Is it? What does it say?Interesting!
The Ukrainian people decided to fight. They chose this path. Had they not, they would have voiced their displeasure with their president's actions. After all that Ukraine has endured at the hand of Russian aggression, by and large, they still seem to want to be in this fight.The defensive alliance is turning Ukraine into pulp. Have some consideration for the people of Ukraine.It is like you (and Putin) refuse to understand what a defensive alliance is.
The path of peace is always preferred but at what price?
That you would bow your head and let your neighbor slip a yoke around your neck is your choice.
Vietnam said some nice stuff about the USA.Is it? What does it say?Interesting!
I ain't clicking on no random links.
Vietnam’s bamboo diplomacy: working both sides of the street.Vietnam said some nice stuff about the USA.Is it? What does it say?Interesting!
I ain't clicking on no random links.
You think you're in no danger from Russia. They haven't turned on you yet.India favors peace and not Putin or NATO. India has no danger from Russia and Modi is in firm control. To stop me from responding, do not debate with me.You only say that because you are in Putin's corner. As a Putin supporter I can certainly understand why you would think that any country wishing to be free of Russian Hitler's aggression is doing something wrong. To you NATO is just a bogeyman that is threatening your Dictator's control because you are a Putin supporter. You don't need to keep responding. It's pretty clear to everyone that you favor Putin and are against any nation that wishes to be free from Russian Hitler's control.
I was showing that we have a substantial economic interest in arming Ukraine even if we didn't care who prevailed. We can replace expended weapons for a far lower % of GDP than Russia can, thus anything even in the ballpark of an even exchange (say, ATACMS missile vs the SAMs required to shoot it down) leaves us in a better position vs Russia.What is this an argument for or against? I don’t understand why you said this. How is this an argument against it being a proxy war?Sure, but NATO also has far more money than Russia. And Russian weapons that get destroyed on the battlefield are weapons we won't need to defend against in the future. Not to mention that our spending is way overstated as a lot of what we have provided was nearing the end of it's service life and sooner or later would have been replaced anyway.Are any NATO troops dying in Ukraine? Are any NATO troops fighting in Ukraine? Are any NATO troops in Ukraine?Why do you deny that NATO is a combatant in Ukraine?
NATO money is dying in Ukraine. A lot of it. More NATO money is dying in Ukraine than Ukrainian money. Most Ukrainian military hardware is now NATO hardware
You buy long range SAMs when the threat is a few leakers. Against peer-level combatants they can be bled for less cost than the missiles.You buy even if you have the slightest need and if you have money.And why would you want the S-500? Long range SAMs simply mean your opponent must fly low.
Deterrence is a "threat" if you intend to attack. A burglar would care that we put in security bars. The rest of the people on our block wouldn't care.A supposed deterrent for some, threat for others.I wouldn't call any of those maneuvers and even if they were they're not a reason to attack. NATO is a deterrence, not a threat.
T.G.G. Moogly said: 'Apparently deterrence can be very threatening.'
Disagree. I would be surprised if any substantial number work, but I would be surprised if none worked unless they have something in them that will age into uselessness. (Think of Sum of All Fears where the bomb didn't work very well because a bunch of the tritium had decayed to helium-3. And, yes, I know his bomb design was bogus--he deliberately made it wrong. Doesn't mean decayed tritium in a boosted-fission design wouldn't be a problem, though.)That depends on whether any of the components of the Russian nuclear arsenal still work. Which is highly unlikely.What about New York and London?If Russia were at war with NATO, Moscow would be a pool of slowly cooling radioactive glass.
We helped them in the hope of averting a war. That doesn't make it a proxy war.Sure.... but it has ZERO impact on whether or not this is a proxy war. BTW, it was a proxy war right from the start. The moment Russia nabbed Crimea USA built up Ukrains defence for them. Which is why they, at all, survived Russias initial attack. It was all along Russia fighting USA, through Ukraine. Yes, Russia started the war. But that isn't relevant for whether we consider it a proxy war.
Yeah. Your politicians aren't able to make the hard choices of war. Or of adequately funding a military.If president Biden would anounce to the world that they are no longer going to support Ukraine, Zelensky would capitulate immediately. Then he would have nothing with which to stop Russia, and it would be pointless to drag out their misery. We all know it's true. Europe isn't suddenly grow a pair of balls. We're pathetic right now.
You have it exactly backwards. We are shipping the oldest stuff, the ones closest to being retired due to age. Russia doesn't get to see our best and since most of their shelf life is gone it doesn't really cost as much as the sticker price.Please, keep going with your silly arguments. I'm assuming you started with your strongest material, and they'll continuously get easier and easier to shoot down.
At least not for the last 100 years. Russia has an advantage over Europe in that Europe has never been a single state.Yeah. Your politicians aren't able to make the hard choices of war. Or of adequately funding a military.
And we focus too much on standardization.It could hardly be otherwise; NATO is obsessed (for obvious logistical reasons) with standardisation, and the US defence industry has leveraged that to become the major suppliers of hardware to all NATO member states.Much of the donated weapons to Ukraine from EU countries is American military hardware.
There are some big EU military hardware manufacturers, of course - but in those cases, the US is often a buyer of their products, for the exact same standardisation reasons. Typically these technologies fulfil niche roles where an EU manufacturer has a qualitative advantage over similar US products, or has established a near monopoly in NATO that has resisted US encroachment on their speciality.
It could happen with a working IFF system. The air defenses were trying to target a drone but who has the bigger signature, the drone or the helicopter??Criminy. IFF is as old as the hills. Can't the Russians do anything right?
Given the expected unreliability of the Russian missiles I doubt we would do a launch on warning. Launch on warning is about use-or-lose and I would expect most of our missiles to survive a first strike by Russia's current arsenal.The only situation in which the US launches nukes at Moscow is one in which Putin has either successfully detonated a nuke on the US or ally, or Russia's ICBMs are detected enroute to foreign targets.
In neither scenario will a radioactive hole in the shape of moscow will be embarrassing to the US. It doesn't matter whether those ICBMs are loaded with functional warheads or duds. Russia's provocative act will have justified it.
It is like you (and Putin) refuse to understand what a defensive alliance is.
And they seem to be doing a lot of self-bombing. I have seen it asserted that this is due to glide bomb kits coming off at launch, leaving the bomb itself to fall on whatever might happen to be below. (Both glide bombs and laser guided bombs are actually implemented as attachments to standard iron bombs. Which is how we were able to consider using laser guided concrete shapes in Desert Storm. Attach a laser guide package to a concrete replica of a bomb that has the right weight and ballistics but no boom. A very big hammer for tank-plinking in urban environments.)There are a number of amusing videos on the net of Russian missiles failing their launches with spectacular results.
The people he's made it clear he wants to genocide?The defensive alliance is turning Ukraine into pulp. Have some consideration for the people of Ukraine.It is like you (and Putin) refuse to understand what a defensive alliance is.