Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-17-2024

(03-17-2024, 05:36 AM)GK3 Wrote:  It is very hard to figure out which news "fact" regarding Russian Petroleum problems is at least fairly accurate.  I believe Russia exports the largest amount of oil from facilities in the Black Sea which would put those facilities in range of Ukrainian drone attacks, but are also probably very well defended.

I agree that getting "facts" about what is exported and from where is difficult. I do think Russia exports as much as possible via pipeline. They do lack capacity to do this to China, but they are building it as fast as they can. Exporting raw crude does require loading facilities and tank storage. However, these facilities are nowhere near as complicated or fragile as a refinery. Russia must refine oil products for domestic use. I think there refineries are the main target of Ukraine. Having these assets out of use hurts the Russian people directly, and they will notice.

Quote:One report I saw claimed that when Russia started modernizing its oil business, they switched from home grown technology that that purchased from the West.  This now makes some fairly minor damage more significant due to difficulty in getting parts.  No idea if that theory has any basis in fact.

This is accurate, but most of that technology is distributed in oil fields which are by nature very unprofitable targets. Knocking out one oil well is a fly speck. Hitting pipelines (which also use imported parts) from the fields to the oil export terminals is more profitable, although still a pretty distributed target. IMO sabotage is a better way to go than drones on these targets. The pipelines great extent makes them vulnerable to sabotage and sabotage can have a much larger "bang" than a single drone can. The drone has to fly a long way and can only carry a relatively small warhead.

Quote: Another report I saw contends that we are buying billions of dollars of refined products from India, made from Russian Oil.  Why would we provide support for their oil when we have all these sanctions in place?  Break enough small parts and you can probably cause much bigger problems.

US firms do it because it makes money. It is also a problematic issue because when the oil is refined it loses it's identity. It may be mixed with oil from all over the world. Attempting to stop this trade by sanctioning India is a non-starter, so US firms can't be prohibited from buying all refined products made in India. It is also probable that lots of plastic parts made in India and China contain molecules that originated in Russia. Nobody believes that trade can be controlled. The only hope is that India can be persuaded not to buy Russian oil, China being a "lost cause". Ukrainian AMCs sinking a few tankers in the IO might just make that happen :-).

Quote:Sweden does bring a fairly modern and capable Military Industrial Complex to NATO.  I would hope the NATO nations would be willing to adopt common weapons, calibers, aircraft and armored vehicles.  Seems sort of silly for each country to insist on their own types.  It would certainly complicate resupply if war actually comes to NATO.

It does make NATO logistics more complicated. However, the common weapons etc. is never, ever, under any circumstances going to happen. There are some very good reasons for this (along with some less good reasons for this). The first is that each countries forces are not solely (or even mainly) dedicated to NATO. They are dedicated to protecting each individual country, and that is never going to change. Each country may make different decisions about which weapons fit them "best".

Germany (for example) will not use US discarding sabot tank ammunition (even though we use basically a copy of their main gun) because they refuse to use depleted uranium. The US thinks (rightly IMO) that is just stupid and wants to use it. We also use it in lower caliber weapons, which the Europeans do not. The British OTOH insist on using rifled tank guns because they believe that tanks need to fire "conventional" HE pretty often and smooth-bores don't do that as well. Different opinions for different countries. Even "NATO standard" 155 mm artillery ammunition isn't. Each country makes different variants, some of which are certified for M777s and some of which are not. They make them because they want them, and after all, it is "their" army. 

Arguably, the eurofighter Typhoon needn't exist. Like most development programs, when it first came out, it wasn't a very good jet. It was designed by a committee that insisted in incorporating the biases of all the participants :-). Enough "upgrades" have been added that it now is at least competitive, but why do it at all? Because the countries involved wanted to preserve their military-industrial base. The market in single nations wasn't big enough to support the NRE necessary to build a "clean sheet" fighter, so a consortium was necessary. The French of course maintained their "side hustle" at Dassault. The Gryphon was built to meet Swedish needs, and as a "neutral" nation they couldn't rely on outside suppliers. Of course the Gryphon uses LOTS of imported parts, especially electronics, but politically it is "100% Swedish". It is a nice jet but commercially not viable. Big time subsides. The trajectory and travails of Kockums is a story in itself. I could go on, but you get the idea I am sure :-).

This isn't all bad. Having different approaches requires your opponent to be ready for all of them. Distributing production across a wide geographic area makes NATO more resilient. It also prevents everyone from adopting the same "bad" weapon choice  and increases the pressure to innovate. The trend toward large multi-national  corporations doing most of the defense work could eventually lead to less parochialism. After all, BAE isn't really "British" anymore. Fincanterri owns Marinette Marine and is building US Constellation class frigates in Wisconsin. This trend has it's own problems, but some of the effects may be good.

Quote:One big benefit that Ukraine accrues from its expanding drone operations is that they can generate significant attacks across a wide geographic area and targets without putting boots on the ground and incurring more manpower losses. If they can do enough damage to inhibit Russian offensive operations they benefit greatly. It should also start to spread out the Russian defenses possibly making it easier to penetrate.  Time will tell.

IMO you are correct. Technology, if it works, can save lots of lives. The US relies on that. Ukraine realizes that the Russians will always outnumber them. If they are going to win, they need force multipliers.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 03-19-2024

The FY '24 budgeting/funding legislation is moving along predictably, and predictably slowly.  Everything should be wrapped up by this weekend, only ~6 months late.  May as well take up a CR soon since everyone knows that a FY '25 budget won't pass at least until after the election.  Anyway, the relevance of that mess to Ukraine is that the House can finally take up an aid supplemental starting next Monday.  Any bets on how long it will take before Biden signs something?  The clock is ticking for the Ukrainian people...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-20-2024

(03-19-2024, 10:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The FY '24 budgeting/funding legislation is moving along predictably, and predictably slowly.  Everything should be wrapped up by this weekend, only ~6 months late.  May as well take up a CR soon since everyone knows that a FY '25 budget won't pass at least until after the election.  Anyway, the relevance of that mess to Ukraine is that the House can finally take up an aid supplemental starting next Monday.  Any bets on how long it will take before Biden signs something?  The clock is ticking for the Ukrainian people...

I don't get the continued aggressive statements attributed to Macron and the head of the French Army. What audience are they playing to and for what reason.  I thought the issue would die. Maybe he really believes Putin has to be stopped in Ukraine. I don't see how any rational leader can expect to just commit ground forces and not commit their air force too. 20,000 men isn't going to change the war all that much if it there is no other support.

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 03-20-2024

Macron admits that the statements attributed to him are bluster. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/macron-differences-scholz-over-ukraine-082855626.html

Russia claims, without evidence, that France is sending 2000 troops (not 20k) for training and advising. 

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ally-sixty-thousand-soldiers-ukraine-general-france-macron-1881216

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 03-20-2024

(03-20-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024, 10:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The FY '24 budgeting/funding legislation is moving along predictably, and predictably slowly.  Everything should be wrapped up by this weekend, only ~6 months late.  May as well take up a CR soon since everyone knows that a FY '25 budget won't pass at least until after the election.  Anyway, the relevance of that mess to Ukraine is that the House can finally take up an aid supplemental starting next Monday.  Any bets on how long it will take before Biden signs something?  The clock is ticking for the Ukrainian people...

I don't get the continued aggressive statements attributed to Macron and the head of the French Army. What audience are they playing to and for what reason.  I thought the issue would die. Maybe he really believes Putin has to be stopped in Ukraine. I don't see how any rational leader can expect to just commit ground forces and not commit their air force too. 20,000 men isn't going to change the war all that much if it there is no other support.

Perhaps Macron is simply tired of repeated nuclear weapon use threats from Putin and his senior officials. Maybe Macron wants to be viewed as Europe's military leader. Perhaps Macron is reversing his October, '22 position in which he came under fire for stating (however unclearly) that France wouldn't use nuclear weapons if Putin used nukes in Ukraine:
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-emmanuel-macron-nuclear-attack-russia-ukraine/

Five days ago, in response to Putin's comment "weapons are meant to be used" Macron reversed his stance:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13201319/French-president-Emmanuel-Macron-declares-nuclear-power-ready-response-Putins-threats-using-nukes-Kremlin-says-France-signalled-deeper-involvement-Ukraine.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-20-2024

(03-20-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024, 10:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The FY '24 budgeting/funding legislation is moving along predictably, and predictably slowly.  Everything should be wrapped up by this weekend, only ~6 months late.  May as well take up a CR soon since everyone knows that a FY '25 budget won't pass at least until after the election.  Anyway, the relevance of that mess to Ukraine is that the House can finally take up an aid supplemental starting next Monday.  Any bets on how long it will take before Biden signs something?  The clock is ticking for the Ukrainian people...

I don't get the continued aggressive statements attributed to Macron and the head of the French Army. What audience are they playing to and for what reason.  I thought the issue would die. Maybe he really believes Putin has to be stopped in Ukraine. I don't see how any rational leader can expect to just commit ground forces and not commit their air force too. 20,000 men isn't going to change the war all that much if it there is no other support.

More importantly there is ZERO support among French voters to become engaged in a ground war in Ukraine, at least as things stand today. Macron would have absolutely no public support for such an action. I do believe it is prudent for all NATO governments to point out to the public that the situation may arise where either NATO itself and/or individual nations have to involve themselves more directly in the war in Ukraine. It could happen, and people need to be aware of that fact. It gives the public the opportunity to decide where it stands before a crisis forces hasty and unprepared decisions. It also would send the important message to Putin (and Russia) that while NATO indeed has to be concerned about "what Russia will do", Russia also must be concerned about what NATO will do. Putin doesn't have a "free pass" to do whatever he wants, and he needs to know that. Miscalculations can lead to events nobody intended.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-20-2024

(03-20-2024, 08:08 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-20-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024, 10:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The FY '24 budgeting/funding legislation is moving along predictably, and predictably slowly.  Everything should be wrapped up by this weekend, only ~6 months late.  May as well take up a CR soon since everyone knows that a FY '25 budget won't pass at least until after the election.  Anyway, the relevance of that mess to Ukraine is that the House can finally take up an aid supplemental starting next Monday.  Any bets on how long it will take before Biden signs something?  The clock is ticking for the Ukrainian people...

I don't get the continued aggressive statements attributed to Macron and the head of the French Army. What audience are they playing to and for what reason.  I thought the issue would die. Maybe he really believes Putin has to be stopped in Ukraine. I don't see how any rational leader can expect to just commit ground forces and not commit their air force too. 20,000 men isn't going to change the war all that much if it there is no other support.

More importantly there is ZERO support among French voters to become engaged in a ground war in Ukraine, at least as things stand today. Macron would have absolutely no public support for such an action. I do believe it is prudent for all NATO governments to point out to the public that the situation may arise where either NATO itself and/or individual nations have to involve themselves more directly in the war in Ukraine. It could happen, and people need to be aware of that fact. It gives the public the opportunity to decide where it stands before a crisis forces hasty and unprepared decisions. It also would send the important message to Putin (and Russia) that while NATO indeed has to be concerned about "what Russia will do", Russia also must be concerned about what NATO will do. Putin doesn't have a "free pass" to do whatever he wants, and he needs to know that. Miscalculations can lead to events nobody intended.

Exactly, that was my question, why is he doing this?  Why proceed contrary to the desires of nearly 100 percent of your population. I don't think he is an idiot.  It may be just as you say, that he is trying to let the people know that this may become necessary.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 03-20-2024

Alex, I'll take bluster for 1,000 please.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-20-2024

(03-20-2024, 08:08 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-20-2024, 07:08 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024, 10:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The FY '24 budgeting/funding legislation is moving along predictably, and predictably slowly.  Everything should be wrapped up by this weekend, only ~6 months late.  May as well take up a CR soon since everyone knows that a FY '25 budget won't pass at least until after the election.  Anyway, the relevance of that mess to Ukraine is that the House can finally take up an aid supplemental starting next Monday.  Any bets on how long it will take before Biden signs something?  The clock is ticking for the Ukrainian people...

I don't get the continued aggressive statements attributed to Macron and the head of the French Army. What audience are they playing to and for what reason.  I thought the issue would die. Maybe he really believes Putin has to be stopped in Ukraine. I don't see how any rational leader can expect to just commit ground forces and not commit their air force too. 20,000 men isn't going to change the war all that much if it there is no other support.

More importantly there is ZERO support among French voters to become engaged in a ground war in Ukraine, at least as things stand today. Macron would have absolutely no public support for such an action. I do believe it is prudent for all NATO governments to point out to the public that the situation may arise where either NATO itself and/or individual nations have to involve themselves more directly in the war in Ukraine. It could happen, and people need to be aware of that fact. It gives the public the opportunity to decide where it stands before a crisis forces hasty and unprepared decisions. It also would send the important message to Putin (and Russia) that while NATO indeed has to be concerned about "what Russia will do", Russia also must be concerned about what NATO will do. Putin doesn't have a "free pass" to do whatever he wants, and he needs to know that. Miscalculations can lead to events nobody intended.

Exactly, that was my question, why is he doing this?  Why proceed contrary to the desires of nearly 100 percent of your population. I don't think he is an idiot.  It may be just as you say, that he is trying to let the people know that this may become necessary.

The following Forbes article is of interest.  If true, or reasonably true, the situation may be improving a bit in Ukraine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/18/with-millions-of-fresh-artillery-shells-arriving-the-ukrainians-are-devising-new-tactics-to-kill-more-russians-faster/?sh=2104aa8e543d

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-22-2024

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1771235426474299471?s=20

Not directly Ukraine related, but you wonder whether if Russia's attention had not been focused on pointless war invading a neighbor that posed no threat whether they might have been able to thwart this terrorist attack... that the US warned them about.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-22-2024

(03-22-2024, 05:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://x.com/RALee85/status/1771235426474299471?s=20

Not directly Ukraine related, but you wonder whether if Russia's attention had not been focused on pointless war invading a neighbor that posed no threat whether they might have been able to thwart this terrorist attack... that the US warned them about.

BC

Probably they discount anything we say as either a "provocation" or a political ploy. That said, Russia has never been particularly good at responding rapidly to a novel threat. Once they realize ISIS is actually a problem for them too, they will utilize massive overkill against it, probably making more new terrorists than they eliminate. Given how much labor they import from the 'stans, there are plenty of ready bodies to perform terrorist actions if provoked (or maybe if just "radicalized"). Chechnya is still sitting their like a dormant volcano ready to erupt again as well. Not all "sweetness and light" in the Russian Federation these days.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 03-23-2024

Very sad when anyone is killed by violence. Civilians especially. 

How many multiples of 60 civilians has Russia killed in this war?

I also don’t like the prospect of the current set of wars growing larger.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-23-2024

(03-23-2024, 01:27 AM)M T Wrote:  I also don’t like the prospect of the current set of wars growing larger.

I would guess that virtually all of the Cardboard membership shares this opinion (perhaps that is a first :-). The unfortunate fact is that every one of the existing "wars" can easily turn into something much bigger. Eventually somebody will miscalculate and elicit a response that they did not expect. Most of us undoubtedly worry about Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, with Iran, the Houthis and Hezbollah as close seconds. However, all the "wars" going on in Africa might be equally dangerous (if not as public). There are many opportunities there for the Russian Federation and NATO members to find themselves in direct military conflict. What grows from that could be as dangerous as the cases we are most worried about, at least partially because these conflicts don't get the "quality" attention that prevents miscalculation/overreaction. Türkiye, the Kurds, Syria and Iraq are also in conflict, with Iran watching closely (they also have a Kurdish minority, although a very small one). Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan are also in a bit of a "mini-conflict" that seems to be getting worse as time goes on. China is using this as an excuse to form an alliance with  Afghanistan. ISIS is blowing random people up just to make it more "interesting". Plenty of places available for things to go pear-shaped.

Edit: I forgot about the Russian Federation and Georgia. Putin may be too busy in Ukraine to do anything there and Georgia might decide to take advantage of that and get their "lost provinces" back. Not a "war" at present, but certainly a place where one could start.

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 03-23-2024

From a professional worrier, this may be a little excessive. There’s plenty of reason to think that the world is less safe today than it was 25 years ago, but I don’t think it’s good for people outside active military, diplomacy, or government to worry at this level about stuff that might go wrong.

---

RE: TrumpCard - Goose - 03-23-2024

(03-23-2024, 09:58 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  From a professional worrier, this may be a little excessive. There’s plenty of reason to think that the world is less safe today than it was 25 years ago, but I don’t think it’s good for people outside active military, diplomacy, or government to worry at this level about stuff that might go wrong.

If you define "worry" as losing sleep at night because of anxiety about the "world situation", I agree with you. However, if you mean "worry" in the sense of being as informed as is reasonably possible about the (unfortunately many) areas of conflict in the world, I do indeed think that such "worry" is beneficial for all citizens. The public frequently has to make political judgements (like what candidates and policies to support). Some of these judgements often happen unexpectedly when an unexpected "crisis" pops up and our government is choosing how to respond. If you at least know where on earth the countries involved actually are and what some of the issues and risks are,  you can make better decisions about what "we" decide to do and possibly influence these decisions.

---

RE: TrumpCard - lex24 - 03-23-2024

(03-23-2024, 11:24 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-23-2024, 09:58 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  From a professional worrier, this may be a little excessive. There’s plenty of reason to think that the world is less safe today than it was 25 years ago, but I don’t think it’s good for people outside active military, diplomacy, or government to worry at this level about stuff that might go wrong.

If you define "worry" as losing sleep at night because of anxiety about the "world situation", I agree with you. However, if you mean "worry" in the sense of being as informed as is reasonably possible about the (unfortunately many) areas of conflict in the world, I do indeed think that such "worry" is beneficial for all citizens. The public frequently has to make political judgements (like what candidates and policies to support). Some of these judgements often happen unexpectedly when an unexpected "crisis" pops up and our government is choosing how to respond. If you at least know where on earth the countries involved actually are and what some of the issues and risks are,  you can make better decisions about what "we" decide to do and possibly influence these decisions.

Mods - if this spill into politics please tell me, I’ll delete.

Goose,

Generally agree.  Problem is we have become so ideologically segregated that except in a few states, results for Pres, Senate, House are preordained. Add to that fact that the internet allows people to immerse themselves in “news” etc that feeds their confirmation bias and  being “informed” has something of a different meaning.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-23-2024

(03-22-2024, 09:01 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-22-2024, 05:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://x.com/RALee85/status/1771235426474299471?s=20

Not directly Ukraine related, but you wonder whether if Russia's attention had not been focused on pointless war invading a neighbor that posed no threat whether they might have been able to thwart this terrorist attack... that the US warned them about.

BC

Probably they discount anything we say as either a "provocation" or a political ploy. That said, Russia has never been particularly good at responding rapidly to a novel threat. Once they realize ISIS is actually a problem for them too, they will utilize massive overkill against it, probably making more new terrorists than they eliminate. Given how much labor they import from the 'stans, there are plenty of ready bodies to perform terrorist actions if provoked (or maybe if just "radicalized"). Chechnya is still sitting their like a dormant volcano ready to erupt again as well. Not all "sweetness and light" in the Russian Federation these days.

Has Russia in its history ever achieved a period of "sweetness and light' that wasn't achieved with the boot of a dictator on the necks of the populace?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-23-2024

(03-23-2024, 03:04 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(03-22-2024, 09:01 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-22-2024, 05:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://x.com/RALee85/status/1771235426474299471?s=20

Not directly Ukraine related, but you wonder whether if Russia's attention had not been focused on pointless war invading a neighbor that posed no threat whether they might have been able to thwart this terrorist attack... that the US warned them about.

BC

Probably they discount anything we say as either a "provocation" or a political ploy. That said, Russia has never been particularly good at responding rapidly to a novel threat. Once they realize ISIS is actually a problem for them too, they will utilize massive overkill against it, probably making more new terrorists than they eliminate. Given how much labor they import from the 'stans, there are plenty of ready bodies to perform terrorist actions if provoked (or maybe if just "radicalized"). Chechnya is still sitting their like a dormant volcano ready to erupt again as well. Not all "sweetness and light" in the Russian Federation these days.

Has Russia in its history ever achieved a period of "sweetness and light' that wasn't achieved with the boot of a dictator on the necks of the populace?

Not that I am aware of. It was pretty much Tsars to General Secretaries of the CCP to Putin. However, it is true that internal security (and repression) varied considerably by time and place. Internal disorder did break out, and sometimes had to be appeased. The few years of ostensible "democracy" were rendered hopeless by the necessity to clean up the existing messes in a population that trusted nobody.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-23-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/appalling-moscow-terror-attack-blow-183029999.html

Relevant to the current Russian situation. It also notes that apparently Putin did dismiss western intelligence reports about pending terrorist attacks as "provocations". Some things are, unfortunately, predictable.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 03-23-2024

(03-23-2024, 08:47 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/appalling-moscow-terror-attack-blow-183029999.html

Relevant to the current Russian situation. It also notes that apparently Putin did dismiss western intelligence reports about pending terrorist attacks as "provocations". Some things are, unfortunately, predictable.

Sure, the reports were publicly dismissed, but were they dismissed in actuality?  Would we (the public) know if Russia was working hard behind the scenes investigating based on the American reports?  True, Russia didn't shut down all public events, but that's rarely been done in the US.

---