Ron DeSantis on Ukraine

Correct. That poster's anti-Russian rhetoric is hyperbole and hysteria.

 

it’s a concern because the credibility oh the nation as whole is in jeopardy with his sy

 

That Hill article mentioned Lil Marco, but didn't have his full, demeaning, quote about WTF Meatball knows (and doesn't know) about Ukraine.... this one does...

SNIP
Rubio took his criticism further, noting that "obviously he doesn't deal with foreign policy every day as governor, so I'm not sure ... I can't compare that to something else he did or has said over the last few years, because he doesn't deal with it every day."
ENDSNIP

https://thehill.com/homenews/390229...nce-themselves-from-desantiss-ukraine-stance/

 

US credibility is in the toilet thanks to Biden's Afghanistan pull out.

 

Yes, in your world those journalists who ask relevant questions are dangerous, and those contemplating running for POTUS should not express thoughts regarding military aggression by the federal government.

Strange world indeed.

 

Ron DeSantis’s pandering on Ukraine is dangerously wrong
Opinion by the Editorial Board

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is dangerously wrong to say that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a mere “territorial dispute” and that the United States lacks a vital interest in the outcome. The former Navy lawyer should know better than to peddle appeasement, but he’s pandering to his party’s isolationist wing by mimicking former president Donald Trump ahead of an all-but-declared bid for the GOP’s 2024 nomination.

“Peace should be the objective,” Mr. DeSantis wrote in answers to a questionnaire from Fox News host Tucker Carlson. If Mr. DeSantis’s goal is peace, letting Russia run roughshod will mean less of it. This all but assures more conflict down the road in a more dangerous and unstable world. History leaves little doubt.

Supporting Ukraine is squarely in America’s national interest. Turning inward would invite a power vacuum that Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang and too many others would be all too happy to fill. China is watching. Taiwan becomes more vulnerable if Russia gets away with annexing large swaths of a neighboring sovereign country. Mr. DeSantis is also turning his back on decades of Republican doctrine, going back to Ronald Reagan, that argues the United States has a vital interest in supporting democracy around the world. . . .

 

Not at all. All our allies are with us 100% on this, and we have the leadership role. Besides, practically all our allies had pulled out of Afghanistan before us. We were the last remnants, and even we had only a tiny presence left at that point. See, it wasn't just us who left, we were just the last to leave, and 90+% of us had already gone in previous years.

 

Ukraine Stance Could Blow Up DeSantis' 2024 Strategy
Ed Kilgore, NY Magazine




By going America First on Ukraine, the Florida governor is alienating the anti-Trump Republicans he needs to beat the former president. Read More

 

Abandoning allies is never a good look.

 

I don't think everyone's motives are pure, but for Ukrainians it is essentially all about self defense/survival, and Ukraine has a large enough population to sustain a military capable of defeating the Russia that has invaded their territory. This would have been over last February if NATO had given them the weapons they have now to capture that army stretched out on the highway to Kyiv.

Crimea is another trap for a far larger Russian force. Putin may wish he was Stalin, but he does not have the irrational discipline of a large CP to crush domestic unrest as the cost in lives and treasure accelerates.

Tiny Vietnam was eventually able to defeat the US and the West after a very long war, and they were able to turn back a massive Chinese invasion force in short order after the American withdrawal. See also Afghanistan, UK, USSR, USA.

 

No it is spot on. Google "Slovak Republic" for a more detailed insight into what happens when aggressive invaders are appeased.

 

Abandoning Ukraine will not serve the interests of America. Many if not most Trump/DeSantis supporters know that.
IMO, isolationist Republicans are set up to lose much of their support if Ukraine falls because of their "antiwar" strategy.
Rather like what happened to Republicans during WW II when they joined the CPUSA's opposition to providing military support for the Poland, the UK, and France before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

Indeed. His serious policy agenda has been lacking for a presidential candidate. And he screwed up this 'toe in the pond' moment by calling it a territorial dispute. There has been no discussion of American troop involvement, so that was also a gaffe. He needs to think bigger than 'woke', 'don't say gay', book banning and protecting kids from drag queen reading hours to convince anyone with a brain that he is equipped to sit in the Oval.

 

Lacking in what way, Perhaps too much America first and insufficent support for globalism? Perhaps he never attended a CFR meeting? lol

"Don't say gay" may seem cute to some but is a total misrepresentation of his policy of preventing age inappropriate sexual curriculum in pulibc school. This sort of talking point may fire up certain low information types, but one would expect an actual well reasoned debate here on PF rather the the talking points. Yes, people are more concerned about their young children than shipping hundreds of Billions to some other country. People are more concerned about our border than someone elses border. And woke is a pretty big concern as this disordered thinking impacts schools, the criminal justice system and the economy. The liberal outrage over DeSantis trying to protect State pensions from being pissed away on ESG investments is the sort of policy issues that I want to see in a candidate. As opposed to this.

 

I looked up the equipment we sent to Ukraine. I didn't see any F-16s or Apaches on the list. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...n-us-has-supplied-to-ukraine-with-13-billion/
I was responding to your statement "You said to increase production capacity. I am saying that could TAKE YEARS. THAT IS REALITY. Meanwhile, our war stocks are disappearing into deep hole in Ukraine , weaking our ability to counter threats from China. You just want to wave a magic wand and replace all the weaponry. I'm telling you that is IMPOSSIBLE."
I am disputing your assertion that we are using up all our military resources in Ukraine. Should I call that BS....TOTAL BS?
No, I just think you are over reacting.
Since I am not an military expert, I was typing "from the top of my head". Didn't look anything up, but was going on memory and my expertise at advanced manufacturing.
So, it sounded like you know so much more about this subject, I decided to do a bunch of research and looking into things to gain a better perspective, and learn some things. Here's what I found or realized.
What my post was referring to mostly was "munitions", which I mistakenly thought referred to bombs, missiles, bullets etc.
When I said manufacturing could be ramped up quickly, that's what I was referring to, as that is what we are sending to Ukraine. I'm not going down the list of items one by one, but we have not sent Apaches and F-16s, so I don't know what the relevance there is.
I also looked up how to manufacture missiles and bullets. Guess what? They're made in the same way as most products in factories. Want more faster? Spend some money and you can make more faster.
I did find this one source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-running-out-weapons-send-ukraine
And this: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...s-quick-to-replenish-weapons-sent-to-ukraine/
I don't care if I misspelled Raytheon. I didn't work for them and didn't claim to know everything about them. I do know that the controllers for the automated machines they use to manufacture a lot of those items is a certain brand and I am somewhat of an expert at those, and I know what they can do, and I know that production increases are only money away, given they can acquire the resources. Again, I'm not talking jets and helicopters.
From my experience and through a little research, I don't feel there is anything to worry about at the moment about the US using up all their military resources in Ukraine. It is not impossible to replace what we are contributing, if it even needs to be replaced at all.
The recollection I typed "All those sorties they flew in the beginning of the Iraq war? Most of the munitions used were scheduled to be replaced anyway, and the Saudi's bought up all the used equipment when it was over." was in error, in retrospect. It was the Gulf War. And it was some DOD dude stating it, and I can't find anything to back it up, but if you want to call BS you can, but I'm at least 90% sure I heard it. The military does have a replacement plan, I saw it but can't find it at the moment. Found it: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30988-AR_700-28-000-WEB-1.pdf
They do get rid of old munitions, so it is possible that, in 1990 they had stuff they needed to get rid of and replace, maybe left from the Vietnam era.
Bottom line: you are correct to bring up the issue, but off on the worry part. The military is planning for this and is being careful on what they send and how much so they don't deplete themselves. I would say using the word impossible is not accurate. But it isn't easy if you look at the production rates, and it sounds like they did some poor planning on their production facilities by not planning for increasing capacity in some cases, particularly HIMARS ammunition.
I also wanted to express thanks for the conversation, arrogance excluded, as it pushed me to do some interesting research and I learned some stuff.

 

Well I've never posted anything remotely neo-conish, so I don't know how you got that idea in the first place.

 

Well I get that for Ukraine, it's a war for national survival. But it would NOT have been over last February if we had opened the NATO armory to them then. They still had their own military equipment then. Besides, US policy is to drain Russia by prolonging the conflict, so that's why you get the gradual drip by drip of military equipment, to keep this going. Giving Ukraine 30 some tanks is kind of a joke. They need more like 1500 tanks.

But at this point it doesn't matter. If you seriously think that Ukraine can, by themselves, push the Russians out of their borders than that's a bet I wouldn't make.

 

All they had to do last February is cut off the retreat and the supply chain to a strung out invasion force. They did not have weapons with enough range to do that. Alas.

Ukraine can still win. Russian tactics are certainly helping, but it will be much harder.

 

30 From US, but 320 altogether from other allies, and I believe they had almost 1000 when this thing started.

 

Yes , out of Crimea and the Donbas . And if you include all of Ukraine in your answer, you probably wouldn’t like their answer(if you care about democracy, oh but wait, you don’t )

 

Ehh...unlike the Russian effort completely collapses because Putin totally changes his mind, OR we decide to get directly involved, I just don't see a way for the Ukrainians to win. I could be wrong about this, but if I were betting money, it would be on Russia.

 

Before the war I believe the Ukrainians had about 1000 tanks, and those were spread among understrength units, and during 2022 they got donations of old former Warsaw Pact tanks from among NATO members, which I imagine have mostly been destroyed by now.

If NATO was serious about Ukraine winning the war, they would probably purchase about a thousand of the T-90 variant that India makes under license. That would be more similar to the tanks Ukrainian crews have used and the training time would be cut down. Unfortunately there is no money in that for Western arms firms.

 

You think there are 1000 T-90S tanks lying around for anyone to purchase, and that India would sell them to the allies and sour their relationship with Russia?

 

There seems to be plenty of money around when it comes to Ukraine. I'm quite sure that no one has even made the offer though.

 

If there really were a significant number of T-90's available I'm sure an offer would have been made.