u/frezik

It was a talking point that Trump had in his first term. He tends not to let go of bad ideas once they get into his head.

At the time, people didn't take it seriously. With the Ukraine War, Europe feels like it has to now. But it's going to be domestic production, not paying US MIC companies like Trump was thinking.

China might have a 2 year window coming up where it's even possible to invade Taiwan. Their military has modernized a lot, but they probably aren't quite to the point of being able to pull it off. At the same time, they are looking at a demographic cliff from the long term implications of the One Child policy.

It's possible this window as already closed. That said, authoritarian regimes have started wars before that were terrible ideas.

Eeeeehhh, if you just look at numbers of boats, yes. The US Navy has far, far more experience, though. Drones are also going to change the game in ways we're only starting to see with the Ukraine War. With that, the answer might be "everyone's boats are sunk now".

China probably couldn't gain air superiority over Taiwan, and without that, an invasion will fail. That will be true even if the US ends up losing more boats.

Cause and effect are a little twisted here. Trump was already undermining NATO during is first term by saying European members should spend more. They didn't agree at the time, but the Ukraine War proved that Europe really did need a more domestic MIC, and now they are.

Trump wasn't saying it in the first place because he thought it would help NATO.

Tactical nukes can stop just about any invasion.

Ukraine had nukes and gave them up. They were invaded.

Iraq gave up their WMD program after the first Gulf War. They were invaded again.

Iran definitely had a nuclear program, but doesn't appear to be pursuing it anymore. They're getting attacked and quite possibly will get invaded.

South Africa had a nuclear program and gave it up. Left alone.

The Great Powers, particularly the United States but also Russia, have shown that your country should just keep going once you start. Chances are, you'll get invaded, anyway.

This is not the way towards anti-proliferation.

As I said, I have no idea where to go with this. Every option goes down an unacceptable path.

I mean, a lot of that was bombed away, and then there was a metal shortage. They didn't have much choice.

And they do still have some. Germany and Austria both produce weapons. The Abrahms main gun is a German design. France makes a lot and sells it to whomever, too. The Exocet is an anti-ship missile of theirs, and they haven't always been discriminating in who they sell it to. The times they've been fired in anger has been mostly at the ships of other NATO members.

I think your breakdown is spot on. It makes no sense for Russia to do this.

One of the less comfortable aspects of supporting Ukraine is that we are supporting the military-industrial complex as a necessary consequence. To be clear, helping a nation fight off an invader is one of the better things NATO has done. However, it can't be disentangled from all the money the MIL is getting.

Take it one step further, and US withdrawal from NATO (official or otherwise) necessitates the EU strengthening its own MIL. Which means that within a generation, they're likely to have the same overreaching MIL influence on their politics that the US does.

I think this statement should be seen in that context. The existing MIL in the EU sees a big opportunity, and is taking notes from their US counterpart.

I honestly don't know what to do about that. Withdrawal of support to Ukraine is not an option, and if the US is backing off, the EU needs to step up. But that gives strength to an industry that doesn't deserve a higher position at the table than they already have. Putin lost the war in many ways the day he invaded, but forcing the EU's actions might be one last big fuck you while he jumps into his grave.

It's an odd one, because it only applies to new developments. As far as anyone knows, Ukraine doesn't have any rare earths worth mining, and doesn't have a lot else new to mine, either. However, that's based on old geological surveys. They might well have *something*, but it's all speculation.

No self-awareness in how he helped setup being one generation away from the extinction of freedom.

It works like Mr. Burns' immune system. Everyone is trying to listen in on Trump, but they step on each others toes and cancel out.

Star Fleet Intelligence also operates on this principle.

Or Putin dies of natural causes. Which isn't too farfetched. Then the oligarchs find themselves a Deng Xiaoping-like figure who says "ok, all that was bad, let's do something else".

Probably, Russia will have to face the facts that they can't build their own fighter jets, bombers, tanks, or fighting ships larger than a destroyer anymore. Not on the scale they need. Even if you assume some of the designs they're putting out are good (a big assumption), they can't possibly build them at scale. China is sitting right over there with the factories for those things. Xi Jinping will be happy to take their check, but will make sure it clears first.

It didn't need to be far.

Artillery range is around 70km. You need to get that close to the southern most road along the coast into Crimea, and a little more for padding some defense. Now you can turn that road and anything on it into rubble whenever you want.

Ukraine got within a few km of doing that at some areas.

The Kerch Strait Bridge could be hit whenever by a missile. Ukraine had already hit it by then.

There's a port at Sevestapol. It's also been hit by Ukranian missiles before, and even if not, it's not enough on its own.

Airplanes expend lots of fuel for not much cargo. You're not going to supply Crimea that way.

There would be no logistical options left for Russia. Holding those couple of km more would starve it out. Only question is if Putin tries to hang on out of stubbornness.

The 2022 offensive failed because there wasn't enough support. Ukraine was saying they needed X tanks, shells, guns, whatever from the West, and they actually got around X/3. Even with that, they very nearly made it far enough that Crimea would have been logistically cut off. Russia would have either needed to come to terms or else Crimea literally and metaphorically starves.

There isn't really a way to hide what you're doing. You have to build up forces at your bases, move a lot of material, etc. The timing wasn't going to be a surprise, either, because local seasonal weather changes put a demand on when you do things.

If not for nukes, nobody would give a shit about Russia. Their army has fluctuated between being excellent and being worse than useless for its entire history, and they're currently on a low end of that cycle. As for the Russian navy, the Cold War might have been the only time period where it was worth a damn.

So no, they're not a superpower. They've been running on nukes and momentum since the dissolution of the USSR.

Just to put it in perspective, Wikipedia is currently listing the "before being destroyed" numbers, along with a note of "obsolete source".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft

Before this attack, their bomber force was:

• Tu-22M: 56

• Tu-95: 47

• Tu-160: 22

It's apparently the first two that got hit most. 40 total gone is a significant chunk of their whole bomber force, and they ain't going to be able to replace them.

Propaganda is useful. It might be wrong, but there is a specific reason they're saying it.

I take this to mean just the ceremony, right? They probably don't give marriage licenses already to LGBT people, or their equivalent government approved marriage document. They're criminalizing throwing a party in celebration of two peoples' love.

Which may highlight the the issue with correlation and causation in this study. Are they far right because of having less social interaction, or does being far right tend to push people in your life away?