Forum menu
You want Biden to risk starting WW3 just to spite Trump? Sorry but that’s that f-ing insane and psychotic
I don't think that's what anyone's saying. But the West believing Putin's empty threats over the years is a large part of why the invasion of Ukraine was able to happen in the first place. There's speculation that the UK has already lifted restrictions on the use of storm shadow by Ukraine and if so it's likely the US will follow with ATACMS, the difference being they'll probably play Putin at his own game and just publicly deny giving any such mandate.
that was a deliberately antagonistic post up there, from someone who has form, very tiresome, well done @poopscoop for handling it politely
btw, I also said to the wife last night I hope US lifts restrictions onweapons soons so ukraine can push back as it seems to be generally believed trump will cut off support. That said, I'm not so sure, US are so embedded in giving military aid can he really just pull the plug? Won't he have an army of senior advisers which would have been recommending this course of action to Biden? They won't be changing and I presume their advice will still be largely the same following the same logic. But who knows, I may just stop watching the news and looking at social media for 4 years
DT78
well done @poopscoop for handling it politely
If fairness to dazh, he wasn't to know he hit a bit of raw nerve but that's the problem. We all have lives behind these user names so changing a word here or there just makes everybody's lives that little bit better on any given day.
I'm sure in not without guilt here and quite rightly been pulled up about it in the past.
futonrivercrossing
Free Member
Anyone know trumps position on sanctions? I don’t remember hearing anything except “I’ll end the war in a day“ drivel. Are American companies going to start supplying Putin with tech etc?
Not a subject I can remember him mentioning to be honest but then again his notions and "policies" change all the time. As you say, he's really just said that he'll end the war even before he's sworn in but he'll have forgotten that by now anyway. It's all mate up on the hoof.
Won’t he have an army of senior advisers which would have been recommending this course of action to Biden? They won’t be changing and I presume their advice will still be largely the same following the same logic
I'd love to be optimistic, but Trump has form for sacking staff in swathes, especially anyone associated with a previous administration. Even if he didn't, he famously doesn't listen to advice, or have the attention span to listen to anything at all which is longer than a sound bite. He probably thinks he has the "greatest strategic military insight anyone has ever seen" or some tosh.
He also bears grudges like the man baby he is, and has never forgiven Zelensky for refusing to dig dirt on Biden for him in 2019. If you read anything Trump has said about Zelensky since, he seethes with undisguised contempt for him. Tough times ahead for Ukraine. Europe needs to step up, not just on Ukraine but on defence and security cooperation generally. The US is no longer a reliable ally.
Well done Poopscoop for reacting to a hyperbolic insult and slur with dignity and politeness, this forum needs more like you.
There'll be an almighty bunfight going on behind the scenes at the pentagon and state department. I suspect on one side you'll have MAGA idealogues (Musk/Sacks et al) + (exclusive) China hawks pushing to cut Ukraine off, and on the other old skool cold warriors / nato enthusiasts aaaaaaaaand.....the military industrial complex.
What trump says and what he actually manages to do are differernt things, it's more than possible that the second set of people manage to find a way to appeal to his vanity and self interest and get him to do the right thing.
What a shit show tho, relying on the venality of arms dealers to get america to do the morally right thing (protecting a soverign democracy defend itself agains a brutal autocratic imperalist)
Great response to a rubbish poster @Poopscoop; You are a bigger man than me, hats off to you - or should that be 'chapeau'
NB I post this comment as I think the same poster doesn't like the anonymity of people liking posts to bully others so, like DT78, I am happy to have my 'username' up there in case this is considered bullying and they want to report me.
I am happy to have my ‘username’ up there in case this is considered bullying and they want to report me.
I think there might be a bit of an overreaction to an off the cuff comment that was perhaps poorly worded. I think the point Daz was making is that in his opinion escalating the Ukrainian-Russian War because it would leave a mess for Trump to deal with would be madness (no insult intended)
It was fairly obvious to me that Daz was attacking the idea rather than the individual who made it. And to be fair imo he has a reasonably valid point, even if Daz has a tendency to often use hyperbole to make a point.
And to be fair imo he has a reasonably valid point, even if Daz has a tendency to often use hyperbole to make a point.
The point would be far more likely to get a hearing without the hyperbole though, it just puts people's backs up. As Poopscoop says, we are all guilty of forgetting there's a real person behind the usernames on here at times. Me included, despite trying hard not to. Thankfully, this thread doesn't suffer from it as much as the other long running threads. It would be great if we all tried hard to maintain that (not a dig at anyone, I really mean ALL of us).
As I say to my kids, there is what you say, and how you say it.
An interesting quick and dirty assessment of the impact of a Trump presidency on Ukraine's fight by APN. Measured and thoughtful as always from APN and maybe just a little bit less doom laden than many other commentators. Less than 9 minutes long, well worth a watch IMO.
I am surprised at the suggestion in the video that the cost of US aid to Ukraine might be an issue for Trump. In the scheme of things I wouldn't have thought that it is unaffordable for the US, and it seems to be less than US aid to Israel.
If it proves to be true and that is what bothers Trump then the Israelis will be worried.
I dunno but I would have thought that scrapping half a dozen aircraft carriers would save the US far more money. It would still leave the US with 5 aircraft carriers, no other country has more than 2, and it's more than enough for a president who claims that doesn't believe in military interventions in far-flung distant lands.
I am surprised at the suggestion in the video that the cost of US aid to Ukraine might be an issue for Trump.
It's not, really. He resents Ukraine because they wouldn't come up with some fabricated evidence against Hunter Biden. The cost thing is just a convenient excuse.
I would have thought that scrapping half a dozen aircraft carriers would save the US far more money.
This is a bit off-topic, but I think there might be a requirement for the navy to maintain a fleet of 11 carriers. If that's the case, it would take an act of Congress to change the law. Not certain of that though. However, if you have 12 aircraft carriers, only 4 will be on deployment at any time. Four will be refitting and the other four will be on R&R. In an emergency, having 12 would probably mean you can count on 8 being available, but if you want to have four permanently deployed, you need 12 in the fleet.
Personally I would ban all aircraft carriers globally. With the capabilities of modern aircrafts no country needs any aircraft carriers to protect themselves from foreign aggression. They are not for defence, they are for attacking countries far from home. Why would a president who claims not to want to fight foreign wars need them?
Plus they are ridiculously expensive, especially when you factor in all the support vessels that have to escort them.
Anyway yeah, off topic, just my little rant about imperialism and reducing the risk of wars 🙂
Personally I would ban all aircraft carriers globally.
Who's going to enforce that? There were naval treaties in the 1920s and 30s aimed at preventing another naval arms race. Japan violated them and there was nothing anyone could do to stop them short of going to war. Same applies to dreams of a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine - who's going to enforce it if Russia violates it?
They are not for defence, they are for attacking countries far from home. Why would a president who claims not to want to fight foreign wars need them?
We sent two to the Falklands back in 82. Protecting British subjects on the other side of the globe, would have been completely impossible without them. Just the first example which springs to mind.
Exactly my point ^^
Edit : In 1982 Britain still had the third largest navy in the world, should Britain still have the third largest navy in the world? How else is it going to protect British subjects on the other side of the globe?
America wants aircraft carriers to prevent China from the taking Korea and Taiwan
And China are waiting for their moment on that
I suspect isolationist Trump will be their best opportunity, Taiwan supplies 60% of the worlds semiconductors.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/china-prepares-for-aerial-bombing-of-taiwans/
Aircraft carriers on the Ukraine thread?
You need to look at a map 🙂
"Who’s going to enforce that?"
The drone operators? Surface naval assets seem to be rather outdated judging by the experience of the Russian Black Sea fleet. See comments on the expense of protecting and servicing a carrier.
With reference to Donald Trump, let's not forget that he was the first US President to send lethal aid to Ukraine in 2018 (210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers, valued at $47 million)
He's always believed that Ukraine is a corrupt country and as such shouldn't be "given" aid, but he was quite happy to be transactional and sell them weapons if it was good for US trade https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/trump-resisted-ukraine-sale-javelin-antitank-missile/
Then the 2019 impeachment happened (transactional again, "You give me... and I'll give you...")
Europe has money, the US has weapons, who knows?
if you have 12 aircraft carriers, only 4 will be on deployment at any time
that explains why the UK, with two, has only has one, half deployed
The way I saw it explained, some time ago, is that the traditional model is that you need 3 carriers as at any given time 1 will be at sea, 1 will be in dock for repair/refit and 1 will be needed for training, as taking off and landing from an aircraft carrier is one of the hardest tasks for a pilot.
However, STOVL style operations are much, easier than traditional CATOBAR take-offs and landings, and requires less on-ship training time. This is why the UK decided it would be fine to replace its three Illustrious class carriers with only two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. This is also why the proposals to switch from using STOVL F-35Bs to CATOBAR F-35Cs were problematic even beyond the issues with refitting the carriers with catapults.
All this obviously is separate to any engineering difficulties the Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles currently have.
you need 3 carriers as at any given time 1 will be at sea
But only one country has more 2.
Is the United States really the only country that can defend itself from foreign aggression?
But only one country has more 2.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service
Key point is, what do you count as an aircraft carrier. The U.S. has 11 large fleet carriers, but another 9 helicopter carriers that can also carry F35 or Harriers. Japan officially doesn't have any aircraft carriers, but they have 4 helicopter carriers that can also carry F35s. Pretty much any moderately sized naval ship carries helicopters, so they are technically aircraft carrying ships. In an emergency, any decent sized container ship or oil tanker could be turned into a makeshift carrier that could launch F35s. It wouldn't be optimal, but it would be an aircraft carrier.
Key point is, what do you count as an aircraft carrier.
I think the accepted definition is a navy ship which carries fixed wing aircraft. It is these ships that are mindbogglingly expensive, especially when including the costs of frigates and destroyer that have to escort them.
They are only necessary to fight wars far away from the home country. They are not defensive assets.
Edit : And to get back to the original point, US military expenditure/aid for Ukraine is not, relatively speaking, a lot of money. It would be surprising in my opinion if affordability was a serious consideration for Trump. I suspect other considerations are far more important to him.
I suspect other considerations are far more important.
I agree, he'll play up the cost as he's the "successful businessman clamping down on unnecessary government spending" but it's just as likely to be about Ukraine not playing ball over Hunter Biden and him being an admirer of Putin.
What a way to run foreign policy...
Us spending in Ukraine is effectively just paying money into the us economy to build arms.
Knowing how Trumps mind works, I’d sell it to him as “You can do more for jobs in Biden backyard in Scranton than he did, by buying massive amounts of ammunition from the factory there”
The US defensive industry is benefiting vastly from the ukraine war rumbling on so the 'cost' is a relative term, as pointed out above its US gov paying US industry to support ukraine. It's not really in their interest for it to end - be interesting to see how they lobby / how much influence they have over Trump.
My guess would be trump looks to implement some sort of loan / payback arrangements from ukraine rather than completely stop providing support.
Have read Russia is making noises about re-establishing political engagement with the US, so Putin is seeing it as a potential opportunity
We shall find out soon enough
Knowing how Trumps mind works, I’d sell it to him as “You can do more for jobs in Biden backyard in Scranton than he did, by buying massive amounts of ammunition from the factory there”
Hard to know with Trump what will happen, but something like this seems likely. He's massively transactional imo rather than strategic. The transactions could benefit either side though.
Hopefully with Biden gone he'll forget about his Hunter Biden obsession.
I reckon there are ways you could make Trump keen on supporting Ukraine, such as playing up the economic advantage it provides to the US arms industry, or selling him the idea that he could be the man who "single-handedly" defeated Russia and ruined its military for a generation without risking the life of a single US serviceman. But I don't think that anyone he listens to is going to say anything like that.
In 1982 Britain still had the third largest navy in the world, should Britain still have the third largest navy in the world?
And a hundred years before that we were operating under the 'Two-Power Standard'.
The US navy is currently beyond that. The biggest air force in the world (by number of combat aircraft) is the USAF. The second-biggest is the US navy.
We've always had a very small army, aside from during the two world wars, and to a lesser extent the Napoleonic wars, but the Royal Navy has been so powerful that it didn't matter. As an aside, even at the height of the empire back in the late Victorian period we were still only spending just over 2% of GDP on the military, it's just that our GDP was so vast compared to everyone else's.
Not trying to make any sort of point, just some vaguely relevant things I find interesting.
We’ve always had a very small army
Which apparently greatly impressed Adolf Hitler. I believe that Hitler used Britain as an example and inspiration of how to hold onto an empire with the minimum amount of boots on the ground....... have local indigenous leaders to do most of the dirty work for you and occasionally carry out massacres to remind conquered peoples not to get too shirty.
Although I think the Romans perfected that strategy a couple of thousand years earlier.
holy thread drift Batman!
Did the Romans invent aircraft carriers?
The Greeks first used big catapults, which were developed further by the Romans, but I thought that it was the Brits who first stuck one on a ship and launched an aircraft
In actual news about Ukraine, the US has relaxed rules on US contractors working on US Government-supplied kit in Ukraine
Previously, US contractors could only work on kit supplied privately by that contractor https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-lifts-ban-contractors-inside-ukraine-fix-us-supplied-weapons-2024-11-08/
Keep relaxing the rules 🙂
but I thought that it was the Brits who first stuck one on a ship and launched an aircraft
Pedant mode, technically it was the yanks I believe but I think the UK were the furst to really develop the idea.
Sorry for OT.