Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[OutByEaster?]

11 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Us spend is £750 billion a year, f*** me pardon my French

And right out in the open, that's about $43 per week per American - kids, pensioners, the unemployed, everyone. 

War, (huh) what is it good for?

It's good for business.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/

Quote

 

U.S. Department of Defense

Contracts

 

Pick a date - any date you like.

[Adman]

I just can't imagine two megalomaniac dictators trusting each other, backing each other and getting on. The paranoia and small dick energy would ruin any meaningful partnership imo

Edited March 14, 2022 by Adman
Typo

[AJ]

7 hours ago, NoelVilla said:

A former professional hockey player Dimitri Kristich has joined the fight against Russia. Not seen any football players joining.

Not a football player, but a manager has left his cushy job to go back to Ukraine to fight for his country.

56 yo Yuriy Vernydub, manager of Sheriff Tiraspol. 

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[magnkarl]

5 hours ago, Genie said:

We’re about to find out!

Putin must have told China he was going to invade Ukraine. It was said several times it would happen after the Winter Olympics had concluded which was the request of China and it did play out as reported.

At the time China must have agreed to back Putin if required. Do they still feel the same now that Russia is being crippled with sanctions and Russia are botching the “special operation”? That’s the billion dollar question.

Or quadrillion ruble question.

[magnkarl]

In all honesty I don’t see China being for helping Russia. Their trade surplus comes solely from the West. We buy their plastic one use crap. Russia doesn’t have a market for anything, it’s a dying country, economy and society.

China also actually changes leaders now and then, it isn’t a kleptocracy, rather a state where the ruling party decides, not Xi. Essentially Xi will need to get support from the committee, a committee that’s spent the last 40 years to claw itself to the top of the world geo-political scene. I’m not sure if they’d risk their new found great power position because Putin had a fit. They’re much more calculated than Putin.

[magnkarl]

NATO aid now also taking down many planes. Just these 7 aircraft could be worth several billion. Billions and chips Putin doesn’t have.

[AJ]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

In all honesty I don’t see China being for helping Russia. Their trade surplus comes solely from the West. We buy their plastic one use crap. Russia doesn’t have a market for anything, it’s a dying country, economy and society.

China also actually changes leaders now and then, it isn’t a kleptocracy, rather a state where the ruling party decides, not Xi. Essentially Xi will need to get support from the committee, a committee that’s spent the last 40 years to claw itself to the top of the world geo-political scene. I’m not sure if they’d risk their new found great power position because Putin had a fit. They’re much more calculated than Putin.

Mate, I am going to have to disagree with you there.

China voted a few years ago to abolish term limits, and Jinping is now president for however long he wants. 

As for whatever they say publicly about the Ukraine war, I would take that with a hooooge pinch of salt.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Just these 7 aircraft could be worth several billion.

No, not in terms of pounds or dollars or Euros.  Hundreds of millions, yes. Billions no.

[villa4europe]

8 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

No they don't. The US budget dwarfs both. 750b per year is the US budget. China 178b and Russia 42b. The UK spend more than Russia. Yes they have military personnel numbers but NATO combined blitzes them both. 

I think the American general public spend something like $30bn a year on guns and ammo 

[magnkarl]

29 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, not in terms of pounds or dollars or Euros.  Hundreds of millions, yes. Billions no.

It was a follow up on the ruble joke from earlier.

[magnkarl]

Turkey has likely indirectly contributed to more officer deaths in the Russian army than Taliban did in their long war against USSR.

Probably also a good reason for why the Russian army is so unorganised.

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

NATO aid now also taking down many planes. Just these 7 aircraft could be worth several billion. Billions and chips Putin doesn’t have.

These guys aren’t exactly an impartial source. They’ve posted plenty of stuff that’s an outright fabrication (they claimed the ghost of Kyiv had shot down 49 planes) and quite a few other huge claims that were never evidenced - two massive transport planes full of paratroopers shot down in the early war, a spec ops raid destroying 30 helicopters about a week ago, etc.

Take what they say with a pinch of salt until videos or photos proving it appear.

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Probably also a good reason for why the Russian army is so unorganised.

It certainly helps but they'd be disorganaised with or without the dead officers.

There's the supply line issues which appears endemic, there's the non cohesiveness off competing interests between the branches of military service

An army lacking in moral and a desire to fight and more again.

It's not just one thing

[Panto_Villan]

I’m not too hopeful about the peace talks unfortunately. I just can’t see what terms Ukraine would accept that don’t result in Putin being utterly humiliated.

[Panto_Villan]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

And right out in the open, that's about £43 dollars per week per American - kids, pensioners, the unemployed, everyone. 

War, (huh) what is it good for?

It's good for business.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/

Pick a date - any date you like.

I do take the point you’re making here about the easy profits made by the military industrial complex in the US, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s *preparing* for war that is good business.

Actually fighting a major war is about the worst possible thing you can do for business, as both Ukraine and Russia are finding out!

The US military spending is a mind boggling amount but it’s also really hard to view in isolation because the alternative (spending little on your military) is only possible precisely because the Americans spend so much and other allied countries can basically freeload off it if they choose.

I’m not necessarily sure the world would be economically better off if America spent less on its military. We might well end up with more war rather than less. I think there’s certainly a good argument to say America gets good economic value from its total military spend. Although obviously totally impossible to prove either way.

[sidcow]

16 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I do take the point you’re making here about the easy profits made by the military industrial complex in the US, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s *preparing* for war that is good business.

Actually fighting a major war is about the worst possible thing you can do for business, as both Ukraine and Russia are finding out!

The US military spending is a mind boggling amount but it’s also really hard to view in isolation because the alternative (spending little on your military) is only possible precisely because the Americans spend so much and other allied countries can basically freeload off it if they choose.

I’m not necessarily sure the world would be economically better off if America spent less on its military. We might well end up with more war rather than less. I think there’s certainly a good argument to say America gets good economic value from its total military spend. Although obviously totally impossible to prove either way.

Yeah, I was looking up the world's armed forces strength after the comments earlier and USA stands out like a sore thumb in The West. 

Most countries with large armed forces are dodgy in one way or another.  India is also enormous and they seem a bit pro Russian too. 

USA genuinely is the free world's protector like it or lump it.  Without them The West would be seriously compromised. 

[The Fun Factory]

This war will massively increase defence spending in European countries. Something that the US have been pushing for years. In a ideal world USA would like to pivot most of their attention from  away from Europe and Africa to the pacifc rim. That is where they see the future. America is becoming increasingly more diverse population wise and the old connection to the motherland of Europe will fade away.

Edited March 14, 2022 by The Fun Factory

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

In all honesty I don’t see China being for helping Russia. Their trade surplus comes solely from the West. We buy their plastic one use crap. Russia doesn’t have a market for anything, it’s a dying country, economy and society.

China also actually changes leaders now and then, it isn’t a kleptocracy, rather a state where the ruling party decides, not Xi. Essentially Xi will need to get support from the committee, a committee that’s spent the last 40 years to claw itself to the top of the world geo-political scene. I’m not sure if they’d risk their new found great power position because Putin had a fit. They’re much more calculated than Putin.

This is not very well informed, sorry. 

Firstly, China absolutely does have a trade surplus with Russia. Russia is not an incredibly rich country, but it does have a population of nearly 150 million people, it's no big surprise that most of everything they buy is made in China same as it is for everyone else. 

Secondly, Xi has taken over the party apparatus and is ending the recent tradition of two-five-year-terms-and-then-you're-out/first-among-equals style committee government of the last two decades, and simply assuming the power to carry on. He is far, far more powerful than Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin, and any analysis based on continuity from pre-Xi times is mistaken. 

[StefanAVFC]

This is just farcical.