The US has already spent as much as they did in Afghanistan as it is.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
The US has already spent as much as they did in Afghanistan as it is.
why was it taken down? was it by the government or random civilians?Destroyed Russian T-72 placed in front of the Russian embassy, Berlin. The tank it was transferred to Germany with the help of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry and the Ukrainian National Museum of Military History. The Russian tank has been standing in the middle of the street for a week with a cannon pointed at the Russian embassy. On the tank is a Ukrainian flag and a NAFО dog.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/NTV3565DRVNBNBUA2PNNBXQ7QQ.jpg)
Let me remind you of a few facts:
1.
2. Donbass states were not recognized by Russia until February 2022.
3. Ukraine wanted to keep fighting until , then they signed Minsk 2.
4.
5. .
It is clear that the Minsk 2 treaty was designed not to be a lasting plan for peace but rather to buy Ukraine time to arm and radicalize. Based on these facts, let me propose an alternate model:
1. Ukraine would utterly and effortlessly crush LPR, DPR and invade Crimea.
2. Russia would not be ready for the intensity of the conflict, take too many losses, be too cowed by threats of NATO escalation, and give up these 'peripheral' territories.
3. End result: they want rapid and total Ukrainian victory that ends with them joining EU, NATO, and conquering LPR, DPR and Crimea.
Thus, the whole 'slow grinding' of Russian capability is only because they did not expect Russia to actually strike first.
If you meant rapid victory in this alternative model then I agree. I thought you were talking about the present war
Russia attacked first and disrupted the US plan, thus gaining the strategic and operational initiative. The rest is history, the West adapted, Russia slowed down.
So in the end, if present conditions remain in the future, its in the US national interest to prolong the war. Only China can disrupt this US calculation
The original plan for the US was rapid victory of Ukraine if Ukraine went on the offensive first. Since Russia took the initiative, they're now settling for the lower, less decisive goal of bleeding Russia. This is not what they prefer. They'd prefer to win fast and easy, but that is no longer possible.
They're salvaging the situation, but it seems they don't have a plan for strategic victory. They can't actually bleed Russia as hard as they want because the war time demographics are far worse for Ukraine - the war is taking place in Ukraine, so people are fleeing and their civil economy has collapsed. Inflation took a $1 trillion toll in EU.
If this war does indeed take 5 years, then it is still questionable as to who comes out on top. You need to calculate the marginal cost of the war going on per month and the sunk costs. I suspect that you'll find Russia isn't anywhere close to being bled out.
A prolong war is a losing war, in that a prolong war is a losing proposition.
The Americans spent $1 trillion in Afghanstan - to do what? So the Chinese can start mining some copper, under an agreement with the Taliban, the same people who the Americans invaded to overthrow for 9/11 (when the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, but no one objected because the Taliban were too much in those days).
The spent how much in Iraq? Don't know. Of course, the Chinese now own major interests in Iraqi oil fields, and just this week the Iraqi central bank said they will diversify into Yuan.
Some Americans in Washington DC support this war because they own defense stocks. Not that they care about the world or geopolitical situation. They just want to make money for themselves.
Some other poor slob can go die on the battlefield. Suckas!
I see the bleeding more from a national comprehensive power angle than simply monetary terms
War is a disaster for a country. Always has been. It affects all aspects of a country's development, I am sure you understand my point on this. Direct, indirect, and opportunity costs are way too big and too wide reaching.
The West suffers as well but they have huge economies and they can absorb a lot of damage (or hide it under the carpet). For Russia though, I think their situation is quite bleak from a NCP's perspective.
But they also know that if they suffer damage, and China doesn't, they're at a disadvantage in the main contest against China. That is why they want to stop the war - they know Russia has less to lose, they know that they can eventually grind it out to a Russian disadvantage - but cannot achieve decisive strategic victory against Russia. If they can't achieve strategic victory against Russia, then what's the point?
Everything they lose in Ukraine, causes them to be a little weaker against China, whether that be in direct military losses, economic losses, or opportunity losses such as funding MBTs and MLRS that are useless in a Westpac battle.
Merkel & Hollande pretty much admitted that was the case.
Yeah exactly.
My feeling is that the war is going badly enough, that the United States is demanding loyalty and unquestioned support from the plebs.
Whip up the anti-China hysteria, so no one will say anything about Ukraine. That gives them a free hand, and not to answer any questions about that war.
If the Americans come with tanks and air-power, that is still no guarantee the NATO side will win.
Russia has probably used just 5 hypersonic missiles in this conflict. They are saving them for NATO targets, inside Ukraine.
That is what everyone wants to see.
American planes in the theater. How the Russians will try to take them out, via integrated air defense and hypersonic bombardment of air bases.