Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
Once again, credible arguments get a fair hearing. Nonsense gets a fair hearing a few times but people get frustrated.
There are glaringly obvious pessimistic arguments that are undeniable, but for some reasons the Tankies don't employ those.
Who/what are “the Tankies”..?There are glaringly obvious pessimistic arguments that are undeniable, but for some reasons the Tankies don't employ those.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Once again, credible arguments get a fair hearing. Nonsense gets a fair hearing a few times but people get frustrated.
There are glaringly obvious pessimistic arguments that are undeniable, but for some reasons the Tankies don't employ those.
Who/what are “the Tankies”..?There are glaringly obvious pessimistic arguments that are undeniable, but for some reasons the Tankies don't employ those.
WindyCommon said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Once again, credible arguments get a fair hearing. Nonsense gets a fair hearing a few times but people get frustrated.
There are glaringly obvious pessimistic arguments that are undeniable, but for some reasons the Tankies don't employ those.
Who/what are “the Tankies”..?There are glaringly obvious pessimistic arguments that are undeniable, but for some reasons the Tankies don't employ those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Ukrainain soldier reloading the magazine on a P2000 in flip flops:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vqj9v5/j...
Carries 60 rounds apparently, which based on this means you can fire them all in 6 minutes:
So if Ukraine currently has 12 (with 6 more on the way), that's 720 155mm rounds in 6 minutes with an accuracy, depending on ammo, of 1m at 47 km away.
A shame the Bundeswehr aren't sending all 100 odd they have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vqj9v5/j...
Carries 60 rounds apparently, which based on this means you can fire them all in 6 minutes:
So if Ukraine currently has 12 (with 6 more on the way), that's 720 155mm rounds in 6 minutes with an accuracy, depending on ammo, of 1m at 47 km away.
A shame the Bundeswehr aren't sending all 100 odd they have.
sisu said:
Cheib said:
The logistics for keeping these MLRS systems supplied with ammunition are massive. They obviously have to come in via land….I think I read that time they fire a HIMARS its a 2.5 ton load that has to be delivered. You are probably talking about 100 tons plus of ammunition a day to keep these systems firing….and that could probably be much more. That’s 100 tons that has to be delivered to the Ukranian border and then transported presumably via road for several hundred miles.
The logistics required to supply the Ukranian Army must be absolutely incredible.
You can see why they “only” have four MLRS.
100t needs 4 or 5 HGVs to move this. This is not crazy amounts given what is moved by Trucks in a normal day. It might sound alot, but consider that your average Dover Calais Ferry can takes 110 freight vehicles and this is done 50 times a day. Just through one port. But Ukraine can also use rail and multiple routes. This is not D-Day levels of equipment that you would pick up.The logistics required to supply the Ukranian Army must be absolutely incredible.
You can see why they “only” have four MLRS.
Tescos have 1400 trucks and 4000 trailers. Eddie Stobart have 2000 trucks and 3500 trailers to put this into perspective.
Yes it's maybe not a lot in terms of lorry loads but that's in addition to all the food, fuel, ammunition, medial equipment and armaments being shipped daily. And then, of course, your average HGV can't deliver to the middle of hilly terrain off road so there's a lot of logistics.
isaldiri said:
HM-2 said:
No, you didn't.
At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
Well in my opinion I did, you merely refused to consider anything I said. At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
I've pointed out I don't believe it will necessarily continue to be in US rational self interest to have the conflict continue at current levels precisely because Russia has not not proven to be a major strategic threat given their very clear lack of capability as shown by not being able to easily overrun a weaker poorer neighbour. Given Russia isn't say Iran or North Korea that one can slap down sanctions without any care of the impact on the rest of the world (mainly commodities), the benefit of attempting to curtail Russian power isn't entirely clear given the disruptions and potential consequences involved especially given the way the conflict is developing into an extended attritional battle.
I have also provided more than a couple of examples where the US has been entirely happy to stand by ignoring fairly egregious things occur so yes I haven't trawled through recent history for the US getting bored but there also hasn't been an example where the non direct costs of intervention were as considerable. Although your default answer to this is I am clueless about self interest or whataboutism, it's simply that I disagree with your certainty that that supposed self interest will last as the various impacts of the war start to trickle through in a more major way over an extended period of time to the public (and at this point I'm probably going to be accused of tediously repeating myself so there's only so many ways one can reply to a multitude of outraged posts that are insistent that the US is sure to stay the course to punish the evil Russians).
As I said earlier, it's been clear that we aren't going to get much reasonable discussion so I'm quite happy to await your next reply to this but subsequently drop this as whoozit had already pointed out yesterday.
I also doubt that many in Washington are thinking that the Russian army has done worse than expected so the Russians will go away and hide for the next 20 or 30 years.
That said, there is obviously a question of how long it goes on for. I imagine it will be fairly clear how things are going to pan out at least before the end of this year and I can't see the US and others (including the UK) dropping their support in that timeframe. A long drawn out more-or-less stalemate stretching into years might be another matter but, even then, giving Ukraine enough support to keep the Russian army occupied might well still seem like a good deal.
isaldiri said:
HM-2 said:
No, you didn't.
At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
Well in my opinion I did, you merely refused to consider anything I said. At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
I've pointed out I don't believe it will necessarily continue to be in US rational self interest to have the conflict continue at current levels precisely because Russia has not not proven to be a major strategic threat given their very clear lack of capability as shown by not being able to easily overrun a weaker poorer neighbour. Given Russia isn't say Iran or North Korea that one can slap down sanctions without any care of the impact on the rest of the world (mainly commodities), the benefit of attempting to curtail Russian power isn't entirely clear given the disruptions and potential consequences involved especially given the way the conflict is developing into an extended attritional battle.
I have also provided more than a couple of examples where the US has been entirely happy to stand by ignoring fairly egregious things occur so yes I haven't trawled through recent history for the US getting bored but there also hasn't been an example where the non direct costs of intervention were as considerable. Although your default answer to this is I am clueless about self interest or whataboutism, it's simply that I disagree with your certainty that that supposed self interest will last as the various impacts of the war start to trickle through in a more major way over an extended period of time to the public (and at this point I'm probably going to be accused of tediously repeating myself so there's only so many ways one can reply to a multitude of outraged posts that are insistent that the US is sure to stay the course to punish the evil Russians).
As I said earlier, it's been clear that we aren't going to get much reasonable discussion so I'm quite happy to await your next reply to this but subsequently drop this as whoozit had already pointed out yesterday.
I also doubt that many in Washington are thinking that the Russian army has done worse than expected so the Russians will go away and hide for the next 20 or 30 years.
That said, there is obviously a question of how long it goes on for. I imagine it will be fairly clear how things are going to pan out at least before the end of this year and I can't see the US and others (including the UK) dropping their support in that timeframe. A long drawn out more-or-less stalemate stretching into years might be another matter but, even then, giving Ukraine enough support to keep the Russian army occupied might well still seem like a good deal.
isaldiri said:
HM-2 said:
No, you didn't.
At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
Well in my opinion I did, you merely refused to consider anything I said. At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
I've pointed out I don't believe it will necessarily continue to be in US rational self interest to have the conflict continue at current levels precisely because Russia has not not proven to be a major strategic threat given their very clear lack of capability as shown by not being able to easily overrun a weaker poorer neighbour. Given Russia isn't say Iran or North Korea that one can slap down sanctions without any care of the impact on the rest of the world (mainly commodities), the benefit of attempting to curtail Russian power isn't entirely clear given the disruptions and potential consequences involved especially given the way the conflict is developing into an extended attritional battle.
I have also provided more than a couple of examples where the US has been entirely happy to stand by ignoring fairly egregious things occur so yes I haven't trawled through recent history for the US getting bored but there also hasn't been an example where the non direct costs of intervention were as considerable. Although your default answer to this is I am clueless about self interest or whataboutism, it's simply that I disagree with your certainty that that supposed self interest will last as the various impacts of the war start to trickle through in a more major way over an extended period of time to the public (and at this point I'm probably going to be accused of tediously repeating myself so there's only so many ways one can reply to a multitude of outraged posts that are insistent that the US is sure to stay the course to punish the evil Russians).
As I said earlier, it's been clear that we aren't going to get much reasonable discussion so I'm quite happy to await your next reply to this but subsequently drop this as whoozit had already pointed out yesterday.
I also doubt that many in Washington are thinking that the Russian army has done worse than expected so the Russians will go away and hide for the next 20 or 30 years.
That said, there is obviously a question of how long it goes on for. I imagine it will be fairly clear how things are going to pan out at least before the end of this year and I can't see the US and others (including the UK) dropping their support in that timeframe. A long drawn out more-or-less stalemate stretching into years might be another matter but, even then, giving Ukraine enough support to keep the Russian army occupied might well still seem like a good deal.
isaldiri said:
HM-2 said:
No, you didn't.
At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
Well in my opinion I did, you merely refused to consider anything I said. At no point have you addressed the simple reason "why" the West are intervening in Ukraine - that it's in their rational self interest to see Russia's power and strategic influence curtailed, and if they can accomplish it without any western lives lost for only a few billion dollars then it's probably the best value geopolitical decision they'll have made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At no point have you been able to provide a single analogous example where the US has "got bored" of providing material support to a party on a conflict of this nature.
There's about half a dozen more, but let's address those once those two very simple ones first.
I've pointed out I don't believe it will necessarily continue to be in US rational self interest to have the conflict continue at current levels precisely because Russia has not not proven to be a major strategic threat given their very clear lack of capability as shown by not being able to easily overrun a weaker poorer neighbour. Given Russia isn't say Iran or North Korea that one can slap down sanctions without any care of the impact on the rest of the world (mainly commodities), the benefit of attempting to curtail Russian power isn't entirely clear given the disruptions and potential consequences involved especially given the way the conflict is developing into an extended attritional battle.
I have also provided more than a couple of examples where the US has been entirely happy to stand by ignoring fairly egregious things occur so yes I haven't trawled through recent history for the US getting bored but there also hasn't been an example where the non direct costs of intervention were as considerable. Although your default answer to this is I am clueless about self interest or whataboutism, it's simply that I disagree with your certainty that that supposed self interest will last as the various impacts of the war start to trickle through in a more major way over an extended period of time to the public (and at this point I'm probably going to be accused of tediously repeating myself so there's only so many ways one can reply to a multitude of outraged posts that are insistent that the US is sure to stay the course to punish the evil Russians).
As I said earlier, it's been clear that we aren't going to get much reasonable discussion so I'm quite happy to await your next reply to this but subsequently drop this as whoozit had already pointed out yesterday.
I also doubt that many in Washington are thinking that the Russian army has done worse than expected so the Russians will go away and hide for the next 20 or 30 years.
That said, there is obviously a question of how long it goes on for. I imagine it will be fairly clear how things are going to pan out at least before the end of this year and I can't see the US and others (including the UK) dropping their support in that timeframe. A long drawn out more-or-less stalemate stretching into years might be another matter but, even then, giving Ukraine enough support to keep the Russian army occupied might well still seem like a good deal.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff