Ukraine

[PeteD01]

That's rather difficult when one is a Russian intel operation.

Possible but I'll give the benefit of the doubt!

We are looking at a FSB asset here.
Participating in FSB misinformation campaigns makes the poster a FSB asset - even if it is not done intentionally.

True enough, but assuming it is unintentional then the correct response is to say "please stop being an FSB asset!"

If it's deliberate propaganda, then I just revealed to Russian intelligence that "cauldron" is not an English term for military situations.

I wouldn't worry about that.

Russian propaganda is rather transparent and they are not going to make an effort to make it more plausible because they are not exactly after the best and brightest.

It's like the emails from the Nigerian princes - full of mistakes so they filter out the non-gullible off the bat.

[LennStar]

Avdeevka is being cut into two separate cauldrons

Can you link your source for this specific item?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/02/the-end-of-the-avdeevka-cauldron.html#more

Check attached picture.

Thank you!

Now here is the reason why I asked and feel this is important. "Cauldron" is not a native English term to describe this situation. Those would be "pocket" "salient" or "encirclement". "Cauldron" as best as I can tell is a translation of the Russian phrase for the situation. What I see is that you are getting your information directly from a propogandist whose mother tongue is Russian, or at least from a handler who is feeding direct quotes based on a Russian source. Please, please stop following Russian intelligence operations for your information.

Cauldron is also a direct translation of the German term "Kessel". Like in "Die Kesselschlacht bei Białystok und Minsk"

And the map is a possible development of the definitely Ukrainian I have seen a the start of the week. That one didn't have the southern second prong but that could have happend. What it did have, as I posted above, was the Russians getting to the connection road and rumors that a counter has thrown them back 150m.

[Radagast]

That's rather difficult when one is a Russian intel operation.

Possible but I'll give the benefit of the doubt!

We are looking at a FSB asset here.
Participating in FSB misinformation campaigns makes the poster a FSB asset - even if it is not done intentionally.

True enough, but assuming it is unintentional then the correct response is to say "please stop being an FSB asset!"

If it's deliberate propaganda, then I just revealed to Russian intelligence that "cauldron" is not an English term for military situations.

I wouldn't worry about that.

Russian propaganda is rather transparent and they are not going to make an effort to make it more plausible because they are not exactly after the best and brightest.

It's like the emails of the Nigerian princes - full of mistakes so they filter out the non-gullible of the bat.

It was tongue in cheek. Either way, it shows the compelling reason why every single cluster munition, of any type, which is still in US stocks needs to be on the next boat to Ukraine, and in fact should have been years ago.

[Radagast]

Avdeevka is being cut into two separate cauldrons

Can you link your source for this specific item?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/02/the-end-of-the-avdeevka-cauldron.html#more

Check attached picture.

Thank you!

Now here is the reason why I asked and feel this is important. "Cauldron" is not a native English term to describe this situation. Those would be "pocket" "salient" or "encirclement". "Cauldron" as best as I can tell is a translation of the Russian phrase for the situation. What I see is that you are getting your information directly from a propogandist whose mother tongue is Russian, or at least from a handler who is feeding direct quotes based on a Russian source. Please, please stop following Russian intelligence operations for your information.

Cauldron is also a direct translation of the German term "Kessel". Like in "Die Kesselschlacht bei Białystok und Minsk"

And the map is a possible development of the definitely Ukrainian I have seen a the start of the week. That one didn't have the southern second prong but that could have happend. What it did have, as I posted above, was the Russians getting to the connection road and rumors that a counter has thrown them back 150m.

No two ways about it though. Cawl was directly spreading Russian propoganda.

[LennStar]

Now, here is the one from the New York Times from yesterday (15). Decide on your own.

[Radagast]

Now, here is the one from the New York Times from yesterday (15). Decide on your own.

I'm not questioning the situation, only pointing out that Cawl is getting his information from a Russian influence operation.

[PeteD01]

The Tucker Carlson interview went poorly for Putin and Putin is known to despise traitors like Tucker.
Tying Tucker to the assassination of Navalny is just the kind of revenge move to expect from a small-minded mobster/lieutenant colonel (the KGB ranks from lieutenant colonel down working abroad were essentially amoral gangsters/muscle with little chance of advancement and it still shows).

I didn't expect the Kremlin to come out that quickly with pointing the connection out - but here we go: Kremlin publicity figure Simonyan clarified it on the day of the murder.

I guess Tucker won't be going to Russia again any time soon.

The stupidity of many westerners who have dealings with Russia but aren't that useful anymore is truly stupendous (and no, it is not a "lurid fantasy" at all).

Putin’s Pals Link Death of Alexei Navalny to Tucker Carlson Interview

Kremlin propagandists promoted all sorts of lurid fantasies soon after it was announced that Vladimir Putin’s nemesis was dead.
Julia Davis
Published Feb. 16, 2024

Simonyan shared a post from a Telegram channel “BP Online” that said, “This is the retaliation for the interview. Thankfully, it wasn’t [Tucker] Carlson.” Despite Putin’s displeasure with the way Carlson’s interview with him had unfolded, the former Fox News host is a darling of the Russian state media, where he is described as the only American they wouldn’t want to kill.

This feeling is clearly mutual. On Monday, while he was at the World Government Summit in Dubai, Carlson was asked by Egyptian journalist Emad El Din Adeeb why he never pressed Putin about the freedom of speech in Russia and why he “did not talk about Navalny, about assassinations, about restrictions on opposition in the coming elections.”

Carlson coldly replied, in part, “Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.” He openly endorsed the elimination of inconvenient opposition figures and journalists, falsely alleging that this kind of a domestic policy is common everywhere.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/putins-pals-link-death-of-alexei-navalny-to-tucker-carlson-interview?ref=home?ref=home

[LennStar]

We can safely say now that Avdijivka has fallen to the Russians, it's only a question of how good the Ukrainians manage the withdrawel. Remember: Nothing is more difficult than a withdrawal from an undefensible position (well, this one is still a bit defensible overall though).

The "Ukrainian guy" I sometimes refer to has postes a detailed description of what has happened (which is why I like his channel, you can't find those details in newspapers)

I strongly recommend watching these 5 minutes if you want to know what was going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fkS4k8bKe4

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Except for Poland, is the EU being complacent?

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and that same year Germany, France, Spain, and Italy all spent less than the NATO requirement for defense spending (2% of GDP). Trump has renewed his anti-NATO rants, claiming countries don't pay their fair share, and that he plans to leave NATO.  Even worse, he could use the end of NATO to make every country beg Trump for a mutual defense treaty (the same way he threatened trade sanctions when he was President).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures

Yes and no. Some countries are at the same level as Poland or close to it in terms of defence spending as a % of GDP - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania come to mind. Finland and Sweden are up there too. Others are lagging behind. I'd say part of it is complacency, part problems trying to find the money, part problems actually spending the money. About that last one: Procurement and recruitment both take time. Wads of cash don't make pilots and fighter jets appear out of thin air.

Putting Germany (1.44%), France (1.9%), Spain (1.01%) and Italy (1.54%) in the same category seems a bit unfair on France to me. They're not at or above the 2% guideline but they are still spending nearly twice as much as Spain.

All that said, I'm not trying to make excuses. I wish most EU countries including my own would do more and do it faster.

As of this post, Sweden still isn't in NATO, and the Wikipedia entry shows 1.3% for Sweden in 2022.  It appears Hungry has run out of things to blackmail Sweden over, so maybe they will finally become the last vote to allow Sweden to join NATO.

Considering France is a major arms exporter, falling below 2% should be embarrassing for them.  They can justify defense spending as stimulating local businesses, but they haven't.  I believe arms exports are 1% of France's GDP, so they have the extra capacity.

Germany's GDP is more than a hundred times larger than Estonia's.  It creates good will when both spend 2% on defense, but Estonia's defense budget is not going to be a deciding factor in a war.  That's why I listed the largest EU economies in NATO.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

We can safely say now that Avdijivka has fallen to the Russians, it's only a question of how good the Ukrainians manage the withdrawel. Remember: Nothing is more difficult than a withdrawal from an undefensible position (well, this one is still a bit defensible overall though).

Well-managed withdrawal during war is important, but Russia has also shown a sort of "idiot savant" ability to send troops and tanks into harms way.  Russia may want Avdijivka desperately enough to make a few more mistakes before Ukraine withdraws completely.

---
An article I read mentioned Russians spend over half their income on food.  Incomes in Russia are an order of magnitude lower than American incomes. Their food can be cheap for a three-house-owning American like Tucker Carlson, but still be expensive for Russians.

---
Putin sees U.S. Congress refusing to aid Ukraine, gets fawning press from an American, and then decides the timing is right to execute Alexei Navalny.  Putin wants to show Russia that any credible competition for leading Russia will be killed.  But he also needs to provide a fig leaf of deniability for his useful idiots in U.S. Congress, so this event doesn't cause Ukraine aid to get passed.

Would Navalny have died if House Speaker Johnson had put Ukraine aid to a vote?  I hope this pressures Congress to act.

[pecunia]

We can safely say now that Avdijivka has fallen to the Russians, it's only a question of how good the Ukrainians manage the withdrawel. Remember: Nothing is more difficult than a withdrawal from an undefensible position (well, this one is still a bit defensible overall though).

Well-managed withdrawal during war is important, but Russia has also shown a sort of "idiot savant" ability to send troops and tanks into harms way.  Russia may want Avdijivka desperately enough to make a few more mistakes before Ukraine withdraws completely.

---
An article I read mentioned Russians spend over half their income on food.  Incomes in Russia are an order of magnitude lower than American incomes. Their food can be cheap for a three-house-owning American like Tucker Carlson, but still be expensive for Russians.

---
Putin sees U.S. Congress refusing to aid Ukraine, gets fawning press from an American, and then decides the timing is right to execute Alexei Navalny.  Putin wants to show Russia that any credible competition for leading Russia will be killed.  But he also needs to provide a fig leaf of deniability for his useful idiots in U.S. Congress, so this event doesn't cause Ukraine aid to get passed.

Would Navalny have died if House Speaker Johnson had put Ukraine aid to a vote?  I hope this pressures Congress to act.

I think only a minority of US citizens follow the inaction of Speaker Johnson.  Yet I also think only a minority of US citizens are radical MAGA types.  Maybe, this minority who wishes to remain in touch with the world will be enough to force the House to action after their 2 week retreat.

[Mr FrugalNL]

Except for Poland, is the EU being complacent?

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and that same year Germany, France, Spain, and Italy all spent less than the NATO requirement for defense spending (2% of GDP). Trump has renewed his anti-NATO rants, claiming countries don't pay their fair share, and that he plans to leave NATO.  Even worse, he could use the end of NATO to make every country beg Trump for a mutual defense treaty (the same way he threatened trade sanctions when he was President).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures

Yes and no. Some countries are at the same level as Poland or close to it in terms of defence spending as a % of GDP - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania come to mind. Finland and Sweden are up there too. Others are lagging behind. I'd say part of it is complacency, part problems trying to find the money, part problems actually spending the money. About that last one: Procurement and recruitment both take time. Wads of cash don't make pilots and fighter jets appear out of thin air.

Putting Germany (1.44%), France (1.9%), Spain (1.01%) and Italy (1.54%) in the same category seems a bit unfair on France to me. They're not at or above the 2% guideline but they are still spending nearly twice as much as Spain.

All that said, I'm not trying to make excuses. I wish most EU countries including my own would do more and do it faster.

As of this post, Sweden still isn't in NATO, and the Wikipedia entry shows 1.3% for Sweden in 2022.  It appears Hungry has run out of things to blackmail Sweden over, so maybe they will finally become the last vote to allow Sweden to join NATO.

I listed Sweden because I thought you were asking about EU countries, not EU countries in NATO, and I thought Sweden was up there too. I stand corrected on that point. And yes, let's hope Hungary knocks off its antics.

Considering France is a major arms exporter, falling below 2% should be embarrassing for them.  They can justify defense spending as stimulating local businesses, but they haven't.  I believe arms exports are 1% of France's GDP, so they have the extra capacity.

On France, yes it should be embarrassing for them. I see no reason to single them out over Germany, Italy and Spain though, which also all have a domestic arms industry and are spending less than France.

Germany's GDP is more than a hundred times larger than Estonia's.  It creates good will when both spend 2% on defense, but Estonia's defense budget is not going to be a deciding factor in a war.  That's why I listed the largest EU economies in NATO.

I thought you were coming at this from a 'Which countries are spending enough' angle rather than that same question weighted by GDP. Both are important for different reasons, as you say. Don't be too quick to dismiss smaller states' defence budgets as immaterial in the event of a war though. If it were to come to a surprise attack on a small NATO country, that country's military could play a pivotal role in delaying the attack till help arrives from other member states. I'm thinking of Lithuania in particular because of the Suwalki Gap.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think only a minority of US citizens follow the inaction of Speaker Johnson.  Yet I also think only a minority of US citizens are radical MAGA types.  Maybe, this minority who wishes to remain in touch with the world will be enough to force the House to action after their 2 week retreat.

That's what I would expect, but recently George Santos's seat (R) flipped to a Democrat.  Exit polls cited Republicans blocking legislation on the border, so the marginal voter might matter.

I hope the response to Navalny's death is to pressure House Speaker Johnson to stop helping the Russians.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Mr FrugalNL - Countries like Russia fear a full-scale war with the United States.  Latvia's defense spending is less important than the U.S. air base in Latvia.  Attacking a U.S. military base is an act of war, even without a formal clause signed by NATO members.  Maybe some complacency is justified: Trump can only do so much if re-elected, and any countries with a U.S. military base still have something they can count on.

If you allow me to move the goalposts, let me also claim that complacency shows up in military aid to Ukraine (adjusted for GDP).  In this map of aid to Ukraine, color shows the GDP % contribution to Ukraine.  The further away a country is (except the U.S.), the less aid it provides.  Countries like Spain, France and Italy are contributing far less than Germany, Sweden and Norway (adjusted for GDP).
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

[Mr FrugalNL]

Mr FrugalNL - Countries like Russia fear a full-scale war with the United States.  Latvia's defense spending is less important than the U.S. air base in Latvia.  Attacking a U.S. military base is an act of war, even without a formal clause signed by NATO members.  Maybe some complacency is justified: Trump can only do so much if re-elected, and any countries with a U.S. military base still have something they can count on.

No argument here about the deterrence value of a US military base in a country potentially being greater than the deterrence value of that country's entire military. What I was getting at was that if deterrence fails and the shooting starts, whatever NATO forces are locally present will be on their own until help arrives from other member states. Those locally present forces would notably include the military of whatever small country is being attacked. If that small country is Lithuania and the attack is succesful before help arrives, that means Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are now all cut off and at much greater risk of being overrun. Breaking through to them let alone liberating them is a very different operation from defending them. Which is why I said that the military of the member state being invaded could have a pivotal role to play.

If you allow me to move the goalposts, let me also claim that complacency shows up in military aid to Ukraine (adjusted for GDP).  In this map of aid to Ukraine, color shows the GDP % contribution to Ukraine.  The further away a country is (except the U.S.), the less aid it provides.  Countries like Spain, France and Italy are contributing far less than Germany, Sweden and Norway (adjusted for GDP).
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

True, with the odd exception like the US. The gap between countries like Germany, Sweden and Norway on the one hand and Spain, France and Italy on the other hand is smaller than the map would suggest though because the map only shows bilateral aid, omitting the countries' share of EU aid. That share is relatively low for the former group (zero for Norway even for obvious reasons) and relatively high for the latter. The share of EU aid is even big enough to make the US conform to your general observation that further away = less GDP % contribution to Ukraine. Not a dig at the US - its aid to Ukraine has been nothing short of crucial.

[pecunia]

Mr FrugalNL - Countries like Russia fear a full-scale war with the United States.  Latvia's defense spending is less important than the U.S. air base in Latvia.  Attacking a U.S. military base is an act of war, even without a formal clause signed by NATO members.  Maybe some complacency is justified: Trump can only do so much if re-elected, and any countries with a U.S. military base still have something they can count on.

If you allow me to move the goalposts, let me also claim that complacency shows up in military aid to Ukraine (adjusted for GDP).  In this map of aid to Ukraine, color shows the GDP % contribution to Ukraine.  The further away a country is (except the U.S.), the less aid it provides.  Countries like Spain, France and Italy are contributing far less than Germany, Sweden and Norway (adjusted for GDP).
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Look at Japan - So far away and yet a darker hue of blue.  However, they too are neighbors of Russia so perhaps they understand the value.

[maizefolk]

True, with the odd exception like the US. The gap between countries like Germany, Sweden and Norway on the one hand and Spain, France and Italy on the other hand is smaller than the map would suggest though because the map only shows bilateral aid, omitting the countries' share of EU aid. That share is relatively low for the former group (zero for Norway even for obvious reasons) and relatively high for the latter. The share of EU aid is even big enough to make the US conform to your general observation that further away = less GDP % contribution to Ukraine. Not a dig at the US - its aid to Ukraine has been nothing short of crucial.

It was hard for me to track down but I get about $40B that the EU has spent on financial and military aid to Ukraine after excluding double-counting of bilateral aid for EU member states. Is that roughly the number you are working with as well?

The EU members states have a combined GDP of ~$20T, so that $40B in additional aid that comes through the EU budget would amount to an extra 0.2% of GDP added to the spending of EU member states in support of Ukraine above and beyond what is shown on the map.

If so, that definitely addresses a significant part of the gap, but even adding 0.2% to southwestern european countries like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal would still mean a smaller amount of aid (as a percent of total GDP) than the USA or Canada for that matter.

I suppose we can also consider the new $54B Ukrainian aid package the EU recently agreed to spend by 2027. So if the US never breaks the gridlock that is holding up current aid those southwestern EU countries should pull ahead in the next year or two. And it's also possible there were additional big chunks of EU budget aid to Ukraine I missed, so that $40B at the top of this post could well be an underestimate on my part.

[LennStar]

Does your count include the costs for the refugees?
Because e.g. a million refugees (Ukrainians are now the second largest foreign nationality in Germany) do cost a bit.
The US has probably only a few thousand.

In case of inner-EU cost distribution that likely even increases the distance connection though.

[maizefolk]

Does your count include the costs for the refugees?
Because e.g. a million refugees (Ukrainians are now the second largest foreign nationality in Germany) do cost a bit.
The US has probably only a few thousand.

I'm going off whatever aid is being counted in the ifw-kiel.de map plus whatever I could find about the EU-as-an-organization sending funds to Ukraine rather than via its member states. There's definitely a lot of humanitarian aid included in the total but I don't know if that includes aid to Ukrainian refugees or only humanitarian efforts inside Ukrainian territory.

I remember early on in the war a former student in Poland described how cyrillic language signs were going up everywhere and he was hearing nearly as much Ukrainian as Russian walking through the streets of his neighborhood in Warsaw. The effort to welcome and support refugees in eastern and central Europe sounds awesome -- in the old literal definition of that world, it inspires awe when I hear about how much was done and how fast.

But I will push back at your last sentence though. The USA had brought in more than 380,000 Ukrainians as of August 2023 (the most recent numbers I could find) through a combination of different programs. That's less than Germany in absolute terms, and obviously the gap is even greater per capital or per GDP terms. But it's two orders of magnitude more than you were estimating we were doing in this area for Ukraine.

[Mr FrugalNL]

True, with the odd exception like the US. The gap between countries like Germany, Sweden and Norway on the one hand and Spain, France and Italy on the other hand is smaller than the map would suggest though because the map only shows bilateral aid, omitting the countries' share of EU aid. That share is relatively low for the former group (zero for Norway even for obvious reasons) and relatively high for the latter. The share of EU aid is even big enough to make the US conform to your general observation that further away = less GDP % contribution to Ukraine. Not a dig at the US - its aid to Ukraine has been nothing short of crucial.

It was hard for me to track down but I get about $40B that the EU has spent on financial and military aid to Ukraine after excluding double-counting of bilateral aid for EU member states. Is that roughly the number you are working with as well?

The EU members states have a combined GDP of ~$20T, so that $40B in additional aid that comes through the EU budget would amount to an extra 0.2% of GDP added to the spending of EU member states in support of Ukraine above and beyond what is shown on the map.

I was going off of the numbers in MustacheAndaHalf's link here: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ in the bar chart labeled 'Government support to Ukraine: By donor country GDP, incl. and excl. EU share'. It seems to vary between 0.5% and 0.8% of GDP for most EU member states, which is enough to put the EU member states above the US's 0.32% of GDP and as you say close part of the gap between southwestern European countries and those countries closer to Ukraine.

[LennStar]

Does your count include the costs for the refugees?
Because e.g. a million refugees (Ukrainians are now the second largest foreign nationality in Germany) do cost a bit.
The US has probably only a few thousand.

But I will push back at your last sentence though. The USA had brought in more than 380,000 Ukrainians as of August 2023 (the most recent numbers I could find) through a combination of different programs.

That si surprising. Usually the US (in the last decades) isn't exactly keen on taking in peopel that don't bring in wanted skills or money. Not that the EU is a lot better...

I remember early on in the war a former student in Poland described how cyrillic language signs were going up everywhere and he was hearing nearly as much Ukrainian as Russian walking through the streets of his neighborhood in Warsaw.

So true with the language! Not signs but it seems I can't go shopping anymore without hearing Ukrainian (or at least I think it is) from a small group (mostly a multi-child family). I don't think we had any Ukrainians here in my small town before. Only a few "Russians", maybe they were Ukrainians and switched language. (I can't do anything anymore in Russian but I can understand some words here and there.) 

[maizefolk]

Okay, that helps to narrow down where the difference lies.

I was going off of this post from what appears to be the functional equivalent of the EU embassy to the USA which lists $96B in total aid, including both bilateral nation to nation aid and EU level spending. Of that total $47B in financial and humanitarian aid.  $13B is bilateral so when we back that out we get $34B in financial and humanitarian aid from the EU as an organization. (There's also $6B in EU level spending on military aid, but both sources agree on that so I'll focus on the other categories for now)

The tracking website lists a total of $77B in EU level financial add and another $2B in humanitarian aid, which would be $45B higher and explain why you're see adding in EU level aid increasing the commitment of EU member nations about about 0.5% of GDP instead of the 0.2% of GDP I calculated.

My best guess for what explains the gap is that the $34B represents what the EU has already spent, and the $79B includes money they plan to spend in the future. But I don't know.

[maizefolk]

Does your count include the costs for the refugees?
Because e.g. a million refugees (Ukrainians are now the second largest foreign nationality in Germany) do cost a bit.
The US has probably only a few thousand.

But I will push back at your last sentence though. The USA had brought in more than 380,000 Ukrainians as of August 2023 (the most recent numbers I could find) through a combination of different programs.

That si surprising. Usually the US (in the last decades) isn't exactly keen on taking in peopel that don't bring in wanted skills or money. Not that the EU is a lot better...

I agree. We struggled so much even with simple straightforward things like letting Afghan translators who'd worked with our troops move to the USA before we withdrew from the country, even with an official program in place it make it happen. So admitting only a few thousand Ukrainians would certainly sound like the sort of stupid thing we'd do.

Thankfully we seem to be doing a bit of a better job than I would have predicted. A lot of Ukrainians are here under a program called temporary protected status which allows you to live and get work authorization in the USA if it is unsafe for you to return to your home country. Another 160,000 or so are here through the so called "Uniting for Ukraine" program that allows individual US citizens/permanent residents to to bring in Ukrainian refugees by committing to ensure their housing/health insurance/food/training/etc will be taken care of. I think this program in particular benefits from the USA's history of bringing in immigrants from around the world. Well before the war we had something like a million US citizens who were either originally from Ukraine or considered themselves ethnic Ukrainians and many of those folks were willing and able to sponsor extended family back home and well positioned to help them get set up in the USA.

[GuitarStv]

Does your count include the costs for the refugees?
Because e.g. a million refugees (Ukrainians are now the second largest foreign nationality in Germany) do cost a bit.
The US has probably only a few thousand.

But I will push back at your last sentence though. The USA had brought in more than 380,000 Ukrainians as of August 2023 (the most recent numbers I could find) through a combination of different programs.

That si surprising. Usually the US (in the last decades) isn't exactly keen on taking in peopel that don't bring in wanted skills or money. Not that the EU is a lot better...

I agree. We struggled so much even with simple straightforward things like letting Afghan translators who'd worked with our troops move to the USA before we withdrew from the country, even with an official program in place it make it happen. So admitting only a few thousand Ukrainians would certainly sound like the sort of stupid thing we'd do.

Thankfully we seem to be doing a bit of a better job than I would have predicted. A lot of Ukrainians are here under a program called temporary protected status which allows you to live and get work authorization in the USA if it is unsafe for you to return to your home country. Another 160,000 or so are here through the so called "Uniting for Ukraine" program that allows individual US citizens/permanent residents to to bring in Ukrainian refugees by committing to ensure their housing/health insurance/food/training/etc will be taken care of. I think this program in particular benefits from the USA's history of bringing in immigrants from around the world. Well before the war we had something like a million US citizens who were either originally from Ukraine or considered themselves ethnic Ukrainians and many of those folks were willing and able to sponsor extended family back home and well positioned to help them get set up in the USA.

It's what I would expect.  White refugees are an easier sell to the side of the political spectrum most resistant to bringing in people in need.

[PeteD01]

The irony here is that the word "slave" is actually derived from "slav", which in turn is what people from eastern Europe have historically been called.

This has been completely obliterated in the US because of the ideological role colorline racism has played in the justification of enslavement of non-whites in modern time.

[FIPurpose]

The irony here is that the word "slave" is actually derived from "slav", which in turn is what people from eastern Europe have historically been called.

This has been completely obliterated in the US because of the ideological role colorline racism has played in the justification of enslavement of non-whites in modern time.

I'm not sure what the origin of a nearly 1200 year old word has to do with anything. Any real connection to Slavic people would've been long gone before the US was even a thing.

[PeteD01]

The irony here is that the word "slave" is actually derived from "slav", which in turn is what people from eastern Europe have historically been called.

This has been completely obliterated in the US because of the ideological role colorline racism has played in the justification of enslavement of non-whites in modern time.

I'm not sure what the origin of a nearly 1200 year old word has to do with anything. Any real connection to Slavic people would've been long gone before the US was even a thing.

That's precisely the irony.

And not everyone has forgotten any of this.

[PeteD01]

The irony here is that the word "slave" is actually derived from "slav", which in turn is what people from eastern Europe have historically been called.

This has been completely obliterated in the US because of the ideological role colorline racism has played in the justification of enslavement of non-whites in modern time.

I'm not sure what the origin of a nearly 1200 year old word has to do with anything. Any real connection to Slavic people would've been long gone before the US was even a thing.

The very recent decline in anti-Slavic attitudes among right wing radicals and in the general public in the west  is remarkable.

The Wikipedia entry is a decent overview:

Anti-Slavic sentiment

Anti-Slavic sentiment, also known as Slavophobia, are various negative attitudes towards Slavic peoples (a form of racism or xenophobia), the most common manifestation being a claim that inhabitants of Slavic nations are inferior to other ethnic groups. Slavophobia reached its peak in Europe during World War II, when Nazi Germany declared Slavs, especially neighboring Poles to be subhuman (Untermensch) and planned to exterminate the majority of Slavic people.[1] Slavophobia peaked twice in America – once during the Progressive Era immigration of the early 1900s, and again during the Cold War.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment

[FIPurpose]

The irony here is that the word "slave" is actually derived from "slav", which in turn is what people from eastern Europe have historically been called.

This has been completely obliterated in the US because of the ideological role colorline racism has played in the justification of enslavement of non-whites in modern time.

I'm not sure what the origin of a nearly 1200 year old word has to do with anything. Any real connection to Slavic people would've been long gone before the US was even a thing.

The very recent decline in anti-Slavic attitudes among right wing radicals and in the general public in the west  is remarkable.

The Wikipedia entry is a decent overview:

Anti-Slavic sentiment

Anti-Slavic sentiment, also known as Slavophobia, are various negative attitudes towards Slavic peoples (a form of racism or xenophobia), the most common manifestation being a claim that inhabitants of Slavic nations are inferior to other ethnic groups. Slavophobia reached its peak in Europe during World War II, when Nazi Germany declared Slavs, especially neighboring Poles to be subhuman (Untermensch) and planned to exterminate the majority of Slavic people.[1] Slavophobia peaked twice in America – once during the Progressive Era immigration of the early 1900s, and again during the Cold War.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment

Racism or Xenophobia are quite different from political alignments. Racists would have no problem buying or trading goods with people who they consider inferior. The US made similar negotiations and political alignments with the native peoples all the time. The Right does not "accept" Slavic people in general. They are making expedient political decisions to enrich and empower themselves and their high powered donors. I don't think the GOP would actually accept a large influx 1900's level influx of Eastern Europeans today just as they didn't then.

None of this really points to when people disconnected the word slav from slave. Even in today's world of removing words like "gyped" or "jewed", the word slave has absolutely no slavic connotation and that connotation disappeared many hundreds of years before the US. I'm still not seeing the irony that you're trying to draw.

Interestingly, the greeting "Ciao" also derives from Slave/Slav. It's so far detached, making any real connection to Slavic people would be little more than a fun game.

[LennStar]

@PeteD01 please delete one of your double posts.

The Ukrainian command has released a total count of Russian losses in the quest of subjugating Avdijivka.

If I remember correctly, it was (rounded)

48K troops
nearly 1100 armored vehicles (slighly under 300 tanks)
250 arty
5 planes.

For a city that had less inhabitants then they lost troops.

I assume the battle will continue to be a retreat battle until the prepared fortification lines are reached, which will hopefully stop the Russians.

To put it into perspective, Ukraine has only 1000-1500 tanks active in the whole army, and about 2000 overall. Or on the other side, that is 5% of Russias total tank losses in this 2 year long war, in one place and 3 month - or, at this rate, 1/3 of total losses mathematically.

[zolotiyeruki]

Racism or Xenophobia are quite different from political alignments. Racists would have no problem buying or trading goods with people who they consider inferior. The US made similar negotiations and political alignments with the native peoples all the time. The Right does not "accept" Slavic people in general. They are making expedient political decisions to enrich and empower themselves and their high powered donors. I don't think the GOP would actually accept a large influx 1900's level influx of Eastern Europeans today just as they didn't then.

None of this really points to when people disconnected the word slav from slave. Even in today's world of removing words like "gyped" or "jewed", the word slave has absolutely no slavic connotation and that connotation disappeared many hundreds of years before the US. I'm still not seeing the irony that you're trying to draw.

Interestingly, the greeting "Ciao" also derives from Slave/Slav. It's so far detached, making any real connection to Slavic people would be little more than a fun game.

I agree that there are a LOT of terms (and idioms, and food, and clothing, and all sorts of other things) that once had very bigoted meanings but, thanks to the decline in actual racism, no longer have that power.  It's a wonderful thing, IMO.  Strip those things of their racist undertones, and they become amazing additions to our vocabulary.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I doubt racism is relevant to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I've seen one graph of EU financial aid to Ukraine showing it was almost all non-military.  I haven't confirmed that or researched it further.  I am curious if that aid is drawn from EU members in proportion to GDP, or some other manner.

I don't know how much artillery Denmark has... but they've decided to donate all of it to Ukraine.
https://news.yahoo.com/pm-says-denmark-donate-artillery-131243291.html

[PeteD01]

I wrote this:

The irony here is that the word "slave" is actually derived from "slav", which in turn is what people from eastern Europe have historically been called.

This has been completely obliterated in the US because of the ideological role colorline racism has played in the justification of enslavement of non-whites in modern time.

And your response is that:

...

None of this really points to when people disconnected the word slav from slave.

...

Which happens to confirm what I wrote: in the US, the connection has been obliterated in the public mind - but not in academia or for those interested in history.

The last mass enslavement of Slavic people happened less than 100 years ago under the Nazi tyranny when millions of Ukrainians and others were abducted to work in German industry and agriculture and as domestic slaves:

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/eastern-european-forced-laborers-germany

My post was a response to:

...

It's what I would expect.  White refugees are an easier sell to the side of the political spectrum most resistant to bringing in people in need.

The irony is that the refugees are descendants of the people that were subjected to the latest mass enslavement perpetrated by the ideological brethren of the right wing radicals in the US, and they don't even know it because they are too absorbed in their pigment obsession and can't connect the dots anymore.

(On the other hand, maybe the willingness of the GOP to throw Ukraine under the bus has something to do with anti-Slavic racism.)

Here is a short video about the history of the massive Slavic slave trade (not off-topic in a Ukraine thread as it is a big deal in the history of the region):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU2KwlWL1Us

It is not that something hasn't happened just because one doesn't know about it.

[LennStar]

I doubt racism is relevant to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I've seen one graph of EU financial aid to Ukraine showing it was almost all non-military.  I haven't confirmed that or researched it further.  I am curious if that aid is drawn from EU members in proportion to GDP, or some other manner.

I don't know how much artillery Denmark has... but they've decided to donate all of it to Ukraine.
https://news.yahoo.com/pm-says-denmark-donate-artillery-131243291.html

That article must have been written by a practicant, because AI would have written it better.

Anyway, what also happened there at the Munich Security Conference was a Republican Senator saying in essence that every country has it's own problems and that the migration of Mexicans into the US is the same as the migration of Russians into Ukraine so we should not be disppointed if he is more concerned about the migration closer to him.

Let's just say he didn't get standing ovations for this.

[maizefolk]

I've seen one graph of EU financial aid to Ukraine showing it was almost all non-military.  I haven't confirmed that or researched it further. 

The EU-as-an-organization has only committed to about $6B to military aid via the "European Peace Facility." For context, the Pentagon's accounting error in Ukraine's favor provided roughly the same amount military aid as the whole EU-as-an-organization. But in fairness to the EU-as-an-organization, it doesn't have a military of its own. That makes military aid harder because it doesn't have existing weapons to send. It'd have to buy them which is more expensive and requires longer lead times.

Many individual member states of the EU have provided a lot of direct military aid in the form of weapons, ammunition, vehicles, etc. The member states do have armed forces and so can pull from their existing stockpiles to equip the Ukrainians in a timely fashion. Also since money is largely fungible. The ~$35 billion of financial aid the EU so far provided to Ukraine presumably frees up other Ukrainian funds that can be used to pay for ammunition, weapons systems, etc.

[Telecaster]

I was being rhetorical.

Also I was pointing out that Austin could technically be considered a "private equity guy" because of his connections to large companies.

Raytheon isn't a private equity company.   

[PeteD01]

Kerch bridge goodbye?

U-turn at Taurus? Traffic light factions increase pressure on Chancellor Scholz
by Benedikt Becker , Veit Medick and Florian Schillat
February 19, 2024,

The traffic light factions are increasing the pressure on Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the dispute over the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine . In a draft motion approved by the parliamentary group leaders, the SPD, Greens and FDP advocate “the delivery of additionally necessary long-range weapon systems”. The application is available to stern and will be put to a vote in the Bundestag this week.

https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/ukraine--taurus-kehrtwende--ampel-fraktionen-erhoehen-druck-auf-scholz-34473170.html

[LennStar]

Russia just lost another "AWACS" aircraft. Only 7 left, some probably not in working order and unliekly any new ones will be build.

The reason is extremely unclear. The aircraft was shot down well outside Patriot range (250km from the front).

Russians claimed it was friendly fire (75% of their losses are friendly fire accordign to them, maybe better to just not do air defense?) due to crews confusing the just started airplane heading slowly towards Ukraine with fast moving missiles coming from Ukraine.

Some wonder if it was local sabotage groups with Manpads.
Ukrainians claims it was a heavily modified S-200.

In regards of Avdijivka, there are very differing reports on how good the retreat went, my impression is: not very good.
It also seems that (not least bc of the shot down radar aircraft and lowered airial bombardment as result) the current defense is not on the newly build defense line but still in the villages before that.

The lack of arty ammo is still a huge problem for Ukraine.

[waltworks]

Counting losses is obviously not a great way to gauge success; Russia doesn't care.

I hate to say it but if I were Ukraine I'd negotiate. The US nutbar-right faction has decided to go full nihilist so they're screwed.

Edited to add: The Biden administration deserves some blame for being timid to the point of absurdity in providing weapons initially. Too late now.

-W

[Radagast]

If I was Ukraine I'd keep fighting since I was causing 8:1 losses even without artillery ammo, and I'd want Russia to be unable to attack again for a long time knowing that there would be little chance of the fighting stopping and Russia suddenly respecting my borders for any meaningful time because of a mere negotiation. See: Georgia, Ukraine for examples of negotiated peace with Russia.

In the last week Putin:
Assassinated a person in Spain
Arrested an American citizen
Killed his only famous opponent
Seized Avdivka

Basically Putin has been strutting and flexing, and the US house is too cowardly to make even a token gesture despite 2/3 of citizens supporting it. I had to stop following months ago out of frustration.

Europe needs to make a commitment to build enough munition manufacturing capacity to out manufacture Russia 2:1 within a couple years. Europe is a much rougher neighborhood than the US and it's absurd they decided to just not defend themselves any longer.

[pecunia]

Counting losses is obviously not a great way to gauge success; Russia doesn't care.

I hate to say it but if I were Ukraine I'd negotiate. The US nutbar-right faction has decided to go full nihilist so they're screwed.

Edited to add: The Biden administration deserves some blame for being timid to the point of absurdity in providing weapons initially. Too late now.

-W

Easy to be a back seat driver.  If Biden and the European leaders had immediately jumped in with full support, I'm sure there would have been a crowd against them.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

When people don't experience nuclear war, after the fact they assume it could never have happened.  Russia threatened to use nuclear warheads, which caused the West to slowly provide weapons with greater range.  Unfortunately, until the West is prepared to risk nuclear war with Putin, he will not stop.

Apparently the House of Representatives has a maneuver where a majority can bring legislation to the floor, cutting the house speaker out of the process.  There is a path for Ukraine aid that goes around the Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP members.  And by GOP I mean Groupies Of Putin.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4487402-clyburn-gives-gop-new-nickname-groupies-of-putin/

[LaineyAZ]

There was some talk on the weekend news that some negotiation/peace talks are happening behind the scenes, but that nothing will go forward in 2024 because it's an election year in the U.S.

It's so strange to watch the U.S. not go all in to defeat the Russian aggression - this lukewarm, waning support just has to be frightening to the Ukrainians. 

[pecunia]

There was some talk on the weekend news that some negotiation/peace talks are happening behind the scenes, but that nothing will go forward in 2024 because it's an election year in the U.S.

It's so strange to watch the U.S. not go all in to defeat the Russian aggression - this lukewarm, waning support just has to be frightening to the Ukrainians.

Isn't it just a little frightening to us in the US too?  It seems almost like there is a group of politicians that wants anarchy.

[Radagast]

I just don't see peace negotiations as a viable option for Ukraine. Their only real option is to kill Russians until they stop coming. As long as they are willing to keep coming, peace negotiations only work in Russia's favor. Until Russia gives up any thought of acquiring territory by force for decades it's just Russian propaganda and a chance for Russia to build up a new force for another venture. If Russia has totally abandoned the idea of further conquest and Ukraine cannot take back any territory a peace agreement may be possible along the current lines. Of course if Russia has exhausted itself Ukraine may be able to get its country back. Either way Russia exhausting itself is a precondition.

Ukraine is not in a dire situation. They are not short of people. They are somewhat low on equipment, but NATO has more equipment rusting away with no foreseeable use than Russia does by this point, and NATO's is higher spec. Ukraine has no problems that a million shells a month in 60mm+ sizes couldn't solve. It's entirely within NATOs capacity to empty munition stocks and build munition manufacturing capacity and overwhelm Russia with that plus their rusting equipment. What we have is leaders lacking in leadership that they haven't accepted this.

[pecunia]

I just don't see peace negotiations as a viable option for Ukraine. Their only real option is to kill Russians until they stop coming. As long as they are willing to keep coming, peace negotiations only work in Russia's favor. Until Russia gives up any thought of acquiring territory by force for decades it's just Russian propaganda and a chance for Russia to build up a new force for another venture. If Russia has totally abandoned the idea of further conquest and Ukraine cannot take back any territory a peace agreement may be possible along the current lines. Of course if Russia has exhausted itself Ukraine may be able to get its country back. Either way Russia exhausting itself is a precondition.

Ukraine is not in a dire situation. They are not short of people. They are somewhat low on equipment, but NATO has more equipment rusting away with no foreseeable use than Russia does by this point, and NATO's is higher spec. Ukraine has no problems that a million shells a month in 60mm+ sizes couldn't solve. It's entirely within NATOs capacity to empty munition stocks and build munition manufacturing capacity and overwhelm Russia with that plus their rusting equipment. What we have is leaders lacking in leadership that they haven't accepted this.

Why don't the Europeans see it that way?

Macron has discussed putting troops in Ukraine.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/europe/france-macron-troops-ukraine-intl/index.html

It seems like clearing out the old hardware stocks to aid Ukraine would surely happen before putting their boys in the line of fire.

I would also think that just the fact that Europeans are discussing putting their troops out there would give the Russians pause.  Russians do a lot of saber rattling and exhibit a lot of bluster.  However, even they must recognize the bodies of their young scattered in Ukrainian fields.

[Radagast]

I just don't see peace negotiations as a viable option for Ukraine. Their only real option is to kill Russians until they stop coming. As long as they are willing to keep coming, peace negotiations only work in Russia's favor. Until Russia gives up any thought of acquiring territory by force for decades it's just Russian propaganda and a chance for Russia to build up a new force for another venture. If Russia has totally abandoned the idea of further conquest and Ukraine cannot take back any territory a peace agreement may be possible along the current lines. Of course if Russia has exhausted itself Ukraine may be able to get its country back. Either way Russia exhausting itself is a precondition.

Ukraine is not in a dire situation. They are not short of people. They are somewhat low on equipment, but NATO has more equipment rusting away with no foreseeable use than Russia does by this point, and NATO's is higher spec. Ukraine has no problems that a million shells a month in 60mm+ sizes couldn't solve. It's entirely within NATOs capacity to empty munition stocks and build munition manufacturing capacity and overwhelm Russia with that plus their rusting equipment. What we have is leaders lacking in leadership that they haven't accepted this.

Why don't the Europeans see it that way?

Macron has discussed putting troops in Ukraine.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/europe/france-macron-troops-ukraine-intl/index.html

It seems like clearing out the old hardware stocks to aid Ukraine would surely happen before putting their boys in the line of fire.

I would also think that just the fact that Europeans are discussing putting their troops out there would give the Russians pause.  Russians do a lot of saber rattling and exhibit a lot of bluster.  However, even they must recognize the bodies of their young scattered in Ukrainian fields.

Yes, that was partly what I was reacting to. Reportedly South Korea estimates that North Korea has sent 3 million shells to Russia. This is probably similar to the quantity of shells from the US or the entire EU combined. Adjusted for purchasing power, the economy of France is something like 50,000x larger than the economy of N Korea. If France put the same level of effort in they'd already have delivered billions of shells and Russia's army would have been obliterated several times over. The problem we have is a lack of will to do easy, low cost, and obviously right things. If Macron isn't willing to do these nobody will believe his empty words.

And what would French soldiers fight with anyway? French soldiers without vast supplies of ammunition would be pointless. Vast supplies of ammunition without French soldiers would be amazingly useful. It's only the vast supplies of ammunition that matter. Macron should focus on turning that over, and spend less time saying meaningless things.

People think that Russian willingness to die enmass is a problem for Ukraine, but it's an obvious weakness for Russia and the very easy, simple, and low cost way to address it is a four letter word "ammo". Also air defenses and ways to strike back at Russian aircraft which are a little more high tech but well within the capacity of NATO countries at any moment.

[Poundwise]

As long as they are willing to keep coming, peace negotiations only work in Russia's favor. Until Russia gives up any thought of acquiring territory by force for decades it's just Russian propaganda and a chance for Russia to build up a new force for another venture.

Right!  It's like somebody coming to your house, taking some of  your stuff, then saying it's time to compromise by you not trying to take your stuff back.  Then they come back and take back a fifth more of your stuff and then say it's time for peace, no more fighting.

[maizefolk]

Reportedly South Korea estimates that North Korea has sent 3 million shells to Russia. This is probably similar to the quantity of shells from the US or the entire EU combined. Adjusted for purchasing power, the economy of France is something like 50,000x larger than the economy of N Korea. If France put the same level of effort in they'd already have delivered billions of shells and Russia's army would have been obliterated several times over.

North Korea built up their shell manufacturing capability over decades. The cost of running the production lines (whether in dollars or political capital) is much smaller than of building the production lines, and supporting supply chains, in the first place.

Even with Russia on a war footing and Putin fighting for his political, and perhaps literal, survival, Russia is only estimated to be able to produce 2.7M shells/year. That's only 35% more than North Korea can produce (~2M shells/year based on South Korean estimates) with both a nominal and purchasing power parity GDP <1% of Russia's.

[Radagast]

Reportedly South Korea estimates that North Korea has sent 3 million shells to Russia. This is probably similar to the quantity of shells from the US or the entire EU combined. Adjusted for purchasing power, the economy of France is something like 50,000x larger than the economy of N Korea. If France put the same level of effort in they'd already have delivered billions of shells and Russia's army would have been obliterated several times over.

North Korea built up their shell manufacturing capability over decades. The cost of running the production lines (whether in dollars or political capital) is much smaller than of building the production lines, and supporting supply chains, in the first place.

Even with Russia on a war footing and Putin fighting for his political, and perhaps literal, survival, Russia is only estimated to be able to produce 2.7M shells/year. That's only 35% more than North Korea can produce (~2M shells/year based on South Korean estimates) with both a nominal and purchasing power parity GDP <1% of Russia's.

True, but we don't need France to actually supply billions of shells. If they had simply supplied 1 million per month since March 2022 it would have changed the course of the war. OK, that's still too much to ask from France specifically. Suppose they put in half the level of effort relative to GDP that Russia has and strictly in ammunition production. They'd still have turned over several million. What would be incredibly useful is even the tiniest glimmer of effort, the mere lifting of an arm instead of a finger.