Politics

[Brent in Az]

Buh bye....McCarthy. Don't let the door hit you, where the Good Lord split you.

Here's hoping for retirement by all the swamp turds.

 

[Doug3006]

I found this presentation to be really interesting. Another Peter Zeihan speech on where global trade is heading and how North America will fare in the future. It’s a bit long, but it covers a lot of ground. LMK what you think.

 

[Red Leg]

The first production dedicated anti-drone weapons systems are becoming operational in Ukraine. As you can see, they are a small system easily mounted on a HMMWV (or Humvee for you civilians).

Rather than the frontline, I suspect these first few systems will be used to protect key infrastructure against the prolific Iranian produced Shahed drones so that true air defense missiles like Patriot can be reserved for taking down cruise and ballistic missiles. To equip combat formations, they will need hundreds of these systems.

Our Best Look At A VAMPIRE Counter Drone System For Ukraine

This is the first time we have seen the actual configuration of VAMPIRE, which was rushed to Ukraine to swat drones out of the sky.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Hunt anything]

I always liked the “front towards enemy” on the munitions. How big are the Iranian produced drones and the size of their payload?

 

[Red Leg]

I always liked the “front towards enemy” on the munitions. How big are the Iranian produced drones and the size of their payload?

Not sure I understand the relevance of that with respect to an air defense weapon system, or for that matter, artillery.

The US M109 howitzer with rear positioned turret - like every other SP artillery in the world.

Everything you want to know about Shahed drones.

HESA Shahed 136 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Red Leg]

I found this presentation to be really interesting. Another Peter Zeihan speech on where global trade is heading and how North America will fare in the future. It’s a bit long, but it covers a lot of ground. LMK what you think.

Excellent as always. From a "tactical" perspective, I particularly appreciated the non-hyperbolic and logical analysis of the Chinese balloon incident. The last five minutes with respect to globalization and resulting disinflation was also very thought provoking. Thanks for posting!

 

[Corey0372]

Excellent as always. From a "tactical" perspective, I particularly appreciated the non-hyperbolic and logical analysis of the Chinese balloon incident. The last five minutes with respect to globalization and resulting disinflation was also very thought provoking. Thanks for posting!

Disunited Nations was pretty good if you're into Zeihan's work. He has a pretty good grasp on a lot of things, but in my opinion he misses a lot of the "micro" (for lack of a better word) when it comes to geopolitics.

 

[Red Leg]

Disunited Nations was pretty good if you're into Zeihan's work. He has a pretty good grasp on a lot of things, but in my opinion he misses a lot of the "micro" (for lack of a better word) when it comes to geopolitics.

I am not sure if "miss" or "ignore" is the right term, but you are correct. He is also unapologetic about it. He is a macroeconomic geopolitical prognosticator - perhaps even a savant.

 

[Corey0372]

I am not sure if "miss" or "ignore" is the right term, but you are correct. He is also unapologetic about it. He is a macroeconomic geopolitical prognosticator - perhaps even a savant.

Savant is probably accurate. Miss/ ignore is probably most evident when he discusses population growth/decline in various countries, only focusing on numbers alone, not the people themselves.

 

[steve white]

Not sure I understand the relevance of that with respect to an air defense weapon system, or for that matter, artillery.

The US M109 howitzer with rear positioned turret - like every other SP artillery in the world.

View attachment 573330

Everything you want to know about Shahed drones.

HESA Shahed 136 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Someday men will question the sanity of going out to fight if drones, etc. continue to be so deadly--worse in my opinion than charging machine gun nests, no place to hide.

 

[Hunt anything]

Not sure I understand the relevance of that with respect to an air defense weapon system, or for that matter, artillery.

The US M109 howitzer with rear positioned turret - like every other SP artillery in the world.

View attachment 573330

Everything you want to know about Shahed drones.

HESA Shahed 136 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the video it was stenciled on the launcher as it was being loaded with rockets, may have been looking at the wrong part of the video.

 

[Red Leg]

In the video it was stenciled on the launcher as it was being loaded with rockets, may have been looking at the wrong part of the video.

Lol. Good catch. I missed that.

 

[sestoppelman]

Hunter Biden indicted now on tax charges in CA, 9 counts, 3 are felony counts along with the gun charges he already faces.

The noose tightens....say goodnight Joey....

 

[wesheltonj]

Hunter Biden indicted now on tax charges in CA, 9 counts, 3 are felony counts along with the gun charges he already faces.

The noose tightens....say goodnight Joey....

Not so fast. Just because he’s indicted does that mean the government will actually prosecute him. I suspect they will let the case sit, Hunter will now have to invoke the 5th at the congressional hearing and the case will disappear until after the election either by pardon by Joe on the way out or a dismissal by the government should Joe still be the D nominee. But I’ve been saying for over almost 2 years he will not, it will be Newsome.

 

[sestoppelman]

Not so fast. Just because he’s indicted does that mean the government will actually prosecute him. I suspect they will let the case sit, Hunter will now have to invoke the 5th at the congressional hearing and the case will disappear until after the election either by pardon by Joe on the way out or a dismissal by the government should Joe still be the D nominee. But I’ve been saying for over almost 2 years he will not, it will be Newsome.

Hunter was going to take the 5th anyway, no change there. If he pleads guilty to something they might not prosecute, but I think there will be too much pressure for them to just sit on it again, they already did that and here we are with Hunter being charged with tax evasion and gun charges too.
This all reflects very badly on Joe and his so called Justice Dept.
Couple all of this with the utter disaster on the border, the high prices, the EV disaster, the rampant anti semitism in the colleges, he is being pressured to force a ceasefire in Gaza by his own people in the WH, funding for Ukraine is under fire, its just one thing on top of another.
I agree that someone else will likely have to take over, I think this will be the straw that gets Joe the boot from his party.

 

[BSO Dave]

I get so tired of the argument that Europe isn't doing enough.

You may get tired of hearing it, but it's a valid question that can be added to the long list of things inadequately addressed by this Administration... One would think that any country sharing a border with, or within a reasonable striking distance of Russia, would be doing more than contributing their fair share per capita. You would think they would be making it priority #1 and making pre-invasion precautions. Why aren't they? Russia's threat is far more eminent and directly consequential to Europe than it is to the U.S.

I'm sure you will eagerly correct me if I am wrong, but my perception of this is that the U.S. along with Europe is doing just enough to keep Ukraine hanging in there, but all are reluctant to provide them with what they really need to defeat Russia. Why? If the reluctance is out of fear of escalation isn't that kind of the point for supporting Ukraine now before Russia expands its aggression through Europe? There has to be more to it, or is the current global strategy really that timid and short-sighted?

Those with greater resources have more resources to invest in any enterprise

True, but those with the most to gain should be the one's willing to invest the most...

I think you would agree that a stronger Russia 10 years down the road is more of an economic and strategic threat to the USA, but even less so if we re-established energy independence... A stronger Russia tomorrow is a direct threat to the European continent right now... That's my point in questioning the threat assessment/contribution ratio with many of these countries on Russia's doorstep. Why don't these countries in question organize to form a defense on their own outside of NATO? If the plan of Russian expansion in Europe is genuine, and Russia is victorious in Ukraine, isn't the invasion of a NATO country inevitable? And, if that's true, what good is the existence of NATO if it's not considered a real deterrence by countries like Russia?

I dislike having discussions in hypothetical terms, but humor me... What is your strategic opinion if a significant NATO alliance massed within any country sharing a border with Russia tomorrow? Or, what if that same NATO force entered Ukraine? Do you think Russia would attack or stand down?

I would agree that this administration has not only done a terrible job explaining the importance of stopping Russia's strategic goals, I also think they have done a terrible job in implementing a strategy to achieve it.

Precisely my point in response to your frustration with "Trump supporters" who you say don't get the urgency... One big reason is that they reject the "shut up and get in line or you are a Putin sympathizer" mentality this Administration has used as its main PR tactic with the American people. The other big reason is the combination of piss-poor messaging in light of multiple, simultaneous domestic crises going on here at home where many folks couldn't give a rat's ass about Russia's existential threat to the U.S. 10-15 years down the road when they can't buy food or put gas in their car to make it to work. This isn't ignorance on their behalf... It's a legitimate reaction out of their frustration with this Administration who appears to be taking a shit on the blue-collar American people once again by putting their priorities last...

Maybe you personally are better off financially and don't relate to this, but I do, and it frustrates me that you sometimes fail to recognize that in your criticism of those who have posed questions about the U. S.'s role as it pertains to Ukraine.

 

[BSO Dave]

The US government has virtually no ability to "gift" any item to a foreign government - there must be accountability. So, let's take a decommissioned M1 tank. Were it sold to an ally as part of a military assistance contract the ally would pay that money to the US government. The ally would also likely buy a security assistance package which would contain spares and training. The Army would account for all of that as a military sale.

Therefore, that potential value is also assigned to the tank provided to Ukraine. In its case, rather than Ukraine writing a check, its theoretical sale value is deducted from the congressional DOD allocation for Ukraine.

However, there are 2,000 M1 tanks permanently parked at Sierra Army depot alone. This does not count the hundreds being withdrawn from the Marine Corps or sitting in other depots. There are very few buyers for these tanks and are unlikely to ever be many as they daily become more obsolete. Eventually, they will have to be demilitarized at great expense - a big driver of which is the composite armor which contains depleted uranium.

Therefore, in realty the tank provided to Ukraine is actually not a "lost" sale, but is quite likely an avoided expense. The same is true of older munitions.

And why can't that be explained to the general public?

Of course I question whether the general public can even balance their own checkbook anymore...

It's already been established that piss-poor messaging is a big part of the problem. However, another issue, and the main one that I take particular issue with is not the type of hardware aid that Red Leg mentioned above, but the cash for which there has been no credible accountability. Couple that with media reports that suggest some of this money has been going to supplement things like pension funds for retired Ukrainians, and you wonder why some folk here at home who don't even have a pension are outraged?

Whether it's true or not is beside the point... The perception of misuse and corruption that cannot be qualified by this Administration is enough to justify the outrage. I doubt any American would have a problem with unused or decommissioned military hardware being given to the Ukrainians, but the idea of billions in unaccountable cash is something else entirely... The internet is full of articles from multiple sources like this one below that have fueled the fire.

US has provided money, not just equipment, to Ukraine

Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, made the inaccurate suggestion recently while taking aim at Republican Rep.

apnews.com

 

[Red Leg]

You may get tired of hearing it, but it's a valid question that can be added to the long list of things inadequately addressed by this Administration... One would think that any country sharing a border with, or within a reasonable striking distance of Russia, would be doing more than contributing their fair share per capita. You would think they would be making it priority #1 and making pre-invasion precautions. Why aren't they? Russia's threat is far more eminent and directly consequential to Europe than it is to the U.S.

I'm sure you will eagerly correct me if I am wrong, but my perception of this is that the U.S. along with Europe is doing just enough to keep Ukraine hanging in there, but all are reluctant to provide them with what they really need to defeat Russia. Why? If the reluctance is out of fear of escalation isn't that kind of the point for supporting Ukraine now before Russia expands its aggression through Europe? There has to be more to it, or is the current global strategy really that timid and short-sighted?




True, but those with the most to gain should be the one's willing to invest the most...

I think you would agree that a stronger Russia 10 years down the road is more of an economic and strategic threat to the USA, but even less so if we re-established energy independence... A stronger Russia tomorrow is a direct threat to the European continent right now... That's my point in questioning the threat assessment/contribution ratio with many of these countries on Russia's doorstep. Why don't these countries in question organize to form a defense on their own outside of NATO? If the plan of Russian expansion in Europe is genuine, and Russia is victorious in Ukraine, isn't the invasion of a NATO country inevitable? And, if that's true, what good is the existence of NATO if it's not considered a real deterrence by countries like Russia?

I dislike having discussions in hypothetical terms, but humor me... What is your strategic opinion if a significant NATO alliance massed within any country sharing a border with Russia tomorrow? Or, what if that same NATO force entered Ukraine? Do you think Russia would attack or stand down?



Precisely my point in response to your frustration with "Trump supporters" who you say don't get the urgency... One big reason is that they reject the "shut up and get in line or you are a Putin sympathizer" mentality this Administration has used as its main PR tactic with the American people. The other big reason is the combination of piss-poor messaging in light of multiple, simultaneous domestic crises going on here at home where many folks couldn't give a rat's ass about Russia's existential threat to the U.S. 10-15 years down the road when they can't buy food or put gas in their car to make it to work. This isn't ignorance on their behalf... It's a legitimate reaction out of their frustration with this Administration who appears to be taking a shit on the blue-collar American people once again by putting their priorities last...

Maybe you personally are better off financially and don't relate to this, but I do, and it frustrates me that you sometimes fail to recognize that in your criticism of those who have posed questions about the U. S.'s role as it pertains to Ukraine.

As I have noted before, we have no basis of discussion Dave. I have explained in the simplest terms that I know how the concept of economic relativism. You reject it. I think that is a demonstration of willful ignorance, but that is fine, so we have nothing left to discuss.

I have explained ad nauseum why I think stopping Russian expansion into Ukraine and its reestablishment as the predominant military power on the Eurasian land mass is a direct threat to our national interests. You have gone so far as ask me not to repeat myself. Rest assured, I have no intention to do so.

In other postings in this thread, I have repeatedly noted that NATO is a creation of the United States to further its national interests in originally containing Soviet power projection and to maintain free access to European markets. It serves that same critical role today with respect to Russia and those markets. Part of my frustration with Trump is that he seems incapable of grasping that basic reality.

"I'm sure you will eagerly correct me if I am wrong, but my perception of this is that the U.S. along with Europe is doing just enough to keep Ukraine hanging in there, but all are reluctant to provide them with what they really need to defeat Russia. Why? If the reluctance is out of fear of escalation isn't that kind of the point for supporting Ukraine now before Russia expands its aggression through Europe? There has to be more to it, or is the current global strategy really that timid and short-sighted?"

I agree. I have said here many times that this administration has been far too timid in helping Ukraine. We also have a president who is physically and intellectually incapable of rallying public opinion.

We do not need to introduce NATO troops or advisors. But again, to repeat myself, if 33 M1 Abrams were a good idea six-months ago, why weren't 300 a better idea 18 months ago. If F-16's make sense now, why didn't we start training pilots 18 months ago. I do not know a single military professional who believes our support for Ukraine has been appropriate relative the threat posed to our national interests.

I regret that I apparently appear an elitist to you. I obviously do not share that opinion and my fixed retirement income would provide pretty good evidence. But it does frustrate me that even informed people like you refuse to recognize that support for Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with the perceived current conditions in this country - whether economic or social. Politically we have devolved to a place where if they are for it, I am against it. So again, we clearly have no grounds for discussion.

 

[Red Leg]

It's already been established that piss-poor messaging is a big part of the problem. However, another issue, and the main one that I take particular issue with is not the type of hardware aid that Red Leg mentioned above, but the cash for which there has been no credible accountability. Couple that with media reports that suggest some of this money has been going to supplement things like pension funds for retired Ukrainians, and you wonder why some folk here at home who don't even have a pension are outraged?

Whether it's true or not is beside the point... The perception of misuse and corruption that cannot be qualified by this Administration is enough to justify the outrage. I doubt any American would have a problem with unused or decommissioned military hardware being given to the Ukrainians, but the idea of billions in unaccountable cash is something else entirely... The internet is full of articles from multiple sources like this one below that have fueled the fire.

US has provided money, not just equipment, to Ukraine

Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, made the inaccurate suggestion recently while taking aim at Republican Rep.

apnews.com

but the cash for which there has been no credible accountability.

This statement isn't accurate, but due to the political climate, it is undebatable.

I think on the whole that the article is generally accurate. Though I have worked alongside DOS and AID case officers while building military assistance cases (they would have been building police training cases, economic support, or food and medicine relief), I have not participated in their internal auditing processes. I do know that those cases are in fact audited, but again I have never participated in one. I can say with certainty that I personally do not know of an instance where a bucket of money was simply handed to a client state. I doubt too that it has ever happened in Ukraine (Iran is apparently a different story).

That said, I absolutely agree that graft is far easier when dealing with money than materiel. But it is also become a populist talking point that their is "no accountability" for the funding provided Ukraine. That is simply not true. Whether or not it has been adequate is another and legitimate question I suppose, but I am also confident whatever this administration would say or provide to its critics would be inadequate or unpersuasive.

 

[Altitude sickness]

The video is thought provoking.
But his political views skew his theories and conclusions.

Citing the shrinking of our Blue water Navy is important. But he left out the minor detail of China dominating space warfare. One battleship sitting on the edge of space can control a lot of open ocean.

Trump was ridiculed for starting the Spaceforce. Which will probably be needed when China is collapsing and gets desperate and dangerous.

He’s incorrect. We do have a theory and example of what happens when countries consumption, production and investment collapse. We see it starting in young males with no purpose or value in US society from leftist. saying they are toxic and not part of the alphabet soup identities.
Then they shoot up schools and commit suicide.

Every production and consumption issue he sites is caused and exacerbated by one political group.

Who is stifling coal, NG and nuclear energy exploration and construction. Leftist cite that energy companies are not spending capital. Why would they when one party is hostile to their existence.

And when all the countries he says will collapse in a few years. And they all want to come here. Who is controlling that immigration.

And who is going to stop those other countries from simply taking what we have. With our diminished military.

And with a globalist mentality. We would be racist to not give all of our resources to the world.

He is blinded by his disdain for Trump and won’t call out the leftists for hurtling us down the road of globalization.

He says to hire and borrow. Why not hire and loan money not borrow it.

He says Biden didn’t cause the latest surge in inflation
WRONG!
Has he forgotten that the leftists tyrannical shut downs that crushed the supply side for 18 months after we knew who was at risk from Covid.

Then these same leftists sent trillions into a supply stunted economy. No supply and 1000% increase in demand. Inflation 101

So now the leftist get a pass.

He brings up worrisome topics. And he would be more entertaining to listen to if someone was there to push back on his one sided opinions.