Are we looking at a draft soon for WW3?

[Pine_Tree1]

America has no interest in letting this Ukraine war end. Military cannot hit it's recruiting goals. A ton of very seasoned vets and leaders were either forced out or got out due to current state of the military.

During WW2, as manpower ran low, the draft eligible age was eventually lifted to the age of 45.
why should we expect anything less with WW3? why wouldn't the draft be even worse?

Patriotism was at an all-time high and there was a flood of volunteers kicking down doors to get into Europe. Today patriotism seems to be at an all-time low. You think many people are interested in sacrificing their lives today to protect Ukraine, line the pocket books of politicians, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex?

we live in a very interesting world right now.

 

[KidneyStoned]

Son, there ain’t no draft …

 

[Pine_Tree1]

Son, there ain’t no draft …

there will be a draft if American officially enters the war with Ukraine/Russia or if China pops off.

you really think our All volunteer military and its current state is going to cut it?

 

[Zonadog]

Son, there ain’t no draft …

Yet, Selective Service is still in force. He didn't say we have a draft, he asked if one is possible now. The mechanism is in place and registration is currently required.

This is from the Register for Selective Service web page of USA.gov:

Who must register for Selective Service​

Almost all men who are 18-25 years old and live in the United States must register for Selective Service. This includes:

• U.S. citizens (U.S. born, dual citizens, and naturalized)
• U.S. citizens who live outside of the country
• Immigrants (legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants)
• Refugees and asylum seekers
• Transgender people who were assigned male gender at birth
• People with disabilities

 

[KidneyStoned]

Y

Yet, Selective Service is still in force. He didn't say we have a draft, he asked if one is possible now. The mechanism is in place and registration is currently required.

This is from the Register for Selective Service web page of USA.gov:

Who must register for Selective Service​

Almost all men who are 18-25 years old and live in the United States must register for Selective Service. This includes:

• U.S. citizens (U.S. born, dual citizens, and naturalized)
• U.S. citizens who live outside of the country
• Immigrants (legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants)
• Refugees and asylum seekers
• Transgender people who were assigned male gender at birth
• People with disabilities

So your thought is that such a war would require so many ground troops - infantry - that the US Military might need a draft?

If we ever fully engage in a war with Russia, about 2500 people in the military will fight the war. Not gonna be much action on the ground.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

Y

So your thought is that such a war would require so many ground troops - infantry - that the US Military might need a draft?

If we ever fully engage in a war with Russia, about 2500 people in the military will fight the war. Not gonna be much action on the ground.

I guess you're completely missing what has been happening in Ukraine for the past 2 years. America will likely take more ground casualties in a conventional war in a year or two than we have in the whole GWOT. Infantry will always be needed unless it's just right to nuclear missile warfare

 

[KidneyStoned]

I guess you're completely missing what has been happening in Ukraine for the past 2 years. America will likely take more ground casualties in a conventional war in a year or two than we have in the whole GWOT. Infantry will always be needed unless it's just right to nuclear missile warfare

Ukraine v Russia is a border war. God forbid it ever happens but if we were to go to war with Russia it would be a missile war - no draft required.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

Ukraine v Russia is a border war. God forbid it ever happens but if we were to go to war with Russia it would be a missile war - no draft required.

America is as vested in the conflict as any other nation. We just haven't declared US troops there yet. America is the reason there still is a war. Ukraine has no business still being in this fight without US billions and billions of dollars, training, Intel, subversion, weapons, assets, and propaganda.

Wouldn't surprise me if the US doesn't send Ukraine another $30B as an early Christmas gift

 

[Whosyodawgy]

America has no interest in letting this Ukraine war end. Military cannot hit it's recruiting goals. A ton of very seasoned vets and leaders were either forced out or got out due to current state of the military.

During WW2, as manpower ran low, the draft eligible age was eventually lifted to the age of 45.
why should we expect anything less with WW3? why wouldn't the draft be even worse?

Patriotism was at an all-time high and there was a flood of volunteers kicking down doors to get into Europe. Today patriotism seems to be at an all-time low. You think many people are interested in sacrificing their lives today to protect Ukraine, line the pocket books of politicians, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex?

we live in a very interesting world right now.

Recruiting numbers are down but all branches have met their retention levels to offset.
It's good for people like my son who is a Navy officer approaching the end of his first hitch. The services are being forced to make the military a better career. It's the only way they can keep quality people and it is long overdue.
My neighbor's son who is an Army officer, just got $180k and a promotion to O3 (Captain) to stay in.
If you're in a MOS they need, they will pay to retain.

 

[Moosefish]

there will be a draft if American officially enters the war with Ukraine/Russia or if China pops off.

you really think our All volunteer military and its current state is going to cut it?

1. There will not be a draft. We don't even have the equipment or facilities to house & train that many people, and then equip them for war, at the level required to wage modern war the way the US executes it.

Fresh conscripts would be a drain on resources and add nothing more than bodies....which we wouldn't need to wage that war.

2. Yes, absolutely. Volunteer forces perform much better than conscripts & large numbers of ground troops (at the levels a draft would bring) are not required.

I guess you're completely missing what has been happening in Ukraine for the past 2 years. America will likely take more ground casualties in a conventional war in a year or two than we have in the whole GWOT. Infantry will always be needed unless it's just right to nuclear missile warfare

Zero bearing on how the US would wage war, if war were declared. I think your current concept of the US military, it's capabilities, and how we use them is flawed.

Infantry will always be needed, just not in how you're framing it.

America is as vested in the conflict as any other nation. We just haven't declared US troops there yet. America is the reason there still is a war. Ukraine has no business still being in this fight without US billions and billions of dollars, training, Intel, subversion, weapons, assets, and propaganda.

Wouldn't surprise me if the US doesn't send Ukraine another $30B as an early Christmas gift

Absolutely, which is why I would want exponentially better accounting of what we have given before we give another dime.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

1. There will not be a draft. We don't even have the equipment or facilities to house & train that many people, and then equip them for war, at the level required to wage modern war the way the US executes it.

Fresh conscripts would be a drain on resources and add nothing more than bodies....which we wouldn't need to wage that war.

2. Yes, absolutely. Volunteer forces perform much better than conscripts & large numbers of ground troops (at the levels a draft would bring) are not required.

Zero bearing on how the US would wage war, if war were declared. I think your current concept of the US military, it's capabilities, and how we use them is flawed.

Infantry will always be needed, just not in how you're framing it.

Absolutely, which is why I would want exponentially better accounting of what we have given before we give another dime.

I was an infantryman fwiw. I know basic ground infantryman tactics and not larger strategy. I acknowledge this. But everyone keeps saying how superpowers don't need infantrymen for titan vs cave dweller/peer-to-peer anymore yet we have sooooo many examples (involving the US and others) since 1950 (in fact almost all of them) where that's the opposite of the case.

Everyone says this war will be completely different and not do company on company close range fighting in Kiev. Why should we expect this war to be any different?

 

[Moosefish]

I was an infantryman fwiw. I know basic ground infantryman tactics and not larger strategy. I acknowledge this. But everyone keeps saying how superpowers don't need infantrymen for titan vs cave dweller/peer-to-peer anymore yet we have sooooo many examples (involving the US and others) since 1950 (in fact almost all of them) where that's the opposite of the case.

Everyone says this war will be completely different and not do company on company close range fighting in Kiev. Why should we expect this war to be any different?

We haven't had a peer-to-peer (or even near peer) since 1950. Post-Vietnam lessons & the Goldwater-Nichols Act changed how we wage war.

Ukraine does not have the the capabilities we do (vast understatement). Assuming there is no nuclear exchange (iffy, if Russia fears regime change or unacceptable loss), we would deny Russian logistics & make them unable to wage war on Ukrainian territory.

Decades of sectarian violence & "train, equip, & assist"-ing is a poor example to judge our capabilities by. We do the war part very well. Nation building is not what we have ever been designed to do...we are designed to go against peers & are much better at it than they are.

 

[Moosefish]

But everyone keeps saying how superpowers don't need infantrymen for titan vs cave dweller/peer-to-peer anymore yet we have sooooo many examples (involving the US and others) since 1950 (in fact almost all of them) where that's the opposite of the case.

We don't need the large #'s that we had the last time we had a draft, because we aren't designed to grab land & hold it in a war of attrition.

There are numerous examples of out-numbered US ground troops dominating foes w/ in a mixed-arms exchange over the last few decades. I'm not sure you're using "peer-to-peer" correctly, here. We haven't faced a "peer" country since at least 1950, maybe. Arguably the end of WWII.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

We haven't had a peer-to-peer (or even near peer) since 1950. Post-Vietnam lessons & the Goldwater-Nichols Act changed how we wage war.

Ukraine does not have the the capabilities we do (vast understatement). Assuming there is no nuclear exchange (iffy, if Russia fears regime change or unacceptable loss), we would deny Russian logistics & make them unable to wage war on Ukrainian territory.

Decades of sectarian violence & "train, equip, & assist"-ing is a poor example to judge our capabilities by. We do the war part very well. Nation building is not what we have ever been designed to do...we are designed to go against peers & are much better at it than they are.

There have been peer wars since Korea worldwide (Iran/Iraq War, 6 day war, indo-pakistani war). Hell, the Vietnam War featured a peer war between the armies of the North and South supplemented by the VC and USA. The Gulf War was a conventional war (not peer on peer) but ground forces were absolutely needed for that conflict

 

[Moosefish]

There have been peer wars since Korea worldwide (Iran/Iraq War, 6 day war, indo-pakistani war). Hell, the Vietnam War featured a peer war between the armies of the North and South supplemented by the VC and USA. The Gulf War was a conventional war (not peer on peer) but ground forces were absolutely needed for that conflict

I'm talking about the US. The US has not gone p2p for 70 years, and nobody is saying ground forces aren't needed. You just can't judge how the US would wage war based on how Ukraine is fighting or examples of N/S Vietnam.

Your Gulf War example actually helps my point. There were worries of a long, drawn out ground fighting before we completely dominated then with Air Power. Our ground forces were taking territory so fast, they actually had to stop to let logistics catch up.

The decision not to go into Baghdad was a political one, not one based on capability.

 

[Moosefish]

FYI: "Peer" is US/Soviet Union until ~1992

Since then, the US has no peer. Russia is near-peer. China is near-peer, rapidly approaching peer.

 

[Moosefish]

I think I get the confusion here: "peer to peer" is not a tactical level description of the fighting. It's a description for a comparison of total national war-waging capability.

 

[willdup]

America has no interest in letting this Ukraine war end. Military cannot hit it's recruiting goals. A ton of very seasoned vets and leaders were either forced out or got out due to current state of the military.

During WW2, as manpower ran low, the draft eligible age was eventually lifted to the age of 45.
why should we expect anything less with WW3? why wouldn't the draft be even worse?

Patriotism was at an all-time high and there was a flood of volunteers kicking down doors to get into Europe. Today patriotism seems to be at an all-time low. You think many people are interested in sacrificing their lives today to protect Ukraine, line the pocket books of politicians, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex?

we live in a very interesting world right now.

So what would you prefer our policy to be? Cut off funding and let Putin have Ukraine? Do you really believe that after one entirely unjustified invasion (with many, many documented war crimes) that Putin would stop at Ukraine and what past example do you cite to lead to that conclusion?

There are no historical examples where an authoritarian with a taste for foreign territories just decided to stop on their own. Putin has been open about his desire to recreate the USSR. The Russian people have been very effectively radicalized to believe that this war is entirely justified. There is zero reason to believe that rolling over now will placate Putin and end the bloodshed.

Also, don’t doubt for a moment that China is watching to see how the free world responds to this kind of invasion.

 

[Moosefish]

So what would you prefer our policy to be? Cut off funding and let Putin have Ukraine? Do you really believe that after one entirely unjustified invasion (with many, many documented war crimes) that Putin would stop at Ukraine and what past example do you cite to lead to that conclusion?

There are no historical examples where an authoritarian with a taste for foreign territories just decided to stop on their own. Putin has been open about his desire to recreate the USSR. The Russian people have been very effectively radicalized to believe that this war is entirely justified. There is zero reason to believe that rolling over now will placate Putin and end the bloodshed.

Also, don’t doubt for a moment that China is watching to see how the free world responds to this kind of invasion.

Accountable funding, with clear goals and a defined, achievable end-state. We have none of that now. All we have done is promise endless funding/support. That's poor budgeting, not a plan.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

I’m all for putting these stupid, entitled kids in the service. It may be their only hope. I would change the way DI have to coddle todays volunteers also.

 

[Smacdawg]

1. There will not be a draft. We don't even have the equipment or facilities to house & train that many people, and then equip them for war, at the level required to wage modern war the way the US executes it.

Fresh conscripts would be a drain on resources and add nothing more than bodies....which we wouldn't need to wage that war.

2. Yes, absolutely. Volunteer forces perform much better than conscripts & large numbers of ground troops (at the levels a draft would bring) are not required.

Zero bearing on how the US would wage war, if war were declared. I think your current concept of the US military, it's capabilities, and how we use them is flawed.

Infantry will always be needed, just not in how you're framing it.

Absolutely, which is why I would want exponentially better accounting of what we have given before we give another dime.

The one thing we have to weigh in here is that we are learning how to fight and win the modern wars without spilling American blood. Our advisors and consultants and technology are seeing what the new battlefield is.

Every war dictates doctrine change. Old tactics, techniques, etc change as technology changes. This is the first drone war of any scale. Lots of learning here. Plus, the Russian economy is being strained to the limit.

I’m not a fan of our involvement one way or another, but there are gains here for US.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

1. There will not be a draft. We don't even have the equipment or facilities to house & train that many people, and then equip them for war, at the level required to wage modern war the way the US executes it.

Fresh conscripts would be a drain on resources and add nothing more than bodies....which we wouldn't need to wage that war.

2. Yes, absolutely. Volunteer forces perform much better than conscripts & large numbers of ground troops (at the levels a draft would bring) are not required.

Zero bearing on how the US would wage war, if war were declared. I think your current concept of the US military, it's capabilities, and how we use them is flawed.

Infantry will always be needed, just not in how you're framing it.

Absolutely, which is why I would want exponentially better accounting of what we have given before we give another dime.

That accounting is what a lot of Republicans are being called "far right" and "Russian stooges" for demanding. This country has to balance its principles of liberty and transparent government against actual existential threats. Thus the need for our military industrial complex among other weapons and resources at our disposal.
However, that complex and those agencies in collusion with a political party turned criminal enterprise cannot be allowed to dominate government decision making by paying off "career politicians", controlling corrupt media and brazenly weaponizing government against political opposition.
Destroying that balance while brainwashing the ignorant into thinking it's the right thing to do is certain disaster. We are perilously close to doing exactly that.

 

[willdup]

Accountable funding, with clear goals and a defined, achievable end-state. We have none of that now. All we have done is promise endless funding/support. That's poor budgeting, not a plan.

I’m all for government budget accountability in this and all areas and totally agree.

I don’t think that’s the position we are currently hearing from many of the republicans against further funding. They don’t want us to spend another dime there at all, accountable or not.

The one thing we have to weigh in here is that we are learning how to fight and win the modern wars without spilling American blood. Our advisors and consultants and technology are seeing what the new battlefield is.

Every war dictates doctrine change. Old tactics, techniques, etc change as technology changes. This is the first drone war of any scale. Lots of learning here. Plus, the Russian economy is being strained to the limit.

I’m not a fan of our involvement one way or another, but there are gains here for US.

Proxy wars are historically slippery to evaluate, but can be beneficial for all the reasons you listed and others as well. Funding and arming Ukraine is resulting in major stress for an adversary that completely miscalculated what it would take to achieve the goals of their unwarranted invasion.

No doubt we are learning about their capabilities as well as what works and doesn’t work on the modern battlefield. This should absolutely help us with future planning and systems expenditures.

I saw someone comment a few weeks ago that the US military needs to embrace how much future warfare will be conducted by twenty year old kids in a dark room in Virgina hopped up on energy drinks and using game controllers to attack the enemy and they probably aren’t wrong.

 

[Moosefish]

The one thing we have to weigh in here is that we are learning how to fight and win the modern wars without spilling American blood.

That's what we largely assumed post-Desert Storm. It will never happen. Tech can be a force multiplier, add previously unimaginable capabilities, and certainly save US lives. But, we will never be able to engage in warfare without that risk. Never.

This is the first drone war of any scale. Lots of learning here.

Do you mean how non-US nations might use them? Ukraine is still very small-scale compared to daily US drone ops & continuous drone employment for at least the last 20 years.

I don’t think that’s the position we are currently hearing from many of the republicans against further funding. They don’t want us to spend another dime there at all, accountable or not.

That's not an indefensible position. Putin is not the first evil adversary we've faced and his existence is not an existential threat to our nation. Infinite support is not a strategy. We have grave economic issues facing this country.
The administration is not providing any coherent strategy to reach a definable end state for Ukraine support. I support not another dime until accountability and an actual plan is applied. "Putin is bad" is not an acceptable blanket answer for the enormity of this effort & monetary support.

I saw someone comment a few weeks ago that the US military needs to embrace how much future warfare will be conducted by twenty year old kids in a dark room in Virgina hopped up on energy drinks and using game controllers to attack the enemy and they probably aren’t wrong.

While somewhat true, it's also an exaggeration and an error to believe "Perfect War" can ever be achieved. I wrote a grad paper describing the pursuit of it, concluded that it's impossible, but that trying for it is ultimately a positive development.

 

[Smacdawg]

That's what we largely assumed post-Desert Storm. It will never happen. Tech can be a force multiplier, add previously unimaginable capabilities, and certainly save US lives. But, we will never be able to engage in warfare without that risk. Never.


Do you mean how non-US nations might use them? Ukraine is still very small-scale compared to daily US drone ops & continuous drone employment for at least the last 20 years.



That's not an indefensible position. Putin is not the first evil adversary we've faced and his existence is not an existential threat to our nation. Infinite support is not a strategy. We have grave economic issues facing this country.
The administration is not providing any coherent strategy to reach a definable end state for Ukraine support. I support not another dime until accountability and an actual plan is applied. "Putin is bad" is not an acceptable blanket answer for the enormity of this effort & monetary support.



While somewhat true, it's also an exaggeration and an error to believe "Perfect War" can ever be achieved. I wrote a grad paper describing the pursuit of it, concluded that it's impossible, but that trying for it is ultimately a positive development.

Where did I say there will be no risk to American lives in future wars? I never even implied that. I said we are learning in this war without directly risking US lives (other than some covert operations which I’m sure are going on). Never understand why people take things so out of the context of a point to make some statement.

Also, on the drone issue…sure we have a wealth of experience and history with drones. But this is a case where it’s being DIRECTLY pitted against a superpower, and the drone technology advancements are growing daily. It’s a learning ground. How can this point be disputed?

 

[Moosefish]

Where did I say there will be no risk to American lives in future wars? I never even implied that. I said we are learning in this war without directly risking US lives (other than some covert operations which I’m sure are going on). Never understand why people take things so out of the context of a point to make some statement.

Also, on the drone issue…sure we have a wealth of experience and history with drones. But this is a case where it’s being DIRECTLY pitted against a superpower, and the drone technology advancements are growing daily. It’s a learning ground. How can this point be disputed?

I misunderstood your connection of drones to not spilling American Blood. Reread what you wrote, my reading of it wasnt crazy. Your clarification helped. Now I get your point.

I'm not saying we're not learning anything, I simply disagree with how valuable it is. There's nothing revolutionary going on here.

 

[shonuff253]

I agree there needs to be some independent commission that is in real time evaluating the cost effectiveness of how war resources and funding are being utilized. We've seen the US spend 20 years and $2 Trillion to organize, train and equip the Afghan army and they couldn't last 2 months without direct American support...that can never happen again. I don't think you'll find anyone on the left who doesn't want proper accounting of aid we're sending to Ukraine.

 

[shonuff253]

I misunderstood your connection of drones to not spilling American Blood. Reread what you wrote, my reading of it wasnt crazy. Your clarification helped. Now I get your point.

I'm not saying we're not learning anything, I simply disagree with how valuable it is. There's nothing revolutionary going on here.

The main thing we're probably learning is the war time economy America would need for a near p2p conflict (really China). I think in the "just in time" economy the world is currently built around no nation in the world can fight a sustained high intensity conflict. The economics of war have also changed to where a $100K MANPAD can take out a $35 Million enemy asset, that changes the calculus of any conflict.

 

[Moosefish]

The main thing we're probably learning is the war time economy America would need for a near p2p conflict (really China). I think in the "just in time" economy the world is currently built around no nation in the world can fight a sustained high intensity conflict. The economics of war have also changed to where a $100K MANPAD can take out a $35 Million enemy asset, that changes the calculus of any conflict.

Absolutely

 

[Smacdawg]

I misunderstood your connection of drones to not spilling American Blood. Reread what you wrote, my reading of it wasnt crazy. Your clarification helped. Now I get your point.

I'm not saying we're not learning anything, I simply disagree with how valuable it is. There's nothing revolutionary going on here.

Thanks for the follow up. And I agree…nothing revolutionary…more like evolutionary. War evolves…best to see other people learn and you adapt.

 

[shonuff253]

Also, anyone counting how exponentially superior the US military is to everyone in the world consider this:

The Russian military can't project military power more than 100 miles to a neighboring country.....

The US military invaded and occupied two countries simultaneously more than halfway around the world. That's the height of British Empire-type shit.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

So what would you prefer our policy to be? Cut off funding and let Putin have Ukraine? Do you really believe that after one entirely unjustified invasion (with many, many documented war crimes) that Putin would stop at Ukraine and what past example do you cite to lead to that conclusion?

There are no historical examples where an authoritarian with a taste for foreign territories just decided to stop on their own. Putin has been open about his desire to recreate the USSR. The Russian people have been very effectively radicalized to believe that this war is entirely justified. There is zero reason to believe that rolling over now will placate Putin and end the bloodshed.

Also, don’t doubt for a moment that China is watching to see how the free world responds to this kind of invasion.

it sounds like Russia already has what it objectively set out for before the invasion. They wanted a land bridge to a warm-water port in the Black Sea. From the reports I saw, they have seized that ground. Ukraine failed to prevent this. Now it just looks like an occupation defending ground they have won and won't lose again to the fledgling Ukraine army.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

I’m all for government budget accountability in this and all areas and totally agree.

I don’t think that’s the position we are currently hearing from many of the republicans against further funding. They don’t want us to spend another dime there at all, accountable or not.

we've already given them more than $100B, probably a lot more. I'm tired of being the world police, rarely does it work out in our best long-term interest. We have so many problems stateside that I would 10000000% rather us spend $100B and would actually make a real positive difference on than defending the Ukraine.

I'm not in favor of unaccountable spending on social programs but if that's your cup of tea, imagine the what that money could be spent on that would make a real difference. I'd rather spend it on infrastructure, bringing industries back home and setting up real supply chains here, really helping out the citizens of Maui (the feds gave them literally nothing). Heck, imagine if we turned that $100B back towards college debt forgiveness/repayment...that would make a big impact for a lot of people

I feel bad for Ukraine, I really do. But America first. We have so much here to better spend the money on. Let alone willingly jump into head-to-head war with Russia over.

 

[Pine_Tree1]

Accountable funding, with clear goals and a defined, achievable end-state. We have none of that now. All we have done is promise endless funding/support. That's poor budgeting, not a plan.

agreed. and I read through your responses to me earlier and I was wrong on some of my accounts. I just want out of this conflict and I don't think it benefits us to involve ourselves into it anymore.

we have so much stateside we can better use our focus and resources on.

 

[Moosefish]

agreed. and I read through your responses to me earlier and I was wrong on some of my accounts. I just want out of this conflict and I don't think it benefits us to involve ourselves into it anymore.

we have so much stateside we can better use our focus and resources on.

Thanks & we agree on the vast majority of this subject, especially stateside focus.

That said, I do think there could be benefit in funding some of what Ukraine needs, but we need serious accounting, achievable goals, and a time line/exit strategy. We have none of that now and I don't believe we should continue at all until that happens.

 

[jbpayne32]

They wanted a land bridge to a warm-water port in the Black Sea.

Russia is literally on the Black Sea and has ports already.

 

[Moosefish]

Russia is literally on the Black Sea and has ports already.

Warm water is the key point here that you seem to have missed. This point was repeatedly discussed and overwhelmingly accepted as a reason Russia invaded Crimea.

Sevastopol is the only true warm water port Russia now has access to on the Black Sea.

 

[jbpayne32]

Warm water is the key point here that you seem to have missed. This point was repeatedly discussed and overwhelmingly accepted as a reason Russia invaded Crimea.

Sevastopol is the only true warm water port Russia now has access to on the Black Sea.

My bad. Didn't read the full context.

 

[elderdawg]

I am just glad I am a 76-year-old American and would not be called up. Real thankful I am not a 76-year-old Ukranian being called up and fed into the Eastern Ukraine meatgrinder, along with 14 year old boys.

 

[ugaboz]

what a thread lol