Ukraine

[Just Joe]

I think I read that Canada has 112 of those Leopard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_Canada

This article says 82.  Good number.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nothing-to-announce-today-trudeau-on-whether-canada-will-send-leopard-2-tanks-to-ukraine-1.6242318

Who borders them? 

The country is bordered by Alaska (USA) in west, and by 12 US states of the continental United States in south, Canada shares maritime borders with Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, an island which belongs to France.

They should retain one of two of those tanks in case the French invade to take back Quebec.  US has too many problems to invade right now.

Maybe people could set up a GoFundMe to pay back the Canadian taxpayers.

"Canada’s tank fleet is composed of over 80 Leopard 2s  — all of which were purchased in 2007 for deployment in Afghanistan" https://nationalpost.com/opinion/is-canada-not-sending-its-tanks-to-ukraine-because-theyre-broken

I used to own two Beetles.  One ran and the other was for parts.  It seems as though, if nothing else, these tanks could be an excellent source of parts.  Shipping them off may be almost as cheap as decommissioning them.

I think old Beetles come in pairs for that reason. I had the same.

[evme]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

[GuitarStv]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

[zolotiyeruki]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

Iran not being aggressive toward Israel?  Haven't they been supplying weapons to Hamas and other death-to-Israel groups for a while now?

Israel selectively striking targets within Iran is nothing new.  Remember that remote-controlled machine gun they used a few years ago to take out one of Iran's nuclear scientists?

[Sibley]

Israel shooting at Iran is nothing new. Iran may not be doing things overtly, but they're certainly doing things covertly.

[pecunia]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

The thing is,........Do you know it was Israel?  They kind of keep quiet when they do this stuff.

[GuitarStv]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

The thing is,........Do you know it was Israel?  They kind of keep quiet when they do this stuff.

It's what the US is saying.

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm a bit skeptical it was Israel, honestly.  It seems like when they prosecute a target, they tend to be a bit more... thorough.  The video I saw looks like someone threw a grenade on the roof.  If it was Israel, and their intent was to disrupt drone production, I'd expect a bit more badaboom.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

Iran not being aggressive toward Israel?  Haven't they been supplying weapons to Hamas and other death-to-Israel groups for a while now?

Israel selectively striking targets within Iran is nothing new.  Remember that remote-controlled machine gun they used a few years ago to take out one of Iran's nuclear scientists?

Yes, this. Iran is waging a proxy war against Israel and has been for many years.

[former player]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

Iran not being aggressive toward Israel?  Haven't they been supplying weapons to Hamas and other death-to-Israel groups for a while now?

Israel selectively striking targets within Iran is nothing new.  Remember that remote-controlled machine gun they used a few years ago to take out one of Iran's nuclear scientists?

Yes, this. Iran is waging a proxy war against Israel and has been for many years.

Yes, it's a shame that Israel's treatment of the proxy gives Iran that gateway.

[Tyson]

Israel reportedly attacked some Iranian military facilities yesterday. Seems the details are unknown but if they hit any Shahed 129 drone factories that would be helpful to Ukraine since those are being used by Russia to damage/degrade Ukraine's electric grid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html

I have no love at all for Iran's drones that they're giving Russia . . . but is seems unsettling that Israel is attacking a nearby foreign power that's not being aggressive towards them.  Like the Ukraine war is spilling out all over the world.

Iran not being aggressive toward Israel?  Haven't they been supplying weapons to Hamas and other death-to-Israel groups for a while now?

Israel selectively striking targets within Iran is nothing new.  Remember that remote-controlled machine gun they used a few years ago to take out one of Iran's nuclear scientists?

Yes, this. Iran is waging a proxy war against Israel and has been for many years.

Yes, it's a shame that Israel's treatment of the proxy gives Iran that gateway.

What does that mean?

[zolotiyeruki]

Yes, it's a shame that Israel's treatment of the proxy gives Iran that gateway.

What does that mean?

He's referring to the long-running dispute between Israel and Hamas.

[GuitarStv]

Yes, it's a shame that Israel's treatment of the proxy gives Iran that gateway.

What does that mean?

He's referring to the long-running dispute between Israel and Hamas.

I thought he was referring to Israel's long standing illegal annexation of Palestinian land, occupation of the country of Palestine, and mistreatment of Palestinian people.

[PeteD01]

Yes, it's a shame that Israel's treatment of the proxy gives Iran that gateway.

What does that mean?

He's referring to the long-running dispute between Israel and Hamas.

I thought he was referring to Israel's long standing illegal annexation of Palestinian land, occupation of the country of Palestine, and mistreatment of Palestinian people.

That does not make a lot of sense in terms of being a proxy war. While it is true that Iran has been providing support to Hamas (Sunni and Palestinian), this support has decreased significantly in recent years, partly due to the civil war in Yemen. Now this civil war could be described as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, at least in good part.
Hezbollah, as a Shiite Lebanese paramilitary organisation, is another matter and one could describe the fighting Hezbollah is doing as a sort of proxy war fought against different adversaries including Israel.

[TomTX]

I thought he was referring to Israel's long standing illegal annexation of Palestinian land, occupation of the country of Palestine, and mistreatment of Palestinian people.

While I agree that Israel has been absolutely awful to Palestinians - I'm going to get a bit technical.  Palestine didn't exist as a state until 20+ years after the 6-day war in 1967 when Israel took the territory from Egypt and Jordan. Of course, Egypt and Jordan illegally seized those respective chunks of territory in 1948.

The whole thing is a big mess which may never be untangled.

Personally, I think that each area should have a binding vote for where they want to belong - much like every Ukrainian oblast (including Crimea) voted to be part of Ukraine at the breakup of the Soviet Union.

[GuitarStv]

I thought he was referring to Israel's long standing illegal annexation of Palestinian land, occupation of the country of Palestine, and mistreatment of Palestinian people.

While I agree that Israel has been absolutely awful to Palestinians - I'm going to get a bit technical.  Palestine didn't exist as a state until 20+ years after the 6-day war in 1967 when Israel took the territory from Egypt and Jordan. Of course, Egypt and Jordan illegally seized those respective chunks of territory in 1948.

None of the 'technical' elements of your post have changed the facts of anything that I mentioned.

Israel has long illegally annexed Palestinian land, often pushing peaceful people off places they've lived for generations by force via full support of Israeli terrorist/thieves "settlers".  Israel is currently illegally occupying the whole country of Palestine and regularly commits human rights violations as an oppressive occupying force.

The whole thing is a big mess which may never be untangled.

Personally, I think that each area should have a binding vote for where they want to belong - much like every Ukrainian oblast (including Crimea) voted to be part of Ukraine at the breakup of the Soviet Union.

It's staying tangled long term for a reason.

Israel has steadily invaded and annexed Palestinian land since both became countries.  None of the land taken has ever been given back, and land grabbing has never stopped.  Israel is an overwhelming military might, there's no possible way that Palestine can fight back.  On the surface it seems bizarre that Israel hasn't stopped pretending that Palestine is another country yet and simply absorbed it.  Why hasn't this happened yet?

Right now, the majority of Palestinians living in Israel are disenfranchised and refused the right to vote in the elections of their rulers.  Works out to nearly all Palestinians - about 1 in 5 people total in Israel (https://www.972mag.com/who-gets-to-vote-in-israels-democracy/).  If you include Israeli occupied Gaza, it goes up to one in three people in Israel who cannot vote - again nearly all Palestinian.  The only tricky part will be in excusing the continued oppression of the Palestinian people to the rest of the world when Palestine no longer exists.

My belief is that this is the main reason that Israel hasn't declared all the territory their own yet.  They need the pretense of a country existing in order to justify the suppression of democratic rights of non-Jewish people who are being ruled over.  This creates a very convenient situation for Israel - all the benefits of ruling Palestine and controlling access to all religious holy sites there.  They get a ready supply of servants who are forced to work lower class jobs in Israel because no employment opportunities are allowed by the Israelis to grow in Palestine.  This all comes with none of the risks of allowing the conquered people political power to change their situation and no need to provide basic necessities (food, water, education, health care, etc.) for the disenfranchised people.  The only cost is (overwhelmingly Palestinian) lives.

[scottish]

I thought he was referring to Israel's long standing illegal annexation of Palestinian land, occupation of the country of Palestine, and mistreatment of Palestinian people.

While I agree that Israel has been absolutely awful to Palestinians - I'm going to get a bit technical.  Palestine didn't exist as a state until 20+ years after the 6-day war in 1967 when Israel took the territory from Egypt and Jordan. Of course, Egypt and Jordan illegally seized those respective chunks of territory in 1948.

None of the 'technical' elements of your post have changed the facts of anything that I mentioned.

Israel has long illegally annexed Palestinian land, often pushing peaceful people off places they've lived for generations by force via full support of Israeli terrorist/thieves "settlers".  Israel is currently illegally occupying the whole country of Palestine and regularly commits human rights violations as an oppressive occupying force.

The whole thing is a big mess which may never be untangled.

Personally, I think that each area should have a binding vote for where they want to belong - much like every Ukrainian oblast (including Crimea) voted to be part of Ukraine at the breakup of the Soviet Union.

It's staying tangled long term for a reason.

Israel has steadily invaded and annexed Palestinian land since both became countries.  None of the land taken has ever been given back, and land grabbing has never stopped.  Israel is an overwhelming military might, there's no possible way that Palestine can fight back.  On the surface it seems bizarre that Israel hasn't stopped pretending that Palestine is another country yet and simply absorbed it.  Why hasn't this happened yet?

Right now, the majority of Palestinians living in Israel are disenfranchised and refused the right to vote in the elections of their rulers.  Works out to nearly all Palestinians - about 1 in 5 people total in Israel (https://www.972mag.com/who-gets-to-vote-in-israels-democracy/).  If you include Israeli occupied Gaza, it goes up to one in three people in Israel who cannot vote - again nearly all Palestinian.  The only tricky part will be in excusing the continued oppression of the Palestinian people to the rest of the world when Palestine no longer exists.

My belief is that this is the main reason that Israel hasn't declared all the territory their own yet.  They need the pretense of a country existing in order to justify the suppression of democratic rights of non-Jewish people who are being ruled over.  This creates a very convenient situation for Israel - all the benefits of ruling Palestine and controlling access to all religious holy sites there.  They get a ready supply of servants who are forced to work lower class jobs in Israel because no employment opportunities are allowed by the Israelis to grow in Palestine.  This all comes with none of the risks of allowing the conquered people political power to change their situation and no need to provide basic necessities (food, water, education, health care, etc.) for the disenfranchised people.  The only cost is (overwhelmingly Palestinian) lives.

Israel's annexation is "illegal" because it's in violation of the 49th article of the 4th Geneva convention, correct?   Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva convention.

However, Israel's occupation of Palestine is actually legal, it's just the annexation and settlement of Palestine land that's illegal.   Have I got it?

The whole mess started back in 1947 when the United Nations decided to partition Palestine, creating Israel as a home for the Jewish people who were treated terribly during WWII.    The Arab states (understandably) declined to accept the UN decision, and started a series of wars.   Israel "won" these conflicts eventually leading us to the situation we have today.

Hopefully this is *not* what's going to happen in Ukraine...

[GuitarStv]

I thought he was referring to Israel's long standing illegal annexation of Palestinian land, occupation of the country of Palestine, and mistreatment of Palestinian people.

While I agree that Israel has been absolutely awful to Palestinians - I'm going to get a bit technical.  Palestine didn't exist as a state until 20+ years after the 6-day war in 1967 when Israel took the territory from Egypt and Jordan. Of course, Egypt and Jordan illegally seized those respective chunks of territory in 1948.

None of the 'technical' elements of your post have changed the facts of anything that I mentioned.

Israel has long illegally annexed Palestinian land, often pushing peaceful people off places they've lived for generations by force via full support of Israeli terrorist/thieves "settlers".  Israel is currently illegally occupying the whole country of Palestine and regularly commits human rights violations as an oppressive occupying force.

The whole thing is a big mess which may never be untangled.

Personally, I think that each area should have a binding vote for where they want to belong - much like every Ukrainian oblast (including Crimea) voted to be part of Ukraine at the breakup of the Soviet Union.

It's staying tangled long term for a reason.

Israel has steadily invaded and annexed Palestinian land since both became countries.  None of the land taken has ever been given back, and land grabbing has never stopped.  Israel is an overwhelming military might, there's no possible way that Palestine can fight back.  On the surface it seems bizarre that Israel hasn't stopped pretending that Palestine is another country yet and simply absorbed it.  Why hasn't this happened yet?

Right now, the majority of Palestinians living in Israel are disenfranchised and refused the right to vote in the elections of their rulers.  Works out to nearly all Palestinians - about 1 in 5 people total in Israel (https://www.972mag.com/who-gets-to-vote-in-israels-democracy/).  If you include Israeli occupied Gaza, it goes up to one in three people in Israel who cannot vote - again nearly all Palestinian.  The only tricky part will be in excusing the continued oppression of the Palestinian people to the rest of the world when Palestine no longer exists.

My belief is that this is the main reason that Israel hasn't declared all the territory their own yet.  They need the pretense of a country existing in order to justify the suppression of democratic rights of non-Jewish people who are being ruled over.  This creates a very convenient situation for Israel - all the benefits of ruling Palestine and controlling access to all religious holy sites there.  They get a ready supply of servants who are forced to work lower class jobs in Israel because no employment opportunities are allowed by the Israelis to grow in Palestine.  This all comes with none of the risks of allowing the conquered people political power to change their situation and no need to provide basic necessities (food, water, education, health care, etc.) for the disenfranchised people.  The only cost is (overwhelmingly Palestinian) lives.

Israel's annexation is "illegal" because it's in violation of the 49th article of the 4th Geneva convention, correct?   Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva convention.

However, Israel's occupation of Palestine is actually legal, it's just the annexation and settlement of Palestine land that's illegal.   Have I got it?

No, the whole occupation is illegal because Israel has deprived Palestine of both statehood and sovereignty.  At least according to the UN - https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129722  Going on more than 50 years Israel is actually part of the longest military occupation of another country in modern history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations#Contemporary_occupations).  As you mentioned, the continued policy of annexation and settlement (if you can really call kicking in doors and forcing people out of their homes at the barrel of a machine gun 'settlement') is also illegal under the Geneva conventions.

The whole mess started back in 1947 when the United Nations decided to partition Palestine, creating Israel as a home for the Jewish people who were treated terribly during WWII.  The Arab states (understandably) declined to accept the UN decision, and started a series of wars.   Israel "won" these conflicts eventually leading us to the situation we have today.

*not* what's going to happen in Ukraine...

Things started well before that (the British took over Palestine in 1915 and then the Balfour Declaration promising to create a Jewish nation in the area came in 1917), but that's generally it.

(Ironic fact - Israel won their independence against the Arabs with old Nazi tanks.  These were bought from Czechoslovakia and smuggled into the area before Israel was declared a country.)

[Radagast]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

Also, HIMARS was 50 times more escalatory than tanks will be, and GLSDB is about 100 times more escalatory. I don't see what Germany's big deal was.

[Sibley]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

Also, HIMARS was 50 times more escalatory than tanks will be, and GLSDB is about 100 times more escalatory. I don't see what Germany's big deal was.

Sunk cost fallacy? Not necessarily. European countries near Russia have a very practical reason to support Ukraine: they could be next, and they've suffered from Russia's belligerence before.

The US has more esoteric reasons, which have been the topic of many articles, but sunk cost isn't a major factor as far as I can tell. We like to defend democracy. We don't like bullies. We don't like Russia. We do like the Ukrainian president (seriously, the number of people with raging boners for him early in the war...). We like to blow things up. It's an excuse to clear out old stuff so we can buy shiny new toys that let us blow up stuff even better. None of this is necessarily rational or consistent, and there's massive helping of hypocritical behavior.

China is acting in their long term best interest. Other countries have a variety of responses, but last I checked they're not major players. Perhaps Iran in giving weapons to Russia, but that's already been discussed.

[pecunia]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

Also, HIMARS was 50 times more escalatory than tanks will be, and GLSDB is about 100 times more escalatory. I don't see what Germany's big deal was.

Sunk cost fallacy? Not necessarily. European countries near Russia have a very practical reason to support Ukraine: they could be next, and they've suffered from Russia's belligerence before.

The US has more esoteric reasons, which have been the topic of many articles, but sunk cost isn't a major factor as far as I can tell. We like to defend democracy. We don't like bullies. We don't like Russia. We do like the Ukrainian president (seriously, the number of people with raging boners for him early in the war...). We like to blow things up. It's an excuse to clear out old stuff so we can buy shiny new toys that let us blow up stuff even better. None of this is necessarily rational or consistent, and there's massive helping of hypocritical behavior.

China is acting in their long term best interest. Other countries have a variety of responses, but last I checked they're not major players. Perhaps Iran in giving weapons to Russia, but that's already been discussed.

Sometimes you don't see it until long after the last battle is cleared, but there are monied interests pulling the strings.  The flag often follows trade.  Ukraine is a big country with a lot of resources including a well educated workforce.  After this war I think there will be a lot of investment in that country.

[zolotiyeruki]

Sometimes you don't see it until long after the last battle is cleared, but there are monied interests pulling the strings.  The flag often follows trade.  Ukraine is a big country with a lot of resources including a well educated workforce.  After this war I think there will be a lot of investment in that country.

Indeed.  And the US arms industry must be positively slobbering over the potential sales of jets, tanks, HIMARs, etc they hope will come, now that Russia is no longer a viable military supplier.

[Sibley]

Sometimes you don't see it until long after the last battle is cleared, but there are monied interests pulling the strings.  The flag often follows trade.  Ukraine is a big country with a lot of resources including a well educated workforce.  After this war I think there will be a lot of investment in that country.

Indeed.  And the US arms industry must be positively slobbering over the potential sales of jets, tanks, HIMARs, etc they hope will come, now that Russia is no longer a viable military supplier.

Of course money is a factor. It's ALWAYS a factor with a society and culture such as ours. Will there be things we learn years from now? I'm sure. Will the US be advantaged in some way as a result? That is certainly the hope of at least some people.

But sunk cost fallacy I don't see being a primary motivator for the US.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

When the U.S. provides weapons to Ukraine, those weapons are used to attack the Russian military, which has been a destablizing source in the world for decades.  This isn't just a chance to defend Ukraine, it's a rare chance to weaken Russia and reduce its influence in the world for many years.  I view the money spent arming / resupplying Ukraine as well spent - but I expect corruption in a country like Ukraine, where President Zelensky was elected for his promises to fight it.

To put the $20-$30 billion in context, Covid stimulus had $46 to $100 billion worth of fraud and theft.  If the amounts matter, focusing on who defrauded Covid stimulus is a better use of time and effort than worrying about Ukraine support.  So I'm less concerned by the money already spent, which can be verified in satellite images and on the ground pictures of destroyed Russian military equipment.

[TomTX]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

The original configuration of the SDB was an air launched glider (ie, from an airplane) - then someone noticed we had a lot of perfectly serviceable and appropriately sized M26 rocket bodies available because the USA stopped using cluster munitions and thus was removing all the warheads. Put 'em together and you get the GLSDB.

[pecunia]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

The original configuration of the SDB was an air launched glider (ie, from an airplane) - then someone noticed we had a lot of perfectly serviceable and appropriately sized M26 rocket bodies available because the USA stopped using cluster munitions and thus was removing all the warheads. Put 'em together and you get the GLSDB.

I do hope it's like HIMARS where the Russians seem to have an excessively difficult time shooting them down.

[bwall]

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

When the U.S. provides weapons to Ukraine, those weapons are used to attack the Russian military, which has been a destablizing source in the world for decades.  This isn't just a chance to defend Ukraine, it's a rare chance to weaken Russia and reduce its influence in the world for many years.  I view the money spent arming / resupplying Ukraine as well spent - but I expect corruption in a country like Ukraine, where President Zelensky was elected for his promises to fight it.

To put the $20-$30 billion in context, Covid stimulus had $46 to $100 billion worth of fraud and theft.  If the amounts matter, focusing on who defrauded Covid stimulus is a better use of time and effort than worrying about Ukraine support.  So I'm less concerned by the money already spent, which can be verified in satellite images and on the ground pictures of destroyed Russian military equipment.

I'm sympathetic to your entire argument, but I'd just like to point out that the US has (unfortunately) done a lot to destabilize the world as well. It's easy to overlook our destabilizing effect and my goal is to provide the partial perspective of how some of those outside the US may view the US. 

Iran has been unleashed due to the USA removing their two greatest enemies which were also their direct neighbors, Saddam and the Taliban. Effectively hemmed in in all directions before our disastrous intervention(s), now Iran can (and does) project power across Iraq to Syria, Lebanon right to Israel's doorstep, the Golan Heights. They've engaged in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia right now in Yemen. We made all of this possible due to W's Great Destablization of the Middle East. Quite an own goal by the US.

Historically, we've also destabilized Central America, southern Africa and S.E. Asia across the 20th Century when we perceived it to be in our best interest. In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since. The same cannot be said for Libya, which experienced destabilization at the hands of NATO in 2011 and is still unstable today.

I think it's much more accurate to say that Russia pursues its own goals which have little or nothing to do with liberty or even economic prosperity for the citizens of any country involved. Very, very rarely do Russian interests align with US interests.

[pecunia]

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

When the U.S. provides weapons to Ukraine, those weapons are used to attack the Russian military, which has been a destablizing source in the world for decades.  This isn't just a chance to defend Ukraine, it's a rare chance to weaken Russia and reduce its influence in the world for many years.  I view the money spent arming / resupplying Ukraine as well spent - but I expect corruption in a country like Ukraine, where President Zelensky was elected for his promises to fight it.

To put the $20-$30 billion in context, Covid stimulus had $46 to $100 billion worth of fraud and theft.  If the amounts matter, focusing on who defrauded Covid stimulus is a better use of time and effort than worrying about Ukraine support.  So I'm less concerned by the money already spent, which can be verified in satellite images and on the ground pictures of destroyed Russian military equipment.

I'm sympathetic to your entire argument, but I'd just like to point out that the US has (unfortunately) done a lot to destabilize the world as well. It's easy to overlook our destabilizing effect and my goal is to provide the partial perspective of how some of those outside the US may view the US. 

Iran has been unleashed due to the USA removing their two greatest enemies which were also their direct neighbors, Saddam and the Taliban. Effectively hemmed in in all directions before our disastrous intervention(s), now Iran can (and does) project power across Iraq to Syria, Lebanon right to Israel's doorstep, the Golan Heights. They've engaged in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia right now in Yemen. We made all of this possible due to W's Great Destablization of the Middle East. Quite an own goal by the US.

Historically, we've also destabilized Central America, southern Africa and S.E. Asia across the 20th Century when we perceived it to be in our best interest. In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since. The same cannot be said for Libya, which experienced destabilization at the hands of NATO in 2011 and is still unstable today.

I think it's much more accurate to say that Russia pursues its own goals which have little or nothing to do with liberty or even economic prosperity for the citizens of any country involved. Very, very rarely do Russian interests align with US interests.

Lots of "whataboutism" discussions have been brought forth by this war.  Russia invaded their neighbor.  Most of the world is trying to help the neighbor expel the Russians.

[zolotiyeruki]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

The original configuration of the SDB was an air launched glider (ie, from an airplane) - then someone noticed we had a lot of perfectly serviceable and appropriately sized M26 rocket bodies available because the USA stopped using cluster munitions and thus was removing all the warheads. Put 'em together and you get the GLSDB.

I do hope it's like HIMARS where the Russians seem to have an excessively difficult time shooting them down.

Even if Russia succeeds in shooting down GLSDBs, trading a $1M interceptor (of which they don't have a ton) for a $50k SDB or $120k SDBII seems like a losing proposition for Russia.  There are a LOT of SDBs out there that can be converted.

[TomTX]

Even if Russia succeeds in shooting down GLSDBs, trading a $1M interceptor (of which they don't have a ton) for a $50k SDB or $120k SDBII seems like a losing proposition for Russia.  There are a LOT of SDBs out there that can be converted.

And at some point we were going to have to pay for disposal on those M26 rocket bodies anyway...

[Radagast]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

Also, HIMARS was 50 times more escalatory than tanks will be, and GLSDB is about 100 times more escalatory. I don't see what Germany's big deal was.

Sunk cost fallacy? Not necessarily. European countries near Russia have a very practical reason to support Ukraine: they could be next, and they've suffered from Russia's belligerence before.

The US has more esoteric reasons, which have been the topic of many articles, but sunk cost isn't a major factor as far as I can tell. We like to defend democracy. We don't like bullies. We don't like Russia. We do like the Ukrainian president (seriously, the number of people with raging boners for him early in the war...). We like to blow things up. It's an excuse to clear out old stuff so we can buy shiny new toys that let us blow up stuff even better. None of this is necessarily rational or consistent, and there's massive helping of hypocritical behavior.

China is acting in their long term best interest. Other countries have a variety of responses, but last I checked they're not major players. Perhaps Iran in giving weapons to Russia, but that's already been discussed.

European countries near Russia of course would always do whatever they could to support Ukraine, which is one of the reasons Russia would have eventually been pushed by an insurgency out even if they had taken the whole country.

The US has been burned by sunk cost fallacy a lot recently, and as a result we may not consider the current cost all that high, so I agree it is not a big factor here.

I was especially thinking about western European countries (was any part of your country ever a direct part of Charlemagne's empire? yes = western European + Portugal) which contain the bulk of the population and economic power in Europe, many of which seemed very wishy washy throughout 2022. They haven't been burned as much recently, and they might consider this cost high enough to trigger the fallacy even (or especially) if the US flakes, which I am not sure they necessarily would have a year ago.

[Taran Wanderer]

In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since.

There is more to all of these stories, but this one in particular demands a response.  The US and NATO de-stabilized Serbia because Serbia supported a genocide in Bosnia.  They were run by an evil gang of murderous thieves who were killing innocents and destabilizing the entire Balkan region.  They weren't good guys, and they needed to be stopped and removed.  Thanks to the US and NATO, they were.

[bwall]

Lots of "whataboutism" discussions have been brought forth by this war.  Russia invaded their neighbor.  Most of the world is trying to help the neighbor expel the Russians.

+1.

I believe the argument "They destabilize the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" is perhaps the least convincing argument available for intervening in Ukraine and could even be used by those who wish to see less US intervention in the world. I provided a couple of examples of how we do this while also attempting to showcase why some countries aren't on board.

[bwall]

In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since.

There is more to all of these stories, but this one in particular demands a response.  The US and NATO de-stabilized Serbia because Serbia supported a genocide in Bosnia.  They were run by an evil gang of murderous thieves who were killing innocents and destabilizing the entire Balkan region.  They weren't good guys, and they needed to be stopped and removed.  Thanks to the US and NATO, they were.

Slobodan Milosevic was cast as a bad guy in the US and most of W. Europe, and for non-Serb Bosnians, he certainly was the incarnation of evil. Yet, he still had supporters--I was stunned when I met a guy in 2006 who told me why he supported Milosevic.

NATO intervention in Serbia and Libya showed to Putin that NATO might be a danger to him one day. Not to Russia, but to him personally. It's a reason for the invasion, not an excuse.

A Western leaning prosperous democracy in Ukraine is also a danger to Putin. But, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
A Western leaning non-prosperous democracy in Ukraine presents no danger to Putin. Again, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
An Eastern leaning Ukraine (democratic or not, prosperous or not) presents no danger to Putin.

[Sibley]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

Also, HIMARS was 50 times more escalatory than tanks will be, and GLSDB is about 100 times more escalatory. I don't see what Germany's big deal was.

Sunk cost fallacy? Not necessarily. European countries near Russia have a very practical reason to support Ukraine: they could be next, and they've suffered from Russia's belligerence before.

The US has more esoteric reasons, which have been the topic of many articles, but sunk cost isn't a major factor as far as I can tell. We like to defend democracy. We don't like bullies. We don't like Russia. We do like the Ukrainian president (seriously, the number of people with raging boners for him early in the war...). We like to blow things up. It's an excuse to clear out old stuff so we can buy shiny new toys that let us blow up stuff even better. None of this is necessarily rational or consistent, and there's massive helping of hypocritical behavior.

China is acting in their long term best interest. Other countries have a variety of responses, but last I checked they're not major players. Perhaps Iran in giving weapons to Russia, but that's already been discussed.

European countries near Russia of course would always do whatever they could to support Ukraine, which is one of the reasons Russia would have eventually been pushed by an insurgency out even if they had taken the whole country.

The US has been burned by sunk cost fallacy a lot recently, and as a result we may not consider the current cost all that high, so I agree it is not a big factor here.

I was especially thinking about western European countries (was any part of your country ever a direct part of Charlemagne's empire? yes = western European + Portugal) which contain the bulk of the population and economic power in Europe, many of which seemed very wishy washy throughout 2022. They haven't been burned as much recently, and they might consider this cost high enough to trigger the fallacy even (or especially) if the US flakes, which I am not sure they necessarily would have a year ago.

I agree re the western European countries. However, I do not know how much they're contributing in terms of military support, so do not know what the consequences would be if they ceased. They are I'm sure absorbing some number of refugees however which is a very different type of support and also very difficult to stop doing.

[scottish]

In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since.

There is more to all of these stories, but this one in particular demands a response.  The US and NATO de-stabilized Serbia because Serbia supported a genocide in Bosnia.  They were run by an evil gang of murderous thieves who were killing innocents and destabilizing the entire Balkan region.  They weren't good guys, and they needed to be stopped and removed.  Thanks to the US and NATO, they were.

Slobodan Milosevic was cast as a bad guy in the US and most of W. Europe, and for non-Serb Bosnians, he certainly was the incarnation of evil. Yet, he still had supporters--I was stunned when I met a guy in 2006 who told me why he supported Milosevic.

NATO intervention in Serbia and Libya showed to Putin that NATO might be a danger to him one day. Not to Russia, but to him personally. It's a reason for the invasion, not an excuse.

A Western leaning prosperous democracy in Ukraine is also a danger to Putin. But, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
A Western leaning non-prosperous democracy in Ukraine presents no danger to Putin. Again, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
An Eastern leaning Ukraine (democratic or not, prosperous or not) presents no danger to Putin.

Why does a prosperous Ukraine present a danger to Putin?

[Taran Wanderer]

Slobodan Milosevic was cast as a bad guy in the US and most of W. Europe, and for non-Serb Bosnians, he certainly was the incarnation of evil. Yet, he still had supporters--I was stunned when I met a guy in 2006 who told me why he supported Milosevic.

And I worked with a Serbian who had his life savings stolen by Slobodan Milosevic and then spent several years carrying a sidearm in daily life to protect himself and his family from thugs before emigrating to Canada and eventually the US.  Milosovic was a bad guy; he wasn't cast as one by the West.

[pecunia]

In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since.

There is more to all of these stories, but this one in particular demands a response.  The US and NATO de-stabilized Serbia because Serbia supported a genocide in Bosnia.  They were run by an evil gang of murderous thieves who were killing innocents and destabilizing the entire Balkan region.  They weren't good guys, and they needed to be stopped and removed.  Thanks to the US and NATO, they were.

Slobodan Milosevic was cast as a bad guy in the US and most of W. Europe, and for non-Serb Bosnians, he certainly was the incarnation of evil. Yet, he still had supporters--I was stunned when I met a guy in 2006 who told me why he supported Milosevic.

NATO intervention in Serbia and Libya showed to Putin that NATO might be a danger to him one day. Not to Russia, but to him personally. It's a reason for the invasion, not an excuse.

A Western leaning prosperous democracy in Ukraine is also a danger to Putin. But, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
A Western leaning non-prosperous democracy in Ukraine presents no danger to Putin. Again, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
An Eastern leaning Ukraine (democratic or not, prosperous or not) presents no danger to Putin.

Why does a prosperous Ukraine present a danger to Putin?

I don't think the nation itself presents a danger.   However, a society where they have the choice to select an alternate leader every few years that is more prosperous would be an example to the Russian people that the way they have been following is not necessarily the best path to take for a country.  The siphoning off of the nation's wealth to oligarch's while leaving great swaths of the country in poverty may eventually not be a part of Russian mainstream thinking.  A prosperous Ukraine will have a higher likelihood of being a less corrupt Ukraine.  This Ukraine in all likelihood would offer more opportunities for success than Russia which has been drifting to the old Soviet centrally planned model which offers less opportunities.  Even now one can envision businesses starting in Ukraine whereas Russia is not known for it.

This is more gut feel than the answer that should be provided and that better answer is out there.

[Mr FrugalNL]

Looks like Ukraine will likely get the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb soon. This is the best news in months. I am guess the big delay in sending GLSBD was that someone in the defense department spent three months with a boat and a tape measure double checking the distance from Cuba to Miami, and decided that it was OK to send them and would not be a double standard. I'm glad Ukraine's allies finally seem to be getting serious about providing useful equipment. I believe they will now have developed a sunk cost fallacy and will support Ukraine through thick and thin.

Also, HIMARS was 50 times more escalatory than tanks will be, and GLSDB is about 100 times more escalatory. I don't see what Germany's big deal was.

Sunk cost fallacy? Not necessarily. European countries near Russia have a very practical reason to support Ukraine: they could be next, and they've suffered from Russia's belligerence before.

The US has more esoteric reasons, which have been the topic of many articles, but sunk cost isn't a major factor as far as I can tell. We like to defend democracy. We don't like bullies. We don't like Russia. We do like the Ukrainian president (seriously, the number of people with raging boners for him early in the war...). We like to blow things up. It's an excuse to clear out old stuff so we can buy shiny new toys that let us blow up stuff even better. None of this is necessarily rational or consistent, and there's massive helping of hypocritical behavior.

China is acting in their long term best interest. Other countries have a variety of responses, but last I checked they're not major players. Perhaps Iran in giving weapons to Russia, but that's already been discussed.

European countries near Russia of course would always do whatever they could to support Ukraine, which is one of the reasons Russia would have eventually been pushed by an insurgency out even if they had taken the whole country.

The US has been burned by sunk cost fallacy a lot recently, and as a result we may not consider the current cost all that high, so I agree it is not a big factor here.

I was especially thinking about western European countries (was any part of your country ever a direct part of Charlemagne's empire? yes = western European + Portugal) which contain the bulk of the population and economic power in Europe, many of which seemed very wishy washy throughout 2022. They haven't been burned as much recently, and they might consider this cost high enough to trigger the fallacy even (or especially) if the US flakes, which I am not sure they necessarily would have a year ago.

I agree re the western European countries. However, I do not know how much they're contributing in terms of military support, so do not know what the consequences would be if they ceased. They are I'm sure absorbing some number of refugees however which is a very different type of support and also very difficult to stop doing.

Here you go, the Ukraine support tracker. There's also a dataset you can download. According to this 40% of total aid (i.e. the sum total of financial, humanitarian and military aid) is from EU members and institutions, 45% from 'Anglosaxon countries', including the US (37%), UK (5%) and Canada (3%), 2% is from other donor countries and 12% is from non-bilateral donors, including the IMF (3%), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (4%) and World Bank (6%).

Looking purely at military aid, an outsized portion is from 'Anglosaxon countries': 70% (US: 56%, UK, 10%, Canada: 3%). 29% of military aid is from EU members and institutions. This is partly due to some EU countries regrettably holding back and partly due to many of them simply not having much equipment left to donate after decades of military budget cuts.

As you will also see from the data some EU countries like the Baltics and Poland are truly going above and beyond in terms of support as a percentage of their GDP: 0.7-1.3%. Others not so much. In GDP terms the US is actually a pretty modest contributor at 0.2%, a testament to the size of the US economy more than anything. Ukraine would be much worse off without US military support.

In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since.

There is more to all of these stories, but this one in particular demands a response.  The US and NATO de-stabilized Serbia because Serbia supported a genocide in Bosnia.  They were run by an evil gang of murderous thieves who were killing innocents and destabilizing the entire Balkan region.  They weren't good guys, and they needed to be stopped and removed.  Thanks to the US and NATO, they were.

Slobodan Milosevic was cast as a bad guy in the US and most of W. Europe, and for non-Serb Bosnians, he certainly was the incarnation of evil. Yet, he still had supporters--I was stunned when I met a guy in 2006 who told me why he supported Milosevic.

NATO intervention in Serbia and Libya showed to Putin that NATO might be a danger to him one day. Not to Russia, but to him personally. It's a reason for the invasion, not an excuse.

A Western leaning prosperous democracy in Ukraine is also a danger to Putin. But, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
A Western leaning non-prosperous democracy in Ukraine presents no danger to Putin. Again, he can't use this rationale as a reason for the invasion.
An Eastern leaning Ukraine (democratic or not, prosperous or not) presents no danger to Putin.

Why does a prosperous Ukraine present a danger to Putin?

If you ask me, Putin has reason to fear a prosperous democratic Ukraine because it might influence Russians' political leanings. Wouldn't want the serfs to get strange ideas like 'rule of law' into their heads, now would we? Ukraine is different from for examle Finland (by all accounts a prosperous and democratic country on Russia's doorstep) because Russians view Ukrainians as similar enough to themselves that they might be worth emulating.

[LennStar]

This Ukraine in all likelihood would offer more opportunities for success than Russia which has been drifting to the old Soviet centrally planned model which offers less opportunities.

Plase do not confuse a "capitalist" mafia system with the prior "communist" centralized planning just because both happen to be run by autocrats.
You earn money in Russia by being loyal, and you are loyal because you earn money.

That is also one of the factors why a properous Ukraine is a problem for Putin. Not only might a system shift look attractice, it also shows him as weak, and weak leaders on top of an autocracy or dictatorship do not exist (for long):
And of course a rich Ukraine is harder to invade (and Putin wants his "One Russia" very much). 

[pecunia]

If you ask me, Putin has reason to fear a prosperous democratic Ukraine because it might influence Russians' political leanings. Wouldn't want the serfs to get strange ideas like 'rule of law' into their heads, now would we? Ukraine is different from for examle Finland (by all accounts a prosperous and democratic country on Russia's doorstep) because Russians view Ukrainians as similar enough to themselves that they might be worth emulating.

It would be rather easy to understand Ukraine when about 30 percent regularly speak both Russian and Ukrainian.  Finnish, on the other hand, is a Finno Ugric language considered one of the more obscure European languages.  This would cause difficulties in direct emulation.

[Mr FrugalNL]

Yes, the language barrier would also make it harder for Russians to copy Finns than to copy Ukrainians, in addition to the cultural barrier I was talking about.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Lots of "whataboutism" discussions have been brought forth by this war.  Russia invaded their neighbor.  Most of the world is trying to help the neighbor expel the Russians.

+1.

I believe the argument "They destabilize the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" is perhaps the least convincing argument available for intervening in Ukraine and could even be used by those who wish to see less US intervention in the world. I provided a couple of examples of how we do this while also attempting to showcase why some countries aren't on board.

We would need an entire thread for your view comparing the United States to Russia, and whataboutism directed at the United States.  Setting that aside for the sake of this thread, I think it's an understatement to say Europe is more pro-American than pro-Russian right now.  Without detailing everything the U.S. or Russia has done, the balance favors the U.S.  I would like to take one aspect of Russian meddling abroad which links directly back to the topic. 

The group is widely believed to be owned or financed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman with close links to Putin.  After years of denying links to the Wagner group, Prigozhin admitted in September 2022 that he "founded" the paramilitary group.
...
Following the deployment of its contractors between 2017 and 2019, to Sudan,[27] the Central African Republic,[28] Madagascar,[116] Libya[35] and Mozambique,[39] the Wagner Group had offices in 20 African countries, including Eswatini, Lesotho and Botswana, by the end of 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

That's a very limited example of Russian meddling and influence - but more importantly, this group has served a vital role for Russian ambitions in Ukraine.

The group came to global prominence during the war in Donbas in Ukraine, where it aided separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics from 2014 to 2015
... It has played a significant role in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

The group was started by a Russian close to Putin.  It was involved in the annexation of Crimea, fighting in the Donbas since 2014, in the invasion last year, and they are still fighting in Ukraine.  Maybe Russian (Wagner Group) mercenaries abroad will ultimately come to have a negative impact on the world, and I point to their actions in Ukraine as the clearest example of that.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Looking purely at military aid, an outsized portion is from 'Anglosaxon countries': 70% (US: 56%, UK, 10%, Canada: 3%). 29% of military aid is from EU members and institutions. This is partly due to some EU countries regrettably holding back and partly due to many of them simply not having much equipment left to donate after decades of military budget cuts.

As you will also see from the data some EU countries like the Baltics and Poland are truly going above and beyond in terms of support as a percentage of their GDP:
...

Ukraine cares how much money was sent, not about the GDP of the countries who sent it.  As of Oct 2022, Poland had sent more military aid ($1.8 billion) than germany ($1.2 billion), with other European countries contributing less than 1/3rd of a billion.  I also think you have to only count aid already sent - not promises by politicians.  This data is from Oct 2022, at which time the U.S. had sent $27.4 billion in military aid, dwarfing all other countries combined.
https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Also note the first months of the invasion were the most critical.  Ukrainians stopped Russia and turned the tide on their own.  From March - Sept, the U.S. sent 23 times more aid than Germany, so I am skeptical of calling U.S. aid just over half.  Ukrainians can't defend against Russia with "commitments", and politicians can't be relied on to follow through.  I'd be interested in updated numbers that exclude committments, with the caveat that aid 11 months into the conflict is not as vital as aid in the early months.

[bwall]

Lots of "whataboutism" discussions have been brought forth by this war.  Russia invaded their neighbor.  Most of the world is trying to help the neighbor expel the Russians.

+1.

I believe the argument "They destabilize the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" is perhaps the least convincing argument available for intervening in Ukraine and could even be used by those who wish to see less US intervention in the world. I provided a couple of examples of how we do this while also attempting to showcase why some countries aren't on board.

We would need an entire thread for your view comparing the United States to Russia, and whataboutism directed at the United States.  Setting that aside for the sake of this thread, I think it's an understatement to say Europe is more pro-American than pro-Russian right now.  Without detailing everything the U.S. or Russia has done, the balance favors the U.S.  I would like to take one aspect of Russian meddling abroad which links directly back to the topic. 

The group is widely believed to be owned or financed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman with close links to Putin.  After years of denying links to the Wagner group, Prigozhin admitted in September 2022 that he "founded" the paramilitary group.
...
Following the deployment of its contractors between 2017 and 2019, to Sudan,[27] the Central African Republic,[28] Madagascar,[116] Libya[35] and Mozambique,[39] the Wagner Group had offices in 20 African countries, including Eswatini, Lesotho and Botswana, by the end of 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

That's a very limited example of Russian meddling and influence - but more importantly, this group has served a vital role for Russian ambitions in Ukraine.

The group came to global prominence during the war in Donbas in Ukraine, where it aided separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics from 2014 to 2015
... It has played a significant role in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group

The group was started by a Russian close to Putin.  It was involved in the annexation of Crimea, fighting in the Donbas since 2014, in the invasion last year, and they are still fighting in Ukraine.  Maybe Russian (Wagner Group) mercenaries abroad will ultimately come to have a negative impact on the world, and I point to their actions in Ukraine as the clearest example of that.

I didn't provide a 'what about' argument. I merely pointed out that the argument "They destabilize the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" was the least convincing argument possible as the argument, on its merits, could also be used against the USA.

Yes, Europe is more pro-American than pro-Russian, but the world consists of countries outside of Europe and America. There are many countries that aren't taking sides: Turkey, Israel, South Africa, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and most (all?) Arab countries. Even India isn't really quick to choose sides, buying millions of barrels of discounted Russian crude.

On a side note the Wagner Group isn't the Russian military. It's a privately owned company with employees that answer to a chain of command outside the Russian military. The Russian military is a branch of the Russian government (like our military is). Yes, Wagner is used to project force abroad, like the US did with the privately owned company Blackwater in Iraq. But, Blackwater was never the US military and in the same vein, Wagner isn't the Russian military. Wagner relies on volunteers, the Russian military has the power to conscript. They have different supply lines, different chains of command, etc.

I believe there are better arguments available than "Russia's military destabilizes the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" to defend Western actions in Ukraine. For example:
1) Self determination for the people of Ukraine
and
2) Not rewarding aggression and therefore keeping the 'Rules Based World Order' in place--to the extent possible today.

These two powerful arguments aren't as easily refuted by those who wish to see less adventurism on the side of the US.

I'd personally prefer that Russia withdraw its troops right now and the war to end immediately. No matter to what degree the Russian army is degraded and depleted, they will still have nuclear weapons (whereas Wagner won't). 

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Looking purely at military aid, an outsized portion is from 'Anglosaxon countries': 70% (US: 56%, UK, 10%, Canada: 3%). 29% of military aid is from EU members and institutions. This is partly due to some EU countries regrettably holding back and partly due to many of them simply not having much equipment left to donate after decades of military budget cuts.

As you will also see from the data some EU countries like the Baltics and Poland are truly going above and beyond in terms of support as a percentage of their GDP:
...

Ukraine cares how much money was sent, not about the GDP of the countries who sent it.  As of Oct 2022, Poland had sent more military aid ($1.8 billion) than germany ($1.2 billion), with other European countries contributing less than 1/3rd of a billion.  I also think you have to only count aid already sent - not promises by politicians.  This data is from Oct 2022, at which time the U.S. had sent $27.4 billion in military aid, dwarfing all other countries combined.
https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Also note the first months of the invasion were the most critical.  Ukrainians stopped Russia and turned the tide on their own.  From March - Sept, the U.S. sent 23 times more aid than Germany, so I am skeptical of calling U.S. aid just over half.  Ukrainians can't defend against Russia with "commitments", and politicians can't be relied on to follow through.  I'd be interested in updated numbers that exclude committments, with the caveat that aid 11 months into the conflict is not as vital as aid in the early months.

The Germans and French see themselves as the core of European civilization (particularly so, following Brexit), even though they largely lack the ability to project hard power globally. Under the aegis of the Cold War US-dominated system of western alliances, a coherent European military capability never formed, so Europe tended to focus on a sort of bureaucratic rules-enforcing soft power ("play by our rules, or no access to our common market!"). This strategy works only inasmuch as the US provides the necessary backing for a rules-based globalized system, something that Putin's war and Xi's Taiwan machinations directly threaten.

In terms of hard power, the Germans have let their military atrophy considerably, with the recently resigned Minister of Defense Christine Lambrecht declaring last year that Germany could not even muster a single combat-ready army division. For their part, the French bombastically hold to the notion that they are more equal than the other animals. This French exceptionalism long predates de Gaul; the roots of it were sown when England defeated France in the battles of Crecy and Agincourt in the 14th and 15th centuries. The battle of Crecy was particularly traumatic, with catastrophic losses amongst the French nobility and perhaps a 100:1 kill ratio for the English. This national tragedy has, in part, led France's inferiority complex--something accentuated by the rise of the period of the American "hyperpower" after the end of the Cold War. Militarily, the French are more capable than Germany, but they are committed to buttressing their national prestige through relative military autonomy over being a component of an interoperable and integrated European military (for example, they do not participate with the NATO nuclear deterrent).

This is why as the US sends hard military assets to Europe, the Europeans (other than the Russiaphobe eastern Europeans) make far more speeches than firm commitments.

[Michael in ABQ]

On a side note the Wagner Group isn't the Russian military. It's a privately owned company with employees that answer to a chain of command outside the Russian military. The Russian military is a branch of the Russian government (like our military is). Yes, Wagner is used to project force abroad, like the US did with the privately owned company Blackwater in Iraq. But, Blackwater was never the US military and in the same vein, Wagner isn't the Russian military. Wagner relies on volunteers, the Russian military has the power to conscript. They have different supply lines, different chains of command, etc.

Wagner may technically be private, but for all intents and purposes they are an extension of the Russian state. Case in point, they were recruiting prisoners and basically promising to commute their sentences. That's not the kind of power a totally private organization has. That is direct backing of the state. Blackwater was paying six figures to get people to go to Iraq and generally provide security - they weren't paying $1,000/month to send someone with minimal training to the front lines of a full-scale conventional war to act in every capacity as a Soldier for the state.

[LennStar]

From March - Sept, the U.S. sent 23 times more aid than Germany, so I am skeptical of calling U.S. aid just over half.  Ukrainians can't defend against Russia with "commitments", and politicians can't be relied on to follow through.  I'd be interested in updated numbers that exclude committments, with the caveat that aid 11 months into the conflict is not as vital as aid in the early months.

In terms of hard power, the Germans have let their military atrophy considerably, with the recently resigned Minister of Defense Christine Lambrecht declaring last year that Germany could not even muster a single combat-ready army division.

This is why as the US sends hard military assets to Europe, the Europeans (other than the Russiaphobe eastern Europeans) make far more speeches than firm commitments.

Yes that. If you debate numbers, keep in mind that the stuff the US send (at the beginning) was almost only equipment that would have been trashed by the US army in the near future anyway, so youi could say it wasn't an expense at all, and that the whole German army doesn't even have that amount. The Bundeswehr has 240 tanks, of which only 1/3 are in working condition.
The state of the Bundeswehr has literally become a joke in the last decade.

What we did was taking in more refugees than any other country except Poland. More than 1 million. That also costs a bit of money. We also send a considerable amount of private donation - I don't think many Americans send packets of goods to Ukraine. Not to mention the +100% heating and +30% electricity costs and the considerable savings of Russian gas.

This is not intended as a d*** comparison, it's just pointing out that help (or burdens) can have a lot of different faces and come from a lot of situations.

[TomTX]

As an American, I have not sent packets of goods to Ukraine.

I have bought some fundraiser items from Ukraine. Hopefully the cash is helpful.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I didn't provide a 'what about' argument. I merely pointed out that the argument "They destabilize the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" was the least convincing argument possible as the argument, on its merits, could also be used against the USA.

I thought your earlier +1 to too much whataboutism [1] was a tacit admission that you, personally had done it, and you would stop.  Now you're claiming not to have used whataboutism, so a definition is in order:

": the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whataboutism

I said Russia's influence, and while you avoided the words "what about", you said what about the U.S. influence in response [1].  So we cannot look at Russia's bad actions, according to you, because we need to look at U.S. bad actions.  That is the literal definition of whataboutism that I just quoted.  You are using "whataboutism" to not talk about Russia's bad influence, and instead talk about U.S. bad influence.

Your earlier reply to my post quoted a long list of things the U.S. did [2].  You focused on Iran being released as a big problem, while also alluding to 20th century meddling in Latin America [2].  Since you include the 20th century, why didn't the Soviet Union make that list of major problems?

You mention the U.S. "destabilized" [2] various places in the 20th century, but fail to mention the Cold War.  The Soviet Union had to keep taking over new countries, because it ran on a failed economic model.  Ignoring that context, and citing U.S. actions in isolation is like describing a boxing match as one guy repeatedly punching some other guy.  And I hope growth by annexing and invading sounds familiar, because it describes both the Soviet Union and Russia's actions in Ukraine (2014, 2022-now).

I wanted to avoid all this, so I brought up the Wagner Group only to have you split hairs over something meaningless.  Does it matter if the Russian military and Wagner Group report to different Russian oligarchs?  The Wagner Group was part of (all?) the force annexing Crimea in 2014.  They are fighting with the Russian miltiary in Ukraine right now.  The Wagner Group and Russian military were literally arguing about who took a certain town a short time ago!  I fail to understand how you can split hairs this fine about the distinction between them and Russia's military.

[1]

Lots of "whataboutism" discussions have been brought forth by this war.  Russia invaded their neighbor.  Most of the world is trying to help the neighbor expel the Russians.

+1.

I believe the argument "They destabilize the region, therefore they need to be weakened and their influence reduced" is perhaps the least convincing argument available for intervening in Ukraine and could even be used by those who wish to see less US intervention in the world. I provided a couple of examples of how we do this while also attempting to showcase why some countries aren't on board.

[2]

The new weapon system is interesting - it's like a rocket then glider, somewhat similar to a drone.  They've tested at 60 miles but claim 90 miles range.

When the U.S. provides weapons to Ukraine, those weapons are used to attack the Russian military, which has been a destablizing source in the world for decades.  This isn't just a chance to defend Ukraine, it's a rare chance to weaken Russia and reduce its influence in the world for many years.  I view the money spent arming / resupplying Ukraine as well spent - but I expect corruption in a country like Ukraine, where President Zelensky was elected for his promises to fight it.

To put the $20-$30 billion in context, Covid stimulus had $46 to $100 billion worth of fraud and theft.  If the amounts matter, focusing on who defrauded Covid stimulus is a better use of time and effort than worrying about Ukraine support.  So I'm less concerned by the money already spent, which can be verified in satellite images and on the ground pictures of destroyed Russian military equipment.

I'm sympathetic to your entire argument, but I'd just like to point out that the US has (unfortunately) done a lot to destabilize the world as well. It's easy to overlook our destabilizing effect and my goal is to provide the partial perspective of how some of those outside the US may view the US. 

Iran has been unleashed due to the USA removing their two greatest enemies which were also their direct neighbors, Saddam and the Taliban. Effectively hemmed in in all directions before our disastrous intervention(s), now Iran can (and does) project power across Iraq to Syria, Lebanon right to Israel's doorstep, the Golan Heights. They've engaged in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia right now in Yemen. We made all of this possible due to W's Great Destablization of the Middle East. Quite an own goal by the US.

Historically, we've also destabilized Central America, southern Africa and S.E. Asia across the 20th Century when we perceived it to be in our best interest. In the 1990's we were happy to destabilize Serbia (under the auspices of NATO) and bomb them with reckless abandon, fortunately they've found a semblance of stability since. The same cannot be said for Libya, which experienced destabilization at the hands of NATO in 2011 and is still unstable today.

I think it's much more accurate to say that Russia pursues its own goals which have little or nothing to do with liberty or even economic prosperity for the citizens of any country involved. Very, very rarely do Russian interests align with US interests.