Russia Russia Russia

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yup. It's just an interesting glimpse into a bunch of different vectors - from Chinese IP theft, to the way the US Defense Industry always seems to have its stuff end up in our enemy's arsenals... Which is why (to me) giving billions of dollars and weapons out willy-nilly is never a good idea if you value global stability and security. See: the billions of dollars in equipment left behind in Afghanistan now in the hands of our enemy. 

 

But I'm sure it'll be different in Ukraine because... well, just because. 

 

I'm willing to bet that a lot of those chips aren't from DOD.

 

Just because it's in a weapon, doesn't make it an armaments chip.  I could probably make a decent GPS guidance system out of off-the-shelf parts.  Someone who really knew what they were doing could do it with chips from an old cell phone or Garmin.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

I'm willing to bet that a lot of those chips aren't from DOD.

 

Just because it's in a weapon, doesn't make it an armaments chip.  I could probably make a decent GPS guidance system out of off-the-shelf parts.  Someone who really knew what they were doing could do it with chips from an old cell phone or Garmin.

 

Agreed 100%

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Fansince88]

On 5/26/2022 at 5:27 PM, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

He posts shit I disagree with.  He knows it.  I post shit he disagrees with.  I know it.

 

It's not Thunderdome.  It's a discussion board.

So, 2 can go in and 2 can come out? Where is the fun in that?

[Foxx]

[devnull]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/a-top-us-general-suggested-there-could-be-a-military-component-if-nato-is-to-help-ukraine-export-grain

 

What could possibly go wrong? 🤔

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Weird. Three weeks ago the narrative was Russia was losing so badly, Putin was in hiding, and the whole thing would be over in a few weeks... 

 

 

Why, it's almost like they're not being honest about what's happening on the ground in order to keep that pipeline of cash flowing... 

[snafu]

37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

That NYT Opinion headline is pretty misleading.

Tragic: yes.

Local: no. Ukraine is a separate sovereign Country.

Ambiguous: no.  Putin was very clear about why he invaded his neighbor.

Potential World Conflagration: not likely.

 

The Tweet is also a hand-wringing thing.

Dangerous: potentially.

Foolish: no.  ask Europe. Ask Taiwan and China's other threatened neighbors.

 

 

[snafu]

45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Weird. Three weeks ago the narrative was Russia was losing so badly, Putin was in hiding, and the whole thing would be over in a few weeks... 

 

 

Why, it's almost like they're not being honest about what's happening on the ground in order to keep that pipeline of cash flowing... 

 

The real question is what does the end of this conflict look like for Russia, Ukraine, and the remainder of Europe.

Too unclear to tell at this point.

 

[RkFast]

Note in Biden's op-ed and the just concluded presser with Blinken and Stoltenberg that the "n-word" has reappeared. No, not THAT n-word, you savages. 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/1/nato-us-say-ukraine-war-likely-to-end-through-talks

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by RkFast

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

That NYT Opinion headline is pretty misleading.

Tragic: yes.

Local: no. Ukraine is a separate sovereign Country.

Ambiguous: no.  Putin was very clear about why he invaded his neighbor.

Potential World Conflagration: not likely.

 

The Tweet is also a hand-wringing thing.

Dangerous: potentially.

Foolish: no.  ask Europe. Ask Taiwan and China's other threatened neighbors.

 

 

 

I'm not sure you can classify it as potentially dangerous when you're talking about the world's two largest nuclear powers squaring off in a war of attrition. 

 

I also would classify the world conflagration as increasing by the day rather than unlikely. See the moves China and Turkey are making in the background. There's a lot going on while the media tries to keep us focused on one vector while ignoring the others.

 

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

The real question is what does the end of this conflict look like for Russia, Ukraine, and the remainder of Europe.

Too unclear to tell at this point.

 

 

To me it makes no difference what Russia, Ukraine and Europe look like if in the process the US is bankrupted, decimated, and divided beyond all use. If we are unable to be the world's cop - because our citizenry is too hostile to one another, our coffers are empty, and our warfighters are stretched too thin, the real enemies of the world will take advantage. 

 

They already are. 

 

The way the west is waging this conflict is aiding those who wish to see the US toppled from within, not combating it. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Then what's the point of giving them the systems?

 

 

Right, they can't answer that. 

(The point is the money that goes into the pockets of the contractors who own Biden's team)

 

Also, how do they assure the world that Ukraine won't use these systems to fire at targets inside Russia? Did they pinky-promise? 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm not sure you can classify it as potentially dangerous when you're talking about the world's two largest nuclear powers squaring off in a war of attrition. 

 

It is potentially dangerous. Could "potential" turn into something more -- sure.  Potentially.

It is less dangerous than China/Taiwan, China/Japan, China/Australia, China/India.  It is less dangerous than Iran getting a nuke.  These problems and conflicts are likely.  Not potential.

 

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I also would classify the world conflagration as increasing by the day rather than unlikely. See the moves China and Turkey are making in the background. There's a lot going on while the media tries to keep us focused on one vector while ignoring the others.

 

Countries who've been moving in ambitious directions are either going to accelerate their timeline or they're going to back off -- depending a lot upon how Russia is treated.  You cite Turkey.  They've been a problem for years.  The saving grace now is that their economy is a shambles, and they need to make concessions with other countries to prevent internal civil unrest, and the ouster of their current government.

 

China has had obvious ambitions for a very long time.  They, too, are in rough economic shape, can't feed their population, or keep them employed.  Xi is in danger of not getting his coveted third term in October.  Who follows Xi could be a problem.  But none of this has anything to do with Russia/Ukraine.

 

And you can't only focus on troublemakers.  Why not look at what's happening in Europe as a response to Russia's escapade?  They're getting their collective shit together.  Next time, the US might not have to have such a big footprint.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

To me it makes no difference what Russia, Ukraine and Europe look like if in the process the US is bankrupted, decimated, and divided beyond all use. If we are unable to be the world's cop - because our citizenry is too hostile to one another, our coffers are empty, and our warfighters are stretched too thin, the real enemies of the world will take advantage. 

 

They already are. 

 

The way the west is waging this conflict is aiding those who wish to see the US toppled from within, not combating it. 

 

Again, if it costs the US capital to give Europe time to collect themselves, then I see it as a decent investment.  That's one less area that the U.S. needs to be a "cop".  To me, it seems that this administration has done its utmost to stay out of direct conflict in Europe BECAUSE they need to keep their eyes on Asia and elsewhere.

 

Whether our Country will be toppled from within has very little to do with the US response to Ukraine. I think the $4TRILLION our current regime spent on Covid relief makes Ukraine aid look like couch cushion money.  You think the dollars spent on Ukraine are a complete waste.    I believe the dollars spent on Ukraine are inflated -- and if we had honest leadership in D.C. (on both sides of the aisle) we could have spent a helluva lot less for the purpose -- but that doesn't completely erase the fact that the US does need to assist in Ukraine.  You call that neocon policy but it actually isn't.  In fact, we're NOT putting troops into Ukraine.  In fact, we're NOT nation-building in Ukraine.  Yes, the Military Industrial Complex will profit from this spending.  They profit from every conflict.  Keeping dollars out of their pockets isn't a reason to allow Ukraine to be overrun and strengthening Russia.  Weakening Russia now (by exacerbating their own self-inflicted mistake) buys the US time to deal with what's coming in Asia.

 

 

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm not sure you can classify it as potentially dangerous when you're talking about the world's two largest nuclear powers squaring off in a war of attrition. 

 

 

That seems more stabilizing that dangerous.  Nuclear weapons are antithetical to a war of attrition.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

It is potentially dangerous. Could "potential" turn into something more -- sure.  Potentially.

It is less dangerous than China/Taiwan, China/Japan, China/Australia, China/India.  It is less dangerous than Iran getting a nuke.  These problems and conflicts are likely.  Not potential.

 

All of those things become easier to achieve when we're focused on Ukraine/Russia and depleting our resources while giving Iran and China a free pass. 

 

That's what Biden's been doing, and China, Iran, Turkey (and others) are taking advantage. Almost like they have him on the payroll. 

 

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

Countries who've been moving in ambitious directions are either going to accelerate their timeline or they're going to back off -- depending a lot upon how Russia is treated. 

 

You don't think there's a shot Russia and China are working this angle together? And have been for months? The last 5+ years of "RUSSIA!" has all but assured they are. And we know they're already sharing intelligence. 

 

Get us focused over here, while the Dragon goes off over there.

 

It's not a matter of if now, it's only a matter of when. And everything being done in Ukraine is encouraging more of that, not less. 

 

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

You cite Turkey.  They've been a problem for years.  The saving grace now is that their economy is a shambles, and they need to make concessions with other countries to prevent internal civil unrest, and the ouster of their current government.

 

China has had obvious ambitions for a very long time.  They, too, are in rough economic shape, can't feed their population, or keep them employed.  Xi is in danger of not getting his coveted third term in October.  Who follows Xi could be a problem. 

 

Cornered and wounded animals are MORE dangerous than prosperous healthy ones. China and Turkey are more dangerous today because of this. All the more reason to save our shot rather than deplete our resources and will to fight on a country that's not a NATO member, and serves very little strategic import to the European or global theater.

 

What we are doing in Ukraine, or not doing, is directly related to what these other nations choose to do. We are not only chasing our tails in Ukraine, it's causing division and depleting the very tools and resources we'd need to defend Taiwan or other areas of the globe. 

 

Put it another way - Biden's ineptitude (at best), or corruption (at worst) is highlighting all the reasons why the permawar regime(s) of administrations past became so wildly unpopular by the time they left office. This fight in Ukraine is depleting our own citizen's will and patience. Things they'll need in spades should China escalate. 

 

That doubles when the economy tanks and people's pocketbooks take a hit. When you have people struggling at home to make ends meet, they're far less likely to go along with the next war abroad. 

 

10 minutes ago, snafu said:

But none of this has anything to do with Russia/Ukraine.

 

For all the reasons stated above, I disagree. The world is interconnected more than ever - especially at the leadership level. They're all paying the same think-tanks, members of the same international communities. Everyone is watching what's happening, and it's not deterring anyone.

 

In fact, I'd argue it's encouraging more bad actors to get feisty. They see that not only is Biden corrupt and inept, he's willing to chase his tail wherever they place the laser pointer.  

 

How could it deter anyone when we are proving that we are corrupt and incompetent at the highest levels. Weakness invites a challenge. And we are very weak at the top.  

 

13 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

And you can't only focus on troublemakers.  Why not look at what's happening in Europe as a response to Russia's escapade?  They're getting their collective shit together.  Next time, the US might not have to have such a big footprint.

 

I disagree they're getting their collective shit together. If anything, we are proving that they don't need to because we'll be there with 100s of billions of freshly printed dollars every time we're called. Look at the difference in spending since the war began. We're carrying the overwhelming share of the burden. 

 

And in the process we are  cutting off our nose despite our faces to help "fix" a problem we helped create. And Brussels knows we'll do it again and again so long as the right buttons are pushed in the fear machines. 

 

15 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Again, if it costs the US capital to give Europe time to collect themselves, then I see it as a decent investment.  That's one less area that the U.S. needs to be a "cop".  To me, it seems that this administration has done its utmost to stay out of direct conflict in Europe BECAUSE they need to keep their eyes on Asia and elsewhere.

 

We aren't giving them time to collect themselves. We are footing the bill for them to avoid exactly that. 

 

And it's incorrect to state we've stayed out of this. We are providing active intelligence, boots on the ground, hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and equipment - what comes next? 

 

Advisors. They're already there, but that will become "public" sooner rather than later. 

 

Then what comes next? 

 

A sandbox war where we never leave. 

 

It's literally the same pattern we've seen used in every neocon/neoliberal conflict this century. To think "this time it'll be different" - even though it's being run by the same people, think tanks, and administration officials, is fantasy imo. 

 

18 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Whether our Country will be toppled from within has very little to do with the US response to Ukraine.

 

It's one vector of many. 

 

Did the US become stronger or weaker from 20 years of the War on Terror? 

 

The answer is weaker. 

 

Will the US become stronger or weaker from untold-years of war in Europe's most corrupt nation, fighting over a spit of land most Americans couldn't find on map? 

 

Going by history, it'll become weaker. We The People will become more tired, more broke, and under even more of a yoke from the State than before. That has consequences. We were already racing towards the brink before the invasion began - and it hasn't unified us in anyway. It's only made the divisions more apparent, the corruption more clear, and Americans' patience is wearing thin. 

 

Look what happened to the Romans and their lust for empire towards the end.

 

19 minutes ago, snafu said:

You think the dollars spent on Ukraine are a complete waste.    I believe the dollars spent on Ukraine are inflated -- and if we had honest leadership in D.C. (on both sides of the aisle) we could have spent a helluva lot less for the purpose -- but that doesn't completely erase the fact that the US does need to assist in Ukraine.  

 

Step 1: Create a problem. 

Step 2: Call that problem out and use the fear matrix to generate emotive responses.

Step 3: Offer a solution to the problem that only guarantees the conflict remains confined but goes on endlessly.

Step 4: Profit from destruction and then rebuilding.

 

We don't have honest leadership in DC. We never have, and likely never will. Thus, the waste is unavoidable. 

 

21 minutes ago, snafu said:

You call that neocon policy but it actually isn't. 

 

The above is the policy, and it absolutely is at play in Ukraine and has been since 2014. The neocon/neoliberal desire for regime change in Moscow dates back to at least 2014. Clinton made it the signature plank in her presidential campaign - that was backed by every single person serving in the Biden foreign policy wing today.

 

The factual record on this is clear, and outlined in the 4 steps above. 

 

23 minutes ago, snafu said:

In fact, we're NOT putting troops into Ukraine.  

 

We absolutely DO have boots on the ground right now. They're not active fighters, but they're there. And every day there's more talk from senators, congressmen, and pentagon folks of ways to put more boots on the ground. 

 

23 minutes ago, snafu said:

In fact, we're NOT nation-building in Ukraine. 

 

That comes after the nation has been destroyed and needs to be rebuilt. They're already talking about a new "Marshall Plan" to rebuild Ukraine. It's a guarantee. 

 

So, we are in fact planning on doing exactly that. And we'll make sure that the government installed is pro-western despite what the folks in the east may or may not want. 

 

The only difference between Ukraine and Iraq/Afghanistan is we won't have to teach a new concept of governance. 

 

25 minutes ago, snafu said:

Yes, the Military Industrial Complex will profit from this spending.  They profit from every conflict. 

 

Especially the ones they plan for, then poke and prod to get. 

 

25 minutes ago, snafu said:

Keeping dollars out of their pockets isn't a reason to allow Ukraine to be overrun and strengthening Russia. 

 

Who cares if Russia is strengthened? Honestly? They're not a major threat to anyone unless we are talking about flinging nukes around. When did they move from adversary to our "enemy"? Was it when they attacked our election in 2016? Wait, they didn't do that, but the same people telling us we need to fight for Ukraine lied about that very thing to get us fear Russia while burning the diplomatic bridges to the ground. Almost like they wanted this fight and wanted to remove any chance of achieving a diplomatic solution... 

 

You can't simultaneously argue that Russia is on the verge of economic ruin, barely able to beat a lower tier nation like Ukraine while also proposing that they are a giant threat to global stability. That's the message the neocons and neoliberal acolytes are trying to beat us over the head every day with and it's bunk. It's nonsense. It's fugazi. 

 

Russia has enough nukes to wipe us off the face of the Earth. In that sense they are already as powerful as they can get - but they can't take all of Eastern Europe even if they take Ukraine... They can't fight NATO alone and win.

 

Well, they can't unless they get us to do something stupid like commit to a two front war against them and China. Which is kind of the point I'm trying to make. The way we've helped create and then manage this conflict is making that more likely than less.  

 

31 minutes ago, snafu said:

Weakening Russia now (by exacerbating their own self-inflicted mistake) buys the US time to deal with what's coming in Asia.

 

Not when the way we're "weakening" Russia is to push them into an alliance of convenience with China. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

More on the article a few posts above

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

All of those things become easier to achieve when we're focused on Ukraine/Russia and depleting our resources while giving Iran and China a free pass. 

 

That's what Biden's been doing, and China, Iran, Turkey (and others) are taking advantage. Almost like they have him on the payroll. 

 

Geez, I couldn't disagree more with most everything you wrote .

I suppose the unanswerable question is whether you'd complain just as much if the US ignored this conflict and intervened elsewhere.

 

Where are we giving China or Iran a free pass?

In fact, Iran has serious anti-government protests in more than half of its provinces because the sanctions relief stemming from a new nuke deal isn't forthcoming.  Either our focus on Eastern Europe has delayed the deal, or our foreign policy CAN do two things at once.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You don't think there's a shot Russia and China are working this angle together? And have been for months?

 

No.

And I think China might be regretting their cozyup with the Russians.

Why do you believe the U.S. is the only country that makes poor decisions?

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The last 5+ years of "RUSSIA!" has all but assured they are. And we know they're already sharing intelligence. 

 

Get us focused over here, while the Dragon goes off over there.

 

It's not a matter of if now, it's only a matter of when. And everything being done in Ukraine is encouraging more of that, not less. 

 

It has always been a matter of "when".  Again, the U.S. foreign policy can multi-task.  There's a coalition of willing states in the Eastern Hemisphere who want to see China contained.  Our government has fostered those relationships.  That effort hasn't stopped since the end of February.  Why would you think is has?

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Cornered and wounded animals are MORE dangerous than prosperous healthy ones. China and Turkey are more dangerous today because of this. All the more reason to save our shot rather than deplete our resources and will to fight on a country that's not a NATO member, and serves very little strategic import to the European or global theater.

 

No, they're not more dangerous today.

They would absolutely have been more dangerous if the sanctions response against Russia and military aid to Ukraine had been weaker.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What we are doing in Ukraine, or not doing, is directly related to what these other nations choose to do. We are not only chasing our tails in Ukraine, it's causing division and depleting the very tools and resources we'd need to defend Taiwan or other areas of the globe. 

 

Put it another way - Biden's ineptitude (at best), or corruption (at worst) is highlighting all the reasons why the permawar regime(s) of administrations past became so wildly unpopular by the time they left office. This fight in Ukraine is depleting our own citizen's will and patience. Things they'll need in spades should China escalate. 

 

That doubles when the economy tanks and people's pocketbooks take a hit. When you have people struggling at home to make ends meet, they're far less likely to go along with the next war abroad. 

 

 

 

Perhaps.  But you're ignoring the fact that this war spending isn't the inflation-creating catalyst.  If you want to complain about bad policies of this administration (not to mention China's zero Covid policy and Russia's use of energy and food as geopolitical weapons) that have contributed to inflation, have at it.  Ukraine money is a small fraction of that.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For all the reasons stated above, I disagree. The world is interconnected more than ever - especially at the leadership level. They're all paying the same think-tanks, members of the same international communities. Everyone is watching what's happening, and it's not deterring anyone.

 

In fact, I'd argue it's encouraging more bad actors to get feisty. They see that not only is Biden corrupt and inept, he's willing to chase his tail wherever they place the laser pointer.  

 

How could it deter anyone when we are proving that we are corrupt and incompetent at the highest levels. Weakness invites a challenge. And we are very weak at the top.  

 

 

 

This is your interpretation.  I completely disagree with the above (except Biden's weakness -- which hasn't proven to be the disaster you're making it out to be, yet).  I actually worry more about Blinken.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I disagree they're getting their collective shit together. If anything, we are proving that they don't need to because we'll be there with 100s of billions of freshly printed dollars every time we're called. Look at the difference in spending since the war began. We're carrying the overwhelming share of the burden. 

 

Really?

Germany.

Finland.

Sweden.

Turkey cutting off access to the Black Sea.

Poland showing leadership.

All of Eastern Europe was considered a neutral buffer prior to Russia's excursion.  Now, they're all involved.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And in the process we are  cutting off our nose despite our faces to help "fix" a problem we helped create. And Brussels knows we'll do it again and again so long as the right buttons are pushed in the fear machines. 

 

We aren't giving them time to collect themselves. We are footing the bill for them to avoid exactly that. 

 

And it's incorrect to state we've stayed out of this. We are providing active intelligence, boots on the ground, hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and equipment - what comes next? 

 

Advisors. They're already there, but that will become "public" sooner rather than later. 

 

Then what comes next? 

 

A sandbox war where we never leave. 

 

It's literally the same pattern we've seen used in every neocon/neoliberal conflict this century. To think "this time it'll be different" - even though it's being run by the same people, think tanks, and administration officials, is fantasy imo. 

 

You can have your opinion.  I simply disagree.

This time, it's different.  

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Who cares if Russia is strengthened? Honestly? They're not a major threat to anyone unless we are talking about flinging nukes around. When did they move from adversary to our "enemy"? Was it when they attacked our election in 2016? Wait, they didn't do that, but the same people telling us we need to fight for Ukraine lied about that very thing to get us fear Russia while burning the diplomatic bridges to the ground. Almost like they wanted this fight and wanted to remove any chance of achieving a diplomatic solution... 

 

Putin's M.O. from the start is to create or capitalize on chaos to weaken and distract the U.S. and chip away at our influence.  Good for him.  I won't root for it.

Did you like it when Russia intervened in Syria?

Wasn't it great when Russia held trilateral strategy and training sessions with Iran and Turkey?

Wasn't it great that Russians have influenced nearly every South American election in recent history?

I loved hearing that the Russians moved into Western Africa after France left (to provide "security"), didn't you?

 

Until the Russians showed their ineptitude in Ukraine, they were considered a real threat.  I honestly don't think they've gone all-in so far.  Show me anyone who thought in January, 2022 that the Ukrainians were going to hold their own.

 

And as for a nuclear threat, I'll ask:  "what's better, more guns or no guns?".  It can be easily argued that nuclear arms are one horrible tool in a horrible toolbox.  Should we not worry about chemical or bioweapons.  How about those thermobaric devices the Russians are currently using?  Should the Ukrainians NOT fight because of Russia's nukes?

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You can't simultaneously argue that Russia is on the verge of economic ruin, barely able to beat a lower tier nation like Ukraine while also proposing that they are a giant threat to global stability. That's the message the neocons and neoliberal acolytes are trying to beat us over the head every day with and it's bunk. It's nonsense. It's fugazi. 

 

Russia has enough nukes to wipe us off the face of the Earth. In that sense they are already as powerful as they can get - but they can't take all of Eastern Europe even if they take Ukraine... They can't fight NATO alone and win.

 

See above...

 

 

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Well, they can't unless they get us to do something stupid like commit to a two front war against them and China. Which is kind of the point I'm trying to make. The way we've helped create and then manage this conflict is making that more likely than less.  

 

Not when the way we're "weakening" Russia is to push them into an alliance of convenience with China. 

 

 

I'll worry when the U.S. is actually in a two-front war.  And as you say, it isn't really a problem if Russia "is not a major threat to anyone".

 

I'll worry when the "alliance of convenience" is something more than China taking advantage of sanctions at the expense of the Russians.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

More on the article a few posts above

 

HIMARS is the vehicle, not the rocket.  

 

The range of the system entirely depends on the rockets shipped with it.  Unless they're shipping the ATACMS missile with it, it does not have a 300km range.  And the article itself says that: they're sending M30 rockets (a 40 mile range), not ATACMS.  

[Foxx]

4 hours ago, snafu said:

 

The real question is what does the end of this conflict look like for Russia, Ukraine, and the remainder of Europe.

Too unclear to tell at this point.

 

There is always the view that the conflict was manufactured to get the US and Europe out of fossil fuels and into Green Energy. The only question is, is Russia in on the game?

 

What is the end game? Climate Change of course. Of course, with everyone a bit poorer but better off for it ().