Posted on 04/25/2014 12:16:53 PM PDT by kronos77
That is an interesting thought, and at least a part of it is a worthwhile goal. Obviously not the turning us into a social welfare state, but forcing the Euroweasels to start paying for their own defense is a reasonable goal.
Still, I don't think Obama is capable of moving the pieces around the board like a Fox. You could be right, but I still just think Obama is a gifted orator and a good campaigner, but totally lacks the ability to actually lead. I would argue the proof of that is that his foreign policy is failing at every corner of the globe. Nowhere has Obama's global policies made things better. He thought his force of personality that was so effective in academia and low information voters would translate on the world stage, and it simply (and predictably) hasn't.
Still, you make a point worth considering.
Most pols are narcissists. As such, they have highly-developed instincts of self-preservation. There is no chance Obama will initiate a nuclear strike against Russia, mainly because it would be bad for him personally, meaning there's a substantial chance he would be killed along with all of his kin. Like many pols, Obama is a true believer - in what is good for Obama. And there is no scenario in which a US first strike followed by a Russian counterstrike that kills him and everyone he knows is good for Obama.
Good call, corruption, raises the price, lowers the quality and quantity of product.
Less corruption would enable better choices of equipment for a fixed amount.
I wouldn't think of this as inspired leadership. It's simple arithmetic. We can't pay for the world's defense while adopting European-style welfare schemes at home. It doesn't and can't add up. The reason Europeans have their welfare schemes is because we're paying for defense. The choice at hand is Hobson's choice.
I wish that made me feel better.
Point taken, but I don't think that sort of blunt, brute, frontal attack against Ukrainians is possible for very long because I do believe it would draw such condemnation and actual sanctions (not Obama's pinpricks) that could cripple the Russian economy. I think much of the world was, even if they didn't admit it, sympathetic to Russia in the conflict against the Chechens. No one much wanted the Chechen terrorists to win that one. Ukraine looks like a Western country that many in the West can relate to, the kind of tactics Russia employed in the Chechen war is probably not viable here.
I think Russia could obviously seize whatever parts of Eastern Ukraine they want, but I am not so certain the support for that, even amongst ethnic Russians in Ukraine, really exists. I think you'll even begin to see protests and unrest in Crimea as the initial euphoria wears off and people start having difficulty receiving pensions, buying goods, etc.
The deeper Russia pushes into Ukraine, the more I think the Ukrainians can just bleed them till they leave.
Anyway, you seem pretty learned on this subject, so I have a question for you. I am of the opinion that Russia is really not that strong, that only about 10-20% of their military is first world, and that they really don't have the ability to project power in any meaningful fashion. What do you think about that assessment? And one more, do you think in a head to head fight, Russia could defeat Poland (minus the nukes ofcourse)?.
~ I think much of the world was, even if they didn’t admit it, sympathetic to Russia in the conflict against the Chechens ~
That is probably why a few dozen of DC politicians and other public figures including Zbig Brzezinski, Caspar Weinberber and Alex Heig are members of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, fundraising for jihad, providing logistics and good press for the terrorists?
And Chechen parallels are useless considering Ukraine.
Is there any Georgian insurgency in Russian-occupied states of Georgia?
Ukrainians and Georgians aren’t a muzzie crazies, they don’t have a deathwish. In fact not even the Chechens are all that much into jihad at this point.
True, but not at first. It took quiet a while to get the information on the true nature of Chechens and the Belsan school massacre out in the West. Add that Muslim population in Russian Federation is about 14% near the tipping point for total control, Russia's win was not easy, but very decisive.
...I don't think that sort of blunt, brute, frontal attack against Ukrainians is possible for very long...
and you would be right, but the point is that Russia has already shown that those are not the tactics they will use in Ukraine, and the the speed of adaption and the current Russian learning curve are impressive. All these tactics have been used against Russia or Eastern Europeans by the West, lifted, refined and successfully used against Western leaning states Russia wants to hold close, including propaganda. Russia, and her Military are playing our game with our cards, and doing well after only 22 years in business.
I am of the opinion that Russia is really not that strong, that only about 10-20% of their military is first world, and that they really don't have the ability to project power in any meaningful fashion.
From what I have seen, a 20% first rate, high discipline, very well equipped figure is about right, the rest not being poor, but bureaucratic and cumbersome. However, patriotism, dedication and motivation are much more prevalent than the Red army. The Russian Military is proud of Russia and vice versa, more than what can be dismissed as bluster. Again, the key is direction, adaptability, discipline, learning curve, in a short 22 years.
Weaponry is another rapidly developing asset, they got some pretty good stuff, but most all of it is deployed around the Federation proper, but then they are not deployed all over the globe. In three years most all their currently good tactical missiles will be upgraded to really, really good. As an aside, they manufacture all their own electronics for their weapons.
Still with all this, an engagement would result in the Russians losing substantially more assets than the US, keeping in mind that close to the Federation, there is a distinct possibility that the Russians would destroy a mission killing capital asset.
Why do you hate the Ukrainians? And whose navy did you serve in, the Russian’s?
It’s hard to understand how navy “patriot” can be so wrong on Georgia and what the US supplied it. Perhaps he was being duped by the Putin press even then and believed the US really was training and equipping the Georgians in a big way. This much is true, though, the Georgians fought bravely with our troops in Afghanistan and actually owned their own battle space.
I don't hate Ukrainians, and predicting a tactical or strategic error in an engagement does not indicate such.
I consider Eastern European Christian and Jewish non Communist Caucasians as potential allies, but I judge them by their actions , not their words or my "feelings".
I do not see economic or civil progress in making a struggling nation a battleground, I do not underestimate allies or enemies, and I do not dismiss motivation.
I would rather see the Ukes have self determination and free market capitalism, than a war, but that requires independence from the EU and NATO as much as Russia.
Your problem with me is that I don't hate Russians.
My problem is that you love Putin more than America and you think the hate you feel for Obama is a good reason to love Putin. Otherwise, I think you’re a rube and a dupe of Putin’s propaganda.
So my objective observation that Putin plays Obama, Kerry, Clinton and McCain like musical instruments, and beats all of 'em hands down at political and military strategy and tactics, means I don't love America, while your willingness to subjugate Ukes to the NWO EU Nazis, Fascists and Socialists is opposition to Obama by giving him exactly what he wants?
And your desire for Ukes to go against a far superior military and draw in Americans against that military a mile from their border is love for Ukes and Americans?
Sorry, I'm too busy opposing Obama and the Rats in everything they do to minimize their planned damage to America.
When did you get out of the Russian navy?
I think media outlets, not just the Russian ones, provide a fair amount of news without context. For instance, Vicky Nuland talked about $5b in US aid to Ukraine over 20 years. In fact, US aid to Russia has exceeded that amount.
$5b delivered over 20 years is a few hundred million dollars a year. A fair of amount of aid was handed over to the Russians to help them modernize their nuclear arsenal:
Over the years, Energy’s semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration has provided billions of dollars in monetary, in-kind and technical assistance to Russia.In 2012, aid to Russia was over $400m, compared to over $200m for Ukraine:
| Country | U.S. Total Economic and Military Assistance FY 2012, $US millions | Economic Assistance FY 2012, $US millions | Military Assistance FY 2012, $US millions | US Economic and Military Assistance per Capita, $US |
| Afghanistan | 12,885.50 | 3,325.50 | 9,559.90 | 423.59 |
| Israel | 3,100.10 | 25.10 | 3,075.00 | 408.40 |
| Iraq | 1,940.10 | 783.50 | 1,156.60 | 62.32 |
| Egypt | 1,404.00 | 102.60 | 1,301.40 | 16.78 |
| Pakistan | 1,214.90 | 1,137.70 | 77.20 | 6.38 |
| Jordan | 1,135.30 | 831.60 | 303.70 | 174.42 |
| Ethiopia | 870.10 | 864.60 | 5.40 | 9.54 |
| Kenya | 749.20 | 745.60 | 3.60 | 17.42 |
| Colombia | 644.30 | 543.90 | 100.40 | 14.24 |
| Haiti | 510.40 | 510.20 | 0.20 | 52.07 |
| West Bank/Gaza | 457.40 | 457.40 | 105.57 | |
| South Sudan | 444.30 | 395.50 | 48.80 | 41.81 |
| Russia | 440.90 | 339.00 | 101.90 | 3.09 |
| Somalia | 419.60 | 274.90 | 144.70 | 41.61 |
| Tanzania | 402.00 | 399.20 | 2.80 | 8.57 |
| Congo (Kinshasa) | 388.40 | 370.50 | 18.00 | 5.28 |
| Uganda | 352.40 | 349.40 | 3.00 | 10.48 |
| Nigeria | 335.90 | 330.90 | 4.90 | 1.97 |
| Sudan | 298.10 | 298.10 | 0.00 | 8.72 |
| South Africa | 274.70 | 272.60 | 2.20 | 5.63 |
| Mozambique | 274.00 | 273.50 | 0.50 | 11.65 |
| Ukraine | 273.30 | 207.20 | 66.10 | 6.09 |
| Yemen | 258.50 | 237.40 | 21.10 | 10.44 |
| Bangladesh | 256.80 | 246.50 | 10.30 | 1.59 |
| Liberia | 247.10 | 233.80 | 13.30 | 63.56 |
I expect something similar happened with respect to US aid to Georgia. The fact is that a few hundred million in US aid a year, mainly in the form of civilian infrastructure spending and perhaps military advisers, buys very little. The US is notorious for deliberately holding back the provision of offensive/defensive military equipment to less trusted allies for fear that they will misuse that equipment by waging offensive war. The Korean War was mainly touched off by the rivalry between North and South Korea, but the US refusal to provide fighter aircraft, tanks and artillery to South Korea created an opportunity for North Korea to drive all the way to Pusan, at the southern tip of the Korean peninsula, without much resistance, except by a scratch force of US occupation troops with little or no combat experience.
As regards the Georgian stint in Afghanistan, their experience was probably not very different from that of the Northern Alliance that helped drive the Taliban out of the major Afghan cities with the help of American air cover in the aftermath of 9/11. If GI's had been fighting in place of the Georgians using their equipment, they would probably have been similarly overwhelmed. Air support is a crucial element of conventional wars. At minimum, friendly air units must keep enemy airplanes from dominating the skies. In Georgia, the Russians ruled the skies from day one. Georgian ground units that popped up to hold the Russians back were sitting ducks, just as the Taliban were during the Northern Alliance's advance with American air support.
Are your figures a direct transfers to said governments or includes funding of subversive NGOs, pushing for gay ‘rights’, abortion, methadone programs, instigating watermelon rallies, socialist riots and bringing other wonders of ‘democracy’ to targeted societies?
On the other side of the ledger, we have no idea how many billions a year were spent by Russia to suborn Ukrainian pols in preparation for annexation. In the process of hurrying along Russia's eventual conquest, Yanukovich abolished freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Ultimately, associations with the West are voluntary, whereas Ukraine's centuries' old association with Russia have not been.
~On the other side of the ledger, we have no idea how many billions a year were spent by Russia to suborn Ukrainian pols in preparation for annexation~
Youmare thinking too high of Yanukovich. Let alone he is about as much pro-Russian as Karzai is pro-American.
~On the other side of the ledger, we have no idea how many billions a year were spent by Russia to suborn Ukrainian pols in preparation for annexation~
It won’t be a game if there is only one player.
Karzai is, first and foremost, pro-Karzai. That he is corruption personified hasn't diminished his usefulness to the US, which consists of giving Pashtuns a sense that their interests are represented in the Afghan government even though most of the major players are non-Pashtun members of the anti-Pashtun Northern Alliance.
That is the case for Ukraine. And don’t underestimate a damage made for American interests by corrupt ‘pro-American’ regimes. Look at it long-term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.