re: Russia prolonging Ukraine war

I believe this was the Bin Laden plan? We’ve been in a perpetual war since 1941.

quote:

---

I thought we were only sending our near expiration equipment and was needing the money to resupply or stock with newer equipment.

But in hindsight, a similar thing happened in the 1980’s, the USSR spent billions on Afghanistan in a stalemate/proxy war with America. Eventually, the USSR bankrupted itself and fell from within. I have a suspicion that Russia is trying the same policy to extend the conflict as long as possible to strain US military spending or to test the US military response.

Right now, it feels like an ongoing situation like Vietnam with no solution in sight but at least there are no US official boots on the ground.

There needs to be more talk of ending the stalemate instead of just throwing money and weapons at it.

---

What? This is not a real Take. Dishonest with yourself. Bankrupt the US over the Ukraine war? Not even worth getting into. Russia didn't go down because of Afghanistan in the slightest. Chornobyl really helped to do them in. If you think the US is going to have big issues with this war financially, how about the country that has collapsed 3 times last century? Who's ruble is worth 1.1 cents and is only going to get worse?

Afghanistan, Vietnam, No End in sight? If it's as bad as you say russia is soon to collapse any day now.

Your post reads like a how-to-do of how to defeat russia without losing a single American life. Let them fight a quagmire they are never going to win and fail financially amongst many other ways.

Come on seriously?

quote:

---

It's like some people read some far one-sided leaning rag (propaganda) from a year ago and then think "Im guessing that crap I read a year ago is more likely to be right then up to date numbers", backed by multiple parties. . Wishful thinking isn't data.

It's a crazy world. Everything Russia says is true they never lie. Anything good to be said about Ukraine is fake news.

---

The problem is that you cannot trust any media outlet nowadays for fear of being propaganda on either side. Not many outlets have boots on the ground like in early days of the conflict. No one is reporting the Russian side accurately for fear of being labeled a propagandist for Putin or the fear of Putin kicking you out. Meanwhile on the other side of the pond, the US media reports the latest information from the Pentagon or the CIA as the Gospel.

quote:

---

Russia didn't go down because of Afghanistan in the slightest. Chornobyl really helped to do them in.

---

quote:

---

by WonTonDonWon

---

quote:

---

Number of Posts: 99 Registered on: 4/14/2024

---

Sounds like they are in bad shape, but Russia is a threat to conquer Europe and $61b just prevented that??

quote:

---

but Russia is a threat to conquer Europe

---

Russian integrated Command and Control structure leaves something to be desired as does their logistic philosophy which is along the lines of Push logistics. which is probably why they are out on the market hitting up North Korea and Iran and begging the ChiComs.

quote:

---

goading us into militarily spending ourselves into bankruptcy.

---

Y'all need to understand math.

This Ukraine spending will have nothing to do with our "bankruptcy", if that eventuality occurs.

Our bankruptcy would be caused by spending in the trillions, not tens of billions. Ukraine spending is a rounding error on our actual spending programs creating the debt.

quote:

---

Putin is much smarter than all of them.

---

Yeah the 350k casualties are genius
Ruined economy (was never that great before)
Invaded in Ukraine in 2014 and still no where near capitol

Ya'll just keep pulling for losers

He did snatch some kids from Ukraine...congrats

quote:

---

quote:

---

Russia is getting to work some of the flab out of their military.

---

If by "working the flab out" you mean losing 400,000 men, depleting their ammunition stocks to the point that they're begging the Norks for artillery shells, and bringing tanks from the 1950's to the front because of their losses, then you're right.

---

Well... yeah. Loss of numbers is high, but Russia infamously has both numbers, and a generally poorly trained and equipped military.

They're burning through stockpiles of munitions and gear they've had for decades, instead of scrapping those or selling them all to other countries/militia. None of that stuff would be any good as frontline gear against the US or NATO anyway, but they're using it up instead of leaving it in warehouses until it's just piles of rust and sawdust.

Loss of personnel- they don't view things the way we do in the West. These are simply pawns, useful cannon fodder. Their doctrine would be to have heavy losses in a real conflict, but win through attrition.
They are getting in real live combat now, and weeding out a lot of filler, as well as establishing what strategies and tactics work and what doesn't. And they are doing so in a conflict they may not "win", but absolutely won't lose actual Russian territory no matter what. The worst that can happen is Ukraine holds out, and they withdraw; the Ukrainians aren't going to march into Russia.

And the Russians, as they come out the other end of this, will have a lot more skilled and capable military, and will end up being better equipped in a few years.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And just to keep perspective, hitting Ukraine is a bigger target than anything we've done.

---

It's been over 2 years and Russia only controls a small part of southeastern Ukraine.

---

People need to keep perspective on just what this conflict is.

When someone says "first world, third world" etc, that goes back to a Cold War POV.
First World is US, Western Europe and similar countries. NATO (and Japan, etc) for lack of a better term.
Third World is all the little shithole countries a major power could kick over without much effort.
SECOND WORLD is the Soviet sphere; Russia, the Warsaw Pact, probably China. MAYBE North Korea, if you count China.

Ukraine is Second World, as is Russia. This is like-on-like, separated mostly by total resources. A good comparison would be if Texas had left the United States in the 1990's, and we now have the US invading Texas today. The US would win in a fully committed war, because the US has more resources and manpower. But like we're seeing in Ukraine, it would be a hell of a fight and very contested, up until the smaller country runs out of resources.

The US has NOT faced anything of the sort since WW2. Kicking Panama's, Iraq's or Afganistan's teeth in, is not comparable. Deploying to Korea in the 50's while China was still in disarray, or Vietnam later, is not the same. And even with Korea, when the Chinese got involved, we'd do well man-for-man, but the ratio of US to Chinese troops created a disparity we couldn't overcome.