Something Controversial to Discuss on Saturday
Controversial?
My Background? XMarine Sergeant E5 served 68-71. Not an 0311. Was made a Sergeant a couple of months into my third year. Excellent shot with M14. Served during the Vietnam years when the US did most of the fighting. US pulls out and South Vietnam collapses.
US assists Afghanistan in fighting. Does most of the fighting and trains their military. Trump plans a pullout and Biden does it. Afghanistan collapses.
Russia attacks Ukraine. Ukrainians push the overrated Russians back away from Kyiv. US supplies the Ukraine with weapons. Few if any US military involved. Congress is second guessing whether to supply Ukraine. News and blog pundits suggest Russia is winning which should have happen a year ago. Republicans want to pullout to embarrass Biden. Ceding land to Russia will only bring future attacks.
No US military in Ukraine. Russian economy on verge of collapse. Why not supply Ukraine?
Maybe a little different take on that old saw about how everyone is hot for revolution but nobody has any idea what to do the other side of one: be interesting to see what the world looks like after Russia implodes. Though it has long laid claim it barely controls Siberia, to which both the Chinese and Japanese lay territorial claim that predate “Russia”
It was my thought at the start that this is the end of the old world order
1st US, 7th Cav, Triple A; 71-73
Tough question, as I understand it, and I’m certainly no expert, Ukraine is a corrupt nation possessing vast natural resources. Strong arguments can be made on either side. I read somewhere that, to date, we’ve authorized $113B in aid to Ukraine. I’m not certain what other countries have committed. With this aid, what has been achieved thus far and is there an end in sight? If aid continues what will be achieved and what will be the cost? If we don’t know what we’re trying to achieve and we can’t estimate the cost then we need to stop spending.
53:
Certainly not a way to use resources. $113 billion since when? Certainly not since Biden took office.
The US did authorize $47 Billion since 2014. Another $44 billion since Russia again invaded Ukraine in 2022. Other nations also joined in to support Ukraine with weapons, etc. And somewhat slowly accounting for the politics. The US shipped every (198) 155mm Howitzer it had available plus 2 million rounds. For a greater list, see here: U.S. Security Military Assistance with Ukraine December 2023
The balance is made up of nonmilitary aid.
Funds to Ukraine besides Military
My whole point of adding Vietnam and Afghanistan to this post, is they are fighting this battle themselves. We are not there and I do not believe any other nation has added massive amounts of military personnel to the fight.
No US troops involved, just Ukrainians, etc. fighting the Russians and inflicting severe economic damage. The outcome of this has vast negative potential for much of Europe.
@53,
What has been achieved so far is (1) denying Putin his rapid conquest, (2) pushing Russian troops out of some of the occupied territory, (3) ca. 300,000 Russian troops killed on the battlefield and (4) discouraging China in an attempt to conquer Taiwan. If Russia isn’t defeated in Ukraine, the US will pay later and the cost will be much higher. Putin won’t stop with Ukraine. He’s got his eye on the Baltics, which are NATO members. And Xi is watching closely.
Maybe ask Victor Orban? Putin’s big orange dog here in the USA?
We have two outbreaks of industrial scale, government executed mass murder going on, both include nuclear “powers”. And Uncle Sam big time.
If Russia (Israel) is shoved in the corner does Russia (Israel) use their nuclear arsenal?
If the under resourced (‘someone’ forgot air supremacy) Ukraine adapting NATO tactics and weapons actually pulled off what Guderian did in May 1940, what would happen when Putin nuked the rear area supports?
How much did US “consulting and war gaming” contribute to the underwhelming achievement of 6 months counter offensive?
Where would Ukraine be w/o starlink and real time “feeds” from global surveillance assets?
USAF veteran, cold war, SAC and ADCOM.
What the U.S. contributed to the underwhelming counter offensive was delay and hesitancy in supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons, particularly aircraft.
The lack of advanced air support has truly been an insurmountable burden for Ukraine. And effective air support almost certainly required direct participation of US and its allies in the conflict. At this point, no number of F16s is going to make any real difference as far as degrading Russia’s units, unless the entirety of the air support package goes along with it. We all know the fate of many Leopards in this conflict, but before they were destroyed, did they get any blows landed? Almost nothing. Ukrainians have shown enormous bravery but in highly ineffective actions. We won’t cross the line to put our forces directly in this conflict, but that’s exactly what’s needed. Not saying we ought to do it, but without doing so, Russia prevails here. And all this was about as clear at Christmas 2022 as it is this year. So, if aid is intended to further destroy Ukraine as a country, sure let’s give them more.
Eric:
How many Leopard 1 and 2 tanks does Ukraine have? F16s are not expected to take to the air this year 2023 yet. US troops in the Ukraine are not needed. Ukraine is committed. Russia is rounding up victims to fight Putin’s war.
Neither jets or tanks will win this battle. Well armed boots on the ground armed with the necessary weapons to destroy Russian tanks, ships, and planes will matter more. It will be a long time before Russia recovers from the economic damage, they did to themselves by attacking Ukraine.
With respect, I think you are dreaming. Ukraine’s best battalions essentially accomplished nothing this summer and took very painful losses. Their available forces for 2024 won’t be as capable even with another aid package. Continuing this very likely just destroys Ukraine even more thoroughly. They still just might get a deal limiting this to 4 provinces + Crimea, some kind of joint sovereignty over the Black Sea coast line. No NATO, of course.
Surrender!
Paddy:
Perhaps, it is because you are safe here in the US that one could make remarks concerning the safety, security, and livelihood of others outside of it. This one time, the US has it correct in extending economic aid in the form of armaments to a country and its people both of which are willing to fight for its own self-government.
Why, what are you personally losing? If it is the funding, then rescind the trump tax breaks which will mount to a $2 trillion deficit passed by reconciliation in comparison. Much of which went to those whose income is scaled in the upper 1%. If we are worried about using money to benefit the US, there is a big opportunity there and one far greater than the $112 billion spent since 2014.
How much did this or that contribute? I am not there and neither are you. What Ukraine decides as an opportune time to strike back is up to them. The US military is not fighting this war. Ukraine is not the aggressor there, Russia is. Would Ukraine have been more successful if supplied adequately on a timely basis? Probably and US politics have played a role in this, time and time again.
If Republicans are so concerned about the funding, take back the trump tax breaks which did not achieve the goals claimed as outlined with its passage under reconciliation. Little known about this tax maneuver by Republicans and trump is corporations will keep their tax breaks and the giveback by citizens will pay for it as planned. Where are our fiscally concerned Repubs now? In the pocket of corporate America as led by an orange-face nut.
Here is an interesting perspective from Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Sort of more domino theory.
Institute for the Study of War on X: “3/ If Russia wins, a victorious Russian army at the end of this war will be combat experienced and considerably larger than the pre-2022 Russian land forces.” / X (twitter.com)
The numerous bullet points… many are arguable.
They sound like Sen. McConnell. Letthe Ukraine kill Russians for US!
There’s no excuse for opposing continuing funding for Ukraine unless you are against democracy & support autocracy. There is no greater ROI: less than 2% of US budget to prevent WWIII; cripple Russia’s military & economy; & increase US jobs; all with no US lives lost.
https://tinyurl.com/2p9b8ysf
“How much money has the US given Ukraine since Russia’s invasion?
“The United States has sent Ukraine over $60 billion in funding and equipment through military, economic, and humanitarian aid.
“The US has allocated $113.4 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine, American partners in regions affected by the conflict, and US national security programs…
“Just because money has been allocated doesn’t mean it has been spent. Congress has set aside emergency funding for federal agencies to spend at their discretion and doles it out depending on the immediate and longer-term needs of Ukraine, US allies in the region, and US weapons supplies.
“Ukraine will have to repay some of these funds after the war, plus interest.
“On August 10, 2023, President Biden asked Congress for an additional $24 billion to support the ongoing war effort, but Congress has not yet approved this request.”
J.P.
Making Ukraine the non-nuclear bulwark holding an aggressive Russia in place will more than pay for the funds the US and western Europe provides. Typically war mongering Repubs would be all in favor of this claiming the Dems are weak. Now Dems are in support of Ukraine and must counter the misconception spread by Republicans to discredit Biden. Considering the avoidance of a real downturn similar to 2008 is something the nation should recognize. The US avoided a major downturn due to Bidens plans.
Perhaps a slight downturn due to Fed rates as FED Chair Powell is attempting to make Labor pay. New Deal democrat suggesting such a downturn.
Plenty of Republicans supported Ukraine for long enough and loud enough that changing directions doesn’t discredit Biden only. Maybe I am too cynical, but I sense many Congressional Democrats are secretly happy to let Republicans delay or even terminate this aid. Bill portrays the upside here as frankly an opportunity of enormous national historic significance and yet Democrats seem to be letting comparatively minor stuff about asylum and border security get in the way. And this likely is mainly because they realize this won’t work, so let it fail in a manner they can at least try to blame the other party for. If they believed half of what Bill says here, their leaders would tell them that it was a matter of party discipline and just take the border security aspects as a low price for a precious accomplishment.
Eric:
Your commentary a non sequitur to the topic. There is a huge gap between what I have said and what you are saying.
Republicans see it as a repudiation of Biden’s. Democrats are focused on Ukraine aid. Thirty-two percent or Repubs opposed aid to Ukraine in mid 2022. It is now 48% of Repubs in December as opposed to 16% of Dems in December 2022. More than twice the number of Repubs over that period of time (PEW).
There is no huge “national” significance here for the US in supplying a country willing to fight an aggressor twice it size. Quite embarrassing for Russia who screwed up right in the beginning by not being able to take Kyiv. Giving them weapons rather than American troops makes a whole lot of sense. And still Russia is stymied.
The issue is Ukraine. If it fails, it will be on Republicans. With your last sentence, you are being an ass.
The headline $60B held up is half military and half economic aid.
There is almost no ‘allocation’ left to send to Ukraine.
The headline $60B odd in sent military assistance is primarily “presidential drawdown” of US war stocks. The dollar value quote is for replacing the assets sent to Ukraine.
The rest of the $113B went to economic aid to keep the lights on inn Ukraine government buildings etc.
The problem arising is the assets in US reserve are getting slim (needed for high priority contingencies) and the replenishment is lead time in years for some equipment/weapon systems.
Soon the available assets will dry up.
Note aside from turning over aged soviet weapons the US had provided the bulk of military aid.
Paddy
I got it correct and was careful in stating it. The links are there.
‘Not an 0311.’
MOS 0311 is the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) code for infantry rifleman.
If not, what were you?
I had the analogous US Army MOS ’11B10′ for a while, having been trained as such. Worked hard to get a different one, ended up with two more, highly-prized non-combat ones. Became an E5 out of school from that, stayed that way for the rest of my service, as an electronics instructor.
Fred:
Just communications outside of the safety of an office
They also serve who only stand & teach.
‘No US military in Ukraine. Russian economy on verge of collapse. Why not supply Ukraine?’
Most of Europe and much of the US electorate would continue assisting Ukraine.
Putin will not ‘go gentle into his good night.’ Nor will the MAGA GOP most likely.
Just something to keep in mind.
Could be the Europeans, except for some outliers, regard Russia as a real threat to their future existence. Also, they can rely on the rest of NATO to come to their assistance if Russia invades.
If that is so, then the case for continued US participation is a very strong one.
It doesn’t seem that the MAGA GOP recognizes this. Because Trump, if re-elected can always pull us out of NATO.
Except…
Congress approves bill barring presidents from unilaterally exiting NATO
Washington Post – Dec 16
Leaving the Twilight Zone: A Congressional Check on Treaty Termination
Nebraska Law Review – NOVEMBER 15, 2020
(They saw this coming three years ago.)
One might suppose that if Trump is president again in 2025, if Russia does move against NATO countries, the US will find an excuse to not come to their assistance.
Putin says Russia has no plan to attack NATO
Reuters – Dec 17
For the record, it is the Republicans who have abandoned our friend and ally
Not the Democrats; nor Anarchists, Socialists or No Party … Republicans
Abandoned our friend and ally … on the battlefield
While I love history, politics, and the process of governmental decision-making, it just makes me sick to see how the D.C. brain center has denigrated the concept of intellectual deliberation of country-shaping issues to such a dismal level. The lunacy is driven by a self-imposed set of operational rules, combined with a new level of deformed leadership, that allow and nearly guarantee and encourage reckless, irrational outcomes.
The absurdity of mixing three distinctively different issues into one package demanding an up or down vote is now on display at the D.C. center stage.
One of the issues, continuing Ukraine funding, holds in the balance the future of democracy in the free world (including the South China Sea) and the potential of WWIII and nuclear holocaust. The other two issues, the Israel-Hamas conflict and the U.S. Border crisis, are very significant on a different scale; but all demand individual debate, deliberation, and decisions that are not related in any way except that the U.S. provides funding to each. Each should be dealt with separately, with full transparency, and Ukraine funding should have the highest priority.
Another spanner into the gears…..
The US senate has passed the national defense authorization (NDAA) bill. IDK what the House will do with it. Happy Holidays if you own a couple of companies’ stocks.
Adds 6 Patriot batteries (there is a new radar at Raytheon) and 6 more THAAD batteries, all because Kiev got drubbed using our stuff.
Note authorization sets the numbers, the appropriations actually buy the stuff….
Contunuing the discussion in the current ‘Open Thread’ which is not open currently.
Of those that served in the US military during the Vietnam Era, it is said that…
‘Roughly 1/3 were drafted and the others volunteered for military service. “On paper, this is true. While 2.2 million men were drafted between 1964 and 1973, a total of 8.7 million men enlisted. …”’
That’s misleading. Casualty counts were very high during much of that period. With notable exceptions, guys could not get jobs after graduation from college. (Engineers could, but I was a physics grad, and a lackluster one even.) Many went to grad school. Not I.
I knew I had to enlist or be drafted. So I did. (I got my call-up the day I graduated college.)
But, such service obligations are respected in my family.
That was true of pretty much all who were in the postition I was in. In effect, the enlistment rates were high because of this. (Marines were being drafted at that point. The one outright casuality I know of from my HS class was such, killed by an IED.)
Fred:
Did not mention causalities. Just drafted and enlisted.
So what?
Guys enlisted in the Navy or AF to avoid combat. Or managed to choose non-combat related MOS’s to train for, which I eventually did. You mentioned that enlistments were high. This is why, no doubt. In those days, few enlisted for the pay & benefits.
Choose?
You mean ‘choose an MOS’? Sure. Under the right circumstances, you could select the training you wanted & a physics degree worked for me in that sense. At least, when there are/were openings. A certain amount of luck maybe.
Fred:
I was told my training and MOS.