- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:37 pm to Tiger985
quote:
Thank God someone is finally calling for peace talks.
Hopefully it is sincere.
If you are referring to the Chinese, it is not a sincere plan. They called for exactly what I said they would, the end of all military help/arms sent into Ukraine. That would benefit Putin. The one thing that they included that might be positive is the respect for sovereignty of territory. This actually goes along with their stance regarding Taiwan. So sure they would point that out.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:39 pm to OleWar
quote:
None of this is happening, unless conducted directly by the US military, and even then, it would be a bloodbath
They key is long range weapons. The introduction of HIMARS virtually killed the Russian supply chain which allowed the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives. Russia has adapted and move supply depots out of range. The attacks the other night in depots in larger distances then HIMARS shows this is what Ukraine is now doing.
Kill supply lines and you deplete combat effectiveness and moral of the Russians on the front lines. Break those lines and you can make another offensive push.
The onus will be on Ukraine to achieve this however. And they like the Russians have taken heavy losses since the fall offensives. We shall see if the new western equipment and training will tilt the pendulum back in Ukraine's hands. Russia, IMO, only need to maintain the stalemate to win. They hold the captured land, and that can be used as a win for Moscow.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:40 pm to AU86
So what’s the money up to now? More than we gave to the afghan military in 20 years? More we gave to south Vietnam? How much are other countries putting up?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:42 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
quote:
who are the two nit wits
Marcon & Scholz.
Bingo. Right on time like I predicted. Two peas in a pod.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:42 pm to dgnx6
Trolling for political answer
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:47 pm to dgnx6
Government site
To date: (January article)
quote:
Of the $113 billion approved in 2022, about three-fifths ($67 billion) has been allocated toward defense needs and the remaining two-fifths ($46 billion) to nondefense concerns such as general Ukrainian government aid, economic support, and aid for refugee resettlement. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided cost estimates of the four funding packages at the time each was passed. In total, CBO estimated that $6.6 billion of the $113 billion would be spent in FY 2022 and another $37.7 billion in FY 2023. Furthermore, CBO estimated more than half of the approved funds would be spent by the end of FY 2024 and more than three-fourths by the end of FY 2026.
To date: (January article)
quote:
To date, the Biden Administration has sent Ukraine roughly $26 billion of direct military aid, mainly in the form of military hardware, training, and supplies
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:56 pm to tigeraddict
The HIMARS were key in forcing the Russians to place their ammunition, C2, and other logistics points further back, but the Russians have adapted.
I've travelled extensively through Crimea. Crossing the Perkekop isthmus, assuming you can push towards it will result in massive casualties. If I am the Russians and for some reason it appears I am going to lose it I would consider using chemical weapons or putting a tactical nuke on advancing forces.
Ukraine has no capacity to conduct an amphibious operation.
Even if you can fight and gain the steppe area of Northern Crimean, the prizes are the cities of Sevastopol, Simferopol and Kerch. You then need to cross the foothills of the Crimean Mountains, where your lines of communication would be vulnerable. Finally you have to take the most nationalistic of Russian cities I have ever visited. Those cities are not surrendering so you have to siege or assault them.
The Germans and Romanians were able to take Crimea with huge casualties in the midst of the Soviet route during World War II.
Finally to make it worth while, you will have to genocide almost the entire population if you want to keep it as part of a "democratic" Ukraine.
I've travelled extensively through Crimea. Crossing the Perkekop isthmus, assuming you can push towards it will result in massive casualties. If I am the Russians and for some reason it appears I am going to lose it I would consider using chemical weapons or putting a tactical nuke on advancing forces.
Ukraine has no capacity to conduct an amphibious operation.
Even if you can fight and gain the steppe area of Northern Crimean, the prizes are the cities of Sevastopol, Simferopol and Kerch. You then need to cross the foothills of the Crimean Mountains, where your lines of communication would be vulnerable. Finally you have to take the most nationalistic of Russian cities I have ever visited. Those cities are not surrendering so you have to siege or assault them.
The Germans and Romanians were able to take Crimea with huge casualties in the midst of the Soviet route during World War II.
Finally to make it worth while, you will have to genocide almost the entire population if you want to keep it as part of a "democratic" Ukraine.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:58 pm to dgnx6
quote:
So what’s the money up to now?
We "gave" $2 million in military aid to Ukraine yesterday. In reality, we awarded $2 million in contracts to American companies to produce weapons -- American companies that employ American workers.
Most of our assistance to Ukraine has been similar. If it wasn't direct contracts to American factories that employ American workers, it was old, largely outdated military equipment -- and then we have given contracts to American companies to produce new equipment.
So, almost all of the money has actually ended up spent on American weapons manufacturers. We have given Ukraine some actual cash, as their economy collapsed in the wake of the invasion, and they need to pay garbage collectors and schoolteachers -- and their soldiers. But the European Union has provided far, far more cash than the US.
I hope that answers your questions.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:01 pm to OleWar
quote:
I've travelled extensively through Crimea. Crossing the Perkekop isthmus, assuming you can push towards it will result in massive casualties
Not if Russian armored vehicles have no fuel and no ammo.
quote:
If I am the Russians and for some reason it appears I am going to lose it I would consider using chemical weapons or putting a tactical nuke on advancing forces.
Then you lose the war as a total economic blockade is imposed on you and NATO conventional forces strike all of your remaining installations across Russia. We've been over this.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:08 pm to OleWar
I have read many books regarding the operation in Crimea by the Germans.
You just described Manstein's operation in Crimea. He faced the same problems that you mentioned. It was a slugfest. IMO Manstein was a damn good general. He may have been the only one that could have pulled that off.
You just described Manstein's operation in Crimea. He faced the same problems that you mentioned. It was a slugfest. IMO Manstein was a damn good general. He may have been the only one that could have pulled that off.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:11 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
Not if Russian armored vehicles have no fuel and no ammo
In this fanciful scenario, the Ukrainians are on the offensive. They need more fuel and ammo, and especially people, which they are running out of. Even if the Russians withdrew there would be enough Russian Crimean militia to make an assault on Crimea costly.
You chicken shite war hawks are infuriating and stupid.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:12 pm to OleWar
quote:
Finally you have to take the most nationalistic of Russian cities I have ever visited. Those cities are not surrendering so you have to siege or assault them.
quote:crimea voted at over 50% to leave russia in 1991
Finally to make it worth while, you will have to genocide almost the entire population if you want to keep it as part of a "democratic" Ukraine.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:15 pm to GOP_Tiger
Let's review info from this NY Times article from January 18th.
U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea
The Biden administration is considering the argument that Kyiv needs the power to strike at the Ukrainian peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014.
And all of that was before we announced that we are giving Ukraine GLSDB and JDAM-ER, and before the UK announced that they were giving Storm Shadow.
Crimea is the target. It is the focus of Ukrainian war goals.
U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea
The Biden administration is considering the argument that Kyiv needs the power to strike at the Ukrainian peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014.
quote:
After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to concede that Kyiv may need the power to strike the Russian sanctuary, even if such a move increases the risk of escalation, according to several U.S. officials
quote:
But the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations. In addition, fears that the Kremlin would retaliate using a tactical nuclear weapon have dimmed, U.S. officials and experts said
quote:
Being able to rely on military bases in Crimea for staging was the primary reason Russian forces were able to seize land in southern Ukraine last year, a U.S. official said. Making those forces less capable is a key battlefield goal of the Ukrainians.
quote:
“Without Crimea, the whole thing falls apart,” said Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Ukraine during the Obama administration.
Contributing to the shifting thinking is a dampening of fears that targeting Crimea would drive Mr. Putin to use a tactical nuclear weapon, officials say.
And all of that was before we announced that we are giving Ukraine GLSDB and JDAM-ER, and before the UK announced that they were giving Storm Shadow.
Crimea is the target. It is the focus of Ukrainian war goals.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:18 pm to OleWar
quote:
You chicken shite war hawks are infuriating and stupid.
I am describing Ukrainian and NATO strategy. You obviously don't like it, but that's your problem, not mine.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:22 pm to OleWar
quote:
you will have to genocide almost the entire population if you want to keep it as part of a "democratic" Ukraine.
Nobody wants the Russians in Crimea, including the ethnic Russians that live there.
Not sure when you were there but after 2014 every manner of garbage human being from Russia proper went to homestead in Crimea, the ethnic Russians hate them. Most local actions against the Russian military in Crimea are carried out by ethnic Russians and/or Tatars.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:22 pm to WestCoastAg
They voted to get their status back as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and remain part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. They voted that way because they hated Yeltsin, the Russians there were hard core Soviet. They hated Yeltsin. After years of neglect by Ukraine and the rise of Putin, they became the most virulent Russian nationalists I have ever met. It was the only place in the former Soviet Union where I felt the discomfort of being an American, and I have traveled to dozens of cities in the former Soviet Union.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:26 pm to OleWar
quote:
OleWar
Ok Cold Warrior.
Got any good Kosovo stories when you guys almost saw some action?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:27 pm to GOP_Tiger
I knew Evelyn Farkas when she was the DASD under Obama. Stupid as frick just like the rest of the Democrat apparatchiks that are running this war.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:30 pm to dgnx6
quote:
So what’s the money up to now
Cash money? Roughly 26.4B
Total through Jan 15 76.8B
LINK
quote:
More than we gave to the afghan military in 20 years
Not even close
quote:
Since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.313 trillion on the war,
LINK
But on par with direct donations, but you have to bare in mind its a different situation when invading a country vs just donating to one
quote:
Between 2001 and 2020, disbursements to Afghanistan from these five funds totalled $72.7 billion in current dollars ($81.6 billion in constant 2019 dollars).
LINK
quote:
More we gave to south Vietnam
quote:
The Vietnam War cost $168 billion, or $1 trillion in today's dollars.20 That included $111 billion in military operations and $28.5 billion in aid to South Vietnam.
That's roughly 158B in today's dollars in direct aid. Again though we were directly involved in this conflict which is different than pure donations
LINK
quote:
How much are other countries putting up
While the US has contributed the most overall they are 5th in terms as a percentage of GDP
Page 2458 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News