Who'd Have Thought (back in 1984)?

[LoneCollector1987]

After reading your comments regarding Germany - sorry, but I am laughing.

Long ago I wrote a satire exactly about that and as I dont know if this will derail this thread I will post the relevant part if you agree.

And to the war: (and yes, I am the pessimist)

In regard to war you need two things: manpower and willpower.
The West has neither.

(I apologize for the cold language)

Compare - for instance - 1800 to today.
Back then every country had a childfactor of 4 or more (4 children born per family. And you need 2,1 to keep the number of population)
And then the countries could go to war, lose a few tenthousand or more (Napoleon anybody with about 800.000 death in Russia alone on both sides combined) and still have a population growth.

Today any NATO country has a childfactor of 1,5 or worse. So, losing people is bad, because we have no replacement, no security margin. We are barebones.
Or does anybody think that - if we enter the war - we will have no casualties?

Willpower:
We dont have it.
Remember Syria? One red line after another. Not one politician willing to pull the trigger. Just imagine that after having crossed the line of using a chemical weapon Assad would have been given a wake up call by a nuclear weapon detonated close (BUT far enough away to cause NO damage!!) to the coast of Syria.

And look at the state our weaponsindustry is in. According to a news in todays msn (based upon a report in the NZZ) even if Germany would spend every year the required 2% it will take about 40-100 years to bring back the military power of 2000.
For tanks it will be till 2066 to reach the numbers we had in 2004

We made the mistake of destroying our equipment and downsizing our productioncapabilities. Russia did not.
We may say thanks to our politicians for that.

[kato13]

There is much wisdom in what you say.

One nit pick

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

Today any NATO country has a childfactor of 1,5 or worse.

Currently (2022) the the 4 most powerful forces in NATO are above 1.5
UK 1.6
France 1.7
US 1.7
Turkey 1.8

I believe the only others are Bulgaria 1.6 and Romania 1.8 but how much value would they provide.

Source https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...ame_desc=false

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

And look at the state our weaponsindustry is in. According to a news in todays msn (based upon a report in the NZZ) even if Germany would spend every year the required 2% it will take about 40-100 years to bring back the military power of 2000.
For tanks it will be till 2066 to reach the numbers we had in 2004

This is why I would like to see more. 2% is the minimum. If this is, as I have been told, really a clash of cultures which will effect the course of the continent, maybe up it to 3 or 4.

Personally I feel Russia's own demographics crash (1.4), while pulling (and the Ukrainians killing) so many soldiers from districts that generated above average population growth, makes this Russia's last hurrah (without self destructing). Even so if other NATO countries make conscious decisions not to do anything serious for their own defense, I can see more and more Americans not seeing the value in shouldering such a great percentage of costs of maintaining NATO's defensive strength.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by kato13

There is much wisdom in what you say.

One nit pick


Currently (2022) the the 4 most powerful forces in NATO are above 1.5
UK 1.6
France 1.7
US 1.7
Turkey 1.8

I believe the only others are Bulgaria 1.6 and Romania 1.8 but how much value would they provide.

Source https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...ame_desc=false




This is why I would like to see more. 2% is the minimum. If this is, as I have been told, really a clash of cultures which will effect the course of the continent, maybe up it to 3 or 4.

Personally I feel Russia's own demographics crash (1.4), while pulling (and the Ukrainians killing) so many soldiers from districts that generated above average population growth, makes this Russia's last hurrah (without self destructing). Even so if other NATO countries make conscious decisions not to do anything serious for their own defense, I can see more and more Americans not seeing the value in shouldering such a great percentage of costs of maintaining NATO's defensive strength.

Agreed. One interesting thing that during the Cold WAr, Romania's Nicolae Ceaușescu had his own "Lebensborn" type program to encourage large families as well as basically forcing couples just to make children. I work in Medicaid dental insurance taking calls and I talked to ne of those babies who was born under that program in 1984. She was shocked on how an American would know this.

I think at some point the downward trend in population will reverse, how, when an d why, I can't say. My guess is that the "powers that may be" of countries will encourage large families to fill the demand for labor, military and so forth. West Germany had "Kindergeld," Child Money to encourage growth but it did not quit work. I think for that to work, you need a more desperate situation.

The ideal population is 2.1 kids per family, weak growth as well as the 0.1 being there to replace losses of early child death due to things like auto wrecks and cancers.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

After reading your comments regarding Germany - sorry, but I am laughing.

Long ago I wrote a satire exactly about that and as I dont know if this will derail this thread I will post the relevant part if you agree.

And to the war: (and yes, I am the pessimist)

In regard to war you need two things: manpower and willpower.
The West has neither.

(I apologize for the cold language)

Compare - for instance - 1800 to today.
Back then every country had a childfactor of 4 or more (4 children born per family. And you need 2,1 to keep the number of population)
And then the countries could go to war, lose a few tenthousand or more (Napoleon anybody with about 800.000 death in Russia alone on both sides combined) and still have a population growth.

Today any NATO country has a childfactor of 1,5 or worse. So, losing people is bad, because we have no replacement, no security margin. We are barebones.
Or does anybody think that - if we enter the war - we will have no casualties?

Willpower:
We dont have it.
Remember Syria? One red line after another. Not one politician willing to pull the trigger. Just imagine that after having crossed the line of using a chemical weapon Assad would have been given a wake up call by a nuclear weapon detonated close (BUT far enough away to cause NO damage!!) to the coast of Syria.

And look at the state our weaponsindustry is in. According to a news in todays msn (based upon a report in the NZZ) even if Germany would spend every year the required 2% it will take about 40-100 years to bring back the military power of 2000.
For tanks it will be till 2066 to reach the numbers we had in 2004

We made the mistake of destroying our equipment and downsizing our productioncapabilities. Russia did not.
We may say thanks to our politicians for that.

Within the next 10 years, probably within the next 5, you will have autonomous drone swarms deployed by the US and China, at a minimum, that will simultaneously deploy thousands to tends of thousands of drones into a combat zone to search and destroy any militarily valuable asset in a wide footprint. Ballistic missiles will be used to deploy drone swarms thousands of miles away.

The value of everything that is not a drone is fading rapidly, including manpower.

[Adm.Lee]

Hopefully, this is a link https://www.celesticon.com/Podcasts/...%20Striker.mp3

Frank Chadwick was speaking at a convention in 2011, about Striker (sci-fi minis game linked to Traveller) and the technological changes he did or didn't see coming between 1981 and 2011. I think that can speak to some tech changes we and GDW didn't predict from 1984 to now, either.

For myself, aged 16 in 1984, I think I vaguely thought that the USSR might collapse, but with no thought as to timeline. I was reading Russian, Polish, and Soviet history as much as I could, as well as military history, and wargaming what I could find.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Hopefully, this is a link https://www.celesticon.com/Podcasts/...%20Striker.mp3

Frank Chadwick was speaking at a convention in 2011, about Striker (sci-fi minis game linked to Traveller) and the technological changes he did or didn't see coming between 1981 and 2011. I think that can speak to some tech changes we and GDW didn't predict from 1984 to now, either.

For myself, aged 16 in 1984, I think I vaguely thought that the USSR might collapse, but with no thought as to timeline. I was reading Russian, Polish, and Soviet history as much as I could, as well as military history, and wargaming what I could find.

I was 17/18 in 1984 and I thought the same thing about the USSR and the Warsaw Pact but our consensus was that it would last until 2020 or 2025, not much beyond that.

TEch, my guess then if I had to remember my 1984 self is that by now, we'd have PC's that would be much like a Pentium II or III with 32 or 64 megabytes and we'd still be using modems and/or things like Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL, etc. Fidonet would still be king, the electronic BBS Pony Express.

[LoneCollector1987]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

Within the next 10 years, probably within the next 5, you will have autonomous drone swarms deployed by the US and China, at a minimum, that will simultaneously deploy thousands to tends of thousands of drones into a combat zone to search and destroy any militarily valuable asset in a wide footprint. Ballistic missiles will be used to deploy drone swarms thousands of miles away.

The value of everything that is not a drone is fading rapidly, including manpower.

You may be right, but if you look at the current technology:
Who has functioning Hypersonicmissiles and deploys them?
Russia
If the media is to be believed (and yes, I am aware that the military doesnt tell us all) the USA is years if not decades behind Russia and China.

And to the drone swarms:
Do we even have the production capabilities to do so?

I dont want to sound conspiracy theorists but every chip from China is a potentially hole to hack them. So, we would need an entire industrial setup here in the west. And it would be best if every country has a factory or two of its own.

And yes, we should standarsize them. Find a body where you can fit multiple types of engines, armor and weaponsload and then every country can build their own drones.

A german unit finds a french drone with a damaged engine: put a german engine in it and use it.

But the greatest threat I see is Electronic Warfare. How do we make sure that our drones are not hacked?
According to WELT (german newspaper) Germany is under relentless assault (but below war threshold) by other states. And some attacks can be followed to Russia and China. But also other countries. And it is hinted that some of those other countries are NATO members, industrial espionage somebody?

So, do we have the Cyberwarfare capabilities against hacking and why do we hurt each other?

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

You may be right, but if you look at the current technology:
Who has functioning Hypersonicmissiles and deploys them?
Russia
If the media is to be believed (and yes, I am aware that the military doesnt tell us all) the USA is years if not decades behind Russia and China.

And to the drone swarms:
Do we even have the production capabilities to do so?

I dont want to sound conspiracy theorists but every chip from China is a potentially hole to hack them. So, we would need an entire industrial setup here in the west. And it would be best if every country has a factory or two of its own.

And yes, we should standarsize them. Find a body where you can fit multiple types of engines, armor and weaponsload and then every country can build their own drones.

A german unit finds a french drone with a damaged engine: put a german engine in it and use it.

But the greatest threat I see is Electronic Warfare. How do we make sure that our drones are not hacked?
According to WELT (german newspaper) Germany is under relentless assault (but below war threshold) by other states. And some attacks can be followed to Russia and China. But also other countries. And it is hinted that some of those other countries are NATO members, industrial espionage somebody?

So, do we have the Cyberwarfare capabilities against hacking and why do we hurt each other?

I don't think hypersonics do anything that other platforms don't already do..they might do it better/faster, but they certainly don't do it cheaper.

Drones / loitering munitions lowered the cost of "smart munitions" with a high PKILL from millions of dollars (Tomahawk ALCM) to tens of thousands of dollars (JDAM) to hundreds of dollars (for the really cheap ones) and have inverted the cost to countermeasure cost curve. For example, a hypersonic cruise missile probably isn't any cheaper than a PAC-2 Patriot. A current production run FIM-92 Stinger is a tad under $500,000 per missile/launcher unit. A Switchblade 300 (on the very high cost side of suicide drones) runs about $50,000 per unit. So, you are losing money shooting down a Switchblade 300 with a FIM-92, and you are losing a LOT of money shooting down a $500 DIY suicide drone that HAMAS or the Houthis are launching. The only real cost argument for shooting down $300 drones with $50,000 missiles is it's probably cheaper than losing whatever the drone is targeting.

US munitions production capacity has really taken a hit over the last 20 years though. It is a fair point on whether or not we have the relevant industrial capacity to sustain a high tempo war for very long.

[LoneCollector1987]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

I don't think hypersonics do anything that other platforms don't already do..they might do it better/faster, but they certainly don't do it cheaper.

Drones / loitering munitions lowered the cost of "smart munitions" with a high PKILL from millions of dollars (Tomahawk ALCM) to tens of thousands of dollars (JDAM) to hundreds of dollars (for the really cheap ones) and have inverted the cost to countermeasure cost curve. For example, a hypersonic cruise missile probably isn't any cheaper than a PAC-2 Patriot. A current production run FIM-92 Stinger is a tad under $500,000 per missile/launcher unit. A Switchblade 300 (on the very high cost side of suicide drones) runs about $50,000 per unit. So, you are losing money shooting down a Switchblade 300 with a FIM-92, and you are losing a LOT of money shooting down a $500 DIY suicide drone that HAMAS or the Houthis are launching. The only real cost argument for shooting down $300 drones with $50,000 missiles is it's probably cheaper than losing whatever the drone is targeting.

US munitions production capacity has really taken a hit over the last 20 years though. It is a fair point on whether or not we have the relevant industrial capacity to sustain a high tempo war for very long.

I do agree with you. Thats why it should be imperative to re-build the capacity of ammunition production.

And to the costs of shooting done drones: What if we use drones to shoot done drones?
If they attack with cheap drones: Two can play that game.
But using drones in this capacity would need a lot more computing power to control all of them.
I saw a trailer for a PC game: Ghost Recon Breakpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqj9aH3jLD0

Could we control such a drone swarm?

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

After reading your comments regarding Germany - sorry, but I am laughing.

Long ago I wrote a satire exactly about that and as I dont know if this will derail this thread I will post the relevant part if you agree.

And to the war: (and yes, I am the pessimist)

In regard to war you need two things: manpower and willpower.
The West has neither.

(I apologize for the cold language)

Compare - for instance - 1800 to today.
Back then every country had a childfactor of 4 or more (4 children born per family. And you need 2,1 to keep the number of population)
And then the countries could go to war, lose a few tenthousand or more (Napoleon anybody with about 800.000 death in Russia alone on both sides combined) and still have a population growth.

Today any NATO country has a childfactor of 1,5 or worse. So, losing people is bad, because we have no replacement, no security margin. We are barebones.
Or does anybody think that - if we enter the war - we will have no casualties?

Willpower:
We dont have it.
Remember Syria? One red line after another. Not one politician willing to pull the trigger. Just imagine that after having crossed the line of using a chemical weapon Assad would have been given a wake up call by a nuclear weapon detonated close (BUT far enough away to cause NO damage!!) to the coast of Syria.

And look at the state our weaponsindustry is in. According to a news in todays msn (based upon a report in the NZZ) even if Germany would spend every year the required 2% it will take about 40-100 years to bring back the military power of 2000.
For tanks it will be till 2066 to reach the numbers we had in 2004

We made the mistake of destroying our equipment and downsizing our productioncapabilities. Russia did not.
We may say thanks to our politicians for that.

Sad but true. Russia did good things by keeping their older model weapons mothballed, the thinking is that if there was a war and they lose all the best modern equipment as well as weaken their enemy, they would still have plenty of T-34's, 55's and 62's to run roughshod over the enemy. Even so, they are facing their own manpower problem. if you lack manpower and equipment and you are threatened to by overrun or lose, the only equalizers are nukes and chemical weapons, especially the former. I'm a bit of a pessimist myself, if I could start it, I'd be president of the "Pittsburgh Pessimist Society. " Without going too deep in politics we exhibit poor leadership in the West with a few exceptions,

I might sound a bit cold myself, but I'm afraid Osama Bin Ladin was correct where he said that people respect, follow, admire, whatever, a "Strong horse" over a "weak (or dead) horse." Putin is a vile person, don't get me wrong, but he is more of a strong horse or at least stronger than what we have in the West, although I think he wheels might be starting to come off

I was thinking about this as I was going through my 1980's era textbook on psychology when I had that class in 1985/86 as a college freshman. I kept it because ity had a lot of good articles, especially on Charles Manson and Malcom X (aka Little). As good guys, we are bound by basic morals and ethics where we cannot use evil or bad methods to appeal and manipulate people and evens, even if we are a strong horse. Dictators, psychopaths, terrorists, etc., are not bound by that so they use anything and everything over and underhanded to manipulate and control people and events or at least try to. Manson, Putin and Bin Ladin are these types of people to one degree or another. Same with criminals like Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and people who do Ponzi schemes and so forth.

I do understand the objections to my hope of getting all parties to the peace table. How to do it is the $64,000 question. Still we must try. We need somehow to deal with Putin and throw him a bone, just a bone, but not cave in to him. Like it or not, we have the deal, he is their PResident but he won't be in forever and we need to hope the next guy or gal will be a strong horse but with much better morals and ethics. I still believe we lost a lot of opportunity to get Russia more to our side in the 1990's but again who really knows, playing "what if" is a tough game.

You need three things to fight a war, manpower, willpower and weapons. We lack all three, but the most important is willpower, if you don't hav e that, the other two really do not matter much.

[LoneCollector1987]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

As good guys, we are bound by basic morals and ethics where we cannot use evil or bad methods to appeal and manipulate people and evens, even if we are a strong horse. Dictators, psychopaths, terrorists, etc., are not bound by that so they use anything and everything over and underhanded to manipulate and control people and events or at least try to. Manson, Putin and Bin Ladin are these types of people to one degree or another. Same with criminals like Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and people who do Ponzi schemes and so forth.

I do understand the objections to my hope of getting all parties to the peace table. How to do it is the $64,000 question. Still we must try. We need somehow to deal with Putin and throw him a bone, just a bone, but not cave in to him. Like it or not, we have the deal, he is their PResident but he won't be in forever and we need to hope the next guy or gal will be a strong horse but with much better morals and ethics. I still believe we lost a lot of opportunity to get Russia more to our side in the 1990's but again who really knows, playing "what if" is a tough game.

You need three things to fight a war, manpower, willpower and weapons. We lack all three, but the most important is willpower, if you don't hav e that, the other two really do not matter much.

I copied only a part off your answer. And I do disagree with you regarding the first part.

1) If it is true what you say (Good guys are bound by rules) then why do we have in wikipedia entries like Allied warcrimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied...g_World_War_II

Shouldnt allied soldiers after receiving such orders (Chuck Yeager wrote in his book that he received such orders) told their CO to forget it and not execute those orders? Or they would go their superior officers to file charges against their fellow soldiers if they commit warcrimes?

There is a latin law principle that states that one injustice doesnt legalize another injustice.
And why were they excempt from prosecution? To give you one example: A german who was in the Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre had to file charges in London because german judges are forbidden from prosecuting allied soldiers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ist-spies.html

2) If you want to get Putin to come to a peace agreement then I think the only way is 100% truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I looked around the internet and found the following:
Ukraine had an elected government but that was ousted by a revolution, e.g. therefore the new government was not elected and therefore illegal.

There was a treaty signed but according to a statement by Ms Merkel, then chancellor of Germany, it was meant as a way to buy time for re-armarment of Ukraine.
Sources: (and they are not Putin-friendly pages)
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Putin-gi...e23774842.html
Quote: "das Abkommen von 2014 sei unterzeichnet worden, um der Ukraine "Zeit zu geben", und Kiew habe die Zeit genutzt, "um stärker zu werden"
The treaty of 2014 was signed to give Ukraine time and Kiev used this time to get stronger.
https://www.fr.de/politik/von-putins...-92037711.html
Quote: "2015 hätte Putin die Ukraine leicht erobern können, die Nato-Länder aber hätten kaum so viel tun können, um der Ukraine zu helfen, wie sie es jetzt täten. „Angela Merkel hat recht in diesem Punkt“, erklärte später Hollande dem „Kyiv Independent“: „Die Minsker Vereinbarungen stoppten die russische Offensive für eine Weile."
Putin could have easily taken the Ukraine in 2015 and the NATO countries couldnt have much done to help Ukraine as they could do now. Angela Merkel was right said Hollande (former french prime minister) to the newspaper Kiev Independant. The Minsk agreement stopped the russian offensive for a while.

In the areas now occupied by Russia the current government of Ukraine forbade the use of russian language and a short time ago they declared the orthodox church to be illegal.
Can you imagine that the US government would forbid the Amish to use their language Pennsylvania Dutch, Swiss German and not be attacked? Or if they forbade their religion?

If I bring up this points I am always directly accused of being a Putin sympathizer. If wanting to know the entire truth, nothing but the truth and only the truth - then so be it. But I want to state these points and ask: "Are they the truth - yes or no?".

And to the last point - willpower- I agree with you.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

I copied only a part off your answer. And I do disagree with you regarding the first part.

1) If it is true what you say (Good guys are bound by rules) then why do we have in wikipedia entries like Allied warcrimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied...g_World_War_II

Shouldnt allied soldiers after receiving such orders (Chuck Yeager wrote in his book that he received such orders) told their CO to forget it and not execute those orders? Or they would go their superior officers to file charges against their fellow soldiers if they commit warcrimes?

There is a latin law principle that states that one injustice doesnt legalize another injustice.
And why were they excempt from prosecution? To give you one example: A german who was in the Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre had to file charges in London because german judges are forbidden from prosecuting allied soldiers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ist-spies.html

2) If you want to get Putin to come to a peace agreement then I think the only way is 100% truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I looked around the internet and found the following:
Ukraine had an elected government but that was ousted by a revolution, e.g. therefore the new government was not elected and therefore illegal.

There was a treaty signed but according to a statement by Ms Merkel, then chancellor of Germany, it was meant as a way to buy time for re-armarment of Ukraine.
Sources: (and they are not Putin-friendly pages)
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Putin-gi...e23774842.html
Quote: "das Abkommen von 2014 sei unterzeichnet worden, um der Ukraine "Zeit zu geben", und Kiew habe die Zeit genutzt, "um stärker zu werden"
The treaty of 2014 was signed to give Ukraine time and Kiev used this time to get stronger.
https://www.fr.de/politik/von-putins...-92037711.html
Quote: "2015 hätte Putin die Ukraine leicht erobern können, die Nato-Länder aber hätten kaum so viel tun können, um der Ukraine zu helfen, wie sie es jetzt täten. „Angela Merkel hat recht in diesem Punkt“, erklärte später Hollande dem „Kyiv Independent“: „Die Minsker Vereinbarungen stoppten die russische Offensive für eine Weile."
Putin could have easily taken the Ukraine in 2015 and the NATO countries couldnt have much done to help Ukraine as they could do now. Angela Merkel was right said Hollande (former french prime minister) to the newspaper Kiev Independant. The Minsk agreement stopped the russian offensive for a while.

In the areas now occupied by Russia the current government of Ukraine forbade the use of russian language and a short time ago they declared the orthodox church to be illegal.
Can you imagine that the US government would forbid the Amish to use their language Pennsylvania Dutch, Swiss German and not be attacked? Or if they forbade their religion?

If I bring up this points I am always directly accused of being a Putin sympathizer. If wanting to know the entire truth, nothing but the truth and only the truth - then so be it. But I want to state these points and ask: "Are they the truth - yes or no?".

And to the last point - willpower- I agree with you.

I am not a huge supporter of NATO's actions in Ukraine. I think we are flirting with a nuclear holocaust because our leaders think Russia won't push the button, when we've heard variously Russia threatening nuclear holocaust and that Putin has fatal cancer anyway. Seems risky.

Additionally, Ukraine is hardly a bastion of democracy. Just as corrupt and anti-democratic as Russia is.

That being said, Russia doesn't really get to claim to be the victim here when they ostensibly went in to save ethnic Russians (which is a claim, incidentally, they've used in every post USSR collapse intervention) and then massacred and raped or raped and massacred many of those same ethnic Russian civilians when their troops rolled in.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

If you want to get Putin to come to a peace agreement then I think the only way is 100% truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Absolutely. Facts are equally important. Truth depends on them.

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

Ukraine had an elected government but that was ousted by a revolution, e.g. therefore the new government was not elected and therefore illegal.

This is false. I think you're referring to the 2014 Maidan "revolution". Those were pro-democracy protests. The Ukrainian regime at the time, led by a Russian puppet, ignored a national plebiscite that would have connected Ukraine's economy more closely to the EU than to Russia. He then brutally suppressed peaceful demonstrators in Kiev's Maidan Square. Eventually, he was driven from office (and fled to Russia, IIRC). Free elections were held in 2019.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48007487

If you're referring to the postponed 2024 Ukrainian general election, then fair point. But to be fair to Ukraine, it's very difficult to have a legitimate national election when 1/4 of your country is under hostile foreign occupation, let alone during a war for national survival.

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

In the areas now occupied by Russia the current government of Ukraine forbade the use of russian language and a short time ago they declared the orthodox church to be illegal.

To your first point, that was a local government initiative, in response to similar Russian laws in occupied Ukraine. AFAIK, it wasn't a national law.

To your second point, there's a little more nuance to that law than your summary suggests.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ch-2024-08-20/

For whatever it's worth, I don't approve of either law.

However, I do think that it's worth mentioning that both of those laws were passed AFTER Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine proper in 2022.

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

If I bring up this points I am always directly accused of being a Putin sympathizer.

I think your concerns regarding freedom of democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in Ukraine are valid, and don't necessarily mean that you are a Putin sympathizer.

I do think there's a bit of false equivalency and "what-about-ism" in a lot of pro-Russian arguments. For example,

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

Additionally, Ukraine is hardly a bastion of democracy. Just as corrupt and anti-democratic as Russia is.

Seriously?

-

[Raellus]

Exploding pagers?!? If this was a movie plot- today, let alone in the mid-1980s- I think a lot of people would shake their heads doubtfully and think, "yeah, right".

Besides Ian Fleming and other contemporary Cold War thriller writers, who would have thought?

https://www.twz.com/news-features/he...ion-as-stuxnet

-

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Exploding pagers?!? If this was a movie plot- today, let alone in the mid-1980s- I think a lot of people would shake their heads doubtfully and think, "yeah, right".

Besides Ian Fleming and other contemporary Cold War thriller writers, who would have thought?

https://www.twz.com/news-features/he...ion-as-stuxnet

-

Wow that is awesome

Edit

I know we are going to hear some stories about innocents injured, but man what a way to inflict maximum damage to a unit that integrates itself into civilians with the minimum risk. Actually getting ~2800 targets to put the device against their own body.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

Additionally, Ukraine is hardly a bastion of democracy. Just as corrupt and anti-democratic as Russia is.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Seriously?

-

I'll give him the corruption (even until the early stages of the war) and maybe overall equals on democracy between 1991 and 2005, but Ukraine and Russia have been on a diverging path since the Orange Revolution. Since then I personally respect the Ukrainian direction more than the Russian.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Absolutely. Facts are equally important. Truth depends on them.



This is false. I think you're referring to the 2014 Maidan "revolution". Those were pro-democracy protests. The Ukrainian regime at the time, led by a Russian puppet, ignored a national plebiscite that would have connected Ukraine's economy more closely to the EU than to Russia. He then brutally suppressed peaceful demonstrators in Kiev's Maidan Square. Eventually, he was driven from office (and fled to Russia, IIRC). Free elections were held in 2019.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48007487

If you're referring to the postponed 2024 Ukrainian general election, then fair point. But to be fair to Ukraine, it's very difficult to have a legitimate national election when 1/4 of your country is under hostile foreign occupation, let alone during a war for national survival.



To your first point, that was a local government initiative, in response to similar Russian laws in occupied Ukraine. AFAIK, it wasn't a national law.

To your second point, there's a little more nuance to that law than your summary suggests.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ch-2024-08-20/

For whatever it's worth, I don't approve of either law.

However, I do think that it's worth mentioning that both of those laws were passed AFTER Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine proper in 2022.



I think your concerns regarding freedom of democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in Ukraine are valid, and don't necessarily mean that you are a Putin sympathizer.

I do think there's a bit of false equivalency and "what-about-ism" in a lot of pro-Russian arguments. For example,



Seriously?

-

Unfortunately, yes. In Russia they have fake elections, in Ukraine they just cancel the elections. Zelensky himself made the assertion recently that upwards of 70% of the military aid sent Ukraine’s way had literally been stolen. Zelensky’s domestic critics don’t seem to wind up dead from polonium in their coffee or falling out of their windows like Putin’s critics, but Ukraine the state is qualitatively not that much different than Russia. It's a corrupt mafia state run by a strongman dictator. The main difference is that Russia is the aggressor in the war and they seem to be committing far fewer war crimes than Russia. And of course the West is supporting them and together it makes them the (relatively) good guys. On the whole I have been supportive of US policy with regard to Ukraine, but I do think we were too slow to give them deep strike capability and a little too lax on controls on the money we are sending their way. Zelensky’s wife doesn’t need any more Bugatis on uS taxpayers’ dime.

Edited to add - when the initial Russian invasion stalled and the Russian invading army evaporated, there was a window where a status quo peace deal might have been reached (meaning, pre invasion border, but post 2014 borders, and no NATO entry), but the Biden admin pressured Zelensky to back off negotations. That, in hindsight, was probably the best of a bunch of negative sum choices left on the game theory board.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by castlebravo92

In Russia they have fake elections, in Ukraine they just cancel the elections. Zelensky himself made the assertion recently that upwards of 70% of the military aid sent Ukraine’s way had literally been stolen. Zelensky’s domestic critics don’t seem to wind up dead from polonium in their coffee or falling out of their windows like Putin’s critics, but Ukraine the state is qualitatively not that much different than Russia. It's a corrupt mafia state run by a strongman dictator. The main difference is that Russia is the aggressor in the war and they seem to be committing far fewer war crimes than Russia. And of course the West is supporting them and together it makes them the (relatively) good guys. On the whole I have been supportive of US policy with regard to Ukraine, but I do think we were too slow to give them deep strike capability and a little too lax on controls on the money wr are sending their way. Zelensky’s wife doesn’t need any more Bugatis on uS taxpayers’ dime.

Re the canceled election, again, Ukraine is at war and 1/4 of the country is under Russian occupation. It would be very difficult to organize a national election that would be accepted- in Ukraine and/or the international community- as legitimate under these circumstances. I think it's unreasonable to expect Ukrainians to stand in line at polling places as missiles and drones rain down upon their cities and towns. I am not, however, asserting that they should not be given that opportunity, but it is somewhat understandable, if not justifiable, that under the current extenuating circumstances, a general election has been postponed.

Wartime conditions don't excuse an indefinite postponement of free and fair elections, but to liken the current political situation in Ukraine to that which has existed in Russia for the last three decades ignores some pretty significant differences.

Re corruption. Yes, Ukraine has significant corruption problems, but they were/are trying to correct them. Ukraine's eventual membership in the EU depends on reducing corruption (the EU has explicit requirements for "acceptable" and unacceptable levels of corruption in its member states). The claim that you attribute to Zelensky shows that the Ukrainian government is trying to be transparent and clean up its act. Putin, on the other hand, is the ultimate kleptocrat. The entire economic and political systems in Russia are set up to enrich him personally and keep him in power indefinitely (by also enriching his select allies). Of course, Putin would stridently deny all of this... and then censor, imprison, and/or kill anyone bold enough to call him out in public.

I agree with you that the US should do a better job assuring that its aid- monetary and materiel- ends up in the right hands. Sadly, this isn't something that we've quite figured out how to do, even though the same issues existed during our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

-

[Raellus]

There were pagers back in 1984, right? There were definitely walkie-talkies. Do you think the T2k writers would have thought that rigging a large number of walkies to explode on command would be a realistic capability in 2024?

In the comments section of a web article on Tuesday's unprecedented pager attack, some wit dubbed the Israeli black op, "Operation Grim Beeper". Wish I'd thought of that.

-

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by LoneCollector1987

I copied only a part off your answer. And I do disagree with you regarding the first part.

1) If it is true what you say (Good guys are bound by rules) then why do we have in wikipedia entries like Allied warcrimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied...g_World_War_II

Shouldnt allied soldiers after receiving such orders (Chuck Yeager wrote in his book that he received such orders) told their CO to forget it and not execute those orders? Or they would go their superior officers to file charges against their fellow soldiers if they commit warcrimes?

There is a latin law principle that states that one injustice doesnt legalize another injustice.
And why were they excempt from prosecution? To give you one example: A german who was in the Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre had to file charges in London because german judges are forbidden from prosecuting allied soldiers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ist-spies.html

2) If you want to get Putin to come to a peace agreement then I think the only way is 100% truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I looked around the internet and found the following:
Ukraine had an elected government but that was ousted by a revolution, e.g. therefore the new government was not elected and therefore illegal.

There was a treaty signed but according to a statement by Ms Merkel, then chancellor of Germany, it was meant as a way to buy time for re-armarment of Ukraine.
Sources: (and they are not Putin-friendly pages)
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Putin-gi...e23774842.html
Quote: "das Abkommen von 2014 sei unterzeichnet worden, um der Ukraine "Zeit zu geben", und Kiew habe die Zeit genutzt, "um stärker zu werden"
The treaty of 2014 was signed to give Ukraine time and Kiev used this time to get stronger.
https://www.fr.de/politik/von-putins...-92037711.html
Quote: "2015 hätte Putin die Ukraine leicht erobern können, die Nato-Länder aber hätten kaum so viel tun können, um der Ukraine zu helfen, wie sie es jetzt täten. „Angela Merkel hat recht in diesem Punkt“, erklärte später Hollande dem „Kyiv Independent“: „Die Minsker Vereinbarungen stoppten die russische Offensive für eine Weile."
Putin could have easily taken the Ukraine in 2015 and the NATO countries couldnt have much done to help Ukraine as they could do now. Angela Merkel was right said Hollande (former french prime minister) to the newspaper Kiev Independant. The Minsk agreement stopped the russian offensive for a while.

In the areas now occupied by Russia the current government of Ukraine forbade the use of russian language and a short time ago they declared the orthodox church to be illegal.
Can you imagine that the US government would forbid the Amish to use their language Pennsylvania Dutch, Swiss German and not be attacked? Or if they forbade their religion?

If I bring up this points I am always directly accused of being a Putin sympathizer. If wanting to know the entire truth, nothing but the truth and only the truth - then so be it. But I want to state these points and ask: "Are they the truth - yes or no?".

And to the last point - willpower- I agree with you.

I do admit there are lines even the good guys do cross from time to time, the D&D alignment charts explain quite a bit as well. I think we live in a world made up of a "grey and black morality" where we are all flawed, hats of various shades of grey where most of us here would be light shades of grey. You have your evil "black hats" and for the White Hats, very few and far between. Many times no matter what actions are taken, there are consequences.

Willpower to carry on a fight, without that, the rest do not matter much. It's like President Truman had the will to drop too atomic bombs on Japan. I take no joy in that but it had to be done. I'm sure President FDR and later Truman agonized over this as well.

I'm not a Putinista either but we do need to tread lightly here and find that balance to stand up to him but not to push him in a corner either. As you pointed out the Ukraine is a grey hat too. I'd say Russia is still in the wrong for the invasion but again we can't do much about it because it is far from the US and also Russia is a nuclear power. If it was Haiti or Iran invading the Ukraine, we can be more liberal with force but to go against the #2 (or #1) nuclear power a the case maybe, we need to tread a lot more lightly.

[kato13]

Hopefully stories like this
Vladimir Putin suffers huge military blow as 'unreliable' weapon 'explodes' in test
make it back to Putin, to undermine his faith in his own systems.

I like most people on this board respect what even a limited nuclear exchange would mean. If Putin has lost some faith in his armed forces in the past 2 years and things like this must make it worse. Maybe that brings us back from the brink a bit.

Unrelated, it seems odd to me that new nuclear forces would be liquid fueled. Solid fueled seem to have every advantage except the technical difficulties in manufacture and immediate short term cost.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by kato13

Hopefully stories like this
Vladimir Putin suffers huge military blow as 'unreliable' weapon 'explodes' in test
make it back to Putin, to undermine his faith in his own systems.

I like most people on this board respect what even a limited nuclear exchange would mean. If Putin has lost some faith in his armed forces in the past 2 years and things like this must make it worse. Maybe that brings us back from the brink a bit.

Unrelated, it seems odd to me that new nuclear forces would be liquid fueled. Solid fueled seem to have every advantage except the technical difficulties in manufacture and immediate short term cost.

Yeah, I mean in things like these, I don't want to see an atomic war myself, if it happens, it happens, but we must understand our limitations to help out other nations if attacked but if it was a huge nuclear power like Russia and to a lesser extent, Red China, we need to tread lightly. I'm 58 years old, I have too many problems to deal with, an atomic war is not another I want to add to the pile.

I remember during the Cold War, many people thought the Soviet Army was unbeatable or at least seemed like supermen That is a stretch but it seems they were tougher then. They seem weaker now, I can't really call the Russian Army/Military a paper tiger, perhaps a "cardboard tiger" as compared to the 1950's to 1980's. Even so, nukes are a huge equalizer in the game and that is the trump card. NATO is in the same boat too, a shadow of it's former self.

[Silent Hunter UK]

I don't think they'd have anticipated social media, streaming or the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Or that Tom Cruise would remain a huge movie star 40 years later.