History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to Opti :

We've got a ways to go before we get close to what we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And remember that a lot of the aid that has been sent over are things that are not useable if the US went to war- either it was out of date, or other reasons.  As you say, there is nuance in the numbers.

Let alone getting to a +10 year money pit. 

This hasn't even gotten to one year, and it's gotten to the point where laws have to be passed to squash negative opinions.  So we have some time to see what happens in Russia before we need to worry about bailing due to cost and time.

In reply to alfadriver :

I dont necessarily agree with you but I understand what your trying to say.

Fun point about the comparison to Afghanistan. At 100 billion, it will have cost more than the first 5 years in Afghanistan. So I dont agree with your argument, "that we have a ways."

You are right there is nuance. Problem is even here where I consider most members very reasonable people, i see very little nuance. I see a lot of support with no mention of the obvious glaring problems. 

You also didnt mention any of the other problems I mentioned. Do you think its a good idea to send large amount of financial aide with little to no oversight to what was considered one of the most corrupt governments, all with no end in sight or plan to end it mentioned? Lets give it the most charitable lense to view it through, a little oversight might mean our aide dollars go farther and are more effective at helping stop Russia

Opti said:

In reply to aircooled :

His argument essentially boils down to its morally wrong that Russia invaded, it sets a precedent, and it makes the rest of Europe more vulnerable. I dont completely disagree with what hes saying. In fact Ive made similar arguments about Russia's growing power in Europe and its bad news for us when you look at who they are allied with, but everyone keeps telling me Russia isnt a threat, Russia has already lost the war, and Russia doesnt really have any power  even though it supplies 40% of the EUs gas (its Russian propaganda).

I think his points are pretty valid especially for someone like Poland, who may all the sudden share a border with Russia or Germany, who might just have Poland between them and Russia, but they dont apply the same to the United States. 

I also think it fair to bring up the fact that although the stakes are much higher for our western European allies, the US has paid over half of all aide to Ukraine, more than the other 39 countries combined.

And I still think the corruption/state of the government and its people are still a valid thing to consider when you are thinking about supporting a country.

I certainly agree with this.  I don't know his true focus in this talk (I suspect it to get the EU to contribute more), but it could easily also be frames as: "why the US should not be shouldering most of the aid"

It brings up the question of why the US is?  Of course the US has a large economy and a lot of military technology, but I think the more likely answer is "because that is what they have always done". 

Why was the US the opposition to the CCCP?  England, France and most of Europe where involved also.  Well, Europe was semi-destroyed, France was taken out early, and England, although still powerful, was no where near what it was, having lost a grip on most of it's empire (e.g. India).... the US was all that was left realistically.

So, the US becomes the opposition to the USSR, foots most of the bill, and Europe becomes the (sorry for the semi-political here) "Welfare Queen".  They get used to it, and expect it.  This speech should be a slap in the face to Europe to get over themselves and start footing the bill for their own interests.  Certainly there is US interest in defending Ukraine, but no where near the interest that Europe has.  We can do it for "good will"  but not sure that has really every paid off.  One reason Europe is able to "be so European" is they spend so little on defense, which is good in theory, but as a saying I like to say goes:  "It's the ideal way to go, until the tanks start rolling over the boarder".

Regarding corruption:  Much like many other things you can say about the US.  Yes, the US is the most corrupt country there is... except for most every other country.

I would also add a small point about real combat testing of weapons:

Yes, weapons testing can be done without war, but one of the big things you will miss is the "counterpoint" of the weapon, or how the enemy reacts and counters it.  There have been many supposed "algorithm"  (looking for a word I can think of here) changing weapons, that have been quickly countered or dealt with.  A quick example I can think of is the first air to air missiles, which are highly effective in testing... until you shoot one at someone who has an interest in living and they... turn.... oops...

In live use, you now get the counter-counter point adjustments. It's a live version of things in concept vs practice.

In reply to Opti :

How much of the $100B in aide is actual cash?  I did bring that up- when they are arms that are being actively used, it's not hard to track them.   The data I'm seeing is over 50% of that is military, 

But you also bring up our costs in the middle east- compare Ukraine to the installed governments we put in place for both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Is it *that* much more corrupt?

They have been making progress lowering their corruption, so lets not let ALL of the last 20 years hang over the money.

BTW, data I'm seeing (and I recall) is that we spend over $1T in the middle east.  So another decade of $100B is a long time, indeed.

A shot from a video taken in Russia a few days ago.  Those aren't planes.

In reply to alfadriver :

Of the original ~55b I think about a third of it was financial aide, of the additional 45b in the Omnibus that just passed I dont know yet. lets say it stopped at the ~20b amount. Is that an immaterial amount that doesnt need oversight? Its a lot of freaking money. Last I looked that was more than all but 4 countries in NATO spent on their ENTIRE MILITARY, as in we could fund multiple allies entires militarys, but we handed it to Ukraine with essentially no oversight. Lets be real it didnt stop at 20b, im sure the omnibus has more financial aid.

I thought the argument was we have a ways before we get to Afghanistan, now the argument is look at how bad we did installing a corrupt government in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seems like some goal post moving. Doing obviously dumb E36 M3 in the past is  a pretty terrible reason to do it again. If thats your only argument, its a pretty weak one. Thats how things never get fixed

We spent over a trillion in Afghanistan, we spent way more than that in the Middle East. Here is how Afghanistan progressed. Compare that to how fast Ukraine is progressing. We essentially double the amount of aide with the Omnibus, so the amounts are accelerating also.

This whole, "we have time. We arent there yet. No need to question anything, nothing to see here" Is how Afghanistan turned into a 1T ordeal. Instead of using the fact that we E36 M3 the bed in the past as an excuse to do it again, lets try and use it to prevent us from making the same mistake.

Americans are bad with big numbers. That how you get arguments like its only 500 dollars per person, and its a long ways off from Afghanistan. ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS is an Obscene amount of money, especially in this context.

I am pretty sure "no oversight" is not a reasonable assessment of the situation.  I would also say the spending in Ukraine, at this point, has had far more of an effect than pretty much all the spending in Afghanistan (which could be argued to almost a complete waste).

I know, I know, when you compare to a total s-show, things always look good.

How much oversight, and how much is enough?  I don't know, but you can be damn sure there are those in Ukraine very willing (and have had a lot of practice doing it) to take advantage.

One way to look at the absurdity of the cost of military spending is:  You spend as much as you want to allow other nations to push you around.

I don't know what alternative we have, on the range from full military engagement to hands off,  telling the Ukrainians, "sorry, you're on your own."

Expecting the Ukrainians to account for every dollar, bullet, pallet of food, or piece of equipment sounds like a good goal, but not at all achievable or practical. 

Opti said:

Americans are bad with big numbers. That how you get arguments like its only 500 dollars per person, and its a long ways off from Afghanistan.

Okay, so me simpleton, me not count good, and maybe that goes for most Americans who didn't major in debate or political science. I'll accept that.

Are you here just to say that things are not as simple as they seem, and that you have reservations about the scale of our involvement? I think that's a given, and any reasonable adult likely feels the same way to one degree or another. Or are you driving at something else?

I'm not sure the people in Ukraine who are being shelled more often than we do laundry are especially concerned with nuance and diplomacy right now.

We - damn near the entire free world - are cheerleading for Ukraine because the people of Ukraine are so obviously the victims of an invasion by a patently malicious neighbor who has also made clear that we are his/their mortal enemy.  Now, my take on that equation is admittedly a simple one, but I see no room for nuance in that assessment. And more than that, I really don't know how we can audit their use of our resources without putting our people on the ground in country. Is that a reasonable thing to do? I suspect not. Someone better informed and better educated can comment.

There is obviously more on your mind than a simple observation that our conversation here lacks nuance. It seems as though you have a particular agenda you're hoping to pull us toward, a very specific point you're trying to make. Would you kindly lay it out in plain English for us?

In reply to aircooled :

Its hard to find how much actual oversight is there for specifically the financial aid, which in itself is pretty damning, and you may be correct that "no oversight" is not a fair assessment, but there is a bunch of reporting that there is little to no oversight. Politicians and international groups are all calling for oversight, because if any of the aide is misdirected it will greatly impact the worlds willingness to support it.

What might help is for NATO to publicly state that they are on board with Ukraine until russia goes back to pre-2014 borders and destroys the Putin bridge to Crimea. At least putler would know where he stands. That is the stick.

Giving russia and russians some hope and path  that they might rejoin technical and financial  society in some defined future, that is the carrot. 

Germany came back, so could russia.

In reply to Opti :

The general consensus elsewhere is that Putin will not survive this war.  Either Putin will die and his successor will recognize that blood is expensive and end the war, or Russia will fail so hard that someone internal takes him out.  And to be honest, I do not see a way of Putin surviving this escapade in any sense.  Ukraine will not capitulate, Russia will not succeed.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I think if nothing changes, you are probably right about Putin not surviving the war.  Im quite worried about it though, a power struggle in Russia is bad for everyone, I also doubt a smooth transfer of power will happen.

In reply to Opti :

I heave read enough about Russian history to agree with you 100% on that.

Elephants fighting and grass, Russian people are the grass.  As are the people in all neighboring countries.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Pretty much everything in history is bad for the Russian people. Its wild when historically your country is known for and celebrated just throwing massive amounts of bodies and deaths against pretty much anything.

The potential problems with a power struggle in Russia extend across the entire globe though

The Russians have been caught smoking again.  Pravda and Ukrinform call out as many as 750 russians killed.  BBC and others are in the mid 400's.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64142650

Ukraine says around 400 Russian soldiers have died in a missile attack on the occupied Donetsk region.

Russian officials have contested the figure, admitting to only 63 of their troops being killed in the blast. Neither claim has been verified.

The attack hit a building in the city of Makiivka, where Russian forces were thought to be stationed.

Meanwhile in Kyiv, air raids sounded on Sunday night, as the latest wave of strikes from Russia continued.

In a statement on Monday, Russia's defence ministry said Ukrainian forces fired six rockets using the US-made Himars rocket system at a building housing Russian troops. Two of them were shot down, it added.

Daniil Bezsonov, a senior Russian-backed official in the occupied parts of Donetsk, earlier said the missile struck Makiivka two minutes after midnight on New Year's Day.

"A massive blow was dealt to the vocational school," he said. "There were dead and wounded."

Although access to Russian-controlled areas is restricted, a number of Russian commentators and bloggers acknowledged the attack - but suggested the numbers were lower than claimed.

Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian presenter, shared a Telegram saying "losses were significant... but not even close" to 400.

But Igor Girkin, a pro-Russian commentator, said hundreds had been killed and wounded, although the exact number was still unknown because of the large number still missing. The building itself was "almost completely destroyed", he said.

He added that the victims were mainly mobilised troops - that is, recent conscripts, rather than those who chose to fight. He also said ammunition was stored in the same building as the soldiers, making the damage worse.

"Almost all of the military equipment was also destroyed, which stood right next to the building without any disguise whatsoever," he wrote on Telegram.

Girkin is a well-known military blogger, who led Russian-backed separatists when they occupied of large parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014. He was recently found guilty of murder for his part in the shooting down of flight MH17.

Despite his pro-Russian stance, he regularly criticises the Russian military leadership and their tactics.

According to the Ukrainian military, 300 were wounded in addition to the estimated 400 killed.

Ukraine's army claims, almost daily, to have killed dozens, sometimes hundreds, of soldiers in attacks, so caution is needed. But if the claims are confirmed, this could be one of the deadliest attacks by Ukraine on Russian targets in the war.

Ukraine has not confirmed the strikes were carried out with Himars missiles, maintaining a long-held strategy of not releasing details about its attacks.

It merely said, sarcastically, that the deaths were the result of "careless handling of heating devices, neglect of safety measures, smoking in an unidentified place".

The Russian-installed administration said at least 25 rockets were fired at the region overnight on New Year's Eve.

IMAGE SOURCE,ANDRIY NEBYTOV, KYIV OBLAST POLICE CHIEFImage caption,

Ukrainian authorities posted a picture of a Russian drone that says, in Russian, "Happy New Year"

Hours after the strike in Makiivka, Kyiv came under fire. A drone and missile attack targeted critical infrastructure, the Ukrainian capital's regional governor Oleksiy Kuleba said.

One man in Kyiv was injured by debris from a destroyed Russian drone, the capital's mayor added.

Mr Kuleba said the weapons were Iranian-made Shahed drones, adding that they were "targeting critical infrastructure facilities".

"The main thing now is to stay calm and stay in shelters until the alarm is off," he said.

All 39 Iranian made drones were eventually shot down by Ukraine, the military said. But Vitaly Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv, said energy facilities were damaged, disrupting power and heating supplies.

Russia has been targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure for several months, destroying power stations and plunging millions into darkness during the country's freezing winter.

Anyone who thinks Russia and Ukraine need to "sit at the negotiation table" when Russia is continuing to attack Ukrainian civilians and commit flagrant war crimes is an idiot. Russia is not willing to, and any amount of research would show their demands would be the succession of more than a third of Ukraine to them.

They started this war and their target has always been the annihilation of Ukrainian identify and sovereignty- you don't negotiate with genocide.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Thank you.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Agreed; you cant fix a mad dog. 

Apropos of nothing, if you spend anytime reading russian literature, you come to the conclusion that in its long and tortured history, russia has never been able to contribute anything positive for the human race. russian history and writing reads more like a purgatory on earth than a celebration of a peoples history.

In reply to NOHOME :

I had to smile at that one. It does seem that Russia has made suffering into an art form.