JoeWeber
-
Content
9,827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
220 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
United States
Everything posted by JoeWeber
-
It isn't all in or nothing. So we give it a go and they calibrate a response. Whatever amount of time passes, we all deal with the response and more time passes. Think rope-a-dope. If it works we give Russia a forever war while their economy and world standing tanks. If it doesn't work, and if there is no other option, we can still implement post #37. Why is that not preferable?
-
Yes.
-
Come on, that's not the idea. Read #482 and #487. The idea is anti-aircraft operated on Ukrainian soil by Ukrainians. Now you might be right that Putin will eventually state that supplying pencils and apples to Ukraine is an act of war but unless you have a crystal ball lets work with what we have. No one, except you thus far, is suggesting actions that might trigger article 5. I think that until we're told it's an act of war we do everything we can which includes supplying any anti aircraft systems the Ukrainians can actually use. If Putin is dumb enough to tell the United States we need to stop then I guess we will get to see what happens when a narcissistic megalomaniac with nuclear weapons gets told no.
-
Sure, I understand. The musing was about if such older SAM systems were available. To be frank, it wouldn't shock me to learn we had a few dozen warehoused against the day.
-
I didn't take Brents idea as being only Polish batteries fired from Polish soil, or Slovakian for that matter. I also have absolutely no idea how hard it would be to come up with old Russian anti-aircraft systems and get them to Ukraine. I have no idea how many such systems Ukraine has now. Maybe we have some older easier to learn systems we can send. For certain, no one thinks sending Javelins and Stingers complete with made in America stickers by the C-17 load is crossing a line so why not anti-aircraft systems?
-
Surely not. But Ukrainians can fire missiles from their own soil and thus far no one seems concerned with giving them any arms we can get together.
-
I did. Why not make it easier to bring in and disperse supplies? Every box won't have a Javelin inside and, given Russian atrocities thus far, I'd say that they were humanitarian. too.
-
OK. Thank you. I read it just now. First, I concede I don't know what I'm talking about and am probably using terms incorrectly. That a real no-fly zone isn't possible, I accept. Brents idea of a wide area defended by missiles along the border for humanitarian reasons and to distribute material seemed sensible to me. Can you conceive of a way to do that much?
-
That's what I'm confused about, the all or nothing thinking. So maybe we can't risk Polish Soldiers manning Patriot systems in Poland. Is it possible to round up a bunch of Russian stuff? S-400 or whatever? We're clearly ready to send US anti-tank weapons to be used inside Ukraine. The French seem to believe that Ukrainians serving in the French Foreign Legion aren't French soldiers once they cross back into Ukraine. There has to be a way to make it happen.
-
Do the Ukrainians have any military type airports within this umbrella area?
-
Is the idea to slow roll a ground based air umbrella forward?
-
Thank you for establishing what I suspected but do not have the experience to state with authority.
-
Appearances, just like dumping Russian Vodka down the drain at your favorite cocktail lounge. But, appearances matter these days more than ever, you know "influencing", and 10 seconds later no one gives a shit if you bought the oil or vodka but the effect is real. I just want to point out, chicken bone in my throat, that Brent is right on some things. Yes, burning hydrocarbons causes global warming. But also yes, so does burning cities and transferring the western worlds wealth to our enemies ain't too smart.
-
You have that right. I explained in detail your confusions a few posts back regarding a conversation I was having with BIGUN. Unable to admit to the color of the sky you went back to post #32 for your petard. Well you screwed that up, too. I was conversing with Brent, not BIGUN and certainly not you, and he was bloviating. I said in post #32: How would you play this hand? You're superb at bloviating, denigrating, and Monday morning Quarterbacking but be brave and tell us just what you would do. You decided that my comment meant that I knew just what I would do, another non-sequitur, and launched into your usual attack. So, yes, it is very laughable.
-
Just copying this, cause I know you will complain about people not being nice enough to you in the future. Typical projection. Consult your therapy app. To the rest of your post, it seems overly simplistic. You cannot establish a no-fly zone without the willingness to engage ground targets and the willingness to put troops on the ground. Manufactured bullshit. Your Black and White world isn't useful when complexity occurs. Why couldn't air cover be strictly focused on enemy aircraft? Secondly, there is no way a European Country or a coalition of European Countries or NATO could announce they are enforcing a no-fly zone without Russia using that as an indication of a declaration of war. certainly not at this point. Strawman. Non-sequiter. Ear wax. First the Germans fly some cover. Minutes later Canada disavows any knowledge of Mr. Phelps. Theater Nuclear War doesn't happen.
-
Was Gibbon's tome unavailable at your local lemonade stand? Sheesh. That sort of thing goes on your permanent record.
-
I doubt it. No matter, a European Nation suffering combat losses while acting offensively, alone or in concert with other European Nations, would not necessarily trigger a NATO Article 5 response. In the world of politics and manufactured pretenses we live in it takes only an understanding. All it would take, and Ottawa could do it, is a statement that it was not a NATO undertaking as far as Canada was concerned.
-
That seems like as good an outcome as any.
-
In the absence of a bold and initial European response beginning soon, or some outlier event, it seems likely that Ukraine is lost. So far they don't even want to provide air cover much less ground troops.
-
I'm happy you have me on speed dial.
-
Brent was bloviating again about Biden so I was asking Brent what he would do. I guess, in your world, that implies that I knew exactly what I would do. Further, that misapprehension conferred on you the obligation to jump in and rephrase and redirect that question. Okay, then. My questions to BIGUN, not you but this is the internet, about what he would do caused him to remind me of his post #37. After that he and I were off to the races causing me to clarify that I'm not in every case opposed to US participation but rather loathe to be, once again, the go to nation of choice when the neighbor's dog is crapping in your yard. Also, if you can make time to re-read my suggestions you'll, well probably not, see that they fit within our NATO obligations as much as ever.
-
You aren't rephrasing a question, you're asking initial questions and doing so in your inimitable abrasive fashion. No matter, I'll answer it: if NATO agreed to take action in Ukraine I would agree the United States should support and join our NATO allies in the venture even though it would not be in defense of a NATO country. However, I do not agree the the United States should allow itself to get sucked into an action that our NATO Allies or European partners are unwilling to step up and make the same sacrifice.
-
You are incorrect, sir. BIGUN specifically referenced collaboration with our NATO allies. Please reference his post #37 and his clarification of post #37 in post #361.
-
Agreed. But I have no doubt they'd free up several divisional cheer leading squads once Keiths army starting landing throughout Europe. Screw that noise. When they're willing then we step up.
-
Forgive me for not assuming there would be consensus on anything amongst our NATO allies except that weekends and holidays must be kept open. How about we toss #37 in it's entirety and replace it with: I would seek to convene an immediate Zoom call with all NATO members where we'd take a poll of who was ready, willing and able to commit and deploy significant combat forces, not marching bands and mess tents, to a joint venture designed to counter the Russian move into the Ukraine. I would suggest that we'd all commit 2 divisions each, 1 immediately, and equal amounts of combat attack aircraft and material. On agreement, and lot's of luck there, I'd suggest there was no reason for them to wait another metric minute for us to arrive pointing out that now would be a dandy time to waste that 40 mile long armored column advancing on Kyiv. Then, and only then would I start sending American soldiers.
