicopters, they don’t have the semiconductors they need to launch precision missiles into Ukraine.”
• Western sanctions have exacerbated problems for Russia’s troubled military: “Russia is running out of troops, they’re running out of ammunition. They’re running out of tanks and other materials.” The West’s sanctions and export controls “make it harder for them to reinforce their troops and to get the things they need,” he added.
• Moscow is using proxy companies and Russian elites to try to evade sanctions, but China isn’t much help: “China can’t provide Russia with what China doesn’t have. And China doesn’t produce the most advanced semiconductors. Those are produced by our allies and partners. So Russia is searching for these things. The reason they’re using their intelligence services and front companies to try and get them is because the countries they would naturally turn to don’t have them.”

 

[watu05]

One Aussie general‘s view of Ukraine win.

Blow Up Russian Trains, Liberate The Coast: Ukraine Has A Plan To Win The War

As Russian forces fray in the south, gaps could form in their defensive lines stretching from just north of Kherson 250 miles west to the terrain between occupied Mariupol and free Zaporizhzhia.

www.forbes.com

 

[watu05]

A former Russian diplomat who resigned over Ukraine offers his views of how it all got started. Additionally the Russian general now in charge of Ukraine was the one who used poison gas in Syria. Is poison gas a WMD that would elicit the same response from NATO as the use of nukes?

The Sources of Russian Misconduct

A diplomat defects from the Kremlin.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[noble cane]

Maybe our endgame is here...

The U.S. Army's 101st Airborne is practicing for war with Russia just miles from Ukraine's border

U.S. troops in Romania are extremely close to Putin's war, conducting exercises with NATO allies that "replicate exactly what's going on" over the border.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[lawpoke87]

I will wager we will see more and more opposition from the far left in the coming weeks.

Posted this 11 days ago…and what do you know

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/24/biden-ukraine-liberals/

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Posted this 11 days ago…and what do you know

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/24/biden-ukraine-liberals/

Far right and far left: United We Stand.

 

[astonmartin708]

Posted this 11 days ago…and what do you know

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/24/biden-ukraine-liberals/

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — who would be likely to become speaker if the Republicans retake the House on Nov. 8 — signaled last week that a GOP-led house would oppose more aid to Ukraine.
“I think people are going to be sitting in a recession, and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he told Punchbowl News. “They just won’t do it.”


…because the only thing Republicans care about more than pom-pom waving about protecting freedom and fighting against tyranny is the volume of cash in their pocketbooks.

They only fund wars that the American people will subsidize perpetually.

 

[lawpoke87]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — who would be likely to become speaker if the Republicans retake the House on Nov. 8 — signaled last week that a GOP-led house would oppose more aid to Ukraine.
“I think people are going to be sitting in a recession, and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he told Punchbowl News. “They just won’t do it.”


…because the only thing Republicans care about more than pom-pom waving about protecting freedom and fighting against tyranny is the volume of cash in their pocketbooks.

They only fund wars that the American people will subsidize perpetually.

If he emphasized “blank check” then I 100% agree with his statement. As I’ve been saying for months, the Admin needs to outline a strategic plan including our objective as a condition for additional billions in funding. The Admin outlines those items and I believe it obtains the next round of funding.

 

[noble cane]

If he emphasized “blank check” then I 100% agree with his statement. As I’ve been saying for months, the Admin needs to outline a strategic plan including our objective as a condition for additional billions in funding. The Admin outlines those items and I believe it obtains the next round of funding.

At least send some IRS accountants/auditors along with the cash to document how its spent...

 

[lawpoke87]

Excerpt from the WaPo article:

When asked how long the United States can be expected to pour billions into the war effort, Biden and his top aides frequently say, “as long as it takes.” But privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright,suggesting a fundamental change in dynamic would be required if the conflict is to end in the foreseeable future.

So unless we do something to change the dynamic we will keep pouring in billions of dollars so the two sides can continue to kill each other and destroy the country indefinitely. Yet people seem perfectly ok with this.

I will ask against because no one has answered including the Admin…what is our endgame ?

 

[astonmartin708]

If he emphasized “blank check” then I 100% agree with his statement. As I’ve been saying for months, the Admin needs to outline a strategic plan including our objective as a condition for additional billions in funding. The Admin outlines those items and I believe it obtains the next round of funding.

Tell your enemy exactly how much you're willing to give to your ally so they can say.... "okay we only have to hold out until....._______ / _______ / ________"

McCarthy has always been and continues to be a total POS who can't tell his azz from his elbow.

 

[astonmartin708]

Excerpt from the WaPo article:

When asked how long the United States can be expected to pour billions into the war effort, Biden and his top aides frequently say, “as long as it takes.” But privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright,suggesting a fundamental change in dynamic would be required if the conflict is to end in the foreseeable future.

So unless we do something to change the dynamic we will keep pouring in billions of dollars so the two sides can continue to kill each other and destroy the country indefinitely. Yet people seem perfectly ok with this.

I will ask against because no one has answered including the Admin…what is our endgame ?

We were willing to pay to blow up Afghani kids for 15 years half way around the globe for less than zero payoff.

 

[lawpoke87]

Tell your enemy exactly how much you're willing to give to your ally so they can say.... "okay we only have to hold out until....._______ / _______ / ________"

McCarthy has always been and continues to be a total POS who can't tell his azz from his elbow.

Has zero to do with “how much you’re willing to give”. Again “without a change in dynamic this war will last indefinitely”. We have zero plan here other than the objective of keeping a war going indefinitely. Figured we learned our lesson on funding wars with no plan to win or end the same. Yet we continue with just enough funding to keep the killing going. Your support for this course is noted.

 

[lawpoke87]

We were willing to pay to blow up Afghani kids for 15 years half way around the globe for less than zero payoff.

1). I was against almost all our military actions in the Middle East
2). Hope we had learned our lesson. Unfortunately you seem dead set on repeating the never ending killing.

I ask again….what is our end game and how is it achieved ?

 

[astonmartin708]

1). I was against almost all our military actions in the Middle East
2). Hope we had learned our lesson. Unfortunately you seem dead set on repeating the never ending killing.

I ask again….what is our end game and how is it achieved ?

Our end game is Ukraine regaining its territory. What price are you willing to put on actually, truly, maintaining the freedom of an ally? Is it just because this isn't NATO that you don't care? If it was say France would you be willing to stay longer?

Why is our dedication to the ideals of democracy only shown when the cost and the stakes are low? When push comes to shove, are we willing to fold? What does that say about us?

 

[lawpoke87]

Our end game is Ukraine regaining its territory. What price are you willing to put on actually, truly, maintaining the freedom of an ally? Is it just because this isn't NATO that you don't care? If it was say France would you be willing to stay longer?

Why is our dedication to the ideals of democracy only shown when the cost and the stakes are low? When push comes to shove, are we willing to fold? What does that say about us?

If our end game is truly driving Russia from Ukraine then why aren’t we contributing sufficient resources to accomplish the same ? By now you should understand that is my problem here. The Admin has admitted our current support level is simply keep the status quo….killing and the continued destruction of Ukraine.

Why is our dedication to the ideals of democracy one which only ensures the continuation of a war with no end in sight? Is it because Ukraine isn’t a NATO member. What does that say about us ?

History hasn’t been kind to the US not committing to win conflicts. Sadly, we appear not to have learned a damn thing. Either commit to driving Russia out of Ukraine or commit to a peaceful negotiation. Time isn’t on our side. The American people will gradually grow tired of the conflict and cost. It’s already begun Again…history.

 

[astonmartin708]

As an aside, the letter calling the Biden admin for diplomatic action on Ukraine has been retracted by the progressive caucus. (Not that it’s something that will just disappear, and obviously it’s a contentious issue for everyone, but the rest of the Dems were pissed about the divisiveness and pushed for a change of stance)

 

[lawpoke87]

As an aside, the letter calling the Biden admin for diplomatic action on Ukraine has been retracted by the progressive caucus. (Not that it’s something that will just disappear, and obviously it’s a contentious issue for everyone, but the rest of the Dems were pissed about the divisiveness and pushed for a change of stance)

I’m sure the fact we’re two weeks out from midterms had zero to do with that decision . I do look for the issue to reappear after Nov 8.

Question….would anyone on this board support a strategy of providing just enough support to keep a war going indefinitely if Americans were fighting and losing their lives ?

 

[astonmartin708]

I’m sure the fact we’re two weeks out from midterms had zero to do with that decision . I do look for the issue to reappear after Nov 8.

Question….would anyone on this board support a strategy of providing just enough support to keep a war going indefinitely if Americans were fighting and losing their lives ?

Considering the progress that the Ukrainians have made as of late, one might argue that the munitions they’re being supplied with are sufficient, and limited enough in scope that the US doesn’t have to provide troops to fight in the war. Which all Americans, particularly those who would be in line to serve, should be happy about. Giving Ukraine enough weapons to, in one swoop, defeat Russia isn’t going to happen. Neither is appeasing Putin By giving him the land he wants (now for the third time after Georgia and Crimea).


We are walking a tight rope between supporting our ally and starting WWIII. I would say we have and continue to do a good job in that regard, though as republicans like to say… the fight for freedom is not free.

 

[lawpoke87]

Considering the progress that the Ukrainians have made as of late, one might argue that the munitions they’re being supplied with are sufficient, and limited enough in scope that the US doesn’t have to provide troops to fight in the war. Which all Americans, particularly those who would be in line to serve, should be happy about. Giving Ukraine enough weapons to, in one swoop, defeat Russia isn’t going to happen. Neither is appeasing Putin By giving him the land he wants (now for the third time after Georgia and Crimea).


We are walking a tight rope between supporting our ally and starting WWIII. I would say we have and continue to do a good job in that regard, though as republicans like to say… the fight for freedom is not free.

Per the WaPo the Admin has admitted that without a change of dynamic this war will continue indefinitely. Did you miss the post? Ukraine isn’t kicking Russia out of its territory without a significant increase in support.

So you would be good with a war where US soldiers and civilians are dying in which our commitment serves only to continue said conflict?

To be clear, my suggesting is to provide enough support to change the dynamic. Perpetuating a never ending war benefits no one

 

[Gmoney4WW]

We are walking a tight rope between supporting our ally and starting WWIII. I would say we have and continue to do a good job in that regard, though as republicans like to say… the fight for freedom is not free

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Committing to providing them with an air defense system, is another in the systematic attempts to up their game, without starting WWIII. We are continuing to walk that line of not pushing Putin with sudden increases in types of support, but more gradually.

We are gradually increasing the temp on the lobster pot, until Putin finally realizes he is boiling, but cannot do anything about it, unless he goes into a nuclear war.

 

[astonmartin708]

Per the WaPo the Admin has admitted that without a change of dynamic this war will continue indefinitely. Did you miss the post? Ukraine isn’t kicking Russia out of its territory without a significant increase in support.

So you would be good with a war where US soldiers and civilians are dying in which our commitment serves only to continue said conflict?

To be clear, my suggesting is to provide enough support to change the dynamic. Perpetuating a never ending war benefits no one

I would be good with a war where an ally is allowed to fight for their sovereignty and their freedom from dictatorship even if it’s done in the face of adversity.

We aren’t willing to provide a significant enough military capability to win the war so we don’t escalate tensions between the US and Russia, but we also aren’t going to tell Ukraine that they must capitulate. We will help them fight as long as they are willing and able to fight. If for some reason they can tactically or strategically outwit the Russians and prove our generals wrong, I think that’s for them to attempt. They did not fight as hard as they have just to have their sovereignty taken away from them by malicious actors.

 

[lawpoke87]

I would be good with a war where an ally is allowed to fight for their sovereignty and their freedom from dictatorship even if it’s done in the face of adversity.

Adversity defined as only the support required to maintain roughly equal killing of our ally and its enemy.

 

[astonmartin708]

Adversity defined as only the support required to maintain roughly equal killing of our ally and its enemy.

Adversity defined as a sufficient number of weapons to carry out offensive as well as defensive operations and to hold the majority of their currently occupied lands while giving them the opportunity, but not the guarantee that they will recover those illegally seized from them.

 

[lawpoke87]

Adversity defined as a sufficient number of weapons to carry out offensive as well as defensive operations and to hold the majority of their currently occupied lands while giving them the opportunity, but not the guarantee that they will recover those illegally seized from them.

So to keep the war and killing going indefinitely….per the Biden Admin.

 

[noble cane]

So to keep the war and killing going indefinitely….per the Biden Admin.

Keep feeding the killing machine...

We could end this with air power and a couple of divisions..

Our current method is cruel and inhuman, just watching civilians die in a never ending bloodbath of our funding..

 

[Gmoney4WW]

So to keep the war and killing going indefinitely….per the Biden Admin.

No administration is going to reveal their full plans to the public. Maybe you are right about them extending it indefinitely, and maybe you are not. But for you to have the answer would allow Putin to react. That should be top secret info. If it was a Republican in office, I have a feeling it would be playing out similarly.(not including Trump in this instance)

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Keep feeding the killing machine...

We could end this with air power and a couple of divisions..

Our current method is cruel and inhuman, just watching civilians die in a never ending bloodbath of our funding..

That would start WWIII, and bring all the bad actors to Putin's aid.

 

[lawpoke87]

No administration is going to reveal their full plans to the public. Maybe you are right about them extending it indefinitely, and maybe you are not. But for you to have the answer would allow Putin to react. That should be top secret info. If it was a Republican in office, I have a feeling it would be playing out similarly.(not including Trump in this instance)

I’ve seen very few wars the US has been involved in (maybe zero) where the Admin didn’t have a stated objective and a framework for how the same is going to be achieved. I do agree that we would likely be in the same position regardless of which party was in charge. Doesn’t change the current dynamics. We are seemingly happy perpetuating a never ended conflict in which people are dying daily. The Admin has admitted as much.

I don’t pretend to have a good answer to the current situation. I do believe sending only enough support to guarantee the killing will continue is immoral and would not be occurring if Americans were dying. Don’t see how anyone can disagree with that last statement. The American public would not stand for it. Which makes our actions or inactions worse imo.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I’ve seen very few wars the US has been involved in (maybe zero) where the Admin didn’t have a stated objective and a framework for how the same is going to be achieved. I do agree that we would likely be in the same position regardless of which party was in charge. Doesn’t change the current dynamics. We are seemingly happy perpetuating a never ended conflict in which people are dying daily. The Admin has admitted as much.

I don’t pretend to have a good answer to the current situation. I do believe sending only enough support to guarantee the killing will continue is immoral and would not be occurring if Americans were dying. Don’t see how anyone can disagree with that last statement. The American public would not stand for it. Which makes our actions or inactions worse imo.

We've never been involved in a war that could absolutely lead to a WW before.

Vietnam & Korea were fighting themselves. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Spanish American, etc would not have led to a greater conflict. If we had been more heavily involved in Syria, that might have led to a greater conflict. But we never pushed our involvement there.

One party in this conflict is different than any other, except for the two WW's we have been in.

 

[lawpoke87]

We've never been involved in a war that could absolutely lead to a WW before.

Vietnam & Korea were fighting themselves. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Spanish American, etc would not have led to a greater conflict. If we had been more heavily involved in Syria, that might have led to a greater conflict. But we never pushed our involvement there.

One party in this conflict is different than any other, except for the two WW's we have been in.

You’re not wrong. We’ve also never been in a war where we committed just enough assets to ensure the war and killing would continue. Again….I’m not suggesting ending aid.

Suppose the key question is : How long will the American public continue to support sending billions in military aid so a stalemate can continue? This could be one of those rare instances where the far left and far right are aligned in their politics.

 

[noble cane]

That would start WWIII, and bring all the bad actors to Putin's aid.

Maybe... but, the current killing going on with our money and our weapons is immoral and evil. We have the power to put an end to this and yet we and our NATO allies are content to do the killing second hand as long as we arent directly involved.. at this point we are as guilty of the civilian deaths as Putin.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Maybe... but, the current killing going on with our money and our weapons is immoral and evil. We have the power to put an end to this and yet we and our NATO allies are content to do the killing second hand as long as we arent directly involved.. at this point we are as guilty of the civilian deaths as Putin.

So we bring our involvement up, and then more countries get involved, bringing about more deaths? It's not so simple of an argument.