US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, at least put some effort into it. I think there are examples of coverage of the crowd that was at least somewhat disingenuous. There was video footage of the parade route that was taken hours before the parade that showed empty bandstands and sparse crowds lined up along the route, but that failed to mention the time. They could point to those sorts of reports, but they didn't even bother to craft any kind of viable narrative. Just lazy, meaningless lies.

I saw pictures of nearly empty reviewing stands, but those pictures also had the presidents' limos passing the stands, so it couldn't have been that early.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I saw pictures of nearly empty reviewing stands, but those pictures also had the presidents' limos passing the stands, so it couldn't have been that early.

The place to look is on youtube as there are vids of complete parade coverage.  The stands seem to be across the street from the POUTS viewing area and in the vids they looked full and the crowds on the parade route looked good sized too.  The limos could have been passing at some other time, like after dropping off Trump for the inauguration, perhaps.

[ljkeane]

5 minutes ago, Einheri said:

It's true that it would be difficult and time consuming for them to supply their units over such long distances, but this wouldn't stop them, only delay them, and what good are those delays if the US is taken out of the equation? Like I said, token forces from other Euros is not going to cut it against multiple Russian moto infantry brigades and Naval infantry brigades who has more tanks, artillery and SAM systems to protect them.

I know being an armchair general is one of the favourite pastimes of people on the internet but lets rein it in a bit. Ok, lets say you're right and theoretically Russia could win a conventional war to conquer Scandinavia. Who cares? They aren't actually going to invade Scandinavia because, off the top of my head:

a. There's a very, very high risk France and the UK would get involved and then they're facing the prospect of a nuclear war and MAD and all that.

b. If that doesn't happen they've pretty much forced Western Europe to engage in a massive military build up which they've got no hope of matching given their massive economic, industrial and population disadvantages so they still ultimately lose badly anyway. Plus of course a remilitarised Germany is pretty much Russia's worst nightmare.

c. What exactly is the point of Russia invading Scandinavia anyway?

So, yeah, Europe could significantly increase military spending to prepare for a war with Russia which isn't going to happen anyway or they could spend the money, like they currently are, on education, healthcare and having a social safety net etc. I know which way I think it's likely to go.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

Gotta love M-W

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

33 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

The place to look is on youtube as there are vids of complete parade coverage.  The stands seem to be across the street from the POUTS viewing area and in the vids they looked full and the crowds on the parade route looked good sized too.  The limos could have been passing at some other time, like after dropping off Trump for the inauguration, perhaps.

Yeah, the one I saw was on Twitter and was widely retweeted. It was video of about 4-5 blocks of the route that was sparsely populated. In the response section of that Tweet, a inauguration attendee had noted that whoever took the video cut it off right at the block where the crowd had begun to increase considerably. The poster then walked up that block showing crowds that were 3-4 deep along the sidewalk with mostly full viewing stands. 

[Mindwalker]

For the record, DT's claim about the size of his, uh, crowd, and Conway's alternative facts have been covered on German tv...

Re: DT lying badly... Well, will his supporters really care? I mean, it's not like he wasn't proven to be telling the non-truth during his campaign, about political facts, about his private life etc - did it hurt him? No, on the contrary.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, Liffguard said:

Exactly. Russia's ability to project sustained force beyond it's immediate borders is pretty limited. Sure, the scandinavian countries might struggle if they were totally on their own but they wouldn't be on their own against a direct military attack.

The concern is that direct military attack is not Russia's MO. They're very good shit-stirrers who can cause a lot of trouble through unconventional and indirect means (see Ukraine). This is not to be dismissed, but it's not an existential threat to western Europe.

Edit: I mean, Russia's economy is significantly smaller than Italy's, let alone the EU's as a whole. They have a lot of immediate warfighting skill and short-term capability, but very little depth or sustainability. Conventional state-on-state wars are usually won by logistics.

No it isn't, Russia's economy is about 50% larger than Italy's. In any case, I'm not sure where this idea that their military logistics are so bad comes from, exactly. Anyone have a source? I just can't recall reading anything about that off the top of my head. 

 

[Einheri]

50 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I know being an armchair general is one of the favourite pastimes of people on the internet but lets rein it in a bit. Ok, lets say you're right and theoretically Russia could win a conventional war to conquer Scandinavia. Who cares? They aren't actually going to invade Scandinavia because, off the top of my head:

a. There's a very, very high risk France and the UK would get involved and then they're facing the prospect of a nuclear war and MAD and all that.

Read the earlier posts. We were discussing a specific scenario where Russia gambles on the notion that France and the UK won’t use nuclear weapons to retaliate after they’ve invaded some of their neighboring countries, which btw is a subject that's frequently brought up among Russia's European neighbors. Is this scenario unlikely? Yes, but like I wrote earlier, we should nevertheless prepare ourselves for such eventualities i.e. not base our defence almost entirely on outside help.

b. If that doesn't happen they've pretty much forced Western Europe to engage in a massive military build up which they've got no hope of matching given their massive economic, industrial and population disadvantages so they still ultimately lose badly anyway. Plus of course a remilitarised Germany is pretty much Russia's worst nightmare.

Western Euros would ramp up their spending and everything you say about their potential is true (and why I’m upset that we’re even having this discussion – Europe combined should be able to muster more formidable forces than Russia or the US, but as of now, it simply isn't the case), but this would take years and it's not guaranteed that you'd be willing to resume fighting over Eastern European and North-Western-European territories after all that time has passed. And if nothing happens, the relationship between you  and Russia would eventually start to normalize again (Finland probably misses Karelia for example, but no one else cares).

c. What exactly is the point of Russia invading Scandinavia anyway?

Lots of possibilities. Control over strategic islands like Gotland, as well as the Norwegian coast which has always been desirable, and let’s not forget that Norway is Russia’s largest competitor when it comes to delivering energy to the EU area, so with us out of the way, they pretty much dominate this sector. Let's also not forget that nationalism is clearly on the rise in Russia, which is in part facilitated by the state (just look at some their propaganda video on the web, especially the one whose message is "I'm an occupier, it's my heritage and birthright", and there are a lot of Russians who dream of a Greater Russia (and more dangerously, politicians who might be willing to listen to them).

50 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

So, yeah, Europe could significantly increase military spending to prepare for a war with Russia which isn't going to happen anyway or they could spend the money, like they currently are, on education, healthcare and having a social safety net etc. I know which way I think it's likely to go.

 

Listen, Nazi Germany faced worse odds yet somehow, they still managed to conquer most of Europe, and nearly broke the Soviet Union in 1941. We made the mistake of underestimating them back then, so what I’m saying is that we shouldn’t make the same mistake again (and again, I don't actually think that Russia is going to try something, but I want my country to be prepared in case they do). Education, healthcare, social safety net is nice and all, but if your country has a dangerous neighbor who recently showed willingness to invade one of his other neighbors, you’d probably start worrying more about your defence as well, and indeed, it now looks like most of Russia’s neighbors (including my own Norway) are ramping up our defence spending.

[Kouran]

The Russians logistics are crap because they effectively have no MAC, they have shit all for sea lift, and there isn't any roads or rail lines in the Arctic that can't be disabled by a 4 man demo team in a few minutes.

 

If the Russians want to invade Scandinavian they will win after a short fight followed by a long slow loss because they have no capacity to hold. 

 

For God's sake look at how badly they did in Chechnya. Toss in the fact they can barely supply the tiny force they have in Syria. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

45 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

For the record, DT's claim about the size of his, uh, crowd, and Conway's alternative facts have been covered on German tv...

Re: DT lying badly... Well, will his supporters really care? I mean, it's not like he wasn't proven to be telling the non-truth during his campaign, about political facts, about his private life etc - did it hurt him? No, on the contrary.

Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting that Trump isn't full of shit here. The crowds were anemic by many accounts. That said, there didn't seem to be any need to exaggerate that fact, and there are a few examples of that occurring.

 And I agree that none of this is important. His reaction to it is pretty bizarre, while at the same time being totally in character. Dude, you're President. Stop sweating the unimportant shit and at least try to do a good job.

[kairparavel]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Didn't see this before but it seems the GOP introduced a bill in the House to leave the United Nations. Doubt it moves anywhere but it's still kind of scary to think that it's what some people in the party that controls the government wants.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

And this gem:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/586?r=13

Quote

H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

 

[Liffguard]

30 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

No it isn't, Russia's economy is about 50% larger than Italy's. In any case, I'm not sure where this idea that their military logistics are so bad comes from, exactly. Anyone have a source? I just can't recall reading anything about that off the top of my head. 

 

Wikipedia has Italy at about 1.8 trillion USD and Russia at about 1.3 trillion.

It's not the Russia's logistics are especially bad. It's just the US is pretty much the only modern state capable of sustaining a long-term campaign at distance against other advanced countries.

[Einheri]

4 minutes ago, Kouran said:

The Russians logistics are crap because they effectively have no MAC, they have shit all for sea lift, and there isn't any roads or rail lines in the Arctic that can't be disabled by a 4 man demo team in a few minutes.

They can seize civilian ships to expand their sea lift capacity, and blowing up roads/railroads is still just a temporary delay.

If the Russians want to invade Scandinavian they will win after a short fight followed by a long slow loss because they have no capacity to hold. 

The Wehrmacht managed to hold on to Norway for the entirety of the war despite being fairly isolated. If the Russians manage to take over parts or the entirety of Scandinavia, the EU countries would need years to rebuild their forces again if they desired to retake it, and I'm not 100% sold on the notion that they'd still be willing to resume the fighting after all that time has passed. 

For God's sake look at how badly they did in Chechnya. Toss in the fact they can barely supply the tiny force they have in Syria. 

Chechnya Part 1 was indeed a clusterfuck, but the Russians learnt from it, and it did not go so well for the Chechens in Part 2 I seem to remeber. Also, it's not exactly hard to understand why it's very difficult for them to supply their forces in Syria if we take a look at the map. Russia is primarily a land power, and it's mostly the countries bordering it who has reasons to keep their guard up.

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, kairparabola said:

And this gem:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/586?r=13

Quote

H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

 

And GOP giving a shit about the borned life is zero, unless they can squeeze a dollar from it.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

17 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Wikipedia has Italy at about 1.8 trillion USD and Russia at about 1.3 trillion.

It's not the Russia's logistics are especially bad. It's just the US is pretty much the only modern state capable of sustaining a long-term campaign at distance against other advanced countries.

PPP is generally a far better measure when comparing the economies of different countries, particularly so when they are of clearly different levels of development like Russia and Italy are. This is because PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) takes into account the differences in buying power rather than just the nominal exchange rates, meaning that it includes the fact that say a hundred dollars (converted to roubles) buys you far more goods in Russia than it would in a wealthier Western country. 

This extends to military budgets as well. The Russians get a a lot more troops and material for their 66 billion USD than a country like Italy or Germany would if they spent the same amount*. So looking at nominal GDP and nominal military expenditures is highly misleading. This goes for China as well for that matter. 

As for the rest, define "distance". That Russia has next to no ability to project power in regions like Africa or Latin America like the US does is one thing, but now we are talking about countries sharing a land border with them. 

 

*Due to a lot cheaper wages both for the military personnel themselves as well as the people producing their equipment and supplies, etc.  

[Liffguard]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

PPP is generally a better measure when comparing the economies of different countries, particularly so when they are of clearly different levels of development like Russia and Italy are. This is because PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) takes into account the differences in buying power rather than just the nominal exchange rates, meaning that it includes the fact that say a hundred dollars (converted to roubles) buys you far more stuff in Russia than it would in a wealthier Western country. 

This extends to military budgets as well. The Russians get a a lot more troops and material for their 66 billion USD than a country like Italy or Germany would if they spent the same amount*. So looking at nominal GDP and nominal military expenditures is highly misleading. This goes for China as well for that matter. 

*A lot cheaper wages both for the military personnel themselves as well as the people producing their equipment and supplies. 

Fair enough, I won't argue the point. In any case, Russia still doesn't have the resources available that western Europe does, nor does it change that their military is significantly more limited than often presented.

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

And GOP giving a shit about the borned life is zero, unless they can squeeze a dollar from it

It'll start even earlier - theyll be turning the uninsured but pregnant away from hospitals on the grounds that pregnancy is a pre-exiaitng condition.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

11 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

And GOP giving a shit about the borned life is zero, unless they can squeeze a dollar from it.

So very true, indeed. Noting Le Dumps first official executive act was to make higher mortgage rates possible. The boot licking (of the elite) has commenced.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

8 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Fair enough, I won't argue the point. In any case, Russia still doesn't have the resources available that western Europe does, nor does it change that their military is significantly more limited than often presented.

Not if Western Europe takes its security more seriously, no. Hopefully is what is starting to happen now. 

[Wrl6199]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Not if Western Europe takes its security more seriously, no. Hopefully is what is starting to happen now. 

Seems like its definitely starting to happen now.