-
Putin has been in power in Russia for 20 years. He has systematically destroyed any opposition and has silenced anyone who dares to contradict him or give him unwelcome news. He has now totally lost touch with any sort of reality other than the one in his own head, and it has been a mistake over the last year to treat him as a rational actor on the international stage.
There is now a full-scale unprovoked Russian military attack on Ukraine, a democratic nation State which borders the European Union.
In his recent pronouncements Putin has mentioned that Russia is a nuclear-armed State. There are no casual mentions of nuclear weapons, this is a threat to the whole world by a man who is no longer a rational actor.
I have difficulty seeing any good end to this catastrophe.
-
I have difficulty seeing any good end to this catastrophe.
Trump and his supporter will look like idiots for supporting Putin, although we may have to wait for history books, for some people to understand this.
The attack will also unify Ukraine's opposition to Putin.
But, yes for the Ukrainian people and the parents of Russian conscripts this will be a disaster.
-
I have difficulty seeing any good end to this catastrophe.
Trump and his supporter will look like idiots for supporting Putin, although we may have to wait for history books, for some people to understand this.
Not sure we need to wait on the history books.
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful," Trump said in an interview on "The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show."
The ex-President added: "So Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That's the strongest peace force," Trump said. "We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. ... Here's a guy who's very savvy. ... I know him very well. Very, very well."
-
In his recent pronouncements Putin has mentioned that Russia is a nuclear-armed State. There are no casual mentions of nuclear weapons, this is a threat to the whole world by a man who is no longer a rational actor.
Since day 1 Putin's MO has been "you can't stop me, and I'm going to do something outrageous right up to the point that you might consider stopping me." Regarding nuclear weapons, his feeling is "MAD still exists, but I think you fear it more than I do. If I launch a single weapon at you, are you really going to risk destroying the world to get back at me? I think you'll blink first."
-
Do note that this war is not new. It started already back in 2014 with various war activities including shooting down the MH17 killing hundreds of civilians. And let's not forget what Russia did to the nation of Georgia back in 2008. Blood has been on Putins hands for years.
Studying the speeches by Putin is enlightening. This is called a "demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine". This is high level propaganda and this is history being written now. These speeches and actions will be studied in the history books in 200 years.
I do not live in a country directly bordering Ukraine, Russia and Belarus like some of my friends do, but it is still too fucking close and too fucking scary.
-
Yes.
Another problem is that Putin has in his own mind reframed Ukraine as not an independent nation State, so when Russian spokespeople say that there will be no "occupation" of Ukraine it doesn't mean that Russia will not stay in Ukraine, it just means that Ukraine is already part of Russia and the presence there of Russian military and political apparatchiks running a puppet government would not in their terms be an occupation.
Putin can use exactly the same arguments that he has used for invading Ukraine in relation to any country where there is a Russian-speaking population - which includes the Baltic States which are in both the EU and Nato.
-
The bullshit being peddled by one of Putin's lackeys in a BBC interview right now is insane. Apparently the Russian invasion isn't actually an invasion, and it's all the West's fault for supporting Ukraine as a sovereign nation.
Apparently the Ukrainians will give flowers to Putin's army after they're freed from the "Nazis of the EU and US."
And now an American correspondent is calling out the BBC for giving a mouthpiece to Russian war propaganda.
-
This is terrible news. I was talking to a friend who is originally from Russia. She feels that Russia will take Ukraine, bc Putin believes the Ukraine is already part of Russia. He is using the same lines that Hitler used to invade other countries, saying it is part of the motherland. And the US is not going to do anything bc Ukraine is not part of Nato. It's truly fucked up. She also explained that support for Putin is low, and most likely Putin feels this is his last chance to be a "big player" on the world stage...
-
I do wonder how this is going to play out. I kind of see a lot of agonizing and stern statements and sanctions imposed, but idk if we will actually back it up with anything else. It seems possible that Russian takes Ukraine, we make a stern statement, everyone shrugs, and life goes on.
-
This is terrible news. I was talking to a friend who is originally from Russia. She feels that Russia will take Ukraine, bc Putin believes the Ukraine is already part of Russia. He is using the same lines that Hitler used to invade other countries, saying it is part of the motherland. And the US is not going to do anything bc they are not part of Nato. It's truly fucked up.
One thing that is different this time is that we live in connected times.
Putins weird speech is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjMnTo85S4A (RT translation).
Ukraines response via Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1496716168920547331
-
Yes, that's what my friend says, that other than sanctions the US won't do anything. However there will be military support for countries like Poland who are part of Nato. The problem, in addition to huge human suffering, is destabilization of that whole area.
-
I do wonder how this is going to play out. I kind of see a lot of agonizing and stern statements and sanctions imposed, but idk if we will actually back it up with anything else. It seems possible that Russian takes Ukraine, we make a stern statement, everyone shrugs, and life goes on.
I think that the sanctions (if kept in place) will hurt Russia. But the thing is, they'll hurt Russia eventually. It doesn't seem like it will be an effective short term deterrence which is what's needed. I'll be pleasantly surprised if Russia doesn't take another large chunk of Ukraine by the end of this.
-
I do wonder how this is going to play out. I kind of see a lot of agonizing and stern statements and sanctions imposed, but idk if we will actually back it up with anything else. It seems possible that Russian takes Ukraine, we make a stern statement, everyone shrugs, and life goes on.
The world is connected in complex ways. Some nations in Europe have made themselves dependent on natural gas deliveries from Russia, which now seems like a VERY strange strategic choice that will take many years to roll back from. :(
Without giving any regards to former US presidents, parts of what Russia has done is actually very well planned and executed. Evil but well planned. Not just the bullets and the bombs, but the information warfare as well.
And anyone here no matter where you work, you probably use IT systems. Please read and act according to https://www.cisa.gov/shields-up and any similar local recommendations where you are. This war is also taking place online, and there it is not restricted by nation borders. :(
One tragicomic thing to note for the IT savvy out there is that if you try to access mil.ru as a non-russian right now you get HTTP ERROR 418. This error is normally translated as "418 I'm a teapot".
-
Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam come to mind…weaker counties invaded/occupied by stronger powers. While initial invasion was an easier process, the fight to win hearts and minds proved to be a tougher process, and guerrilla warfare eventually wore down the occupiers. Will the Ukrainian people resist in like fashion? Or is this situation different because of geography/proximity, history of being previously linked to USSR, and the fact that keeping the voters happy at home/re-election concerns aren’t really on the table here?
-
I do wonder how this is going to play out. I kind of see a lot of agonizing and stern statements and sanctions imposed, but idk if we will actually back it up with anything else. It seems possible that Russian takes Ukraine, we make a stern statement, everyone shrugs, and life goes on.
The world is connected in complex ways. Some nations in Europe have made themselves dependent on natural gas deliveries from Russia, which now seems like a VERY strange strategic choice that will take many years to roll back from. :(
Without giving any regards to former US presidents, parts of what Russia has done is actually very well planned and executed. Evil but well planned. Not just the bullets and the bombs, but the information warfare as well.
And anyone here no matter where you work, you probably use IT systems. Please read and act according to https://www.cisa.gov/shields-up and any similar local recommendations where you are. This war is also taking place online, and there it is not restricted by nation borders. :(
One tragicomic thing to note for the IT savvy out there is that if you try to access mil.ru as a non-russian right now you get HTTP ERROR 418. This error is normally translated as "418 I'm a teapot".
Thank you for mentioning this. I am not very cyber-savvy, I'm thinking the people on this forum are more proficient than I but I made sure earlier this year to re-up my computer/internet security (though I could do more. Probably should). Russia is doing cyber attacks on the US; it's only going to get worse going forward.
-
Thank you for mentioning this. I am not very cyber-savvy, I'm thinking the people on this forum are more proficient than I but I made sure earlier this year to re-up my computer/internet security (though I could do more. Probably should). Russia is doing cyber attacks on the US; it's only going to get worse going forward.
Good! Every step is good!
I can recommend a visit to the Security Planner website. Originally developed by people from the University of Toronto:
https://securityplanner.consumerreports.org/
-
Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam come to mind…weaker counties invaded/occupied by stronger powers. While initial invasion was an easier process, the fight to win hearts and minds proved to be a tougher process, and guerrilla warfare eventually wore down the occupiers. Will the Ukrainian people resist in like fashion? Or is this situation different because of geography/proximity, history of being previously linked to USSR, and the fact that keeping the voters happy at home/re-election concerns aren’t really on the table here?
The first Russian invasion of Ukraine (Crimea) doesn't appear to have worn down the occupiers, so my guess would be that Putin will have a much easier time if he stops before getting to the majority-Ukrainian speaking parts of the country.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png/320px-Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png)
-
Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam come to mind…weaker counties invaded/occupied by stronger powers. While initial invasion was an easier process, the fight to win hearts and minds proved to be a tougher process, and guerrilla warfare eventually wore down the occupiers. Will the Ukrainian people resist in like fashion? Or is this situation different because of geography/proximity, history of being previously linked to USSR, and the fact that keeping the voters happy at home/re-election concerns aren’t really on the table here?
The first Russian invasion of Ukraine (Crimea) doesn't appear to have worn down the occupiers, so my guess would be that Putin will have a much easier time if he stops before getting to the majority-Ukrainian speaking parts of the country.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png/320px-Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png)
That’s an interesting map. Maybe the inhabitants of those areas would be super happy to be under Purim’s thumb? Seems like the wrong way of rejoining the motherland though.
-
There is now serious reporting that Russian military has launched an attack on Chernobyl. The potential for radioactive contamination across a large swathe of Europe is real. What on earth the Russians hope to gain from control of one of the world's biggest nuclear accident sites I can't imagine.
-
There is now serious reporting that Russian military has launched an attack on Chernobyl. The potential for radioactive contamination across a large swathe of Europe is real. What on earth the Russians hope to gain from control of one of the world's biggest nuclear accident sites I can't imagine.
Old Russia didn't give a fuck when they let the nuclear reactor blow up and then tried to suppress all info about it. Why would modern Russia be concerned about radiation?
-
There is now serious reporting that Russian military has launched an attack on Chernobyl. The potential for radioactive contamination across a large swathe of Europe is real. What on earth the Russians hope to gain from control of one of the world's biggest nuclear accident sites I can't imagine.
The power plant area lies along the border to Belarus and it is very close to Kiev with good roads. It is less than 60 miles in a straight line and less than 100 miles along the roads.
Thus it enables good troop movements along those roads. It was in this area just north of the border that the russians built pontoon bridges across the Pripyat river just a couple of days ago, and also had gathered large amounts of men and war materials.
-
It's not just former Eastern Bloc countries who will be panicking. If the West is seen to let Putin get away with this, I wouldn't fancy Taiwan's chances.
-
My estimation is that Russia now is trying some kind of almost Blitzkrieg strategy, trying to disable or control all Ukrainian infrastructure both civilian and military in a couple of days. If there are armed Ukrainian forces at the power plant, they must also attack there or convince them to lay down their weapons without a fight. Really, really dangerous for the world but I think the Russians just think they can get it done today or tomorrow.
The sun set over an hour ago in Ukraine and my guess is that the attackers have better night vision capabilities than the defenders. :(
-
Russia is invading Ukraine and the Russian dictator is obliquely threatening US interests with nuclear attacks.
And all that is being cheered by elements of the American right.
The Antiamericanism on the radical right is really getting out of hand.
-
It's not just former Eastern Bloc countries who will be panicking. If the West is seen to let Putin get away with this, I wouldn't fancy Taiwan's chances.
I already figured Taiwan was pretty screwed.
-
My estimation is that Russia now is trying some kind of almost Blitzkrieg strategy, trying to disable or control all Ukrainian infrastructure both civilian and military in a couple of days.
In my completely inexpert opinion I would agree. There were reports of a helicopter raid on an airport outside Kyiv but I haven't seen anything about troops being landed there; if Russia can take a nearby airfield they could land troops and quickly attack Kyiv. No idea what Ukrainian defenses are like outside the capital.
-
The Antiamericanism on the radical right is really getting out of hand.
Is it from the radicals though? Almost seems to be coming from the mainstream/establishment right.
-
The Antiamericanism on the radical right is really getting out of hand.
Is it from the radicals though? Almost seems to be coming from the mainstream/establishment right.
Yeah, at this point I don't think we can call Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump fringe elements. They are the GOP mainstream. Trump is the de facto party leader. Carlson seems to be his mouthpiece/toadie.
-
My estimation is that Russia now is trying some kind of almost Blitzkrieg strategy, trying to disable or control all Ukrainian infrastructure both civilian and military in a couple of days. If there are armed Ukrainian forces at the power plant, they must also attack there or convince them to lay down their weapons without a fight. Really, really dangerous for the world but I think the Russians just think they can get it done today or tomorrow.
The sun set over an hour ago in Ukraine and my guess is that the attackers have better night vision capabilities than the defenders. :(
Yeah, the strategy does seem to be Blitzkrieg. It's worth remembering that the now defunct military power that developed that technique didn't stop after using it to invade/annex Poland (quite the opposite).
-
Radical Republicans include Cheney and Kinzinger.
-
The Antiamericanism on the radical right is really getting out of hand.
Is it from the radicals though? Almost seems to be coming from the mainstream/establishment right.
The mainstream/establishment right doesn´t say much these days, so most of the noise is coming from the radicals. It is true though that some mainstream, or previously mainstream, GOP characters have been trying to score points by stirring up antiamerican sentiments within their constituency.
We will see how they are going to deal with the developing situation. It is very clear that talk about nuclear weapons by a dictator, in the context of an invasion of a neighboring nation, changes the calculus immensely.
First we will probably see economic sanctions and measures against Russia, that will not show any restraint regarding the effects on the Russian population, in order to foment internal unrest in Russia.
Once this happens we will see more clearly who is on the Russian payroll and who is not. It is not that the Russian services let their agents off the hook when things get hot and they would like to take cover - to the contrary, they do not care and will burn them if it is in Russia´s interest.
-
I have difficulty seeing any good end to this catastrophe.
Trump and his supporter will look like idiots for supporting Putin, although we may have to wait for history books, for some people to understand this.
Not sure we need to wait on the history books.
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful," Trump said in an interview on "The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show."
The ex-President added: "So Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That's the strongest peace force," Trump said. "We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. ... Here's a guy who's very savvy. ... I know him very well. Very, very well."
No we know they are idiots now, I think it will take many years for Trumpers to understand they were following a false prophet, and Trump calling Putin a genius was a trifecta of idiocy. A. simply not true, the invasion will hurt Russia. B. Trump's support of Putin is not in the US strategic interest, and C. It is just plain evil.
-
It's interesting that the map shows about 2/3 of Ukraine could well be targeted, using the rationalization that the people there are either Russian speaking or of Russian heritage. And if that happens, then why not the rest of Ukraine? Then the rest of the previous USSR countries, one by one? I could easily believe that Putin is still fuming over the USSR collapse and since he's not getting any younger, wants to reassemble it. With him having nuclear weapons, who is going to try to stop him?
-
It's interesting that the map shows about 2/3 of Ukraine could well be targeted, using the rationalization that the people there are either Russian speaking or of Russian heritage. And if that happens, then why not the rest of Ukraine? Then the rest of the previous USSR countries, one by one? I could easily believe that Putin is still fuming over the USSR collapse and since he's not getting any younger, wants to reassemble it. With him having nuclear weapons, who is going to try to stop him?
Ukraine had a revolution in favour of closer ties with the European Union and deposed Putin's puppet President in the process. Don't believe that Ukrainians as a whole want to be part of Russia.
-
It's interesting that the map shows about 2/3 of Ukraine could well be targeted, using the rationalization that the people there are either Russian speaking or of Russian heritage. And if that happens, then why not the rest of Ukraine? Then the rest of the previous USSR countries, one by one? I could easily believe that Putin is still fuming over the USSR collapse and since he's not getting any younger, wants to reassemble it. With him having nuclear weapons, who is going to try to stop him?
Ukraine had a revolution in favour of closer ties with the European Union and deposed Putin's puppet President in the process. Don't believe that Ukrainians as a whole want to be part of Russia.
But didn't you hear Putin, everyone in power is a Nazi and he's just freeing them from their evil Nazi masters - who are Nazis. /s
But seriously, this is the justification they'll use all along their border. It would be like Mexico claiming the right to invade the US wherever there are Spanish speakers or people of Mexican descent.
For some Ukrainians they probably would see being part of Russia as better than being part of Ukraine. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence after all. They can trade one group of corrupt oligarchs for another group of corrupt oligarchs.
-
It's interesting that the map shows about 2/3 of Ukraine could well be targeted, using the rationalization that the people there are either Russian speaking or of Russian heritage. And if that happens, then why not the rest of Ukraine? Then the rest of the previous USSR countries, one by one? I could easily believe that Putin is still fuming over the USSR collapse and since he's not getting any younger, wants to reassemble it. With him having nuclear weapons, who is going to try to stop him?
Ukraine had a revolution in favour of closer ties with the European Union and deposed Putin's puppet President in the process. Don't believe that Ukrainians as a whole want to be part of Russia.
Yes, I'm well aware of this, being of Ukrainian descent, but their wishes have nothing to do with Putin's "reasoning." It's just alarming that he could conceivably make a case for annexing so much of Ukraine.
-
For some Ukrainians they probably would see being part of Russia as better than being part of Ukraine. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence after all. They can trade one group of corrupt oligarchs for another group of corrupt oligarchs.
I'm not sure most Russian citizens want to be a part of Russia. They mostly live in abject poverty while Putin rakes in billions. An overwhelming majority of Ukrainians wish to remain in an independent Ukraine and not become part of Russia
-
For some Ukrainians they probably would see being part of Russia as better than being part of Ukraine. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence after all. They can trade one group of corrupt oligarchs for another group of corrupt oligarchs.
I'm not sure most Russian citizens want to be a part of Russia. They mostly live in abject poverty while Putin rakes in billions. An overwhelming majority of Ukrainians wish to remain in an independent Ukraine and not become part of Russia
The anti-war marches in Russian cities tonight suggest that you are correct, or at least, they don't want to be in Putin's Russia.
-
Time to invest in defense contractors!
I kid, I kid. Sort of.
I do wonder if we'll see a reversal of the US withdrawal from the global stage that Trump kicked off. Pax Americana had it's downsides but the alternative might be worse...
-W
-
Time to invest in defense contractors!
I kid, I kid. Sort of.
I do wonder if we'll see a reversal of the US withdrawal from the global stage that Trump kicked off. Pax Americana had it's downsides but the alternative might be worse...
-W
Rumors circulating that Finland and Norway might get really cozy with the West now real quick. If Ukraine survives this, the EU will be getting out the checkbook to rebuild and we won't be upstaged by France.
-
Rumors circulating that Finland and Norway might get really cozy with the West now real quick. If Ukraine survives this, the EU will be getting out the checkbook to rebuild and we won't be upstaged by France.
Can you elaborate on the Finland and Norway part?
-
They each have a border with Russia and Finland isn't in Nato.
-
That is true. But in my estimation they are already pretty close to "the west". Finland for instance just decided to spend quite big bucks on buying F-35 fighter jets. For historical reasons, I would fully understand of those two countries would not trust Sweden to come to much of a rescue. And for practical reasons, Sweden's defense is not what it ought to be. But mainly for the historical reasons.
This is really really scary. From where I live it's about the same distance from here to Lviv as it is to the city if Kiruna within my own country. I live within reach of the Russian missile system stationed in Kaliningrad. I have less than 2 km to one primary military target, and less than five km to another from my apartment. And I have every reason to be less scared than people further east in Europe. :(
-
Putin is now saying that he wants to go back to full implementation of the post WWII settlement - which would put most of Eastern Europe back behind the Iron Curtain, including numerous EU and Nato countries.
So, Moldova next after Ukraine. Nothing effective has been done to protect Ukraine, nothing at all will be done to protect Moldova.
After that the targets are either in the EU or Nato, or adjacent to them in the Balkans.
Putin is mad, crazy mad, power and violence mad, and there is nothing either in Russia or out of it that looks at all like stopping him now.
-
The ongoing invasion of Ukraine appears not to be very popular in Russia.
That is not unsurprising as the involvement of Russia in Ukraine since 2014 has been proven costly and had become unpopular over the years.
The Russian government found it necessary to broadcast that the fighting will soon stop, the timing of that might not lie entirely in the hands of the Russian military; Ukraine is a big country and the Russian military is pretty inept in taking cities without grinding them into pulp, and that grinding takes time.
The situation presents itself even more as a one man problem than yesterday.
-
It's only been a couple days, but so far Ukraine is doing much better than anybody expected. Dozens of Russian armored vehicles destroyed, about 10 fighter planes and helicopters shot down, and an airborne landing repulsed. A couple hours ago Ukraine returned the ballistic missile favor and hit an airfield on Russian soil destroying some planes on the ground. Whether any of this translates into changes to the strategic situation remains to be seen. Losing a battalion of tanks sucks, but the Russians have more. If Ukraine can't hold back the tide, or the supply routes to the west are cut off, Putin could just keep plowing ahead regardless of casualties.
-
That is true. But in my estimation they are already pretty close to "the west". Finland for instance just decided to spend quite big bucks on buying F-35 fighter jets. For historical reasons, I would fully understand of those two countries would not trust Sweden to come to much of a rescue. And for practical reasons, Sweden's defense is not what it ought to be. But mainly for the historical reasons.
Can you give me a hint about the historical reasons? I'd like to know more. Thanks.
-
Putin is now saying that he wants to go back to full implementation of the post WWII settlement - which would put most of Eastern Europe back behind the Iron Curtain, including numerous EU and Nato countries.
So, Moldova next after Ukraine. Nothing effective has been done to protect Ukraine, nothing at all will be done to protect Moldova.
After that the targets are either in the EU or Nato, or adjacent to them in the Balkans.
Putin is mad, crazy mad, power and violence mad, and there is nothing either in Russia or out of it that looks at all like stopping him now.
I fully expect him to go after the other former SSRs unless he is stopped. Belarus is apparently fine with it.
-
It's only been a couple days, but so far Ukraine is doing much better than anybody expected. Dozens of Russian armored vehicles destroyed, about 10 fighter planes and helicopters shot down, and an airborne landing repulsed. A couple hours ago Ukraine returned the ballistic missile favor and hit an airfield on Russian soil destroying some planes on the ground. Whether any of this translates into changes to the strategic situation remains to be seen. Losing a battalion of tanks sucks, but the Russians have more. If Ukraine can't hold back the tide, or the supply routes to the west are cut off, Putin could just keep plowing ahead regardless of casualties.
what do you mean a one man problem? Obviously the war is Putins idea. But he has the military and secret service on his side
-
It's only been a couple days, but so far Ukraine is doing much better than anybody expected. Dozens of Russian armored vehicles destroyed, about 10 fighter planes and helicopters shot down, and an airborne landing repulsed. A couple hours ago Ukraine returned the ballistic missile favor and hit an airfield on Russian soil destroying some planes on the ground. Whether any of this translates into changes to the strategic situation remains to be seen. Losing a battalion of tanks sucks, but the Russians have more. If Ukraine can't hold back the tide, or the supply routes to the west are cut off, Putin could just keep plowing ahead regardless of casualties.
what do you mean a one man problem? Obviously the war is Putins idea. But he has the military and secret service on his side
The question is what would happen if Putin were removed from the situation.
Having the military and intelligence services on his side is different from having the institutional and political structures in place that would guarantee the ongoing pursuit of the war objectives with Putin absent.
-
That is true. But in my estimation they are already pretty close to "the west". Finland for instance just decided to spend quite big bucks on buying F-35 fighter jets. For historical reasons, I would fully understand of those two countries would not trust Sweden to come to much of a rescue. And for practical reasons, Sweden's defense is not what it ought to be. But mainly for the historical reasons.
Can you give me a hint about the historical reasons? I'd like to know more. Thanks.
This moves away from Ukraine, but basically Sweden was a bit way too Pro-German in WWII and while officially neutral, we allowed the Germans to move troops and war material into Norway (and partly involving Finland too I think) for several years. On top of that we sold LOTS of steel and other raw materials to Germany for most of the war. And closed the borders for jews fleeing from the nazi-controlled areas. This continued for most of the war.
There is an ongoing debate here right now of how much of this that is hidden in the history books. If you really want to read more, one of the latest books published is this:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Swedish-tiger-Aron-Flam-ebook/dp/B08KXW69G3
The book is partly being discredited by some historians, and praised by others. I found it well written and have not seen any relevant critique of the factual content, even if interpretations can be discussed.
On top of that for Finland, Sweden as a nation did really not help when they were invaded by Soviet Russia in 1939. Lots of volunteers did however help under the slogan "Finlands cause is ours!" (in Swedish, of course), including more than 9000 soldiers who went over to fight.
-
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged the Ukrainian army to overthrow its leadership whom he labelled as a 'gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis who have has lodged itself in Kyiv and taken hostage the entire Ukrainian people.'
Addressing the Ukrainian military in a televised address, a visibly angry Putin urged the military to 'take power in your own hands'." - Guardian
He's completely lost it.
-
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged the Ukrainian army to overthrow its leadership whom he labelled as a 'gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis who have has lodged itself in Kyiv and taken hostage the entire Ukrainian people.'
Addressing the Ukrainian military in a televised address, a visibly angry Putin urged the military to 'take power in your own hands'." - Guardian
He's completely lost it.
It does look like it.
I mean, when taking Putin´s childish ideas about history and Ukraine not being an independent country at face value, it does look like he has plunged Russia into a bloody civil war in order to pursue foreign policy goals.
With every hour the fighting continues this becomes ever clearer.
-
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged the Ukrainian army to overthrow its leadership whom he labelled as a 'gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis who have has lodged itself in Kyiv and taken hostage the entire Ukrainian people.'
Addressing the Ukrainian military in a televised address, a visibly angry Putin urged the military to 'take power in your own hands'." - Guardian
He's completely lost it.
That's even more frightening a prospect. It's one thing if someone is going after a goal, even if you disagree. A rational actor can be predicted and negotiated with. But if someone really is irrational, then you can't predict what they might do, nor can you effectively negotiate.
-
He's completely lost it.
He knows what he is doing. It's just that truth doesn't matter.
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
Hang on a minute. One newspaper article from 2019 about the President taking a drug test and no follow up about it being positive, and one newspaper article from 2014 about far-right Russian speakers, 8 years ago, again with no follow up?
You think that is some sort of peg on which to hang starting a war? Seriously?
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
I am assuming your tongue is firmly in cheek with this one.
Yes Putin is the "problem". But as he takes out any enemies, it's not like anything is going to change. Russia and the rest of the world is stuck with him. I don't think there are any legal measures to get him out of leadership, or at least ones he would allow to happen.
-
You think that is some sort of peg on which to hang starting a war? Seriously?
Like I said, there's a "shred of truth" in Putin's claim. He's not conjuring it up from whole cloth.
There's big difference between that and justifiable peg on which to hang starting a war.
-
If only the Russian military would see this as an opportunity to depose a crazy man. Just sayin .......
-
Well, yikes... And, so far, it seems like the sanctions [to date at that time] are more in the vein of "thoughts and prayers" for Ukraine and Russia's victims.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/02/25/Meet-The-Face-Global-Fascism/ (https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/02/25/Meet-The-Face-Global-Fascism/)
-
That is true. But in my estimation they are already pretty close to "the west". Finland for instance just decided to spend quite big bucks on buying F-35 fighter jets. For historical reasons, I would fully understand of those two countries would not trust Sweden to come to much of a rescue. And for practical reasons, Sweden's defense is not what it ought to be. But mainly for the historical reasons.
Can you give me a hint about the historical reasons? I'd like to know more. Thanks.
This moves away from Ukraine, but basically Sweden was a bit way too Pro-German in WWII and while officially neutral, we allowed the Germans to move troops and war material into Norway (and partly involving Finland too I think) for several years. On top of that we sold LOTS of steel and other raw materials to Germany for most of the war. And closed the borders for jews fleeing from the nazi-controlled areas. This continued for most of the war.
There is an ongoing debate here right now of how much of this that is hidden in the history books. If you really want to read more, one of the latest books published is this:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Swedish-tiger-Aron-Flam-ebook/dp/B08KXW69G3
The book is partly being discredited by some historians, and praised by others. I found it well written and have not seen any relevant critique of the factual content, even if interpretations can be discussed.
On top of that for Finland, Sweden as a nation did really not help when they were invaded by Soviet Russia in 1939. Lots of volunteers did however help under the slogan "Finlands cause is ours!" (in Swedish, of course), including more than 9000 soldiers who went over to fight.
Thank you for the background. My history is sorely lacking b/c my American red state spent far too much time teaching us about the 18th and 19th century American history and shockingly little on the 20th century. I've self-studied to help make up for that but hadn't read anything much about Sweden.
-
Thank you for the background. My history is sorely lacking b/c my American red state spent far too much time on the 18th and 19th century American history and shockingly little on the 20th century. I've self-studied to help make up for that but hadn't read anything much about Sweden.
It is only natural to focus on your own history or the history near you. I know much more of Sweden and northern Europe in the last 500 years than I know of most history outside of that area. And the 20th century was very very messy in Europe and elsewhere. If you want to get an anchor for studying Europe, perhaps start with the last 500 years of Polish history. They were in the midst of it. Or just check the title of their national anthem and you'll get a start of a glimpse.
Friends, if Covid-19 was a historic moment, what happened this week in Ukraine is even more so. I'm frankly tired of living in interesting times.
-
Friends, if Covid-19 was a historic moment, what happened this week in Ukraine is even more so. I'm frankly tired of living in interesting times.
Yeah, so far I’m not sold on 2020 part C 2022. I think the entire damn planet needs a break.
-
Just Joe, I also don't know a ton about 20th centaury European history. I've been doing a bit of googling here and there. And I am impressed as hell with the Ukraine president, and I'm even more impressed that I'm impressed.
First, he was a hugely popular comedian. Then he got elected with a ton of support from a corrupt oligarch. Not all that promising as a leader right? But apparently, he's been doing ok.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/24/who-is-ukraines-president-volodymyr-zelensky/
Then, just before the attack began, he gave this speech to the Russian people, which gave me chills when I watched it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-zilnPtZ2M - full video w/English subtitles
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/zelenskys-desperate-plea-for-peace/ - transcript
Now, I see this video of him, in Kyiv, with other high level government officials (apparently, I'm going based on other people's id), posted to his FACEBOOK page of all places:
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-president-zelensky-posts-defiant-video-besieged-kyiv-russia-2022-2
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official
I am seriously impressed. The courage it takes to stay, when you know he could get out, and then to publicize that he's still there. Whatever else you can say about him past, present or future, this guy has risen to the occasion in a way that many would not be able to.
Lemanfan, I am also very tired of living in interesting times. But to paraphrase Gandalf, it is not for us to choose the times we are given. All we can do is choose what we do with the time given to us.
-
@Sibley , I agree. He is showing tremendous strength and courage right now.
-
I simply cannot imagine being in their position. The Ukrainian President is certainly showing tremendous bravery and leadership. If it is the peoples’ will, I hope they resist with every thing they’ve got.
-
I simply cannot imagine being in their position. The Ukrainian President is certainly showing tremendous bravery and leadership. If it is the peoples’ will, I hope they resist with every thing they’ve got.
Right?
Even as the artillery barrages intensified, not everyone was ready to hide. Walking with intention toward the source of the artillery booms on the outskirts of Kharkiv was Roman Balakelyev, dressed in camouflage, a double-barreled shotgun slung over his shoulder.
“I live here, this is my home. I’m going to defend it,” said Mr. Balakelyev, who also pulled out a large knife he had strapped to his back as if to show it off. “I don’t think the Russians understand me like I understand them.”
A short while later, Mr. Balakelyev reached the edge of the city, where the Ukrainian troops were huddled around the abandoned Russian troop transports. They watched as he passed. No one moved to stop him. One soldier uttered: “Intent on victory.”
Mr. Balakelyev, his gaze fixed and his shotgun ready, headed down the road in the direction of the booms and a tall billboard that read: “Protect the future: UKRAINE-NATO-EUROPE.” - NYT: Scenes from Kharkiv: Battle wreckage, the boom of artillery, and people sheltering in the subway (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/world/europe/kharkiv-ukraine-military.html)
-
Anyone have any thoughts on the best non-profits to give money to to help out the Ukrainian people?
-
Anyone have any thoughts on the best non-profits to give money to to help out the Ukrainian people?
https://www.directrelief.org/2022/02/direct-relief-continues-support-to-ukraine-as-crisis-escalates/
-
Anyone have any thoughts on the best non-profits to give money to to help out the Ukrainian people?
NPR posted a nice compilation of various ideas of how to help.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1082992947/ukraine-support-help
Also just a heads up (for everyone) on the slew of misinformation circulating online. I thought it was good of BBC to call this out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/60513452
-
I wonder if Russians outside of Russia will unite against the tyrant Putin?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I wonder what it would take to remove Putin from power?
-
I wonder what it would take to remove Putin from power?
Talking with a friend today I confirmed that I am not the only person having assasination fantasies.
-
Anyone have any thoughts on the best non-profits to give money to to help out the Ukrainian people?
NPR posted a nice compilation of various ideas of how to help.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1082992947/ukraine-support-help
Also just a heads up (for everyone) on the slew of misinformation circulating online. I thought it was good of BBC to call this out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/60513452
This is pinned at the top of the r/Ukraine subreddit. Don't know if they're the best. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/s6g5un/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/
-
Canadians and Donations:
https://twitter.com/DavidWCochrane/status/1497326956089651204?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/DavidWCochrane/status/1497326956089651204?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
"Canadian government will match every donation people make to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine Humanitarian Crisis Appeal, up to $10 million.
That's on top of $50 million in previously announced aid and $620 million in sovereign loans to Ukraine’s government."
And remember Chapman's paid staff during Covid while they had no jobs for them to do? They came through again. I may never buy any other brand of ice cream (plus they make good ice cream, this is not a sacrifice).
https://twitter.com/Chapmans_Canada/status/1497298714733555716?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/Chapmans_Canada/status/1497298714733555716?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
-
Here is a military historian's take on this:
https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ (https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/)
Not that it changes what to do, but it is nice to understand why things happen.
-
I wonder what it would take to remove Putin from power?
A sniper... Honestly - not a violent person but I am wishing something sudden and terrible for Putin right about now.
-
I wonder what it would take to remove Putin from power?
A sniper... Honestly - not a violent person but I am wishing something sudden and terrible for Putin right about now.
Or a coup, or whatever the term is if the rest of the top people look at the situation and don't like it. He doesn't look like good heart attack material, sadly.
-
I wonder what would of happened if the USA and all of it's allies sent forces into the Ukraine as soon as Putin was building up the armies at the Ukraine border. I doubt he would of went in. We are just standing letting him take Ukraine, threatening to slap his hand with sanctions.
He's so bold now, drunk on himself, now threatening Sweden and Finland.
-
I wonder what would of happened if the USA and all of it's allies sent forces into the Ukraine as soon as Putin was building up the armies at the Ukraine border. I doubt he would of went in. We are just standing letting him take Ukraine threatening to slap his hand with sanctions.
We've had troops training them for years, and they've been decimating Russian armored units with missiles we gave them a few weeks ago and a convoy of allegedly Polish military vehicles was spotted crossing the Ukrainian border to deliver supplies so it's not like we've just sat back with popcorn on this.
We also doubted he would have gone in without our presence. What if we got it wrong on the other end of the scale and found ourselves in a full shooting war with Russia this weekend?
-
I wonder what would of happened if the USA and all of it's allies sent forces into the Ukraine as soon as Putin was building up the armies at the Ukraine border. I doubt he would of went in. We are just standing letting him take Ukraine, threatening to slap his hand with sanctions.
He's so bold now, drunk on himself, now threatening Sweden and Finland.
Having nuclear powers directly fighting each other is a big no-no because of imperfect information on both sides/fog of war and the potential for inadvertent escalation to nukes.
Unfortunately there's not a cowboy solution here, other than sending over the volunteers ala For Whom the Bell Tolls.
-W
-
Here is a military historian's take on this:
https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ (https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/)
Not that it changes what to do, but it is nice to understand why things happen.
Thank you for sharing. This was very helpful. And very depressing. We live in interesting times indeed.
@JenniferW highly recommend you read the blog post Retiredat63 shared, it'll probably help you understand why the US and other counties haven't sent their militaries.
-
I wonder what would of happened if the USA and all of it's allies sent forces into the Ukraine as soon as Putin was building up the armies at the Ukraine border. I doubt he would of went in. We are just standing letting him take Ukraine, threatening to slap his hand with sanctions.
He's so bold now, drunk on himself, now threatening Sweden and Finland.
If the US stationed troops there in Ukraine you'll just give Russia and the Russian sympathisers in Ukraine propaganda for the next 100 years.
I would say the Ukrainians need to win the fight militarily on their own (or with their local allies). Of course assist them technologically, economically, and via intelligence. But the citizenry needs to win this - hopeless as the situation is.
Least worst outcomes and all that.
-
Here is a military historian's take on this:
https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ (https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/)
Not that it changes what to do, but it is nice to understand why things happen.
Thanks, that was good.
Now I wish I had a good source to point you to regarding even more historical concepts here, but my sources are all in Swedish and often behind paywalls.
The interested may try to search for articles regarding the concept of "Eurasia" - not Europe, not Asia - something different. And the slogan of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality". Alexander Dugin is said to be a key person, and he in turn refers to Nikolai Trubetzkoy and Nikolay Danilevsky as being the Marx and Engels of Russian nationalism.
(I'm sorry if I get the English translations of any names wrong, we do it a bit differently in my language - the search engines usually figures it out anyway if you do search).
-
...
Putin is a brutal killer and a tyrant who feels cornered - a socialist or communist he is not.
This is not reassuring as the socialist adversaries during the cold war were essentially rational actors and the politburo in soviet Russia served as the guarantor for the succession process, provided a check on the General Secretary and created a supportive environment for the General Secretary.
The structure of the soviet state thus assured rationality in international affairs to a large degree.
Putin lacks these institutional supports and should be expected to act erratically when cornered. sasdly, the soviet mindset and particularly the KGB mindset is one of paranoia, suspicion and a sense of being cornered. Putin, as a former high ranking KGB operative, can be expected to have those qualities in abundance, and can also be expected to act with brutality in typical crude KGB fashion.
^^^ quote from the Outrage 45 thread
More concerns about Mr Putin not being a rational actor:
"After Macron held five hours of talks with the Russian leader in Moscow at opposite ends of a 15-metre table, he told reporters on the return flight that “the tension was palpable”. This was not the same Putin he had last met at the Elysée palace in December 2019, Macron said. He was “more rigid, more isolated” and was off on an “ideological and security drift”."
And:
“Nuclear weapons are an interesting exception to the general rule that the psychology of world leaders is less important than the systems they work in,” Foley said. “Don’t assume that this could proceed in an orderly fashion. It could spin out of control very easily.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/putin-russian-president-ukraine-invasion-mental-fitness
-
Sounds like the Russian top people need to see Putin's decline and remove him from day to day operations. Keep him as a figurehead perhaps and withdraw the military from Ukraine.
-
Ukraine seems to be doing much better than Putin was prepared to deal with.
-
Ukraine seems to be doing much better than Putin was prepared to deal with.
I agree. Whether that's due to Putin being out of touch with reality or something else, I've been finding and watching the briefings that Zelensky is putting out there (with English subtitles). From what I can tell, Zelensky is probably the best president that Ukraine could have right now. He's still there, fighting. I doubt he's out shooting, but he's talking to other world leaders - and he's calling them out, by name. He's naming and shaming those who aren't supporting sanctions, he's thanking for support. He's a former actor/comedian - which means he knows how to do the show. He's using it to Ukraine's advantage. The very fact that he's there, refusing, very publicly, to be evacuated by the US or anyone else - that is worth a lot in morale.
-
Ukraine seems to be doing much better than Putin was prepared to deal with.
Yes, and I doubt that Putin was expecting this level of resistance from his own people and the world. China's requests that Putin respect Ukraine's sovereignty and end the invasion peacefully, plus a refusal to support with Russia in the UN Security Council (an abstention, yes, but not support) must have been a shock. Kazakhstan's refusal to loan its troops to Russia must also have been an unpleasant surprise.
A better leader would have known how to read the room and realized exactly how little support he would have for this action.
-
A better leader would have known how to read the room and realized exactly how little support he would have for this action.
Precisely.
Putin is a mediocre former KGB colonel lieutenant colonel (edit: Mr Putin did not make colonel in the KGB) and these characters are not known for being particularly smart.
Putin lost control of the narrative even before the invasion started and bet everything on immediate collapse of Ukrainian military capabilities, which was very unlikely to happen.
Now there are reports of Ukrainians taking up arms in support of the Ukrainian military in large numbers - particularly in Kyiv.
It is well known that the Russian military does not do well in city combat (I mean who does, but the Russians may be the worst).
As their initial foray into Kyiv was repelled, a destructive attack on the city with artillery etc. becomes a distinct possibility and that could justifiably be called a genocidal attack.
No one who takes part in or supports such an operation can avoid responsibilty and ultimately accountability for crimes committed - and that is true for the Russian foot soldier all the way up the chain to the leadership and its agents in the west.
There are many people involved in the Russian Ukraine operation who might have to make difficult decisions about further participation in the coming hours and days.
-
Putin should have consulted with Trumps experts before getting into this mess. <wink>
-
Ukraine seems to be doing much better than Putin was prepared to deal with.
I hope I am wrong but I think it is inevitable that Russia will take Ukraine. There's just no match, military-wise. The only thing don't know, is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed, or how many people will die for him to reach his objectives. I do think Putin is trying to take out the Ukraine president, and that's going to involve missile strikes in civilian areas. I think Putin will have no problem with collateral damage.
-
Ukraine seems to be doing much better than Putin was prepared to deal with.
I hope I am wrong but I think it is inevitable that Russia will take Ukraine. There's just no match, military-wise.
With an arrogant imbecile like Mr Putin at the helm even the best military can get itself defeated even under favorable conditions.
But here, the situation was not favorable to Russia to begin with.
-
Ukraine seems to be doing much better than Putin was prepared to deal with.
I hope I am wrong but I think it is inevitable that Russia will take Ukraine. There's just no match, military-wise. The only thing don't know, is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed, or how many people will die for him to reach his objectives. I do think Putin is trying to take out the Ukraine president, and that's going to involve missile strikes in civilian areas. I think Putin will have no problem with collateral damage.
It's not inevitable. Russia can send 150,000 troops - but they've only got so many pieces of equipment and so much materiel that they can put towards the fight. Every tank, and rocket launcher, and truck that gets destroyed is one they can't easily replace. Meanwhile, more anti-tank guided missiles are flowing into Ukraine from the US and European allies. The Russian may outnumber the Ukranian military - but not when you count the tens or hundreds of thousands of territorial militia and armed civilians. Or the fact that 100% of the Ukranian military is in the fight, while only a portion of the Russian military is.
The US sent more troops than that into smaller countries and we still couldn't control them - even with a decent portion of civilians supporting us. I doubt very few Ukrainians are going to support Russia - certainly not once you get beyond the immediate border with Russia where ethnically and linguistically it's more Ukranian than Russian.
In addition, every day the Russia population is going to be more and more against the war. Especially once word starts getting out about casualties. You can't cover that up forever. When a mother loses her son and tells her friends and family and neighbors, word gets around.
-
I admit, I didn't see this coming: Hungary won't block any sanctions against Russia, PM Orban says (Reuters, Feburary 26, 2022) (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-wont-block-any-sanctions-against-russia-pm-orban-says-2022-02-26/)
-
Germany just approved the shipment of 1000 anti-tank and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine.
This is significcant because Germany is involved in the development and production of weaponry in Europe and retains veto rights against export of such weaponry into crisis regions and has exercised this veto aggressively in the past.
Germany has also agreed to remove Russia from the SWIFT system.
These are aggressive moves by Germany.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t20u4i/kyiv_full_consensus_for_disconnecting_russia_from/
The actual article has been "hugged to death" (love the phrasing on the reddit post), but looks like Russia is going to get blocked from SWIFT. The OP copied and pasted the article before the site went down, it's the top comment. I wasn't able to find another article, might just need to wait a bit longer for the press to catch up.
Edit:
The president's FB page has a video up, posted today about 1:20 CST, and its got English subtitles. It's possible that there's agreement to block Russian ships from the Black Sea? Or at least discussions to do so. He also discussed SWIFT, said "we gained this victory". My impression is that Zelensky and many others in their government have been working around the clock on the diplomatic front, and they're winning.
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t20u4i/kyiv_full_consensus_for_disconnecting_russia_from/
The actual article has been "hugged to death" (love the phrasing on the reddit post), but looks like Russia is going to get blocked from SWIFT. The OP copied and pasted the article before the site went down, it's the top comment. I wasn't able to find another article, might just need to wait a bit longer for the press to catch up.
Edit:
The president's FB page has a video up, posted today about 1:20 CST, and its got English subtitles. It's possible that there's agreement to block Russian ships from the Black Sea? Or at least discussions to do so. He also discussed SWIFT, said "we gained this victory". My impression is that Zelensky and many others in their government have been working around the clock on the diplomatic front, and they're winning.
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official
The Russians of course already has a large fleet in the Black Sea, but last I saw was that at least some of their fleet was outside of the Bosphorus in the Mediterranean. The passage is fully controlled by Turkey in practice and during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 there was a lot of talk of how regulated this passage was by international treaties - mainly to prevent non-Black Sea nations (i.e. the USA mainly) to have too many ships in there at the same time.
The Russian / Turkish relations have been tense for a long time, and was not helped when the Turkish air force shot down a Russian fighter jet near or in Syria back in 2015.
If Turkey blocks Russian ships there it might not change that much in practice, but it is a very important change I think.
More here: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/turkey-to-block-passage-of-russian-warships-in-black-sea-moscow-disputes-access-claims-articleshow.html
-
Yeah, the situation is clearly very fluid still, and the translation difficulties don't help. We'll see what happens over the next couple days. Hopefully the Ukrainian people can hold out.
I'm very curious to see what's going to happen in Russia. There's not much chance of ordinary people managing to effect real change I don't think, anything big would be suppressed very harshly. But that leaves Putin, the oligarchs, military, and the rest of the government who could act.
-
Germany just approved the shipment of 1000 anti-tank and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine.
This is significcant because Germany is involved in the development and production of weaponry in Europe and retains veto rights against export of such weaponry into crisis regions and has exercised this veto aggressively in the past.
Germany has also agreed to remove Russia from the SWIFT system.
These are aggressive moves by Germany.
Not quite. Germany is talking about removing Russia from the SWIFT system - but with carveouts for energy. So basically, they don't want to actually feel the pain (and make Russia feel the pain) of cutting off oil and natural gas sales - which compose a large percentage of Germany's energy supply. Across the EU about 40% of their natural gas comes from Russia (along with oil and coal). Germany gets about that much and with more than half their natural gas going to manufacturing, it would be a huge hit to their economy which is heavily focused on manufacturing and exports.
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/live-updates-on-ukraine-war/
Germany supports “targeted and functional” limits on Russian access to the SWIFT global interbank payment system, its foreign and economy ministers said. Berlin had been the major holdout in Europe against imposing the measure, whose economic impact would be significant. However, the ministers’ statement said SWIFT exclusion should be crafted in such a way that it “affects the right people.” Finance Minister Christian Lindner was more specific, saying, “necessary deliveries of raw materials” (read: Russian energy exports) should not be disrupted by the move.
Original source article (in German) https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/ukraine-krieg-ein-swift-ausschluss-der-die-richtigen-trifft-europa-einig-ueber-naechste-sanktion-gegen-russland/28110092.html
-
Reported in the Guardian: Russian artillery fire has hit a children's cancer hospital in Kyiv, killing a child and injuring two other children and two adults.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/ukraine/100/?action=post;last_msg=2983380
-
Russia can't be making friends in Ukraine. So, if they do take over will there be continual resistance? It seems obvious that there will be. Killing people creates terrorists.
Ukraine has a large army and it seem as though they have the possibility of taking a large number of Russian troops. I just wonder if this will weaken Russia. They have been invading other countries for the last dozen years or more. They must have troops in these other countries. It would seem to be time for them to actively resist as well. I'm just wondering if Russia may be stretched thin by this latest military incursion.
It can't help Russia to have almost the entire world disagreeing with the invasion. To my knowledge there was no coalition. It was just the one country. Some of these Ukrainians have been proven to be very brave.
-
Germany just approved the shipment of 1000 anti-tank and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine.
This is significcant because Germany is involved in the development and production of weaponry in Europe and retains veto rights against export of such weaponry into crisis regions and has exercised this veto aggressively in the past.
Germany has also agreed to remove Russia from the SWIFT system.
These are aggressive moves by Germany.
I should have written "These are aggressive moves for Germany"
Not quite. Germany is talking about removing Russia from the SWIFT system - but with carveouts for energy. So basically, they don't want to actually feel the pain (and make Russia feel the pain) of cutting off oil and natural gas sales - which compose a large percentage of Germany's energy supply. Across the EU about 40% of their natural gas comes from Russia (along with oil and coal). Germany gets about that much and with more than half their natural gas going to manufacturing, it would be a huge hit to their economy which is heavily focused on manufacturing and exports.
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/live-updates-on-ukraine-war/
Germany supports “targeted and functional” limits on Russian access to the SWIFT global interbank payment system, its foreign and economy ministers said. Berlin had been the major holdout in Europe against imposing the measure, whose economic impact would be significant. However, the ministers’ statement said SWIFT exclusion should be crafted in such a way that it “affects the right people.” Finance Minister Christian Lindner was more specific, saying, “necessary deliveries of raw materials” (read: Russian energy exports) should not be disrupted by the move.
Original source article (in German) https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/ukraine-krieg-ein-swift-ausschluss-der-die-richtigen-trifft-europa-einig-ueber-naechste-sanktion-gegen-russland/28110092.html
The SWIFT carveouts have a lot to do with limiting impact to EU which may be crucial for sustainability of the sanction; particularly when considering that the impact might be more severe for nations in the EU other than Germany.
It is complicated, but thank the gods for the German Green Party to be part of the government.
-
Reported in the Guardian: Russian artillery fire has hit a children's cancer hospital in Kyiv, killing a child and injuring two other children and two adults.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/ukraine/100/?action=post;last_msg=2983380
Will Putin and the other Russian military leaders be tried for war crimes? Only time will tell but call me doubtful.
I start to think NATO should put in place an enforced no fly zone over Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
...
I start to think NATO should put in place an enforced no fly zone over Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am sorry to have to say this but you really have no idea what you are talking about - unless you are trolling of course.
-
...
I start to think NATO should put in place an enforced no fly zone over Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am sorry to have to say this but you really have no idea what you are talking about - unless you are trolling of course.
Same to you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
...
I start to think NATO should put in place an enforced no fly zone over Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am sorry to have to say this but you really have no idea what you are talking about - unless you are trolling of course.
Same to you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I apologize.
Pushing the idea of NATO establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine is about as impractical as well as incendiary as possible in the current situation.
You might not see that - so there is that
Sorry, seriously
-
...
I start to think NATO should put in place an enforced no fly zone over Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am sorry to have to say this but you really have no idea what you are talking about - unless you are trolling of course.
Same to you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I apologize.
Pushing the idea of NATO establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine is about as impractical as well as incendiary as possible in the current situation.
You might not see that - so there is that
Sorry, seriously
While not popular for obvious reasons and highly unlikely it is a real idea being discussed at length by many politicians and military leaders. We will see if opinions change as Russia continues to commit war crimes against civilians.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
...
I start to think NATO should put in place an enforced no fly zone over Ukraine.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am sorry to have to say this but you really have no idea what you are talking about - unless you are trolling of course.
Same to you.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I apologize.
Pushing the idea of NATO establishing a no fly zone over Ukraine is about as impractical as well as incendiary as possible in the current situation.
You might not see that - so there is that
Sorry, seriously
While not popular for obvious reasons and highly unlikely it is a real idea being discussed at length by many politicians and military leaders. We will see if opinions change as Russia continues to commit war crimes against civilians.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
"it is a real idea being discussed at length by many politicians and military leaders."
Lovely, that is just the sort of people I would ask if I wanted to know what´s best for me.
-
Both of you - there's enough fighting on this plant. Kiss and make up.
As for a no fly zone, I don't have any clue if its feasible or not. But I bet the Ukrainian government will have some say in the matter, so long as they're satisfied with it then I'm not going to question. I'm just following along, getting practice using google translate.
-
Politico: NATO rushing to resupply Ukraine by land; no-fly zone all but ruled out (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/25/nato-ukraine-russia-zelenskyy-00012068)
-
I found an English language newspaper that is based in Ukraine! https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent
And.... Ukraine is getting absolutely pounded tonight. It looks like they expected it and were telling the people to get to shelters before nightfall, so cross your fingers casualties will be minimal, and Ukraine will still be there in the morning. https://kyivindependent.com/national/russias-war-on-ukraine-where-fighting-is-on-now-feb-27-live-updates/
Fuck Putin.
-
Ukrainian Army continues to pick off armored vehicles by the dozens as well as unprotected support convoys. Some Russian units stuck on the highway having run out of fuel and not getting resupplied. Everyone is still waiting to see if Russia is going to bring in their massive supplies of artillery and start leveling neighborhoods. It's been their go-to tactic when operational maneuver stops working, and that's clearly the case on several fronts.
Anonymous hacked Russian government emails and radio communications. Poland, Romania, Netherlands, and now Germany publicly sending weapons to Ukraine, and the economic blockade is growing. Chip manufacturers are stopping shipments. S&P dropped Russian credit to "junk." They don't have much international debt out there, but its telling. European air traffic control turning away Russian airlines.
Here's the problem with a no-fly zone right now: to enforce it, the Ukrainian Air Force would have to be grounded, and right now they're still able to fly and bomb Russian troops. For our planes to patrol Ukrainian airspace, we'd have to feel secure from being shot at. We'd show up on Russian radar and be in range of their missiles. If a Russian unit decided to paint us with radar or actually take a shot at us, we'd destroy the launch site which would create an escalating response spiral. After a couple days it would be a full air war. If Russia kept their fingers off the trigger, they might still insist on fighting the Ukrainians right under our aircraft. Do we bomb them or just watch? If we watch, then that's a signal that we're just there to burn jet fuel and they'll continue fighting as if nothing changed.
-
Here's the problem with a no-fly zone right now: to enforce it, the Ukrainian Air Force would have to be grounded, and right now they're still able to fly and bomb Russian troops. For our planes to patrol Ukrainian airspace, we'd have to feel secure from being shot at. We'd show up on Russian radar and be in range of their missiles. If a Russian unit decided to paint us with radar or actually take a shot at us, we'd destroy the launch site which would create an escalating response spiral. After a couple days it would be a full air war. If Russia kept their fingers off the trigger, they might still insist on fighting the Ukrainians right under our aircraft. Do we bomb them or just watch? If we watch, then that's a signal that we're just there to burn jet fuel and they'll continue fighting as if nothing changed.
But how long can the Ukrainian airforce hold out with their 37 MiG-29s and 32 Su-27s? Not that I believe that NATO wants to get involved in this war more than they already are.
-
My oldest son drew the attached map today based on some other maps I showed him from various sources. I've also attached a much more accurate map as of earlier today.
I've found a couple of people on Twitter posting good open-source information. Nothing really graphic, mostly pictures/videos of blown-up vehicles or rocket strikes interspersed with some updates that are often geo-located. The second one is keeping a running list of vehicles/aircraft destroyed on both sides based only on confirmed visual evidence (i.e., not including the multiple Russian transport planes Ukraine claims to have shot down).
OSINTtechnical
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical
Oryx
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop
-
Stop it with the no fly zone stuff. Nuclear powers do not engage directly, full stop. The US/EU will NOT do this, because the potential consequences are too severe.
-W
-
Fuck Putin!
-
Stop it with the no fly zone stuff. Nuclear powers do not engage directly, full stop.
I believe that India and Pakistan have been known to.
EDITed to add that both China and the USSR had troops in Vietnam during the war and the USSR provided fighter pilots in the Korean war.
The US/EU will NOT do this, because the potential consequences are too severe.
A NATO power probably won't do this. But Tory MP Tobias Ellwood who happens to be chair of the House of Commons defense select committee is calling for one (https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2022/02/tobias-ellwood-the-uk-must-support-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine).
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
"In 1991, Svoboda was founded as the Social-National Party of Ukraine.[65] The party combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features.[66][67][68] It was renamed and rebranded 13 years later as All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda in 2004 under Oleh Tyahnybok. In 2016, The Nation reported that "in Ukrainian municipal elections held [in October 2015], the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party's candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop."[69] The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed on his car and has refused to display the city's official flag because it contains a star of David, and has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.[66]
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism and its alleged relationship to neo-Nazism came to the fore in polemics about the more radical elements involved in the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russo-Ukrainian War from 2013 onward.[68] Some Russian, Latin American, U.S. and Israeli media have attempted to portray the Ukrainian nationalists in the conflict as neo-Nazi.[70] The main Ukrainian organisations involved with a neo-Banderaite legacy are Right Sector,[71] Svoboda and Azov Battalion. The persons regarded as Ukraine's national heroes—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—at times supported and then opposed the presence of the Third Reich in Ukraine.[72][73] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Ukraine
"In the early 2010s Jewish organizations in and outside of Ukraine have accused the political party All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" of open Nazi sympathies and being antisemitic.[25] In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress listed the party as neo-Nazi.[26] "Svoboda" itself has denied being antisemitic.[27] In the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary elections "Svoboda" won its first seats in the Ukrainian Parliament,[28] garnering 10.44% of the popular vote and the 4th most seats among national political parties.[29] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party got 6 parliamentary seats (it won 4.71% of the popular vote in this election).[30] In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list, these were the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps.[31] But in the election this combination won 2.15% of the votes, less than half of the 5% election threshold, and thus no parliamentary seats via the national party list.[32] Svoboda itself did win one constituency seat, in Ivano-Frankivsk.[32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Ukraine
Bandera cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, and organized OUN expeditionary groups. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv, pledging to work with Nazi Germany.[4][5] For his refusal to rescind the decree, Bandera was arrested by the Gestapo, which put him under house arrest on 5 July 1941,[6] and later between 1942 and 1943[7] sent him to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[8] In 1944, with Germany rapidly losing ground in the war in the face of the advancing Allied armies, Bandera was released in the hope that he would be instrumental in deterring the advancing Soviet forces. He set up the headquarters of the re-established Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, which worked underground. He settled with his family in West Germany where he remained the leader of the OUN-B and worked with several anti-communist organizations such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations[9][10] as well as with the British intelligence agencies.[9] Fourteen years after the end of the war, Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by KGB agents in Munich.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
-
I'm not encouraging people to compulsively spend all day looking at every bit of news out of Ukraine that they can find. I will however note that if you did want to do that my daily routine is something like:
1. Check the NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/)
2. Check the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/)
3. Check https://liveuamap.com (https://liveuamap.com)
4. Check the Suchomimus YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXZs3e_VSlYgrUuTqm3GgVA) (it's just every cam-phone video that they can get their hands on)
5. Try to get some work done
6. Check the Ukraine section of funker530.com (https://funker530.com/category/ukraine/). There won't be much here that isn't in the Suchomimus YouTube channel but there are a few things in here that YouTube won't allow you to post. Which is to say kind of graphic. On second thought maybe just check this instead of the YouTube channel because there is more explanation about what you are seeing.
If you are a US (or European) citizen I would encourage you to write your elected representatives and demand immediate oil sanctions on Russia.
-
I know it's a very unpopular opinion and US and European news have never covered that, therefore it remains absolutely unknown but LPR and DPR have been systematically bombed by Ukrainian Nationalists for 8 years and now Russians show videos of happy and smiling civilians hugging Russian soldiers as they enter the previously occupied by "Ukrainian occupants" territory and saying "hoping this is forever" (the civilians saying).
There are numerous videos taken by Ukrainian civilians from their homes showing Ukrainian solders placing rocket launchers and tanks in playgrounds between several multistory apartment complexes or between schools and therefore using civilians as a human shield (anyone wishing to see the videos, below are the youtube link from Russian news, I know it could be some Russian propaganda, but it could be true. It does help the authenticity that the videos are taken from a multistory apartment, the person behind the camera does speak Ukrainian and does name the army as the Ukrainian army. But, those could have been Russian old tanks in some Russian playgrounds, like a whole production going on, right?). The funny thing is, when Russia is trying to refute the clams that the rockets or shielded vehicles running over cars belong to Russia, they do mention that the weapon is outdated and is no longer utilized by the Russian Army but is still used by the Ukrainian Army.
A lot of videos of Donetsk still being bombed by Ukrainians, who strategically target schools, hospitals and water reservoirs and power plants. A lot of damage to buildings and some civilian casualties (I bet those videos are irrelevant since they portrait the wrong picture). One of the most memorable videos of a 70-80 yo grandma who was explaining to the reporter that those shell fragments from the Ukrainian rocket don't belong to Grad, and Grad shells are much more sharper (seems like a civilian with a lot of experience). The thing is, those videos are coming every day new, with new damage to buildings, new people, new fallen rockets, hard to imagine how much money and time would have been required to create those ahead of time with the current weather and stuff.
A video of bombing a dam that Ukrainians built to "cut off the fresh water supply to Crimea by damming a canal that had supplied 85% of the peninsula's needs before Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014." 'Hey, they annexed, they no longer require drinking water,' - I guess that's what human rights supporters said to themselves in 2014. Imagine Biden cutting water supply to Texas if they decide to annex.
I guess I wanted to introduce some additional sources of information. It seems like most people get their news from sources that aren't physically present in the area or if they are present, they sit in shelters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JggNEPMJqyk&t=965s
-
Here's the problem with a no-fly zone right now: to enforce it, the Ukrainian Air Force would have to be grounded, and right now they're still able to fly and bomb Russian troops. For our planes to patrol Ukrainian airspace, we'd have to feel secure from being shot at. We'd show up on Russian radar and be in range of their missiles. If a Russian unit decided to paint us with radar or actually take a shot at us, we'd destroy the launch site which would create an escalating response spiral. After a couple days it would be a full air war. If Russia kept their fingers off the trigger, they might still insist on fighting the Ukrainians right under our aircraft. Do we bomb them or just watch? If we watch, then that's a signal that we're just there to burn jet fuel and they'll continue fighting as if nothing changed.
But how long can the Ukrainian airforce hold out with their 37 MiG-29s and 32 Su-27s? Not that I believe that NATO wants to get involved in this war more than they already are.
A lot longer than anyone anticipated. As long as they have a few airfields and pick their battles carefully they can make use of what they have.
-
Anyone have any thoughts on the best non-profits to give money to to help out the Ukrainian people?
NPR posted a nice compilation of various ideas of how to help.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1082992947/ukraine-support-help
Also just a heads up (for everyone) on the slew of misinformation circulating online. I thought it was good of BBC to call this out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/60513452
Russia itself called this out during the UN meeting
-
Russia can't be making friends in Ukraine. So, if they do take over will there be continual resistance? It seems obvious that there will be. Killing people creates terrorists.
Ukraine has a large army and it seem as though they have the possibility of taking a large number of Russian troops. I just wonder if this will weaken Russia. They have been invading other countries for the last dozen years or more. They must have troops in these other countries. It would seem to be time for them to actively resist as well. I'm just wondering if Russia may be stretched thin by this latest military incursion.
It can't help Russia to have almost the entire world disagreeing with the invasion. To my knowledge there was no coalition. It was just the one country. Some of these Ukrainians have been proven to be very brave.
Just an FYI, it uses Belorus to enter the Ukraine on the 3rd front. So, no it's not one country per se. If you also count LPR and DPR fighting alongside Russians to free themselves. Plus, this conflict has been going on for 8 years (just because American and European news hasn't covered anything, it doesn't mean nothing was going on over there), Putin had 8 years to decide what to do, and if he'd decided to start a war, he'd calculated everything.
Russians do not kill civilians (they claim), plus they offer Ukrainian army posts to surrender and those have surrounded (ex. Zmeinyj Island) and Russians allowed them to board and made them sign a decree to not fight in this war.
However, there are many videos showing Ukrainians strategically (similar to terrorists around the world) placing their tanks and rocket launchers near multistory apartment buildings and schools and therefore using civilians as their human shields.
Also, Zelensky, Ukrainian president, has decided to distribute to civilians 25k of automatic weapons (and more than a mln bullets) without any accountability or requiring any documentation. So, any criminal could get an automatic weapon now in Ukraine. There was already a policeman and a driver of a semi killed as a result of some civilian vehicle opening fire and killing a policemen who wanted to stop the speeding car. A few Ukrainian soldiers were killed by civilian as a result of a mistaken identity. And that's only the beginning, I'm sure every Ukrainian civilian killed now would be blamed on Russia, but with mln bullets and 25k automatic weapons loose. And now also the European friends want to share their weapons with Ukraine.
I don't understand why Americans and Europe don't press Zelensky to cease fire and start peaceful negotiations. Do they really think that Ukraine should fight this battle? Why everyone is so obsessed with sanctions? Putin has ceased fire last night because Zelensky told him he's going to negotiate but then Zelensky didn't connect and used this time to align his own troops and share weapons.
I feel like there is something that I'm totally missing, since everyone is so bent on sanctions but absolutely forget cease fire and negotiation as a option in this case.
-
Where do I even begin...
plus they offer Ukrainian army posts to surrender and those have surrounded
They shelled an island that doesn't belong to them. You think they deserve a cookie for not slaughtering everybody? Ukrainians are taking plenty of prisoners as well. Many of whom stated they thought they were there for a training exercise.
Ukrainians strategically (similar to terrorists around the world) placing their tanks and rocket launchers near multistory apartment buildings and schools
The Russians invaded and they're driving into neighborhoods. Where apartment buildings exist. That's where the fighting is, so that's where the tanks are.
civilians 25k of automatic weapons (and more than a mln bullets) without any accountability or requiring any documentation.
The country is being invaded, and you're complaining about paperwork? They're concerned with their nation surviving to next weekend.
I don't understand why Americans and Europe don't press Zelensky to cease fire and start peaceful negotiations.
Why should he ask to negotiate? His country was invaded. He doesn't owe Russia anything.
Do they really think that Ukraine should fight this battle?
They were invaded.
Putin has ceased fire last night
Ukrainian forces attacked Chechen reinforcements as they entered the country last night. Russians troops advanced into Kharkov just a few hours ago. Nobody has declared a ceasefire.
used this time to align his own troops and share weapons.
They were invaded. Zelensky is moving his troops on his own soil. He doesn't need permission to do that.
absolutely forget cease fire and negotiation as a option in this case.
What's there to negotiate? Russians stop shooting. Russians stop advancing. Russians get out.
-
Also
Just an FYI, it uses Belorus to enter the Ukraine on the 3rd front. So, no it's not one country per se. If you also count LPR and DPR fighting alongside Russians to free themselves. Plus, this conflict has been going on for 8 years (just because American and European news hasn't covered anything, it doesn't mean nothing was going on over there), Putin had 8 years to decide what to do, and if he'd decided to start a war, he'd calculated everything.
Belarus is a dictatorship not a democracy and a client state of Russia with President Lukashenko as a Russian puppet. The Belarussian people got no say.
The Donbas (your "LPR" and "DPR" are part of Ukraine, and this was not disputed until Putin lost the plot last week. And free themselves from what? Democracy? The Donbas has always been a war by Russian proxies, and it's been a stalement for years. Putin tried some false flag operations there as a pretext for war but they were clearly faked and failed to convince anyone.
I feel like there is something that I'm totally missing.
An objective viewpoint? Even China isn' trying to defend Putin on this one.
-
Stop it with the no fly zone stuff. Nuclear powers do not engage directly, full stop. The US/EU will NOT do this, because the potential consequences are too severe.
-W
We have in the past, in fact I'd estimate over the 70 years we've directly more than 100 of each other citizens, and indirectly 10,000.
Let's review
in 1960 Col Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union, according to an account I read every single pilot in his U2 recon squadron was also attacked and two were hit, but landed in Turkey.
In the Vietnam war Russian pilots flew MIGs that shot down US, Russian technicians also manned North Vietnam SAM (Surface to Air), which destroyed 900 US Aircraft.
US attacked the SAM sites killing dozens of Russians
In 1972, the US mined the harbors of Hanoi, Haiphong will Russian ships were in port
The USSR was the primary weapons supplier to North Vietnam a war that killed 58,000 Americans
From 1979-1989 the US was the primary supplier to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the USSR lost nearly 15,000 in that war
In 1983 Russia shot down a US spy plane, which turned out to be a Korean Airliner, killing 62 US citizens.
From 1991 to 2002 the US maintained No fly zone over most of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a big customer of the USSR Air Defense, which were routinely manned by Soviet technicians. The SAM sites were also routinely destroyed by US planes, killing the Russians.
In 2018, Iranian militia and Russian contractors, attack US special forces and Syrian forces. Account very widely but most say around 25 Russians were killed.
This list ignores, the countless, SAM launches, missile locks, a couple of air-air collisions, and some near-collisions between US and Russian ships.
It also ignores special operations, where undoubtedly both sides killed each soldiers. It is also ignore spy operations, assassinations, and quite successful interference in the 2016 election.
In short the cold war was often pretty hot.
The assumption, that a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine would lead to an all-out air war, which in would turn lead to WWIII is faulty. We've spent 70 years figuring out how to avoid using nuclear weapons in some very tense situations. If we didn't go to war over ten of thousands of troops being sent home in body bags in Vietnam and Afghanistan, would Putin really start WWIII over even a 100 planes being shutdown? Would his military let him, or would they respond like Gen Milley did with Trump and work around a crazy man? These are all unknowable questions.
What we do know is this
1. Not having air superiority will make it much harder for Russia to take over Ukraine
2. Sanctions almost never work, and when they do like in South Africa they take decades. Ukrainians don't have decades they have days perhaps weeks before the Russians start blasting them with artillery, airstrikes and helicopter gunship
3. The chess proverb the threat is sometimes stronger than the execution applies to warfare. NATO doesn't necessarily need to implement a No-Fly zone, merely the credible threat may be sufficient to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
4. It is a very dangerous precedent to establish that as long as you have enough nuclear weapons, you can bully, and attack your neighbors with no fear of being attacked by conventional means.
-
It seems Russian propaganda has entered this site.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Russia can't be making friends in Ukraine. So, if they do take over will there be continual resistance? It seems obvious that there will be. Killing people creates terrorists.
Ukraine has a large army and it seem as though they have the possibility of taking a large number of Russian troops. I just wonder if this will weaken Russia. They have been invading other countries for the last dozen years or more. They must have troops in these other countries. It would seem to be time for them to actively resist as well. I'm just wondering if Russia may be stretched thin by this latest military incursion.
It can't help Russia to have almost the entire world disagreeing with the invasion. To my knowledge there was no coalition. It was just the one country. Some of these Ukrainians have been proven to be very brave.
Just an FYI, it uses Belorus to enter the Ukraine on the 3rd front. So, no it's not one country per se. If you also count LPR and DPR fighting alongside Russians to free themselves. Plus, this conflict has been going on for 8 years (just because American and European news hasn't covered anything, it doesn't mean nothing was going on over there), Putin had 8 years to decide what to do, and if he'd decided to start a war, he'd calculated everything.
Russians do not kill civilians (they claim), plus they offer Ukrainian army posts to surrender and those have surrounded (ex. Zmeinyj Island) and Russians allowed them to board and made them sign a decree to not fight in this war.
However, there are many videos showing Ukrainians strategically (similar to terrorists around the world) placing their tanks and rocket launchers near multistory apartment buildings and schools and therefore using civilians as their human shields.
Also, Zelensky, Ukrainian president, has decided to distribute to civilians 25k of automatic weapons (and more than a mln bullets) without any accountability or requiring any documentation. So, any criminal could get an automatic weapon now in Ukraine. There was already a policeman and a driver of a semi killed as a result of some civilian vehicle opening fire and killing a policemen who wanted to stop the speeding car. A few Ukrainian soldiers were killed by civilian as a result of a mistaken identity. And that's only the beginning, I'm sure every Ukrainian civilian killed now would be blamed on Russia, but with mln bullets and 25k automatic weapons loose. And now also the European friends want to share their weapons with Ukraine.
I don't understand why Americans and Europe don't press Zelensky to cease fire and start peaceful negotiations. Do they really think that Ukraine should fight this battle? Why everyone is so obsessed with sanctions? Putin has ceased fire last night because Zelensky told him he's going to negotiate but then Zelensky didn't connect and used this time to align his own troops and share weapons.
I feel like there is something that I'm totally missing, since everyone is so bent on sanctions but absolutely forget cease fire and negotiation as a option in this case.
Ukraine ceasefire? Why are you posting Russian propaganda? Its insulting to read this and sounds straight from the Kremlin.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Putin has just asked his nuclear forces to be put on "special alert".
The pictures shown of him today seem to show him very full in the face. Is he on steroids?
ETA: The BBC is saying that "special alert" is the highest level. The order was given to 2 military men who nodded agreement.
-
Russia can't be making friends in Ukraine. So, if they do take over will there be continual resistance? It seems obvious that there will be. Killing people creates terrorists.
Ukraine has a large army and it seem as though they have the possibility of taking a large number of Russian troops. I just wonder if this will weaken Russia. They have been invading other countries for the last dozen years or more. They must have troops in these other countries. It would seem to be time for them to actively resist as well. I'm just wondering if Russia may be stretched thin by this latest military incursion.
It can't help Russia to have almost the entire world disagreeing with the invasion. To my knowledge there was no coalition. It was just the one country. Some of these Ukrainians have been proven to be very brave.
Just an FYI, it uses Belorus to enter the Ukraine on the 3rd front. So, no it's not one country per se. If you also count LPR and DPR fighting alongside Russians to free themselves. Plus, this conflict has been going on for 8 years (just because American and European news hasn't covered anything, it doesn't mean nothing was going on over there), Putin had 8 years to decide what to do, and if he'd decided to start a war, he'd calculated everything.
Russians do not kill civilians (they claim), plus they offer Ukrainian army posts to surrender and those have surrounded (ex. Zmeinyj Island) and Russians allowed them to board and made them sign a decree to not fight in this war.
However, there are many videos showing Ukrainians strategically (similar to terrorists around the world) placing their tanks and rocket launchers near multistory apartment buildings and schools and therefore using civilians as their human shields.
Also, Zelensky, Ukrainian president, has decided to distribute to civilians 25k of automatic weapons (and more than a mln bullets) without any accountability or requiring any documentation. So, any criminal could get an automatic weapon now in Ukraine. There was already a policeman and a driver of a semi killed as a result of some civilian vehicle opening fire and killing a policemen who wanted to stop the speeding car. A few Ukrainian soldiers were killed by civilian as a result of a mistaken identity. And that's only the beginning, I'm sure every Ukrainian civilian killed now would be blamed on Russia, but with mln bullets and 25k automatic weapons loose. And now also the European friends want to share their weapons with Ukraine.
I don't understand why Americans and Europe don't press Zelensky to cease fire and start peaceful negotiations. Do they really think that Ukraine should fight this battle? Why everyone is so obsessed with sanctions? Putin has ceased fire last night because Zelensky told him he's going to negotiate but then Zelensky didn't connect and used this time to align his own troops and share weapons.
I feel like there is something that I'm totally missing, since everyone is so bent on sanctions but absolutely forget cease fire and negotiation as a option in this case.
Your post is quite offensive, to be frank. Others have dissected it well, but I would add to the comment on the bolded part...are you serious? I can't think of a good analogy, but this is mildly akin to someone having a baseball bat in their home in case someone breaks in to hurt their family and someone else declaring that they are using their kids as human shields by having that baseball bat there. It's not a problem if no one tries to break into their house and kill them.
Also, as former player said, even the Chinese are not defending Putin, which is indicative of the level of worldwide support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia. Sometimes you have to wait for months or years to determine if you are on the right or wrong side of history. It can definitively be said that this point of view is on the wrong side of history just days into it happening.
-
It seems Russian propaganda has entered this site.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sure looks that way, doesn't it? ‘Don’t call it a war’ – propaganda filters the truth about Ukraine on Russian media (UK Guardian, February 26, 2022) (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/propaganda-filters-truth-ukraine-war-russian-media)
I recommend laying off of the Russian state news sites. They certainly don't match the first-hand accounts that several of my friends have gotten from loved ones who have fled Ukraine as refugees or remained to fight for their home. The insinuation that Russian propaganda should influence how we view this humanitarian crisis is, quite frankly, insulting.
-
It seems Russian propaganda has entered this site.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Yes it has.
-
If Russian propaganda has entered here, how far do they go? I mean this is primarily a money thing here. Have they hit other sites like Reddit?
I can't understand anyone defending them. They have a Democracy hijacked by a batshit crazy ex KGB agent. He tried to poison his opposition leader and I guess he has sent him to the Gulag now. I guess since Stalin times they've learned to be really good at lying to their own people and others. And, I hardly pay attention to the news.
-
If Russian propaganda has entered here, how far do they go? I mean this is primarily a money thing here. Have they hit other sites like Reddit?
I can't understand anyone defending them. They have a Democracy hijacked by a batshit crazy ex KGB agent. He tried to poison his opposition leader and I guess he has sent him to the Gulag now. I guess since Stalin times they've learned to be really good at lying to their own people and others. And, I hardly pay attention to the news.
I think it's more a semi-regular poster who's been heavily influenced by Russian propaganda and is parroting the state's lies.
-
If Russian propaganda has entered here, how far do they go? I mean this is primarily a money thing here. Have they hit other sites like Reddit?
I can't understand anyone defending them. They have a Democracy hijacked by a batshit crazy ex KGB agent. He tried to poison his opposition leader and I guess he has sent him to the Gulag now. I guess since Stalin times they've learned to be really good at lying to their own people and others. And, I hardly pay attention to the news.
I think it's more a semi-regular poster who's been heavily influenced by Russian propaganda and is parroting the state's lies.
A useful idiot, in other words.
-
Putin has just asked his nuclear forces to be put on "special alert".
The pictures shown of him today seem to show him very full in the face. Is he on steroids?
ETA: The BBC is saying that "special alert" is the highest level. The order was given to 2 military men who nodded agreement.
I've heard it theorized that he may have started taking a new med that changed his personality.
-
Putin has just asked his nuclear forces to be put on "special alert".
The pictures shown of him today seem to show him very full in the face. Is he on steroids?
ETA: The BBC is saying that "special alert" is the highest level. The order was given to 2 military men who nodded agreement.
I've heard it theorized that he may have started taking a new med that changed his personality.
The fine and mystic art of kremlinology is back again. :)
-
Something is definitely wrong with his mind.
The whole operation is already a huge embarrassment for Mr Putin.
It looks almost as if they got a mole inside that is sabotaging the effort.
I mean who in their right mind would drive several hundred units worth of mobile assets into enemy territory only to turn them into stationary targets by not giving them fuel.
Now his major effort in Russia is to forbid referring to the Ukraine war as "war".
The logic is compelling: if its not called a war one can´t lose a war, I guess.
Funny little man.
-
I'm not encouraging people to compulsively spend all day looking at every bit of news out of Ukraine that they can find. I will however note that if you did want to do that my daily routine is something like:
1. Check the NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/)
2. Check the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/)
3. Check https://liveuamap.com (https://liveuamap.com)
4. Check the Suchomimus YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXZs3e_VSlYgrUuTqm3GgVA) (it's just every cam-phone video that they can get their hands on)
5. Try to get some work done
6. Check the Ukraine section of funker530.com (https://funker530.com/category/ukraine/). There won't be much here that isn't in the Suchomimus YouTube channel but there are a few things in here that YouTube won't allow you to post. Which is to say kind of graphic. On second thought maybe just check this instead of the YouTube channel because there is more explanation about what you are seeing.
If you are a US (or European) citizen I would encourage you to write your elected representatives and demand immediate oil sanctions on Russia.
Additional sources. And these have the benefit of being free.
https://kyivindependent.com/ - English language Kyiv based newspaper
https://twitter.com/DeepNetAnon - if you're curious what the hackers are doing
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official - Zelensky's official facebook page, and they've started uploading videos w/English subtitles, just have to wait a bit, or go looking for another translation. There was a youtube site doing it but he seems to have stopped.
There are a number of other facebook pages - military, etc, but I don't have links for them. These are official, verified pages, which has its pros and cons. However, they're all in Ukranian/Russian (I can't tell the difference between the languages).
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/ - gets some stuff, there is also another subreddit more devoted to videos/images of the damage. I am not seeking those out. There's also frequently English translations that people do of the videos or anything you can't copy/paste. I'm sure the translation quality isn't the best but its better than nothing.
Of course, for anything that you can copy and paste, Google translate is helpful.
-
Something is definitely wrong with his mind.
The whole operation is already a huge embarrassment for Mr Putin.
It looks almost as if they got a mole inside that is sabotaging the effort.
I mean who in their right mind would drive several hundred units worth of mobile assets into enemy territory only to turn them into stationary targets by not giving them fuel.
Now his major effort in Russia is to forbid referring to the Ukraine war as "war".
The logic is compelling: if its not called a war one can´t lose a war, I guess.
Funny little man.
I assume the rationale was a 1–2 day Blitzkrieg operation, at which point the Russian soldiers would have full control over and access to supplies in Ukraine. Clearly that didn't go as planned.
I do wonder if/when someone in Putin's cabinet/inner circle will turn against him. They're all wealthy and powerful, and remaining associated with him will hurt them in future. At some point, the self-preservation instinct may kick in.
-
Live updates: Canada joins Europe, closes airspace to Russia (AP News, February 27, 2022) (https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-spacex-kyiv-business-united-nations-c5b7eb2355aff4f7f6c18b4c705dbe08)
Regarding free news sites, AP News (https://apnews.com/) is another highly reliable and free source of news, as is Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/). I also get useful news from BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news) and The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us).
-
There are 1-2 videos on Zelenski's facebook page, they don't have English translations on the videos, but the accompanying text can be translated (if poorly - screwdrivers?!?). It seems that talks have been agreed upon.
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official - currently the top 2 videos.
"We have agreed that the Ukrainian delegation will meet with Russian without prior conditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, in the area of the Pripyat river.
Alexander Lukashenko took responsibility for the fact that at the time of the departure, negotiations and return of the Ukrainian delegation, all planes, helicopters and missiles placed on the Belarusian territory will remain on the ground." (FB's translation)
Please cross your fingers for a real ceasefire, that is fair to Ukraine.
-
There are 1-2 videos on Zelenski's facebook page, they don't have English translations on the videos, but the accompanying text can be translated (if poorly - screwdrivers?!?). It seems that talks have been agreed upon.
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official - currently the top 2 videos.
"We have agreed that the Ukrainian delegation will meet with Russian without prior conditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, in the area of the Pripyat river.
Alexander Lukashenko took responsibility for the fact that at the time of the departure, negotiations and return of the Ukrainian delegation, all planes, helicopters and missiles placed on the Belarusian territory will remain on the ground." (FB's translation)
Please cross your fingers for a real ceasefire, that is fair to Ukraine.
What are the odds that Russia comes to the talks and says, my bad we will lay down our arms and leave your country?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
There are 1-2 videos on Zelenski's facebook page, they don't have English translations on the videos, but the accompanying text can be translated (if poorly - screwdrivers?!?). It seems that talks have been agreed upon.
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official - currently the top 2 videos.
"We have agreed that the Ukrainian delegation will meet with Russian without prior conditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, in the area of the Pripyat river.
Alexander Lukashenko took responsibility for the fact that at the time of the departure, negotiations and return of the Ukrainian delegation, all planes, helicopters and missiles placed on the Belarusian territory will remain on the ground." (FB's translation)
Please cross your fingers for a real ceasefire, that is fair to Ukraine.
Perhaps he is buying time for a better organized second assault. I can't imagine the Russians negotiating in good faith.
-
Turkish officials, in a reversal, label Russia’s invasion a ‘war.’ (NY Times, February 27, 2022) (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/26/world/ukraine-russia-war/turkish-officials-in-a-reversal-label-russias-invasion-a-war)
Turkey will implement a 1936 international treaty that would potentially ban both Ukrainian and Russian warships from passing through the straits connecting the Black Sea to the south, Turkey's top diplomat said on Sunday.
Turkey said it had decided that the invasion of Ukraine and the resulting fighting constituted a war. The word “war” allows Turkey to close the straits to vessels of the countries involved.
“To be honest, we have reached the conclusion that this now turned into war,” Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said in a televised interview on the CNN Turk news network.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497573395508174856
How are these convoys getting destroyed? Abandoned by the Russians for lack of fuel and torched by Ukrainian infantry? Taken out by airstrike? Ambushed by irregulars with molotovs?
It seems remarkable that Russia is allowing this to happen.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497573395508174856
How are these convoys getting destroyed? Abandoned by the Russians for lack of fuel and torched by Ukrainian infantry? Taken out by airstrike? Ambushed by irregulars with molotovs?
It seems remarkable that Russia is allowing this to happen.
Russia most certainly is not "allowing" this to happen - they happen to be in a position where they cannot prevent it from happening.
What we are seeing is the hidden rot of the Russian military now exposed for all to see.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497573395508174856
How are these convoys getting destroyed? Abandoned by the Russians for lack of fuel and torched by Ukrainian infantry? Taken out by airstrike? Ambushed by irregulars with molotovs?
It seems remarkable that Russia is allowing this to happen.
Russia most certainly is not "allowing" this to happen - they happen to be in a position where they cannot prevent it from happening.
What we are seeing is the hidden rot of the Russian military now exposed for all to see.
Which is only making it more embarrassing for Putin...which in turn makes me more nervous that he'll do something stupid out of embarrassment. I hope I'm wrong.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497573395508174856
How are these convoys getting destroyed? Abandoned by the Russians for lack of fuel and torched by Ukrainian infantry? Taken out by airstrike? Ambushed by irregulars with molotovs?
Probably "all of the above." The Ukrainians have Skif (ATGM), FGM-148 Javelin, and MBT LAW anti-tank missiles. They also have Soviet-era RPG-7s and an airforce that is so far still operational. Not to mention artillery and their own tanks.
-
Considering that Putin was “in talks” right up until the moment he started this war, I wouldn’t hold my breath that his current agreement to more talks means anything at all. In fact, given his directions re nuclear weapons, I’m fearful that this is another ruse to appear reasonable, and distract, while he’s pushing the button. Hope to god I’m wrong.
-
Considering that Putin was “in talks” right up until the moment he started this war, I wouldn’t hold my breath that his current agreement to more talks means anything at all. In fact, given his directions re nuclear weapons, I’m fearful that this is another ruse to appear reasonable, and distract, while he’s pushing the button. Hope to god I’m wrong.
Maybe - even if he gave the order that more sane Russians below him may just tell him "Nyet." I sure hope so. I remember there was this concern about Trump.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497573395508174856
How are these convoys getting destroyed? Abandoned by the Russians for lack of fuel and torched by Ukrainian infantry? Taken out by airstrike? Ambushed by irregulars with molotovs?
It seems remarkable that Russia is allowing this to happen.
Ukraine has lots of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) provided by the US and Europe (plus their own production). They also have Turkish UAVs like the TB2. Those were used very successfully in the most recent Nagorno-Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Turkish-backed Azeris handily defeated the Russian-backed Armenians with heavy use of these UAVs.
The Russians have fallen into the trap of just driving convoys along the roads at relatively high speed which means they're very vulnerable to attack. Armored vehicles need to be used in combination with infantry to keep enemy Soldiers with ATGMs at a distance. The tanks and armored personnel carriers provide long-range firepower and the infantry provide close in protection. The US made the same mistake in the Korean War and the Russians did this in Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497573395508174856
How are these convoys getting destroyed? Abandoned by the Russians for lack of fuel and torched by Ukrainian infantry? Taken out by airstrike? Ambushed by irregulars with molotovs?
Probably "all of the above." The Ukrainians have Skif (ATGM), FGM-148 Javelin, and MBT LAW anti-tank missiles. They also have Soviet-era RPG-7s and an airforce that is so far still operational. Not to mention artillery and their own tanks.
Anti-armor teams in urban terrain are devastating when the enemy isn't bothering with infantry support for that armor. The countryside should be swarming with Russian infantry, but there isn't any. They're sticking to the highways and either getting in traffic jams or running out of fuel. If the Ukrainian air force was a little bit bigger we'd see Desert Storm levels of destroyed vehicles on the roads. It really feels like the Russian army just didn't show up for this one. Nearly every POW has stated they thought they were either on a training exercise or liberating the country and didn't expect a fight. Whole scout platoons have been wiped out to a man for lack of artillery or air support. Russian special forces were filmed looting a grocery store for lack of food, and last night a Russian tank driver was arrested because he walked to a police station to ask for fuel. Ukrainian government is feeding their prisoners and letting them call their mothers. The consensus from home appears to be bewilderment. Russian state media is calling this a "limited defensive operation" that has taken no casualties. Ukrainian officials are taking credit for 5,000 dead, 200 POWs, 20 aircraft, and several hundred vehicles of all shapes and sizes. I haven't been able to confirm it yet, but I caught a headline that Putin fired General Gerasimov, who was the architect of every Russian operation for the last 10 years.
Russian citizens woke up this morning to their currency's value being cut in half. There's a run on ATMs in Moscow. Apparently this operation is costing enough that the government will go broke if it doesn't end in the next two weeks (and that's before sanctions).
-
Do you notice how much of the Ukrainian communication/propaganda is aimed at Russian mothers? According to some Polish people I talked to, there is a theory that mothers of soldiers are the ones who might be able to turn the Russian public opinion on the war.
-
Considering that Putin was “in talks” right up until the moment he started this war, I wouldn’t hold my breath that his current agreement to more talks means anything at all. In fact, given his directions re nuclear weapons, I’m fearful that this is another ruse to appear reasonable, and distract, while he’s pushing the button. Hope to god I’m wrong.
Maybe - even if he gave the order that more sane Russians below him may just tell him "Nyet." I sure hope so. I remember there was this concern about Trump.
I hope so too. I'm certain that he didn't expect to still be fighting today, and he's not going to take failure well.
-
Do you notice how much of the Ukrainian communication/propaganda is aimed at Russian mothers? According to some Polish people I talked to, there is a theory that mothers of soldiers are the ones who might be able to turn the Russian public opinion on the war.
There is literally an NGO around this exact issue that was formed back when the Soviet Union was fighting in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Committees_of_Soldiers%27_Mothers_of_Russia
-
Nearly every POW has stated they thought they were either on a training exercise or liberating the country and didn't expect a fight.
Indeed, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nifxKIhFSuw) is the most embarrassing one I've seen yet. But there is some survivorship bias here. You don't see the videos of the Spetsnaz, presumably because they didn't surrender. I've seen some speculation among US combat veterans that Putin didn't send his A-team, but that Russia does (somewhere) have an A-team. In fact Russia has north of 10k Spetsnaz soldiers.
-
It kind of amazes me that Russian soldiers, or any Russian, for that matter, believe anything the government tells them. You would think they’d know better by now.
-
It kind of amazes me that Russian soldiers, or any Russian, for that matter, believe anything the government tells them. You would think they’d know better by now.
Some of these guys are 18 year old conscripts.
-
Interesting thread (long):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497993363076915204.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497993363076915204.html)
-
Well at least this is funny:
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640
Ukrainian passer-by offers out-of-gas Russians a tow back to Russia (full translation available in the comments)
-
Interesting thread (long):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497993363076915204.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497993363076915204.html)
Good writing and videos. The videos showed Ukrainians are inflicting a lot of damage. One thing the author did not mention is demographics. Russia has a shrinking population. They have relatively less people available to wage war than they used to.
Those Ukrainians were certainly smart. To have the young soldiers call their moms has a real ripple effect. It is a definite PR problem for Putin.
Then you have this brave man, Zelenskyy out in the open and I guess Putin is hiding in the Urals. It makes him look bad.
-
It seems that countries are willing to send pretty much anything to Ukraine to help, except active troops (for obvious reasons). Case in point: fighter jets.
https://www.barrons.com/news/eu-countries-to-send-fighter-jets-to-ukraine-borrell-01645994409
Let's hope a few extra planes help them out.
Speaking of planes.... the rumors of the Ghost of Kyiv have slightly resurged (mostly war propaganda). Regardless, let's hope their air force does well.
https://twitter.com/poroshenko/status/1497293195763408905 <---- the poster is the former president of Ukraine, but the picture traces to an old pic on the Ukrainian FB page when they stated they were testing a new helmet.
-
Nearly every POW has stated they thought they were either on a training exercise or liberating the country and didn't expect a fight.
Indeed, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nifxKIhFSuw) is the most embarrassing one I've seen yet. But there is some survivorship bias here. You don't see the videos of the Spetsnaz, presumably because they didn't surrender. I've seen some speculation among US combat veterans that Putin didn't send his A-team, but that Russia does (somewhere) have an A-team. In fact Russia has north of 10k Spetsnaz soldiers.
Elements of the "A Team" were sent in ahead of time disguised in Ukrainian uniforms to conduct sabotage and mark targets for the Russian air force. They've been battled and captured in large numbers as well. There's a photo out there of a dozen laying down handcuffed with their weapons in a pile.
Zelevsky agreed to begin negotiations on the Belarussian border. Two hours later Belarus decided to join the war. As I type this their aircraft are attacking.
-
At what point does Putin get so spooked by the Russians’ defeat that he launched a nuke at someone? Hopefully the people around him can intervene before this spreads. It’s so irrational I fear it could get out of control even with a careful response from Ukraine and NATO.
-
Somehow I came across this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1fuhKwXVA
Interesting perspective on alternative facts. I know nothing about the nazi assertions made by Putin or the history of what's going on in eastern Ukraine. And, of course this video could be 100% lies and fabricated. But, thought I'd share here because it's clear many of you have a great understanding of what's going on.
-
Somehow I came across this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1fuhKwXVA
Interesting perspective on alternative facts. I know nothing about the nazi assertions made by Putin or the history of what's going on in eastern Ukraine. And, of course this video could be 100% lies and fabricated. But, thought I'd share here because it's clear many of you have a great understanding of what's going on.
A single battalion of the Ukrainian army from the eastern region self-identifies as neo-Nazi. So that's less than 1,000 people out of 40 million. Putin calls the government "Nazi" even though President Zelevsky is Jewish and most of his male relatives died in concentration camps.
-
Somehow I came across this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1fuhKwXVA
Interesting perspective on alternative facts. I know nothing about the nazi assertions made by Putin or the history of what's going on in eastern Ukraine. And, of course this video could be 100% lies and fabricated. But, thought I'd share here because it's clear many of you have a great understanding of what's going on.
I don't know everything about this, obviously. I will say that when the 2014 war started they took whoever they could get, and Azov Battalion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion) was one of those groups. But one of the conditions of US military aid was to get the irregular forces out of combat and so they were supposedly absorbed into the Ukrainian military and de-politicized.
-
We have our own neo-Nazis in the USA, including some in the military. Does that give Putin the right to declare war on us?
We need to stop judging by the extremes and look for common ground. Just as we in the USA have more in common than our differences, Russians and Ukrainians share much in common. It's disconcerting that a demagogue can take a nation over the edge. We are still on the edge, even with all our checks and balances.
-
Somehow I came across this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1fuhKwXVA
Interesting perspective on alternative facts. I know nothing about the nazi assertions made by Putin or the history of what's going on in eastern Ukraine. And, of course this video could be 100% lies and fabricated. But, thought I'd share here because it's clear many of you have a great understanding of what's going on.
I don't know everything about this, obviously. I will say that when the 2014 war started they took whoever they could get, and Azov Battalion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion) was one of those groups. But one of the conditions of US military aid was to get the irregular forces out of combat and so they were supposedly absorbed into the Ukrainian military and de-politicized.
Putin's war justifications have been straight out of Hitler's playbook for the last 20 years. The Chechens won their autonomy in 1995, but then Putin came to power and the Chechens started blowing up stuff left and right for some reason. Putin sends the army back in and burns Grozny to the ground killing tens of thousands on both sides, with most of the Russian casualties dying from "training accidents." In 2008 he sent the army in to annex South Ossetia and save the Russians living there from those mean old Georgians who were interested in NATO. He took Crimea because "its really Russia" and staged a vote to legitimize it the next day. Shortly thereafter eastern Ukraine rebels using Russian weapons, Russian advisors, and Russian troops to save those oppressed Russians living there. And here we are today. All of Ukraine apparently needs to be overthrown because of some Nazi menace. It's a good thing Vladimir Putin is around to come to the rescue of all these persecuted Russians, isn't it?
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
"In 1991, Svoboda was founded as the Social-National Party of Ukraine.[65] The party combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features.[66][67][68] It was renamed and rebranded 13 years later as All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda in 2004 under Oleh Tyahnybok. In 2016, The Nation reported that "in Ukrainian municipal elections held [in October 2015], the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party's candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop."[69] The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed on his car and has refused to display the city's official flag because it contains a star of David, and has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.[66]
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism and its alleged relationship to neo-Nazism came to the fore in polemics about the more radical elements involved in the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russo-Ukrainian War from 2013 onward.[68] Some Russian, Latin American, U.S. and Israeli media have attempted to portray the Ukrainian nationalists in the conflict as neo-Nazi.[70] The main Ukrainian organisations involved with a neo-Banderaite legacy are Right Sector,[71] Svoboda and Azov Battalion. The persons regarded as Ukraine's national heroes—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—at times supported and then opposed the presence of the Third Reich in Ukraine.[72][73] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Ukraine
"In the early 2010s Jewish organizations in and outside of Ukraine have accused the political party All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" of open Nazi sympathies and being antisemitic.[25] In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress listed the party as neo-Nazi.[26] "Svoboda" itself has denied being antisemitic.[27] In the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary elections "Svoboda" won its first seats in the Ukrainian Parliament,[28] garnering 10.44% of the popular vote and the 4th most seats among national political parties.[29] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party got 6 parliamentary seats (it won 4.71% of the popular vote in this election).[30] In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list, these were the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps.[31] But in the election this combination won 2.15% of the votes, less than half of the 5% election threshold, and thus no parliamentary seats via the national party list.[32] Svoboda itself did win one constituency seat, in Ivano-Frankivsk.[32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Ukraine
Bandera cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, and organized OUN expeditionary groups. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv, pledging to work with Nazi Germany.[4][5] For his refusal to rescind the decree, Bandera was arrested by the Gestapo, which put him under house arrest on 5 July 1941,[6] and later between 1942 and 1943[7] sent him to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[8] In 1944, with Germany rapidly losing ground in the war in the face of the advancing Allied armies, Bandera was released in the hope that he would be instrumental in deterring the advancing Soviet forces. He set up the headquarters of the re-established Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, which worked underground. He settled with his family in West Germany where he remained the leader of the OUN-B and worked with several anti-communist organizations such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations[9][10] as well as with the British intelligence agencies.[9] Fourteen years after the end of the war, Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by KGB agents in Munich.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
And with regards to the Republics in Eastern Ukraine, under international law they had no right to declare themselves independent in the first place, so Ukraine had every right to try to gain control over their territory again. Imagine what would happen if an American state would declare themselves independent, unilaterally. Actually, we've seen what happened. The American president did exactly what the president of Ukraine is doing now. Trying to control their own territory again.
-
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
If he's successful in Ukraine, we may see him use exactly that logic to invade the Baltics.
-
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
If he's successful in Ukraine, we may see him use exactly that logic to invade the Baltics.
That logic would allow him to invade both the US and Canada.
-
New video up on Zelensky's FB page. Summary:
1. They survived the night (that was my reaction!)
2. They're asking to be admitted to the EU
3. Appeal to Russian people
4. They're releasing some prisoners who have relevant experience and are letting them fight.
Probably missed some, I'm trying to eat breakfast at the same time.
From other things I've seen briefly, it appears that a couple cities are under Russian control now.
@kenmoremmm I know nothing either. I'm just trying to follow along, hoping Ukraine survives every day, hoping Russia doesn't use nukes, and trying to learn more. And being very careful with my sources, being very skeptical of what I see.
Edit: And a hacker group based in Belarus is claiming to have hacked and stopped some trains to slow down the Russians. They said the computers were Windows XP. If you scroll down the comments, my impression is that other hackers are going to be joining that party because Windows XP.... is old, known, and therefore, easily hacked.
https://twitter.com/vxunderground/status/1498143865894752259
-
New video up on Zelensky's FB page. Summary:
1. They survived the night (that was my reaction!)
2. They're asking to be admitted to the EU
3. Appeal to Russian people
4. They're releasing some prisoners who have relevant experience and are letting them fight.
Probably missed some, I'm trying to eat breakfast at the same time.
From other things I've seen briefly, it appears that a couple cities are under Russian control now.
@kenmoremmm I know nothing either. I'm just trying to follow along, hoping Ukraine survives every day, hoping Russia doesn't use nukes, and trying to learn more. And being very careful with my sources, being very skeptical of what I see.
Edit: And a hacker group based in Belarus is claiming to have hacked and stopped some trains to slow down the Russians. They said the computers were Windows XP. If you scroll down the comments, my impression is that other hackers are going to be joining that party because Windows XP.... is old, known, and therefore, easily hacked.
https://twitter.com/vxunderground/status/1498143865894752259
There's that Soviet technological superiority. Jesus. Windows XP was old 10 years ago when I had to deal with it on lab computers.
-
EU is offering membership to Ukraine.
Hackers found several Russian military radio frequencies because the idiots are transmitting in the clear.
Putin is done trying to preserve Ukrainian infrastructure. BM-30 SMERCH strike into a Kharkov apartment block about an hour ago.
https://twitter.com/YWNReporter/status/1498271572292952064?s=20&t=KXLkE4_FXvpdFTG-f6HvVA (https://twitter.com/YWNReporter/status/1498271572292952064?s=20&t=KXLkE4_FXvpdFTG-f6HvVA)
-
It kind of amazes me that Russian soldiers, or any Russian, for that matter, believe anything the government tells them. You would think they’d know better by now.
Some people in this country believe that Trump won the election and Jan 6 was a legitimate political discourse. If you control the media you control what people believe.
-
Let us not forget that Ukraine has several hundred thousand (400k?) veteran reservists with relatively recent combat experience and I understand that 100k have just been called up.
Together with dramatically increased weapons imports from the EU, this translates to a rapidly growing threat for Putin´s military.
-
Well at least this is funny:
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640
Ukrainian passer-by offers out-of-gas Russians a tow back to Russia (full translation available in the comments)
I'll need to look for the video but the Russians were spooked by a Ukranian museum tank on display at a war memorial and opened fire on it as they raced through town.
Wonder if the Russian soldiers are feeling a bit cynical about now?
-
Together with dramatically increased weapons imports from the EU, this translates to a rapidly growing threat for Putin´s military.
If the Ukrainian estimates are correct, more Russian soldiers have now been killed in a few days than the USA and it's coalition partners lost over almost two decades in Iraq.
-
EU is offering membership to Ukraine.
I hope that they get it, but it takes unanimous consent and usually a multi-year on-boarding process.
-
Just read a headline that Zelensky signed the application for membership...think they may fast-track this one
-
Just read a headline that Zelensky signed the application for membership...think they may fast-track this one
"Indeed over time, they belong to us. They are one of us and we want them in," von der Leyen told Euronews. - Reuters: EU chief says bloc wants Ukraine as member (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-chief-says-bloc-wants-ukraine-member-they-are-one-us-2022-02-28/)
There are actually a bunch of metrics for being admitted. Not having ongoing border disputes and roving bands of armed militia are a couple of them. Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge they'd be admitted, but I'm concerned that this is like that NATO promise that never materialized.
-
Just read a headline that Zelensky signed the application for membership...think they may fast-track this one
"Indeed over time, they belong to us. They are one of us and we want them in," von der Leyen told Euronews. - Reuters: EU chief says bloc wants Ukraine as member (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-chief-says-bloc-wants-ukraine-member-they-are-one-us-2022-02-28/)
There are actually a bunch of metrics for being admitted. Not having ongoing border disputes and roving bands of armed militia are a couple of them. Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge they'd be admitted, but I'm concerned that this is like that NATO promise that never materialized.
The territorial issues can be worked around, as they were when Cyprus was admitted. It's a question of political will, and the good will for Ukraine in Europe is there at the moment- Putin bringing a hot war to the borders of the EU has concentrated minds wonderfully.
It's interesting that it is the EU that is taking the lead in the international response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that after the first day or so the USA has been relatively passive, and a follower not a leader. This could be a turning point in the world order.
-
Just read a headline that Zelensky signed the application for membership...think they may fast-track this one
"Indeed over time, they belong to us. They are one of us and we want them in," von der Leyen told Euronews. - Reuters: EU chief says bloc wants Ukraine as member (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-chief-says-bloc-wants-ukraine-member-they-are-one-us-2022-02-28/)
There are actually a bunch of metrics for being admitted. Not having ongoing border disputes and roving bands of armed militia are a couple of them. Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge they'd be admitted, but I'm concerned that this is like that NATO promise that never materialized.
The territorial issues can be worked around, as they were when Cyprus was admitted. It's a question of political will, and the good will for Ukraine in Europe is there at the moment- Putin bringing a hot war to the borders of the EU has concentrated minds wonderfully.
It's interesting that it is the EU that is taking the lead in the international response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that after the first day or so the USA has been relatively passive, and a follower not a leader. This could be a turning point in the world order.
This seems like good strategy. Having the USA as the lead in opposition to Putin plays into the propaganda and converts Ukraine into a proxy war. Regardless, I see a strong and unified EU as a good thing.
-
Just read a headline that Zelensky signed the application for membership...think they may fast-track this one
Given that there is an EU mutual defense clause, if they admitted Ukraine the other countries would be obliged to take up arms against Russia. I don't think there is any way in hell they would do that. It would be an enormous escalation.
-
Just read a headline that Zelensky signed the application for membership...think they may fast-track this one
Given that there is an EU mutual defense clause, if they admitted Ukraine the other countries would be obliged to take up arms against Russia. I don't think there is any way in hell they would do that. It would be an enormous escalation.
If Ukraine is able to do as well with Russia as they have, I would think crazy Putin would have to think about doing a true diplomatic dance before taking the might of a united Europe on.
It's good the US is sitting this one somewhat out. I have become concerned since the Neocon days when some of G W. Bush's people spoke of US 'Empire;. That just sounded sooooooo wrong.
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
"In 1991, Svoboda was founded as the Social-National Party of Ukraine.[65] The party combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features.[66][67][68] It was renamed and rebranded 13 years later as All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda in 2004 under Oleh Tyahnybok. In 2016, The Nation reported that "in Ukrainian municipal elections held [in October 2015], the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party's candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop."[69] The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed on his car and has refused to display the city's official flag because it contains a star of David, and has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.[66]
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism and its alleged relationship to neo-Nazism came to the fore in polemics about the more radical elements involved in the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russo-Ukrainian War from 2013 onward.[68] Some Russian, Latin American, U.S. and Israeli media have attempted to portray the Ukrainian nationalists in the conflict as neo-Nazi.[70] The main Ukrainian organisations involved with a neo-Banderaite legacy are Right Sector,[71] Svoboda and Azov Battalion. The persons regarded as Ukraine's national heroes—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—at times supported and then opposed the presence of the Third Reich in Ukraine.[72][73] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Ukraine
"In the early 2010s Jewish organizations in and outside of Ukraine have accused the political party All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" of open Nazi sympathies and being antisemitic.[25] In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress listed the party as neo-Nazi.[26] "Svoboda" itself has denied being antisemitic.[27] In the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary elections "Svoboda" won its first seats in the Ukrainian Parliament,[28] garnering 10.44% of the popular vote and the 4th most seats among national political parties.[29] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party got 6 parliamentary seats (it won 4.71% of the popular vote in this election).[30] In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list, these were the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps.[31] But in the election this combination won 2.15% of the votes, less than half of the 5% election threshold, and thus no parliamentary seats via the national party list.[32] Svoboda itself did win one constituency seat, in Ivano-Frankivsk.[32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Ukraine
Bandera cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, and organized OUN expeditionary groups. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv, pledging to work with Nazi Germany.[4][5] For his refusal to rescind the decree, Bandera was arrested by the Gestapo, which put him under house arrest on 5 July 1941,[6] and later between 1942 and 1943[7] sent him to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[8] In 1944, with Germany rapidly losing ground in the war in the face of the advancing Allied armies, Bandera was released in the hope that he would be instrumental in deterring the advancing Soviet forces. He set up the headquarters of the re-established Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, which worked underground. He settled with his family in West Germany where he remained the leader of the OUN-B and worked with several anti-communist organizations such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations[9][10] as well as with the British intelligence agencies.[9] Fourteen years after the end of the war, Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by KGB agents in Munich.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
Neo nazis are not in Russian parliament. If you have a different info please let me know. Six seats in parliament -that's significant, do you know how many people have to vote in order to get one seat in Ukrainian Parliament? Do you know anyone in the US Congress who's is openly a Neo-Nazi?
And with regards to the Republics in Eastern Ukraine, under international law they had no right to declare themselves independent in the first place, so Ukraine had every right to try to gain control over their territory again. Imagine what would happen if an American state would declare themselves independent, unilaterally. Actually, we've seen what happened. The American president did exactly what the president of Ukraine is doing now. Trying to control their own territory again.
So, bombing civilians for 8 years you call "try to gain control over their territory again." No, I understand your logic. Ukraine is only interested in the territory and doesn't care about the citizens living on those territories, they stopped paying pensions, mail services are not provided by the Ukraine, ah and don't forget building a dam to block the water supply to farmers and civilians. But the civilians haven't left, so bombing and attacking them should work. That's all within the rights of any democratic government, correct? The rest of the world in different circumstances would call that a genocide but since we are talking about Ukraine now, that isn't called a genocide.
Please remind me when the American president was killing Americans who decided not to vote for him and become independent. Are you talking about Japanese Americans during the world war II? Well, that's different, those Japanese Americans didn't want independence, no - not sure what you've been told.
-
Ilsy, I don't think the Ukrainian government or people are perfect saints. Nor the US/Americans writ large. There are a few terrible people in every country. I likewise think 90% of Russians/Ukrainians/'Mericans are great people.
But that has basically zero bearing on the situation now. Anyone who supports Russia at this point is either a troll/on the Russian payroll somehow, or just simply inhuman scum.
-W
-
Ilsy, of course the Ukrainians aren't perfect. Of course they've done bad things in the past. Of course. May I remind you of the extremely checkered history of the entire world? No one is entirely blameless, ever.
But here, today, now - Russia is in the wrong, and Ukraine is just trying to survive.
You however, are coming across as a Russian troll. Take a step back, go look in the mirror. Reevaluate where you're getting your news. Reevaluate your stances. If you actually are Russian, then I'm very sorry that your people have been so mistreated and mislead by Putin. But that does not absolve you of trying to be the best version of yourself that you can be.
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
"In 1991, Svoboda was founded as the Social-National Party of Ukraine.[65] The party combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features.[66][67][68] It was renamed and rebranded 13 years later as All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda in 2004 under Oleh Tyahnybok. In 2016, The Nation reported that "in Ukrainian municipal elections held [in October 2015], the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party's candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop."[69] The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed on his car and has refused to display the city's official flag because it contains a star of David, and has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.[66]
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism and its alleged relationship to neo-Nazism came to the fore in polemics about the more radical elements involved in the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russo-Ukrainian War from 2013 onward.[68] Some Russian, Latin American, U.S. and Israeli media have attempted to portray the Ukrainian nationalists in the conflict as neo-Nazi.[70] The main Ukrainian organisations involved with a neo-Banderaite legacy are Right Sector,[71] Svoboda and Azov Battalion. The persons regarded as Ukraine's national heroes—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—at times supported and then opposed the presence of the Third Reich in Ukraine.[72][73] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Ukraine
"In the early 2010s Jewish organizations in and outside of Ukraine have accused the political party All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" of open Nazi sympathies and being antisemitic.[25] In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress listed the party as neo-Nazi.[26] "Svoboda" itself has denied being antisemitic.[27] In the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary elections "Svoboda" won its first seats in the Ukrainian Parliament,[28] garnering 10.44% of the popular vote and the 4th most seats among national political parties.[29] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party got 6 parliamentary seats (it won 4.71% of the popular vote in this election).[30] In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list, these were the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps.[31] But in the election this combination won 2.15% of the votes, less than half of the 5% election threshold, and thus no parliamentary seats via the national party list.[32] Svoboda itself did win one constituency seat, in Ivano-Frankivsk.[32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Ukraine
Bandera cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, and organized OUN expeditionary groups. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv, pledging to work with Nazi Germany.[4][5] For his refusal to rescind the decree, Bandera was arrested by the Gestapo, which put him under house arrest on 5 July 1941,[6] and later between 1942 and 1943[7] sent him to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[8] In 1944, with Germany rapidly losing ground in the war in the face of the advancing Allied armies, Bandera was released in the hope that he would be instrumental in deterring the advancing Soviet forces. He set up the headquarters of the re-established Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, which worked underground. He settled with his family in West Germany where he remained the leader of the OUN-B and worked with several anti-communist organizations such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations[9][10] as well as with the British intelligence agencies.[9] Fourteen years after the end of the war, Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by KGB agents in Munich.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
Neo nazis are not in Russian parliament. If you have a different info please let me know. Six seats in parliament -that's significant, do you know how many people have to vote in order to get one seat in Ukrainian Parliament? Do you know anyone in the US Congress who's is openly a Neo-Nazi?
And with regards to the Republics in Eastern Ukraine, under international law they had no right to declare themselves independent in the first place, so Ukraine had every right to try to gain control over their territory again. Imagine what would happen if an American state would declare themselves independent, unilaterally. Actually, we've seen what happened. The American president did exactly what the president of Ukraine is doing now. Trying to control their own territory again.
So, bombing civilians for 8 years you call "try to gain control over their territory again." No, I understand your logic. Ukraine is only interested in the territory and doesn't care about the citizens living on those territories, they stopped paying pensions, mail services are not provided by the Ukraine, ah and don't forget building a dam to block the water supply to farmers and civilians. But the civilians haven't left, so bombing and attacking them should work. That's all within the rights of any democratic government, correct? The rest of the world in different circumstances would call that a genocide but since we are talking about Ukraine now, that isn't called a genocide.
Please remind me when the American president was killing Americans who decided not to vote for him and become independent. Are you talking about Japanese Americans during the world war II? Well, that's different, those Japanese Americans didn't want independence, no - not sure what you've been told.
The American civil war claimed well over 600,000 lives when the Southern states seceded. A key differentiator between that and the separatists in the Donbas is that Russia is openly backing the separatists (not officially of course, but the support is well documented). The comment above also implies that the Ukranian government was specifically targeting civilians rather than the separatists; I don't have information that that is the case. Regardless of the political specifics, civil wars, and war in general, are terrible for civilian populations. Russia is not respecting Ukraine's sovereignty (and yes, there are many examples of the USA doing bad things as well that do not respect sovereignty). The violence ultimately flows from that.
-
I just heard that 70 aircraft are being donated to Ukraine from neighboring countries.
-
I just heard that 70 aircraft are being donated to Ukraine from neighboring countries.
That has since been walked back--someone was getting ahead of themselves. It was a proposal, and a number of the countries named have backed out.
If you're looking for more in-depth, technical commentary, The War Zone (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone) has not only fantastic, thorough articles, but the commentariat is fantastic as well.
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
"In 1991, Svoboda was founded as the Social-National Party of Ukraine.[65] The party combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features.[66][67][68] It was renamed and rebranded 13 years later as All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda in 2004 under Oleh Tyahnybok. In 2016, The Nation reported that "in Ukrainian municipal elections held [in October 2015], the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party's candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop."[69] The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed on his car and has refused to display the city's official flag because it contains a star of David, and has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.[66]
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism and its alleged relationship to neo-Nazism came to the fore in polemics about the more radical elements involved in the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russo-Ukrainian War from 2013 onward.[68] Some Russian, Latin American, U.S. and Israeli media have attempted to portray the Ukrainian nationalists in the conflict as neo-Nazi.[70] The main Ukrainian organisations involved with a neo-Banderaite legacy are Right Sector,[71] Svoboda and Azov Battalion. The persons regarded as Ukraine's national heroes—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—at times supported and then opposed the presence of the Third Reich in Ukraine.[72][73] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Ukraine
"In the early 2010s Jewish organizations in and outside of Ukraine have accused the political party All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" of open Nazi sympathies and being antisemitic.[25] In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress listed the party as neo-Nazi.[26] "Svoboda" itself has denied being antisemitic.[27] In the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary elections "Svoboda" won its first seats in the Ukrainian Parliament,[28] garnering 10.44% of the popular vote and the 4th most seats among national political parties.[29] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party got 6 parliamentary seats (it won 4.71% of the popular vote in this election).[30] In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list, these were the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps.[31] But in the election this combination won 2.15% of the votes, less than half of the 5% election threshold, and thus no parliamentary seats via the national party list.[32] Svoboda itself did win one constituency seat, in Ivano-Frankivsk.[32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Ukraine
Bandera cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, and organized OUN expeditionary groups. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv, pledging to work with Nazi Germany.[4][5] For his refusal to rescind the decree, Bandera was arrested by the Gestapo, which put him under house arrest on 5 July 1941,[6] and later between 1942 and 1943[7] sent him to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[8] In 1944, with Germany rapidly losing ground in the war in the face of the advancing Allied armies, Bandera was released in the hope that he would be instrumental in deterring the advancing Soviet forces. He set up the headquarters of the re-established Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, which worked underground. He settled with his family in West Germany where he remained the leader of the OUN-B and worked with several anti-communist organizations such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations[9][10] as well as with the British intelligence agencies.[9] Fourteen years after the end of the war, Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by KGB agents in Munich.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
Neo nazis are not in Russian parliament. If you have a different info please let me know. Six seats in parliament -that's significant, do you know how many people have to vote in order to get one seat in Ukrainian Parliament? Do you know anyone in the US Congress who's is openly a Neo-Nazi?
And with regards to the Republics in Eastern Ukraine, under international law they had no right to declare themselves independent in the first place, so Ukraine had every right to try to gain control over their territory again. Imagine what would happen if an American state would declare themselves independent, unilaterally. Actually, we've seen what happened. The American president did exactly what the president of Ukraine is doing now. Trying to control their own territory again.
So, bombing civilians for 8 years you call "try to gain control over their territory again." No, I understand your logic. Ukraine is only interested in the territory and doesn't care about the citizens living on those territories, they stopped paying pensions, mail services are not provided by the Ukraine, ah and don't forget building a dam to block the water supply to farmers and civilians. But the civilians haven't left, so bombing and attacking them should work. That's all within the rights of any democratic government, correct? The rest of the world in different circumstances would call that a genocide but since we are talking about Ukraine now, that isn't called a genocide.
Please remind me when the American president was killing Americans who decided not to vote for him and become independent. Are you talking about Japanese Americans during the world war II? Well, that's different, those Japanese Americans didn't want independence, no - not sure what you've been told.
At this point I'm not really sure if you are trolling or not, but just in case you are serious.
You say 6 members of Parliament in Ukraine have neo nazi sympathies. I don't have time to fact check that, but Wikipedia tells me the Ukrainian Parliament is called Verkhovna Rada and there are currently no parties that hold 6 seats. If you know the name of the neo nazi party I'd like to hear it. It's terrible that neo nazi's exist at all but 6/450 is actually an incredibly low amount for Europe. There are more in my Parliament (in the Netherlands) even though we only have 150 MPs. There are neo nazi's in almost every European Parliament, unfortunately.
There are indeed no neo nazi's in the Russian Parliament. Nor is the leader of the opposition, Alexei Navalny (currently imprisoned for political crimes and subjected to torture there) or for that matter, any opposition parties at all. Since Russia does not have free elections, the vast majority of seats is held by Putin's parties, the others go to other pro-Kremlin parties.
Obviously I was referring to the American Civil War. Yes, a President did sent the army to attack rebelling States and unfortunately civilians were also hurt. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine. Some political leaders of some parts of the country decided on an illegal secession (that's what it was, under the criteria set in international law these areas did not have the right to declare themselves independent from the mother country, just like the Confederate states did not) and we can't expect the lawful government of the Ukraine to give up on their valid territorial claim just because unfortunately innocent people die. If Russia truly cared about civilian lives in East Ukraine they would have urged the leaders there to give up on their illegal claim.
Does all of this mean Ukraine is a perfect country? No, it doesn't. It's a little less corrupt than Russia and ruled by a rivallling bunch of oligarchs instead of one faction of oligarchs. Does Ukraine meet the minimum standards for rule of law that EU membership requires? Absolutely not. There's a reason they're not members yet and it's mainly because their democracy is not strong enough yet.
I do think the current situation might create a momentum for reform and building back better. I really hope that in the future Ukraine will become a strong, democratic state.
I hope that Russians will come out of this situation better, too, but I not sure about it. This is looking more and more like it's going to be Putin's Waterloo. Even in Russia, a country with very little political freedom, protests happen openly and are widespread. Famous Russians speak out against Putin. But Putin has rotted Russian's civil society to the core. There is no real opposition, no one with any power who wasn't handpicked by Putin and his cronies. If/when someone finally puts a bullet in his head let's hope not another autocrat will grab the power.
It seems very likely that Putin will end like any other autocrat. First they are popular, then they enrich themselves, eventually they get mad, then they get killed. Putin is in the "mad" stage, it's only a matter of time before he will get killed. Likely at the hands of his cronies to try and save their own neck.
-
Russians do not kill civilians (they claim),
You must not have seen the cluster-bombs-on-civilians videos making the rounds. I suggest looking it up.
-
So it does look like there may be at least a shred of truth to Putin's Neo-Nazi claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
Edit, and maybe also the drug-addict one too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/ukraine-president-takes-up-comedians-drug-test-challenge)
The Ukrainian President is Jewish, and his great-grandfather and three great-uncles were murdered in the Holocaust. It would be like claiming that the US is run by neo-Nazis and our government should be overthrown because we have active domestic terrorist groups that march with swastikas and other symbols of white nationalism.
"In 1991, Svoboda was founded as the Social-National Party of Ukraine.[65] The party combined radical nationalism and neo-Nazi features.[66][67][68] It was renamed and rebranded 13 years later as All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda in 2004 under Oleh Tyahnybok. In 2016, The Nation reported that "in Ukrainian municipal elections held [in October 2015], the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party's candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop."[69] The Svoboda party mayor in Konotop reportedly has the number "14/88" displayed on his car and has refused to display the city's official flag because it contains a star of David, and has implied that Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.[66]
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism and its alleged relationship to neo-Nazism came to the fore in polemics about the more radical elements involved in the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russo-Ukrainian War from 2013 onward.[68] Some Russian, Latin American, U.S. and Israeli media have attempted to portray the Ukrainian nationalists in the conflict as neo-Nazi.[70] The main Ukrainian organisations involved with a neo-Banderaite legacy are Right Sector,[71] Svoboda and Azov Battalion. The persons regarded as Ukraine's national heroes—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—at times supported and then opposed the presence of the Third Reich in Ukraine.[72][73] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#Ukraine
"In the early 2010s Jewish organizations in and outside of Ukraine have accused the political party All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" of open Nazi sympathies and being antisemitic.[25] In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress listed the party as neo-Nazi.[26] "Svoboda" itself has denied being antisemitic.[27] In the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary elections "Svoboda" won its first seats in the Ukrainian Parliament,[28] garnering 10.44% of the popular vote and the 4th most seats among national political parties.[29] In the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party got 6 parliamentary seats (it won 4.71% of the popular vote in this election).[30] In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list, these were the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps.[31] But in the election this combination won 2.15% of the votes, less than half of the 5% election threshold, and thus no parliamentary seats via the national party list.[32] Svoboda itself did win one constituency seat, in Ivano-Frankivsk.[32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Ukraine
Bandera cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, and organized OUN expeditionary groups. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv, pledging to work with Nazi Germany.[4][5] For his refusal to rescind the decree, Bandera was arrested by the Gestapo, which put him under house arrest on 5 July 1941,[6] and later between 1942 and 1943[7] sent him to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[8] In 1944, with Germany rapidly losing ground in the war in the face of the advancing Allied armies, Bandera was released in the hope that he would be instrumental in deterring the advancing Soviet forces. He set up the headquarters of the re-established Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, which worked underground. He settled with his family in West Germany where he remained the leader of the OUN-B and worked with several anti-communist organizations such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations[9][10] as well as with the British intelligence agencies.[9] Fourteen years after the end of the war, Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by KGB agents in Munich.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
All European countries have neo nazi groups, in the same way the US deals with white supremacists everywhere. Russia by the way also has plenty of neo nazi's. Fortunately these groups are only small political minorities. By that logic Putin could invade every single country in Europe.
Neo nazis are not in Russian parliament. If you have a different info please let me know. Six seats in parliament -that's significant, do you know how many people have to vote in order to get one seat in Ukrainian Parliament? Do you know anyone in the US Congress who's is openly a Neo-Nazi?
And with regards to the Republics in Eastern Ukraine, under international law they had no right to declare themselves independent in the first place, so Ukraine had every right to try to gain control over their territory again. Imagine what would happen if an American state would declare themselves independent, unilaterally. Actually, we've seen what happened. The American president did exactly what the president of Ukraine is doing now. Trying to control their own territory again.
So, bombing civilians for 8 years you call "try to gain control over their territory again." No, I understand your logic. Ukraine is only interested in the territory and doesn't care about the citizens living on those territories, they stopped paying pensions, mail services are not provided by the Ukraine, ah and don't forget building a dam to block the water supply to farmers and civilians. But the civilians haven't left, so bombing and attacking them should work. That's all within the rights of any democratic government, correct? The rest of the world in different circumstances would call that a genocide but since we are talking about Ukraine now, that isn't called a genocide.
Please remind me when the American president was killing Americans who decided not to vote for him and become independent. Are you talking about Japanese Americans during the world war II? Well, that's different, those Japanese Americans didn't want independence, no - not sure what you've been told.
Assuming all of what you say is true (some of it even you caveat as the Russians claiming they don't kill civilians - an obvious lie given by firsthand accounts and pictures - have you seen the pictures of the 6 year old girl who was killed when the Russians decided bombing near a nursery was a good idea?), but again, even if you were 100% correct, the bar to forcibly invade another country to "liberate" them is and should be very high.
Ukraine has some issues in the government and governing of its people, no doubt, but do they even compare to the Taliban? To Hussein? The US tried the whole invade countries for their own good and liberate them (at least it was the reasoning presented) - in a situation where the country was very literally and very seriously oppressing its citizens, with multiple *actual* independent and separate countries supporting the US in this invasion at least initially, and it's still widely agreed upon as a bad awful and extremely damaging idea that caused more *far* harm than good. The situation in Ukraine is, by any objective standard, nothing remotely close to the oppression that many in Iraq and Afghanistan were facing and it still was a really bad idea with seriously bad consequences with support from many other countries for the US to invade Iraq for example. The situation with Russia and the Ukraine has no oppression even close to what we're talking about and universal condemnation of them doing it. How one earth you can buy into Russian propaganda that they are liberators is beyond me or any reasonable person, but even if you did, even then what they're doing would be a terrible idea with a horrendous cost in not just financial and infrastructure situations but in human lives. The position you are taking is atrocious and abhorrent.
-
I also found this video to be very insightful as to the reasons behind the invasion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
(watch at 1.5x)
-
Imagining NATO forces flying over that 40 mile long convoy of Russian military, and bombing the heck out of it all. Putin makes me sick.
-
I also found this video to be very insightful as to the reasons behind the invasion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
(watch at 1.5x)
Wow! I thought I had been following this story quite closely. None of the news reporters I've seen from multiple countries have made the obvious oil connection like this guy did. I can see now that it is almost assured that Putin will take over the entire country. It's not about Nazis. It's about what it is always about money and power. It's another oil war.
The sooner the world licks it's addiction to oil, the sooner more people will be free of tyrants.
-
Imagining NATO forces flying over that 40 mile long convoy of Russian military, and bombing the heck out of it all. Putin makes me sick.
Yeah but Europe is still in the lending a neighbor a hose because their house is on fire, while hoping the psycho with a flamethrower setting houses on fire will skip theirs.
Also nato has always been a political stunt.
-
so far, the best I could hope for, is that this turns into a quagmire that precipitates Putin's downfall
-
Ukraine is in trouble... this does not look good. An insane amount of Russians forces pouring in.
-
Imagining NATO forces flying over that 40 mile long convoy of Russian military, and bombing the heck out of it all. Putin makes me sick.
Yeah but Europe is still in the lending a neighbor a hose because their house is on fire, while hoping the psycho with a flamethrower setting houses on fire will skip theirs.
Also nato has always been a political stunt.
I don't know about that. In the history of NATO how many NATO nations have been invaded?
With that said NATO nations so far seem unwilling to send personnel.
-
this crises might tip Finland to join NATO, even maybe Sweden https://inews.co.uk/news/world/why-arent-sweden-finland-nato-russia-fears-ukraine-nordic-countries-consider-joining-1486283
-
this crises might tip Finland to join NATO, even maybe Sweden https://inews.co.uk/news/world/why-arent-sweden-finland-nato-russia-fears-ukraine-nordic-countries-consider-joining-1486283
Do they need to with the EU mutual defense clause? To be fair, it's complicated (https://ecfr.eu/publication/ambiguous-alliance-neutrality-opt-outs-and-european-defence/).
-
Anyone have any thoughts on the best non-profits to give money to to help out the Ukrainian people?
I donated to the Red Cross (looked fairly deeply into how they work and like them a lot). They have a Ukraine appeal going.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
-
Imagining NATO forces flying over that 40 mile long convoy of Russian military, and bombing the heck out of it all. Putin makes me sick.
I used to be on the logistics side of things in the Army... seeing a 40 mile long convoy moving so slowly, and placed together so densely, make them a prime target for an attack like the one you're fantasizing about... sadly Ukraine doesn't have the assets to accomplish this and thus there the convoy sits... almost taunting the US the do something about it.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
The EU has basically opened its very deep pockets and aid and support as well as military “freelancers” are streaming into the country. And if Ukraine becomes an EU member or a member candidate, there’s a Mutual military assistance agreement in the EU (which is showing right now it’s not a paper tiger and is already choking off the Russian economy).
-
It would be great if the Russian oligarchs take care of Putin. He's the problem, they have the easiest access to him and the assets to do the job.
-
It would be great if the Russian oligarchs take care of Putin. He's the problem, they have the easiest access to him and the assets to do the job.
Some of them are cutting and running from Putin, speaking out against the war in Ukraine. Probably because they now have everything they want or need already outside Russia, including wives/girlfriends/children/houses/yachts/etc/etc, and in a choice between Russia and the West they are choosing the West. They may also be hoping that speaking out now will either limit sanctions against them or help them claim asylum.
In other words, the oligarchs will do what they've always done and look out for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Don't go looking to them for help.
-
It would be great if the Russian oligarchs take care of Putin. He's the problem, they have the easiest access to him and the assets to do the job.
At this point, it does seem like the most likely and best-case scenario. Association with him is starting to hit them where it hurts. Any direct intervention by NATO is likely to have nuclear consequences.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
Personally, I struggle to believe that Putin actually believes in Mutually Assured Destruction. He's got the got the nuclear world firmly by the tail. Sure, any one of the nuclear countries could retaliate if he detonates one single nuclear bomb...but will we? I doubt it, and it only took 2 bombs to end the pacific war.
By "we," do you mean America, or just anyone who could bomb the convoy should?
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
I'd rather "we" didn't do anything to precipitate WWIII, thanks. It may be coming anyway but later is better than sooner and the destruction of Ukraine is looking pretty inescapable now whatever we do.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
Personally, I struggle to believe that Putin actually believes in Mutually Assured Destruction. He's got the got the nuclear world firmly by the tail. Sure, any one of the nuclear countries could retaliate if he detonates one single nuclear bomb...but will we? I doubt it, and it only took 2 bombs to end the pacific war.
By "we," do you mean America, or just anyone who could bomb the convoy should?
That's the thing with MAD, though; it doesn't matter if one "believes" it or not, the result is the same. I don't believe Putin to be a madman bent on world destruction. I do believe Putin would use the threat of nuclear strikes to achieve his aims. Why wouldn't he when the bulk of his power relies on force, intimidation, and the threat of force?
-
It's too bad a few B2 bombers can't accidentally open their bay doors along a certain road into Kyiv. Perhaps rent them to Ukraine for 1 dollar a day for a few days.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
It'd interesting to game the scenario out. What would happen if the US (or another NATO or EU nation) took out the convoy?
Well, it would take a lot of pressure off the Ukrainians, potentially freeing up many of their forces to attack the Russians in other areas. It'd be a devastating logistical blow ("Generals talk logistics") which would likely cripple the entire offensive in the North.
How might Putin respond?
1) Well, he could go tit-for-tat, and start shooting SAMs at the various ISR and refuelling aircraft that are circling just west of Ukraine, or he could lob some missiles at NATO military bases near Ukraine, but that's an escalation. Attacking a defenseless aircraft in the airspace over a NATO nation would provide all the excuse necessary for NATO to open the floodgates.
2) Ramp up the attacks on civilians in Ukraine? That wouldn't accomplish much.
3) Perhaps he could declare war on NATO? Well, see #1 above.
4) Start using nukes? See #1.
This all assumes, of course, that Putin can pin this on NATO or the EU. Given the Russian military's performance to date, I imagine the only argument they'd have is "well, Ukraine couldn't have pulled it off."
I don't know which way this war will go in the short term, given the status quo. Without the international sanctions, I think Ukraine would lose--Russia could just keep feeding men and materiel into the war, and attrit them out. With the sanctions in place, it's a matter of timing--can the Ukrainians hold out long enough that the sanctions will hurt enough that Putin is forced to withdraw?
Personally, I would love to see a volley of Tomahawk cruise missiles loaded with cluster munitions run right up the length of that convoy. Or maybe, instead of cluster bombs, drop leaflets: "This could have been a tiny bomb......turn around and go home before the next wave of missiles arrives."
-
I honestly believe the next steps are:
1) Massive counter-offensive of social media/trying to turn the narrative and try to discredit Ukraine's efforts (I'm already seeing the first shimmers of that - it depends whether it'll get any credence outside crazed US evangelicals/QAnons/Trumpskis)
2) Groznyfication of Kyiv and other cities (wider use of thermobaric, so-called "vacuum" bombs and massive artillery strikes on civilian infrastructure, cutting off utilities etc)
3) Cutting off internet and spreading fake news (such as that Ukraine has "surrendered")
4) Starvation of the population
5) Continued hunt of the president and his wife/children (this has been ongoing from the start) to kill them
-
That video that was posted explaining why Putin is fighting, made me realize that he is doing the John D. Rockefeller thing. Ukraine has undeveloped oil deposits. They pose a potential competition to the main source of revenue for Russia. He doesn't want the competition. He doesn't care if he kills Ukrainian babies or 18 year old Russian boys. Those oil deposits in the Ukraine are black gold. Throughout history most wars have been fought over riches. All the people are just obstacles in his path to protecting his wealth and enhancing it.
He didn't care about Nazis attacking stranded Russians. It was all just a smokescreen to give him an excuse to go after Ukrainian gas and oil.
So many people have been killed in all the oil wars and this is one more.
Only the Russian people can save Ukraine now. Let's hope they do the right thing.
-
That video that was posted explaining why Putin is fighting, made me realize that he is doing the John D. Rockefeller thing. Ukraine has undeveloped oil deposits. They pose a potential competition to the main source of revenue for Russia. He doesn't want the competition. He doesn't care if he kills Ukrainian babies or 18 year old Russian boys. Those oil deposits in the Ukraine are black gold. Throughout history most wars have been fought over riches. All the people are just obstacles in his path to protecting his wealth and enhancing it.
He didn't care about Nazis attacking stranded Russians. It was all just a smokescreen to give him an excuse to go after Ukrainian gas and oil.
So many people have been killed in all the oil wars and this is one more.
Only the Russian people can save Ukraine now. Let's hope they do the right thing.
If it were just a matter of Russia and Ukraine, I would agree. But given the stream of weapons going into the country, and the massive sanctions, I have to wonder if getting those oil and gas deposits (which will take years to develop) are worth the years of crushing sanctions, frozen assets, and military quagmire.
-
I honestly believe the next steps are:
1) Massive counter-offensive of social media/trying to turn the narrative and try to discredit Ukraine's efforts (I'm already seeing the first shimmers of that - it depends whether it'll get any credence outside crazed US evangelicals/QAnons/Trumpskis)
Fox News has already tried this. Tucker Carlson sticking up for Putin and Trump praising him. Don't think it worked. We all hate Putin now.
-
If it were just a matter of Russia and Ukraine, I would agree. But given the stream of weapons going into the country, and the massive sanctions, I have to wonder if getting those oil and gas deposits (which will take years to develop) are worth the years of crushing sanctions, frozen assets, and military quagmire.
Haven't most (if not all) of the sanctions so far specifically avoided Russia's energy sector?
-
That video that was posted explaining why Putin is fighting, made me realize that he is doing the John D. Rockefeller thing. Ukraine has undeveloped oil deposits. They pose a potential competition to the main source of revenue for Russia. He doesn't want the competition. He doesn't care if he kills Ukrainian babies or 18 year old Russian boys. Those oil deposits in the Ukraine are black gold. Throughout history most wars have been fought over riches. All the people are just obstacles in his path to protecting his wealth and enhancing it.
He didn't care about Nazis attacking stranded Russians. It was all just a smokescreen to give him an excuse to go after Ukrainian gas and oil.
So many people have been killed in all the oil wars and this is one more.
Only the Russian people can save Ukraine now. Let's hope they do the right thing.
If it were just a matter of Russia and Ukraine, I would agree. But given the stream of weapons going into the country, and the massive sanctions, I have to wonder if getting those oil and gas deposits (which will take years to develop) are worth the years of crushing sanctions, frozen assets, and military quagmire.
Also, the price rises and political instability will also fast-forward the move away from gas and oil to renewables - the EU is already committed to net zero by 2050 so the nearest market is going to be an ever-decreasing one. Chances of him getting the investment back are not looking promising.
In the near term expect the gas tankers to trek back and forth across the Atlantic in place of the Russian pipelines.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
Personally, I struggle to believe that Putin actually believes in Mutually Assured Destruction. He's got the got the nuclear world firmly by the tail. Sure, any one of the nuclear countries could retaliate if he detonates one single nuclear bomb...but will we? I doubt it, and it only took 2 bombs to end the pacific war.
By "we," do you mean America, or just anyone who could bomb the convoy should?
That's the thing with MAD, though; it doesn't matter if one "believes" it or not, the result is the same. I don't believe Putin to be a madman bent on world destruction. I do believe Putin would use the threat of nuclear strikes to achieve his aims. Why wouldn't he when the bulk of his power relies on force, intimidation, and the threat of force?
I think we’re agreeing, right? I got a little lost in your post, or maybe I wasn’t very clear in mine. My original main point is my suspicion than Putin believes that he could get away with one fission bomb, without triggering MAD-ish retaliation.
Of course, I can’t know Putin’s mind for sure, and god why would I want to. Just my armchair philosophizing.
-
This is a translation of an article celebrating the victory in Ukraine that never happened. Damn fools went ahead and published it accidentally.
Worth reading for sure - any more doubts that the Russian leadership is delusional and that Putin needs to be removed from power?
https://tinyurl.com/527w2djr
-
I honestly believe the next steps are:
1) Massive counter-offensive of social media/trying to turn the narrative and try to discredit Ukraine's efforts (I'm already seeing the first shimmers of that - it depends whether it'll get any credence outside crazed US evangelicals/QAnons/Trumpskis)
Fox News has already tried this. Tucker Carlson sticking up for Putin and Trump praising him. Don't think it worked. We all hate Putin now.
Well, good, but there could be other audiences for the propaganda.
-
A commenter above noted the move to "renewables." It never seems to be acknowledged that "renewables" do not deliver power 100 percent of the time. They are backed up by natural gas. With "renewables," Putin will still sell a buttload of gas to Europe. He can charge more and deliver less. He sells a lot of gas to Germany where there has been a strong move to "renewables."
The gas industry fully supports the move to "renewables.'
Fertilizer is also made from natural gas.
-
A commenter above noted the move to "renewables." It never seems to be acknowledged that "renewables" do not deliver power 100 percent of the time. They are backed up by natural gas. With "renewables," Putin will still sell a buttload of gas to Europe. He can charge more and deliver less. He sells a lot of gas to Germany where there has been a strong move to "renewables."
The gas industry fully supports the move to "renewables.'
Fertilizer is also made from natural gas.
Partly true (not true of hydro electric, for instance), but gas does not have to come down a pipeline from Russia, it is already coming to Europe in tankers from the Gulf and North America. Some of us also have nuclear power.
-
A commenter above noted the move to "renewables." It never seems to be acknowledged that "renewables" do not deliver power 100 percent of the time. They are backed up by natural gas.
There are a lot of alternatives to natural gas' role as a wind/solar backstop: biogas, batteries, flexible nuclear, hydro pumping, compressed air, smart grids for distribution, etc. Not saying everything is solved, but we can make those investments if we want to get away from natural gas.
-
A commenter above noted the move to "renewables." It never seems to be acknowledged that "renewables" do not deliver power 100 percent of the time. They are backed up by natural gas. With "renewables," Putin will still sell a buttload of gas to Europe. He can charge more and deliver less. He sells a lot of gas to Germany where there has been a strong move to "renewables."
The gas industry fully supports the move to "renewables.'
Fertilizer is also made from natural gas.
That's why these concept include swing capacity and large battery systems. Also, Germany has earmarked A LOT of money for switching part of its gas pipelines to hydrogen (even "green hydro"). It's technically doable. There's also French nuclear reactors just across the border, and Scandi and North Sea and US gas.
-
Gas is mainly used for heating in Germany. Electricity is secondary and only that big because there are still unsufficient storage/distribution capacities. You know, NIMBYs, old energy companies lobbying and so on.
Can anybody confirm that tweet?
Please take note of how dramatically Twitter has changed since the freezing of Russian assets. Suddenly all those anti-Biden “American patriots” have disappeared.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
Personally, I struggle to believe that Putin actually believes in Mutually Assured Destruction. He's got the got the nuclear world firmly by the tail. Sure, any one of the nuclear countries could retaliate if he detonates one single nuclear bomb...but will we? I doubt it, and it only took 2 bombs to end the pacific war.
By "we," do you mean America, or just anyone who could bomb the convoy should?
That's the thing with MAD, though; it doesn't matter if one "believes" it or not, the result is the same. I don't believe Putin to be a madman bent on world destruction. I do believe Putin would use the threat of nuclear strikes to achieve his aims. Why wouldn't he when the bulk of his power relies on force, intimidation, and the threat of force?
I think we’re agreeing, right? I got a little lost in your post, or maybe I wasn’t very clear in mine. My original main point is my suspicion than Putin believes that he could get away with one fission bomb, without triggering MAD-ish retaliation.
Of course, I can’t know Putin’s mind for sure, and god why would I want to. Just my armchair philosophizing.
Yes, mainly agreeing. Just pushing the point the Putin will make ANY threat and the threat of nukes is a powerful one, so of course he will use this threat, especially as this threat alone is seen as "over the line" to the rest of the world. As a negotiation tactic it makes sense to start from this position.
Putin is crazy like a fox. So far he's succeded in persuading Germany to increase it's defense budget and Finland to consider NATO membership. Suddenly Europe is talking of arming itself to protect from Russian expansion and aggression and building LNG import plants to free themselves from Russian control.
How he believes this helps Russia, I have no idea. Russia has traditionally relied on creating chaos, such as: helping to facilitate the rise of Nazi Germany then turning against them. Helping the allies to destroy the Nazis then turning against the Allies.
When Russian troops fought in Syria they fought against an already defeated "enemy", and they leveled towns and villages to rubble in the process. Will the West stand by if he tries this in Ukraine? Doubtful. Does he think the West will do nothing? Based on his previous excursions? Maybe.
How much of this is because of domestic politics? Whenever Putin had needed a win domestically he's attacked an ex Soviet rebuplic.
I really don't know.
-
Trying to read between the lines of Zelensky's videos.... they're in trouble. Big trouble. If Ukraine is going to stand, the world is going to have to take more direct action. Problem is, if the world takes more direct action, Putin may well use nukes. There is no win here, at least short term. Long term, there's no way Russia can hold Ukraine. But that doesn't mean they can't do immense damage.
He won't use nukes. As soon as he presses the button Russia is history along with the rest of mankind. I wish we'd bomb his 40 mile mile convoy, with non-nuclear weapons of course.
I'd rather "we" didn't do anything to precipitate WWIII, thanks. It may be coming anyway but later is better than sooner and the destruction of Ukraine is looking pretty inescapable now whatever we do.
I know this is the narrative it the west, but I'm not sure I buy it. The USSR sent a ton of pilots and planes to North Korea and both sides covered it up to avoid escalation. With that said I don't see a NATO country coming to help (or a non-NATO one).
-
My concern - At some point, maybe soon, Putin will realize that he's in big trouble, and will consider suicide. And if he's gonna die anyway why not go ahead and start the nuclear bombs going and take the rest of us with him?
-
The Antiamericanism on the radical right is really getting out of hand.
Is it from the radicals though? Almost seems to be coming from the mainstream/establishment right.
The mainstream/establishment right doesn´t say much these days, so most of the noise is coming from the radicals. It is true though that some mainstream, or previously mainstream, GOP characters have been trying to score points by stirring up antiamerican sentiments within their constituency.
We will see how they are going to deal with the developing situation. It is very clear that talk about nuclear weapons by a dictator, in the context of an invasion of a neighboring nation, changes the calculus immensely.
First we will probably see economic sanctions and measures against Russia, that will not show any restraint regarding the effects on the Russian population, in order to foment internal unrest in Russia.
Once this happens we will see more clearly who is on the Russian payroll and who is not. It is not that the Russian services let their agents off the hook when things get hot and they would like to take cover - to the contrary, they do not care and will burn them if it is in Russia´s interest.
Only five days after ^^^, the most severe economic sanctions (or what may be better characterized as economic attacks) ever imposed on a near peer nation are in place and the objectives are the precipitation of a banking crisis and the collapse of the Russian economy.
This is unprecedented and constitutes a major challenge to the Russian leadership. Under the current circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Russian leadership could interepret this other than an act of war.
For the West, the first order of business is to contain the conflict in the region.
Unfortunately, the interests of the West and Ukraine are not perfectly aligned when it comes to military action in Ukraine. Any direct action in Ukraine would not necessarily help the objective of containing the conflict while the Russian economy implodes.
That is not to say that the calculus could not change.
-
My concern - At some point, maybe soon, Putin will realize that he's in big trouble, and will consider suicide. And if he's gonna die anyway why not go ahead and start the nuclear bombs going and take the rest of us with him?
That seems unlikely, but I suppose possible. He has kids. His generals have kids. The dudes with the keys don't want to die. His oligarch buddies have yachts to sail.
-
Across Europe about 40% of their energy is coming from Russia with some countries much more dependent than others. The great thing about pipelines is they're very cheap and efficient to move large volumes of gas and oil. The downside is they are inflexible. There's plenty of oil and natural gas in North Africa and the Middle East but building new pipelines takes years. Shipping via tankers is more flexible but it's more expensive and there's still only so much capacity in Europe to receive that energy. LNG tankers have been flocking to Europe for months due to higher prices but there's only so much LNG on the spot market and so many tankers to ship it. It simply can't replace pipelines in the short-term.
Half the natural gas going to Germany is used for industry i.e., making nitrogen-based fertilizer with natural gas as a feedstock or other manufacturing processes. The other half is used for heating. About 40% of that gas is come from Russia with the rest coming through other sources (North Sea, US, Africa, Middle East). However, Germany doesn't have any facilities for receiving shipments of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) - though they've announced plans to build two which will take months or years. In the meantime, they've been shutting down all their nuclear power plants - making them even more dependent on Russian energy (coal and oil as well as natural gas).
All this boils down to Russia has Europe over a barrel and both sides know it. The sanctions targeting Russia are excluding energy for the most part which is 30% of Russian GDP. If Europe stopped buying Russian energy that would really hurt. It's not like Russia can just shift to selling to China and India - the infrastructure isn't there and it would take years to build. But this would hurt Europe almost as much as Russia so any sanctions are going to continue carving out energy and thus, not really produce the desired effect of getting Russia to stop their invasion.
-
Imagining NATO forces flying over that 40 mile long convoy of Russian military, and bombing the heck out of it all. Putin makes me sick.
I used to be on the logistics side of things in the Army... seeing a 40 mile long convoy moving so slowly, and placed together so densely, make them a prime target for an attack like the one you're fantasizing about... sadly Ukraine doesn't have the assets to accomplish this and thus there the convoy sits... almost taunting the US the do something about it.
A 40-mile-long convoy sounds more like a giant traffic jam. It's winter in Ukraine so those vehicles are going to be idling to keep warm. Maybe not all the time but at least intermittently. Every hour those trucks, APCs, and tanks sit there they're burning diesel and need to be refueled. I wouldn't want to be the driver who runs out of fuel in the middle of a convoy - or the person responsible for refueling hundreds or thousands of slowly moving vehicles jamming a single road.
Incidentally, targeting the refueling operations would be a smart move for Ukraine. They've shown the ability to hit airfields in Russia with short-range ballistic missiles and their Turkish-provided TB2 drones seem to be blowing up Russian anti-aircraft systems with ease. I'm sure they could target a refueling operation for that convoy and have a lot of success.
-
This all assumes, of course, that Putin can pin this on NATO or the EU. Given the Russian military's performance to date, I imagine the only argument they'd have is "well, Ukraine couldn't have pulled it off."
Since when does Putin need real evidence to do something? He'll just release some faked videos to justify any action taken. It's what he has unflinchingly done so far.
-
This all assumes, of course, that Putin can pin this on NATO or the EU. Given the Russian military's performance to date, I imagine the only argument they'd have is "well, Ukraine couldn't have pulled it off."
Since when does Putin need real evidence to do something? He'll just release some faked videos to justify any action taken. It's what he has unflinchingly done so far.
"Alternative fact". LOL. Aleksander Dugin. The Russian philosopher who Steven Bannon praised and Kelly Ann Conway quoted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGunRKWtWBs
-
A 40-mile-long convoy sounds more like a giant traffic jam. It's winter in Ukraine so those vehicles are going to be idling to keep warm. Maybe not all the time but at least intermittently. Every hour those trucks, APCs, and tanks sit there they're burning diesel and need to be refueled. I wouldn't want to be the driver who runs out of fuel in the middle of a convoy - or the person responsible for refueling hundreds or thousands of slowly moving vehicles jamming a single road.
Incidentally, targeting the refueling operations would be a smart move for Ukraine. They've shown the ability to hit airfields in Russia with short-range ballistic missiles and their Turkish-provided TB2 drones seem to be blowing up Russian anti-aircraft systems with ease. I'm sure they could target a refueling operation for that convoy and have a lot of success.
Hopefully it's the vehicles at the front of the convoy that are tapped out. And it appears that the drone strikes have been going after fuel trucks specifically. Going back to Soviet times, their army never properly invested in logistics. In good times they don't have enough to sustain a drive of more than 100 miles before everyone has to stop for a few days.
-
A 40-mile-long convoy sounds more like a giant traffic jam. It's winter in Ukraine so those vehicles are going to be idling to keep warm. Maybe not all the time but at least intermittently. Every hour those trucks, APCs, and tanks sit there they're burning diesel and need to be refueled. I wouldn't want to be the driver who runs out of fuel in the middle of a convoy - or the person responsible for refueling hundreds or thousands of slowly moving vehicles jamming a single road.
Incidentally, targeting the refueling operations would be a smart move for Ukraine. They've shown the ability to hit airfields in Russia with short-range ballistic missiles and their Turkish-provided TB2 drones seem to be blowing up Russian anti-aircraft systems with ease. I'm sure they could target a refueling operation for that convoy and have a lot of success.
Hopefully it's the vehicles at the front of the convoy that are tapped out. And it appears that the drone strikes have been going after fuel trucks specifically. Going back to Soviet times, their army never properly invested in logistics. In good times they don't have enough to sustain a drive of more than 100 miles before everyone has to stop for a few days.
And just wait when those Russian soldiers realize that not only fuel and food are in short supply but that there is no hope for any rescue operation for them.
-
Time to go after Russia's oil and the remainder of their banking system. If Europe needs to ration or raise prices, if we in North America need to do the same - so be it.
-
...
A 40-mile-long convoy sounds more like a giant traffic jam. It's winter in Ukraine so those vehicles are going to be idling to keep warm. Maybe not all the time but at least intermittently. Every hour those trucks, APCs, and tanks sit there they're burning diesel and need to be refueled. I wouldn't want to be the driver who runs out of fuel in the middle of a convoy - or the person responsible for refueling hundreds or thousands of slowly moving vehicles jamming a single road.
...
But as long as Putin can be fooled into believing that he retains the initiative he will likely continue to pour assets into the theater and getting them stuck there.
-
Time to go after Russia's oil and the remainder of their banking system. If Europe needs to ration or raise prices, if we in North America need to do the same - so be it.
I already wrote all of my federal elected officials (President, Senators, House Rep, Speaker of the House, Senate majority leader) and asked for this. You should too. I should write them again tonight and ask them when we get "the most severe sanctions that have ever been imposed" (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/us/politics/biden-olaf-scholz-russia.html). As of right now Russian oil is not on that list and US oil companies are still free to operate in Russia (Exxon is). This is presumably because of inflation fears (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/business/biden-sanctions-russia-ukraine.html). This is not "the most severe sanctions that have ever been imposed" because this stops short of the Iran sanctions.
-
So here's another approach that I am sure won't be taken seriously. It is an approach that all of you are familiar with. I believe it is the approach you folks would take if the tables were flipped.
It has been suggested that Putin commit suicide. I don't think he will do that, but there's another approach. This guy is estimated to be worth 200 billion dollars. So, if he could be convinced to retire on the 4 percent rule, the guy could buy his own island and far from snowy Russia. To top it off he is 69 years old. It wouldn't even be early retirement. I am sure the Russians would provide him with health care too.
The world would be at peace and Putin could go fishing. It is a real win win.
-
It has been suggested that Putin commit suicide. I don't think he will do that, but there's another approach. This guy is estimated to be worth 200 billion dollars. So, if he could be convinced to retire on the 4 percent rule, the guy could buy his own island and far from snowy Russia. To top it off he is 69 years old. It wouldn't even be early retirement. I am sure the Russians would provide him with health care too.
I do not work in or represent any western government but offering amnesty to our enemies (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2000/08/17/the-trouble-with-amnesties) is a common ploy. I'm sure that he could live a happily retired life if he wanted to.
-
A commenter above noted the move to "renewables." It never seems to be acknowledged that "renewables" do not deliver power 100 percent of the time. They are backed up by natural gas. With "renewables," Putin will still sell a buttload of gas to Europe. He can charge more and deliver less. He sells a lot of gas to Germany where there has been a strong move to "renewables."
The gas industry fully supports the move to "renewables.'
Fertilizer is also made from natural gas.
Partly true (not true of hydro electric, for instance), but gas does not have to come down a pipeline from Russia, it is already coming to Europe in tankers from the Gulf and North America. Some of us also have nuclear power.
Germany stated a few days ago they would be 100% renewable in 2035.
There is currently one nuclear reactor under construction in Europe. In France. Construction started in 2007 and its been delayed a zillion times and they now hope it's up and running mid-2023. Finland started one this January. Was orginally planned to go on-line in 2009.
Just to give an idea about the timeframe here.
-
I used to work at a nuke plant that was built in about 4 years. It's still running after more than 40 years. If they could do it back then without microprocessor based controls and computer design, they can do it now.
-
If they could do it back then without microprocessor based controls and computer design, they can do it now.
Recent evidence says otherwise. Both the french one and the finnish one are built by french companies, and they are the ones who are supposed to know how to do it. Im quite baffled by how long it has taken, but I know nothing about how to build a nuclear power plant.
Even if they get their shit together and manage to build in a reasonable time frame its gonna take years from the decision is made until a plant goes on-line and its a vast amount of energy that has to be swtiched from natural gas to electric so I guess the grids have to be upgraded a lot as well etcetc. Its an herculean task but it prob needs to be done for several reasons.
That being said, Russia and previously the Soviet Union has always been a reliable supplier of natural gas to Europe. Even at the height of the cold war it flowed and was pretty much disconnected from geopolitics.
Most countries in Europe have a rather massive energy deficit and are dependent on imports from a lot of places.
-
I used to work at a nuke plant that was built in about 4 years. It's still running after more than 40 years. If they could do it back then without microprocessor based controls and computer design, they can do it now.
Environmental regulations have grown exponentially in the developed world in those 40 years.
-
I used to work at a nuke plant that was built in about 4 years. It's still running after more than 40 years. If they could do it back then without microprocessor based controls and computer design, they can do it now.
Environmental regulations have grown exponentially in the developed world in those 40 years.
Also, I'm not sure that the supply chain is still there. It used to be that you could procure a bunch of nuclear rated valves etc. Of course you can eventually get some.
-
I live in Norway and afaik we are pretty much the only country in Europe which is close to 100% renewable on electricity generation (Sweden also pretty close + a few others if you include nuclear). Our power system is around 90% hydro and 10% wind and the beauty of our hydro is that it is largly reservoir-based so it can be regulated and can provide power whenever there is a need for it. We are also "blessed" with large amounts of rain and have high, flat mountrain terrain that allows for construction of massive reservoirs that can store rainwater and melting snow and hold a lot of potential energy that can be converted into electricity wiith over 90% efficiancy even if it doesnt rain for a month. This is a luxury pretty much no other european country has and whatever renewables (wind, solar) will be built will be more volatile and can have long periods of limited production. Even our system is tad flaky, rainfall can vary a lot from year to year and as more and more is gonna be electrified we are gonna need more oompf as well and the potential for increased hydro is limited. And as nice as renewables might be it is very controversial. Hydro means disturbing pristine nature, wind tubines ditto and solar isn't nice to look at. We had a fair bit of wind power built over the last few years but now its come to a stop and prop no new production will enter in this decade bar some crisis which can speed up the process. Offshore floating wind is promising, but it's expensive compared to land-based wind power or offshore based on solid ground and is quite a few years down the road.
Rigs and platforms in the North Sea run mostly on gas-fired electricity generation, but due to the nature of the business there is no shortage of natural gas to fire the on-site power plants. They burn a small share of production and export the rest to mainland Europe and the UK.
Its gonna be very, very hard for Europe or anywhere else to transition to renewables.
-
What's China's position? Will they take advantage of the situation, buying up all of the surpluses at a discount? What recourse would the West have if they did?
-
If they could do it back then without microprocessor based controls and computer design, they can do it now.
Recent evidence says otherwise. Both the french one and the finnish one are built by french companies, and they are the ones who are supposed to know how to do it. Im quite baffled by how long it has taken, but I know nothing about how to build a nuclear power plant.
Even if they get their shit together and manage to build in a reasonable time frame its gonna take years from the decision is made until a plant goes on-line and its a vast amount of energy that has to be swtiched from natural gas to electric so I guess the grids have to be upgraded a lot as well etcetc. Its an herculean task but it prob needs to be done for several reasons.
That being said, Russia and previously the Soviet Union has always been a reliable supplier of natural gas to Europe. Even at the height of the cold war it flowed and was pretty much disconnected from geopolitics.
Most countries in Europe have a rather massive energy deficit and are dependent on imports from a lot of places.
The Chinese built the same type of reactor as the Finn and French reactor in 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Now that the design is mostly ironed out, I would expect these units could be cloned. The first ones of most anything are the hardest.
If build close to a high voltage line, I don't think connecting to the grid would be as difficult as you envision.
It seems like decisions do not need to take forever. If enough people said "Just Do It," it would get done.
It looks like it would be a wise idea to find an available alternative to Russian gas.
After this war, I think there will be a lot of changes.
-
I live in Norway and afaik we are pretty much the only country in Europe which is close to 100% renewable on electricity generation (Sweden also pretty close + a few others if you include nuclear).
Albania and Iceland listed at 100%, Norway at 97.2% per wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Denmark the world wind leader by % followed by Lithuania and Germany.
It is nice to watch these percentages move up (if it moved down due to nuclear capacity increasing, I could be okay with that in the right circumstances) all around the world - sometimes I wish it could be a little faster!
-
If they could do it back then without microprocessor based controls and computer design, they can do it now.
Recent evidence says otherwise. Both the french one and the finnish one are built by french companies, and they are the ones who are supposed to know how to do it. Im quite baffled by how long it has taken, but I know nothing about how to build a nuclear power plant.
Even if they get their shit together and manage to build in a reasonable time frame its gonna take years from the decision is made until a plant goes on-line and its a vast amount of energy that has to be swtiched from natural gas to electric so I guess the grids have to be upgraded a lot as well etcetc. Its an herculean task but it prob needs to be done for several reasons.
That being said, Russia and previously the Soviet Union has always been a reliable supplier of natural gas to Europe. Even at the height of the cold war it flowed and was pretty much disconnected from geopolitics.
Most countries in Europe have a rather massive energy deficit and are dependent on imports from a lot of places.
The Chinese built the same type of reactor as the Finn and French reactor in 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Now that the design is mostly ironed out, I would expect these units could be cloned. The first ones of most anything are the hardest.
If build close to a high voltage line, I don't think connecting to the grid would be as difficult as you envision.
It seems like decisions do not need to take forever. If enough people said "Just Do It," it would get done.
It looks like it would be a wise idea to find an available alternative to Russian gas.
After this war, I think there will be a lot of changes.
I'm with Pecunia. Move the bureaucrats out of the way and things can happen in a reasonable timeframe. If we get to the point of rotating brownouts we'll start to see this happen. In the meantime those who keep chairs warm also serve an important role in environmental protection, industrial safety, indigenous rights and so on.
I've always found it annoying that big engineering projects are hard to do efficiently. There's an old saying: we can do it fast, we can do it cheap, or we can do it well, pick 2.
-
I live in Norway and afaik we are pretty much the only country in Europe which is close to 100% renewable on electricity generation (Sweden also pretty close + a few others if you include nuclear).
Albania and Iceland listed at 100%, Norway at 97.2% per wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Denmark the world wind leader by % followed by Lithuania and Germany.
It is nice to watch these percentages move up (if it moved down due to nuclear capacity increasing, I could be okay with that in the right circumstances) all around the world - sometimes I wish it could be a little faster!
Remember that its not only electricity generation. Countries that have a fairly "green" electricity production might still rely on natural gas for heating and/or industrial use. Those who don't tend to be small and have another natural resource in abundance (Hydro in Norway's case, hydro and geothermal heat in Iceland's case). For the rest it's pretty much wind and solar. Or nuclear. Denmark has a lot of wind power but also rely on gas for heating. Denamrk is a net electricity importer also.
European reliance on russian gas has gone up the last years and it's gonna be very, very, very hard to get off that hook.
-
If you're Ukrainian and happen to capture an expensive piece of Russian military equipment, you will not be required to declare the value of that equipment as income (https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/804441.html). Good to know they'll be able to defend their homeland without worry about unwelcome tax consequences.
-
If you're Ukrainian and happen to capture an expensive piece of Russian military equipment, you will not be required to declare the value of that equipment as income (https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/804441.html). Good to know they'll be able to defend their homeland without worry about unwelcome tax consequences.
Nice one.
-
I live in Norway and afaik we are pretty much the only country in Europe which is close to 100% renewable on electricity generation (Sweden also pretty close + a few others if you include nuclear).
Since Sweden has recently shut down some nuclear, we have increased our electricity generation coming from "burning stuff", mainly oil and gas (and some wood and garbage).
Real time data for scandinavia and the baltics can be seen here, graphs a bit down on the page.
https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/
It doesn't seem to be available in English so a small translation:
Kärnkraft = Nuclear
Värmekraft = Burning stuff
Ospecificerat = miscellaneous, meaning solar + mixed powerplants.
Vindkraft = Wind
Vattenkraft = Hydro
-
I live in Norway and afaik we are pretty much the only country in Europe which is close to 100% renewable on electricity generation (Sweden also pretty close + a few others if you include nuclear).
Since Sweden has recently shut down some nuclear, we have increased our electricity generation coming from "burning stuff", mainly oil and gas (and some wood and garbage).
Real time data for scandinavia and the baltics can be seen here, graphs a bit down on the page.
https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/
It doesn't seem to be available in English so a small translation:
Kärnkraft = Nuclear
Värmekraft = Burning stuff
Ospecificerat = miscellaneous, meaning solar + mixed powerplants.
Vindkraft = Wind
Vattenkraft = Hydro
Just for fun the German to it (and no, I don't speak swedish):
Kärnkraft = Kernkraft (mostly would be "Kernenergie" used though, probably in difference to bombs)
Värmekraft = Wärmekraft
Ospecificerat = unspezifiziert
Vindkraft = Windkraft
Vattenkraft = Wasserkraft
-
Whew, Ukraine is still there. I check Zelensky's facebook page first thing every morning.
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs (Suck out Oxygen and burn very hot) and cluster bombs (Big bomb that blows out smaller bombs). These are banned by the Geneva convention. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.
I hope the Ukrainians are able to capture some of these massive arms from the Russians and Belorussians.
-
A Ukrainian UAV destroyed one of these thermobaric missile launchers yesterday. Between the MLRS and theater ballistic missiles, Kharkiv is getting pummeled, hitting schools, hospitals, and apartments. It's going to kill hundreds in the next couple days if it keeps up.
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs (Suck out Oxygen and burn very hot) and cluster bombs (Big bomb that blows out smaller bombs). These are banned by the Geneva convention. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.I hope the Ukrainians are able to capture some of these massive arms from the Russians and Belorussians.
Cluster bombs are banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Notable countries that did not agree to that convention are: China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, Pakistan and Brazil.
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs (Suck out Oxygen and burn very hot) and cluster bombs (Big bomb that blows out smaller bombs). These are banned by the Geneva convention. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.
I hope the Ukrainians are able to capture some of these massive arms from the Russians and Belorussians.
There's video all over the internet, pictures all over the internet, and yes, the Ukrainians are capturing or destroying various equipment. If there's a need to prove what Russia used in the future, my guess is its doable.
-
The International Court of Justice is going to hold hearings next Monday and Tuesday, 7th and 8th of March, on the Ukraine/Russia war. The hearings will be live on video to all comers.
Because Russia's justification for starting the war is an alleged genocide in the Donbas the application to the Court from Ukraine is asking for a ruling under the Genocide Convention that the allegation is false, together with a declaration that there was no such genocide, that Russia's recognition of the breakaway areas in the Donbas as States and its military action are not lawful under the Convention, and that Russia pay reparations for the damage caused by its actions. It is also asking for the Court to issue provisional measures requiring Russia to immediately suspend their military action.
The application was filed on 26 February and was transmitted to the Russians on 1 March, notifying them that they needed to suspend the military action (ie "act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects").
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220227-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220227-WRI-01-00-EN.pdf
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220227-APP-01-00-EN.pdf
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220301-PRE-02-00-EN.pdf
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220301-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf
if the Ukrainians win this case then any Russian military taking actions against Ukraine since yesterday could be at risk of prosecution for war crimes.
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs (Suck out Oxygen and burn very hot) and cluster bombs (Big bomb that blows out smaller bombs). These are banned by the Geneva convention. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.I hope the Ukrainians are able to capture some of these massive arms from the Russians and Belorussians.
Cluster bombs are banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Notable countries that did not agree to that convention are: China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, Pakistan and Brazil.
Usually we'll use these on an open battlefield where we need to damage or suppress a large area (about 200m sq). Use in urban areas was extremely rare, and only after a lawyer looked at the target area and gave his recommendation. The last time we used a cluster munition was performing counter-battery fire near southern Baghdad in April 2003. The reason a lot of countries don't like them is the bomblets have a high dud rate (5-15%). Dud doesn't mean inert. It just means it didn't explode on impact. It can explode later. We like the capability because its an inexpensive way to hit that kind of target, but we stopped because we haven't been able to build a replacement cluster missile that has a lower dud rate. The weapon simply isn't practical for use in a city except for terror.
The Russians have also made extensive use of their multi-launch rocket systems. Instead of one missile with 300 grenades in it, think 20 individual missiles hitting a similarly large area, each with a much larger blast radius. The Twitter video I posted a few days ago is a good example. These are not weapons you use against aimed target, but rather blanket whole areas.
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.
I strongly refute this insensible and defamating statement!
Pirates have always been extremely pro-democratic and egalitarian. Nothing like a cleptocrat!
-
Since this was brought up earlier in the thread, here is fact check Ukrainians were attacking/massacring Russian speaking Ukrainians. In fact the pattern that Putin has been doing, of having guerrilla forces in crimea, was done to prevent Ukraine from joining Nato, attempts to destabilize the existing governmemt, as well as provide a pretext to "liberate" (absorb) Ukraine. https://www.wral.com/fact-check-putin-says-russians-face-genocide-in-ukraine/20163715/
-
Since this was brought up earlier in the thread, here is fact check Ukrainians were attacking/massacring Russian speaking Ukrainians. In fact the pattern that Putin has been doing, of having guerrilla forces in crimea, was done to prevent Ukraine from joining Nato, attempts to destabilize the existing governmemt, as well as provide a pretext to "liberate" (absorb) Ukraine. https://www.wral.com/fact-check-putin-says-russians-face-genocide-in-ukraine/20163715/
Putin always seems to have a battalion of tanks within a couple hours reach whenever a group of Russians claim persecution across the border somewhere. Russia is fortunate that he's so prophetic.
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.
I strongly refute this insensible and defamating statement!
Pirates have always been extremely pro-democratic and egalitarian. Nothing like a cleptocrat!
That's actually true. Now I have to look up cleptocrat.
Kleptocracy (from Greek κλέπτης kléptēs, "thief", κλέπτω kléptō, "I steal", and -κρατία -kratía from κράτος krátos, "power, rule") is a government whose corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) use political power to appropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government ...
Yes - more high class word than pirate, besides, I kind of like Caribbean Pirates and don't like this Putin guy.
-
According to the New York Times, India's URGENT ADVISORY TO INDIAN STUDENTS IN KHARKIV (India in Ukraine Twitter Account, March 2, 2022) (https://twitter.com/IndiainUkraine/status/1498986772558196740) is based on intel from Russia:
The Indian government said that its urgent advice that its citizens leave Kharkiv “under all circumstances” by 6 p.m. is based on “inputs that we have received from the Russian side,” suggesting an intensification of attacks on the city may be imminent. (Source (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/02/world/ukraine-russia-war))
-
According to the New York Times, India's URGENT ADVISORY TO INDIAN STUDENTS IN KHARKIV (India in Ukraine Twitter Account, March 2, 2022) (https://twitter.com/IndiainUkraine/status/1498986772558196740) is based on intel from Russia:
The Indian government said that its urgent advice that its citizens leave Kharkiv “under all circumstances” by 6 p.m. is based on “inputs that we have received from the Russian side,” suggesting an intensification of attacks on the city may be imminent. (Source (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/02/world/ukraine-russia-war))
China has been trying to get their people out as well. The problem is if they don't have EU visas, then they can't cross the border. They can only fly out. Which is a bad idea right now. An Indian citizen died in Kharkiv yesterday.
-
If you're looking for some good sources to keep up to date, here are a few I've curated.
Institute for the Study of War
https://www.understandingwar.org/
This is a non-partisan think tank that posts daily updates including some good maps showing some specifically identified units.
OSINTtechnical (Open Source Intelligence)
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical
Basically, using all the pictures and videos people in Ukraine are publishing (open source) to geolocate Russian forces, equipment, attacks.
Oryx
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop
This guy has been keeping a running count of losses on both sides based only on verifiable pictures/videos. It's broken down by individual types of equipment. He did the same thing in the Ngarno-Karbakh war in 2020. He's a big fan of the Turkish TB2 UAV that Ukraine has a few of. They have been blowing up lots of Russian equipment, including they very anti-aircraft systems that Russia brags can take down these drones.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Russia - 467, of which: destroyed: 190, damaged: 8, abandoned: 121, captured: 149
Ukraine - 168, of which: destroyed: 62, damaged: 4, abandoned: 43, captured: 57
-
I saw a report that Russia was using vacuum bombs. I guess if you decide to do the evil pirate thing that you go all the way.
I strongly refute this insensible and defamating statement!
Pirates have always been extremely pro-democratic and egalitarian. Nothing like a cleptocrat!
Not to go too far off topic in off topic, but both Atlantic and Mediterranean pirates were notorious for capturing slaves to sell.
-
If you're looking for some good sources to keep up to date, here are a few I've curated.
Institute for the Study of War
https://www.understandingwar.org/ (https://www.understandingwar.org/)
This is a non-partisan think tank that posts daily updates including some good maps showing some specifically identified units.
OSINTtechnical (Open Source Intelligence)
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical)
Basically, using all the pictures and videos people in Ukraine are publishing (open source) to geolocate Russian forces, equipment, attacks.
Oryx
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop (https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop)
This guy has been keeping a running count of losses on both sides based only on verifiable pictures/videos. It's broken down by individual types of equipment. He did the same thing in the Ngarno-Karbakh war in 2020. He's a big fan of the Turkish TB2 UAV that Ukraine has a few of. They have been blowing up lots of Russian equipment, including they very anti-aircraft systems that Russia brags can take down these drones.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
Russia - 467, of which: destroyed: 190, damaged: 8, abandoned: 121, captured: 149
Ukraine - 168, of which: destroyed: 62, damaged: 4, abandoned: 43, captured: 57
DW has been listening to those twitter feeds almost nonstop since this began. It appears that Russian trolls or bots have overwhelmed them at the moment. Hopefully, they can regain control.
-
According to the New York Times, India's URGENT ADVISORY TO INDIAN STUDENTS IN KHARKIV (India in Ukraine Twitter Account, March 2, 2022) (https://twitter.com/IndiainUkraine/status/1498986772558196740) is based on intel from Russia:
The Indian government said that its urgent advice that its citizens leave Kharkiv “under all circumstances” by 6 p.m. is based on “inputs that we have received from the Russian side,” suggesting an intensification of attacks on the city may be imminent. (Source (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/02/world/ukraine-russia-war))
China has been trying to get their people out as well. The problem is if they don't have EU visas, then they can't cross the border. They can only fly out. Which is a bad idea right now. An Indian citizen died in Kharkiv yesterday.
While there have been some reports of non-Ukrainians being turned back, that's evidently not the intended policy.
"All those fleeing Putin's bombs are welcome in Europe," European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said.
"We will provide protection to those seeking shelter and we will help those looking for a safe way home."
In practice, this means everyone, independently of their nationality, is to be allowed to enter EU countries.
Asked about social media reports that some African nationals suffered discrimination and hold-ups when trying to leave Ukraine or get into the EU, Commission officials said they had told border authorities that everyone should be let through.
They're even proposing that foreign nationals who are long-term residents of Ukraine will get the same 3 years of temporary protection as Ukrainians.
Temporary protection would apply to Ukrainian nationals as well as foreign nationals who are long-term residents in Ukraine and those who were already benefiting from international protection or asylum seeker status there.
Those on short-term stays in Ukraine and who can safely go return to their country of origin will not be eligible for special EU protection including a residency permit. This will usually be the case for students, a Commission official said.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-02/eu-commission-proposes-temporary-residence-rights-for-ukraine-refugees
-
Usually we'll use these on an open battlefield where we need to damage or suppress a large area (about 200m sq). Use in urban areas was extremely rare, and only after a lawyer looked at the target area and gave his recommendation. The last time we used a cluster munition was performing counter-battery fire near southern Baghdad in April 2003. The reason a lot of countries don't like them is the bomblets have a high dud rate (5-15%). Dud doesn't mean inert. It just means it didn't explode on impact. It can explode later. We like the capability because its an inexpensive way to hit that kind of target, but we stopped because we haven't been able to build a replacement cluster missile that has a lower dud rate. The weapon simply isn't practical for use in a city except for terror.
Or to put it another way, you've stopped using them for now because you don't find them to be as effective as you want but, as you refuse to be signatories to the Cluster Munitions Convention, you reserve the right to use them when, how, and if it suits.
-
Usually we'll use these on an open battlefield where we need to damage or suppress a large area (about 200m sq). Use in urban areas was extremely rare, and only after a lawyer looked at the target area and gave his recommendation. The last time we used a cluster munition was performing counter-battery fire near southern Baghdad in April 2003. The reason a lot of countries don't like them is the bomblets have a high dud rate (5-15%). Dud doesn't mean inert. It just means it didn't explode on impact. It can explode later. We like the capability because its an inexpensive way to hit that kind of target, but we stopped because we haven't been able to build a replacement cluster missile that has a lower dud rate. The weapon simply isn't practical for use in a city except for terror.
Or to put it another way, you've stopped using them for now because you don't find them to be as effective as you want but, as you refuse to be signatories to the Cluster Munitions Convention, you reserve the right to use them when, how, and if it suits.
I'd put it a different way: even with the high dud rate, they're very effective against individual enemy soldiers. However, they pose a significant risk risk to civilians. Therefore, they should only be employed in circumstances where their effectiveness outweighs their risk to noncombatants. Those circumstances almost certainly won't exist in a densely populated urban area.
-
Anyone have links to the full interviews with Zelensky? I'm seeing bits and pieces, but not the full thing.
-
Just read today USA sent Ukraine hundreds of these Stinger Anti-Aircraft shoulder launchers. Watched a great video on them demonstrating how to use them.. amazing tech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0nuhI05QyA
I love how at 1:30 the missile drastically alters course the last couple seconds to hit target.
-
Usually we'll use these on an open battlefield where we need to damage or suppress a large area (about 200m sq). Use in urban areas was extremely rare, and only after a lawyer looked at the target area and gave his recommendation. The last time we used a cluster munition was performing counter-battery fire near southern Baghdad in April 2003. The reason a lot of countries don't like them is the bomblets have a high dud rate (5-15%). Dud doesn't mean inert. It just means it didn't explode on impact. It can explode later. We like the capability because its an inexpensive way to hit that kind of target, but we stopped because we haven't been able to build a replacement cluster missile that has a lower dud rate. The weapon simply isn't practical for use in a city except for terror.
Or to put it another way, you've stopped using them for now because you don't find them to be as effective as you want but, as you refuse to be signatories to the Cluster Munitions Convention, you reserve the right to use them when, how, and if it suits.
I'd put it a different way: even with the high dud rate, they're very effective against individual enemy soldiers. However, they pose a significant risk risk to civilians. Therefore, they should only be employed in circumstances where their effectiveness outweighs their risk to noncombatants. Those circumstances almost certainly won't exist in a densely populated urban area.
This right here. I never said duds were a military effectiveness problem for us. They're already an inexpensive munition compared with the alternatives. SecDef's mandate that they drop the dud rate to 1% or less was specifically to address civilian casualties.
-
I'd put it a different way: even with the high dud rate, they're very effective against individual enemy soldiers. However, they pose a significant risk risk to civilians. Therefore, they should only be employed in circumstances where their effectiveness outweighs their risk to noncombatants. Those circumstances almost certainly won't exist in a densely populated urban area.
This right here. I never said duds were a military effectiveness problem for us. They're already an inexpensive munition compared with the alternatives. SecDef's mandate that they drop the dud rate to 1% or less was specifically to address civilian casualties.
That makes not signing up to the convention so much better, lol.
We will reserve the right to use them when it suits us even though we know they pose a significant risk of killing a bunch of civilians, but at least we'll try not to kill too many when we do.
-
I'd put it a different way: even with the high dud rate, they're very effective against individual enemy soldiers. However, they pose a significant risk risk to civilians. Therefore, they should only be employed in circumstances where their effectiveness outweighs their risk to noncombatants. Those circumstances almost certainly won't exist in a densely populated urban area.
This right here. I never said duds were a military effectiveness problem for us. They're already an inexpensive munition compared with the alternatives. SecDef's mandate that they drop the dud rate to 1% or less was specifically to address civilian casualties.
That makes not signing up to the convention so much better, lol.
We will reserve the right to use them when it suits us even though we know they pose a significant risk of killing a bunch of civilians, but at least we'll try not to kill too many when we do.
Pretty much. Never said we were saints. We killed a lot of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least we went through the effort of aiming at the bad guys when we did it, and called off plenty of attacks because of civilians. We have a lawyer in every brigade whose job it is to give law of warfare recommendations to commanders. They got a lot of use during the war giving opinions on whether a strike could be justified should there be any civilian casualties. Our rules of engagement changed a lot throughout the war preventing commanders from firing artillery or airstrikes when it might have aided our troops. I don't think that's anywhere to be found in Russian doctrine.
-
Nearly every POW has stated they thought they were either on a training exercise or liberating the country and didn't expect a fight.
Indeed, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nifxKIhFSuw) is the most embarrassing one I've seen yet. But there is some survivorship bias here. You don't see the videos of the Spetsnaz, presumably because they didn't surrender. I've seen some speculation among US combat veterans that Putin didn't send his A-team, but that Russia does (somewhere) have an A-team. In fact Russia has north of 10k Spetsnaz soldiers.
Elements of the "A Team" were sent in ahead of time disguised in Ukrainian uniforms to conduct sabotage and mark targets for the Russian air force. They've been battled and captured in large numbers as well. There's a photo out there of a dozen laying down handcuffed with their weapons in a pile.
I noticed this video this morning, Funker530: The Surprising Lack Of Modern Equipment On Russian Soldiers In Ukraine (https://funker530.com/video/the-surprising-lack-of-modern-equipment-on-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine/). The description includes:
What's interesting with this perspective however is the total lack of modern military equipment present on any of these Russians. Their rifles are bare, they have no optics whatsoever. Their helmets even lack basic night vision mounting brackets, something that the Russians have been displaying in full on all of their Soldiers that were present throughout the Syrian conflict. Even all the way down to their packs and friend/foe marking, the Russian infantryman as we see them in Kherson are entirely underequipped for an operation at the scale they are trying to conduct.
In the United States, we've been spending billions of dollars preparing to engage with the hot new buzz word around the Pentagon. Near Peer Foes are what we've been calling the Russians and Chinese for the past six to eight years. This video however displays a Russian infantryman wearing equipment akin to the gear Marines and Soldiers rode into Iraq with back in 1991 during Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
I don't follow the military very closely, but I do like rifles, so I am aware of the Next Generation Squad Weapon Program (NGSWP) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Squad_Weapon_Program) and the kit that US infantry carry. The US government didn't start the NGSWP to battle Warsaw bloc soldiers from the 1970s. They started it because we were worried about our "near peer" adversaries of which Russia is one.
Depending on your point of view you can draw your own conclusions for why this is.
-
Yeah, it's a real mystery.
Some say it's because Putin expected to Ukraine army to falter from the first shot, so they didn't bother lossing expensive equipment.
Some say because the soldiers should not look intimidating - they are there to rescue people from Nazis after all.
It may also be some propaganda thing.
But none of that makes sense imho.
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
-
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
-
But Putin isn’t looking forward at how to succeed in the 21st century. He’s looking backward at a “glorious” Russian empire from the 19th century.
-
Putin runs a kleptocracy and one of the places his kleptocrats have been stealing from is the military budget.
-
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
There is probably an equipment gap between the infantry regulars and the spetsnaz.
-
Putin runs a kleptocracy and one of the places his kleptocrats have been stealing from is the military budget.
I think this is the most likely explanation. Russia certainly has the resources to equip/fuel/feed their forces better than what we've seen, but if that funding is going into the pockets of generals and officers and oligarchs, and nobody has an incentive to tattle, then there you go.
There's not really an offramp for anyone at this point, though, so my prediction is a protracted deadly conflict that ends with Russia "winning" through sheer numbers. From there they're on the road to being North Korea 2.
-W
-
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
Russia is a country of 144.1 million people.
Assuming that Russians official Ukraine casualties are 100x lower than reality to be safe, that only works out to 49,800 people. Probably not enough to be noticed.
-
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
Russia is a country of 144.1 million people.
Assuming that Russians official Ukraine casualties are 100x lower than reality to be safe, that only works out to 49,800 people. Probably not enough to be noticed.
I read they lost 15,000 in Afghanistan and they were noticed. This was over the 10 year period from 1979 to 1989. Let's say they've lost about 6,000 so far. It's a much shorter period. I think the lost young soldiers will be noticed.
You guys are money people. Putin and his Oligarchs are money people. Money people deal with Assets and Liabilities. Having a friend like Putin has been an asset.
All these sanctions seem like they hurt the oligarch guys by freezing their toys and stuff. It prevents them from making money. They are money people. They want to keep making money. There is this war because Putin has ordered it. It is because of the war that the toys aren't available. The war is because of Putin. Not making money and not having toys is bad. People that make things bad are liabilities and not assets. Putin is a liability and not an asset. Good businessmen remove liabilities.
Is it possible that some of Putin's buddies are no longer his buddies but are pretend buddies?
Is it possible I've been seeing too many gangster movies?
General Question - To me this Ukraine thing is a big story. I just ran into a few people that don't watch the news and don't want to. I mentioned Ukraine and they had no clue. I have a brother a bit like that. Do you think people like that are the majority?
-
Russia has been touting for years that they can do more with less and are developing all these new weapons. The reality is they can't, and they haven't. It's all been a lie and it's now on full display.
They sent in a bunch of conscripts with decades old equipment - and even the more modern equipment is getting destroyed just as easily by anti-tank guided missiles provided by the US and European allies (Javelin, NLAW, etc.). They've touted active protection systems (basically a system that blows up incoming missiles) but those are nowhere to be seen. Instead, they've mounted metal cages with sandbags on top of the turret of tanks to try and stop Javelin missiles which attack the top of the tank where it's the most vulnerable.
The T-14 Armata tank they introduced years ago is nowhere to be seen because they can't actually build them at scale - just a few prototypes to display at a parade. Even T-90s (introduced in 1992) and T-80s (introduced in 1976) are rare and those are decades old. It's mostly T-72s (introduced in 1969).
They're using just a handful of missiles to try and destroy airfields and in one satellite photo (attached) it showed that only 2 out of 6 hit the tarmac. The other 4 hit the dirt next to the runway causing no real damage. An American strike on a similar target would have probably used 15-20 cruise missiles or precision guided bombs precisely targeted at specific targets (fuel facilities, runway intersections, hangars, control tower, etc.). The thing is, Russia has relatively few precision weapons. They're using modern fighters to drop 50-year-old unguided bombs - and having to fly relatively close to do so - putting them at risk from Ukranian anti-aircraft fire.
This is one reason why they're attacking cities with area effect weapons (artillery, rockets, cluster munitions, etc.) they simply don't have enough precision weapons to actually hit specific targets. Also, it's a terror thing to try and demoralize the military and civilians and get them to surrender or face more civilian casualties.
-
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
The demographics of Russia certainly play a role, but they can be seen as creating a bit of a "it's now or never" situation for invading Ukraine. The longer Russia waited, the worse its army was going to be.
According to the UN’s World Population Prospects report from 2019, there were a projected 14.25 million men aged 20-34 in Russia in 2020. ... However, the true disaster is far closer than mid-century; in 2025, there will be only 11.55 million and in 2030, 11.23 million.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russian-military-facing-looming-demography-crisis (https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russian-military-facing-looming-demography-crisis)
-
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
Russia is a country of 144.1 million people.
Assuming that Russians official Ukraine casualties are 100x lower than reality to be safe, that only works out to 49,800 people. Probably not enough to be noticed.
I read they lost 15,000 in Afghanistan and they were noticed. This was over the 10 year period from 1979 to 1989. Let's say they've lost about 6,000 so far. It's a much shorter period. I think the lost young soldiers will be noticed.
You guys are money people. Putin and his Oligarchs are money people. Money people deal with Assets and Liabilities. Having a friend like Putin has been an asset.
All these sanctions seem like they hurt the oligarch guys by freezing their toys and stuff. It prevents them from making money. They are money people. They want to keep making money. There is this war because Putin has ordered it. It is because of the war that the toys aren't available. The war is because of Putin. Not making money and not having toys is bad. People that make things bad are liabilities and not assets. Putin is a liability and not an asset. Good businessmen remove liabilities.
Is it possible that some of Putin's buddies are no longer his buddies but are pretend buddies?
Is it possible I've been seeing too many gangster movies?
General Question - To me this Ukraine thing is a big story. I just ran into a few people that don't watch the news and don't want to. I mentioned Ukraine and they had no clue. I have a brother a bit like that. Do you think people like that are the majority?
No, I think most of the world is watching the situation in Ukraine right now. Those of us with an interest in 20th century geopolitics immediately spotted similarities to 1939. I certainly appreciate the idea of a low-information diet and am grateful that I don't have cable TV, but I don't think it's a superior position to be completely ignorant of the broader world.
As for Putin, I do think that the oligarchs/Russian mafia must be starting to see him as a liability rather than an asset. I'm sure that none of them expected to feel any discomfort from his actions and were happy to turn a blind eye to his dictatorial qualities, as long as it kept them rich and powerful. Now, their assets are being frozen and seized, and they're being shut out of various aspects of global business.
-
It feels like Putin wanted to get rid of old equipment but didn't find a scrap yard with the permit for military stuff.
But that doesn't make any sense either. Russia's largest problem over the next 50 years is one of demographics. You don't send a bunch of healthy young men to die for fun.
Russia is a country of 144.1 million people.
Assuming that Russians official Ukraine casualties are 100x lower than reality to be safe, that only works out to 49,800 people. Probably not enough to be noticed.
In military parlance "casualty" includes the injured (https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/definitions/casualties). Also, if you actually wanted to take back Ukraine you need to count all of the casualties on that side too. That doesn't even include knock-on effects. How many injured soldiers do you have for every killed one? Who takes care of them? Is PTSD good for a labor force? (An MSF survey in 2005 showed that 77% of the inhabitants of temporary accommodation centres in Grozny never, or only occasionally, felt safe (https://www.msf.org/effects-fear-msfs-mental-health-program-ingushetia-and-chechnya)).
Furthermore, salaries are higher in Russia than Ukraine. Ukraine is a country full of fluent Russian speakers. If they hadn't started a war with them in 2014 then perhaps you could have recruited them. At this point it is my understanding that the average Ukrainian wants nothing to do with Russia.
When the iron curtain fell Russia could have been Poland, only bigger with more mineral resources. I'm starting to think that will never happen.
-
i haven't heard anything on the cyberwarfare front. russia is supposed to be good at this.
-
i haven't heard anything on the cyberwarfare front. russia is supposed to be good at this.
If every hacker in the world is busy harassing you, it's awfully difficult to both defend and attack at the same time. Anonymous declared war. I'm sure plenty of nation states are taking advantage of Anonymous' actions and working in their shadow, possibly with far greater impact.
-
i haven't heard anything on the cyberwarfare front. russia is supposed to be good at this.
There have been. CNBC: Cyberattack hits Ukrainian banks and government websites (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/23/cyberattack-hits-ukrainian-banks-and-government-websites.html) Microsoft: Cyber threat activity in Ukraine: analysis and resources (https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2022/02/28/analysis-resources-cyber-threat-activity-ukraine/). They released brand new never before noticed malware AFAIK.
-
I live in Norway and afaik we are pretty much the only country in Europe which is close to 100% renewable on electricity generation (Sweden also pretty close + a few others if you include nuclear).
Albania and Iceland listed at 100%, Norway at 97.2% per wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Denmark the world wind leader by % followed by Lithuania and Germany.
It is nice to watch these percentages move up (if it moved down due to nuclear capacity increasing, I could be okay with that in the right circumstances) all around the world - sometimes I wish it could be a little faster!
Remember that its not only electricity generation. Countries that have a fairly "green" electricity production might still rely on natural gas for heating and/or industrial use. Those who don't tend to be small and have another natural resource in abundance (Hydro in Norway's case, hydro and geothermal heat in Iceland's case). For the rest it's pretty much wind and solar. Or nuclear. Denmark has a lot of wind power but also rely on gas for heating. Denamrk is a net electricity importer also.
European reliance on russian gas has gone up the last years and it's gonna be very, very, very hard to get off that hook.
A few years ago, Norway built a couple of small natural gas power plants "for backup". They were very costly and of very little use, so the last one will be demantled in April. It was supposed to happen several years ago, but covid. So @habanero is correct, we are basically at 100 % renewable (I see we currently are at 99.7 % hydro + wind, and the last .3% is made from burning something. But we have a bit of electricity production from several of our waste treatment plants, so those .3% could be from that).
Denmark is gradually transforming to green gas, increased from 21 to 25 % biogas in their grid last year. Biogas is a very good replacement for Russian natural gas, since it is chemically identical, and can be produced from waste. By utilizing the exisiting gas grid, the transformation can be made without hurting the consumer, particularly since biogas now is several places in cheaper than natural gas.
https://en.energinet.dk/About-our-news/News/2022/01/07/New-record-biogas
According to IEA, it is possible to reduce Russian gas use by 50% in one year with relatively simple means: https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-reduce-the-european-unions-reliance-on-russian-natural-gas (Note that they have based the calculations on people turning down their thermostat from 22 to 21 degrees C...).
https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-reduce-the-european-unions-reliance-on-russian-natural-gas
-
A few years ago, Norway built a couple of small natural gas power plants "for backup". They were very costly and of very little use, so the last one will be demantled in April. It was supposed to happen several years ago, but covid. So @habanero is correct, we are basically at 100 % renewable (I see we currently are at 99.7 % hydro + wind, and the last .3% is made from burning something. But we have a bit of electricity production from several of our waste treatment plants, so those .3% could be from that).
In addition to whatever is going on here, in the USA most regulators make sure that you can exceed your scheduled peak demand by 3% at any time. So we have what are called "peaking plants" which may get run six days a year or perhaps never. Very expensive per kWh.
-
A few years ago, Norway built a couple of small natural gas power plants "for backup". They were very costly and of very little use, so the last one will be demantled in April. It was supposed to happen several years ago, but covid. So @habanero is correct, we are basically at 100 % renewable (I see we currently are at 99.7 % hydro + wind, and the last .3% is made from burning something. But we have a bit of electricity production from several of our waste treatment plants, so those .3% could be from that).
In addition to whatever is going on here, in the USA most regulators make sure that you can exceed your scheduled peak demand by 3% at any time. So we have what are called "peaking plants" which may get run six days a year or perhaps never. Very expensive per kWh.
The peak demand is why the fossil lobbyist managed to convince our politicians to build those natural gas power plants originally, but it soon turned out we don't need them due to all the hydro. The waste treatment fascilities that have a tiny bit of electricity production are not built for variable loads. Their alternative, if the heat isn't needed at the moment, is to vent the flame/heat outside. Annually, 10 % of our biogas production is flared, meaning 70 GWh of renewable energy is lost. But those numbers pale compared to the global flaring of natural gas: 140 bcm, or the equivalent of 750 TWh: https://www.enverus.com/blog/natural-gas-flaring/
We waste so much energy in the world, it is sickening. The heat wasted from electricity production and industry in Europe is more than enough to replace the Russian gas. Not all of that will be easy or cheap to utilize, but at least 1/3 could be cost effective with "normal" energy prices. With the current prices, who knows. We need to increase the district heating and cooling infrastructure substantially, and fast. And since the energy market is global, any reduction in consumption or increase in production one place will free up energy for someone else.
-
WSJ: Congress Introduces Bill to Ban Russian Crude, Seeking to Squeeze Putin Revenue Source (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/congress-introduces-bill-to-ban-russian-crude-seeking-to-squeeze-putin-revenue-source-ppUZbgVfQZTbpGTa6fN8). If you are a US citizen I encourage you to contact your elected officials to support this bill.
-
i haven't heard anything on the cyberwarfare front. russia is supposed to be good at this.
There have been. CNBC: Cyberattack hits Ukrainian banks and government websites (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/23/cyberattack-hits-ukrainian-banks-and-government-websites.html) Microsoft: Cyber threat activity in Ukraine: analysis and resources (https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2022/02/28/analysis-resources-cyber-threat-activity-ukraine/). They released brand new never before noticed malware AFAIK.
Honestly, even with all that being reported - it's less than I would have expected. And I haven't heard of DDOS hitting Ukraine, or the countries backing Ukraine in unusual numbers. The hackers may be making an impact, in distraction if nothing else.
-
WSJ: Congress Introduces Bill to Ban Russian Crude, Seeking to Squeeze Putin Revenue Source (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/congress-introduces-bill-to-ban-russian-crude-seeking-to-squeeze-putin-revenue-source-ppUZbgVfQZTbpGTa6fN8). If you are a US citizen I encourage you to contact your elected officials to support this bill.
You don't think it would push Putin to use a nuclear weapon, at least as a show of force to prove the world he's not scared to launch one?
-
i haven't heard anything on the cyberwarfare front. russia is supposed to be good at this.
There have been. CNBC: Cyberattack hits Ukrainian banks and government websites (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/23/cyberattack-hits-ukrainian-banks-and-government-websites.html) Microsoft: Cyber threat activity in Ukraine: analysis and resources (https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2022/02/28/analysis-resources-cyber-threat-activity-ukraine/). They released brand new never before noticed malware AFAIK.
Honestly, even with all that being reported - it's less than I would have expected. And I haven't heard of DDOS hitting Ukraine, or the countries backing Ukraine in unusual numbers. The hackers may be making an impact, in distraction if nothing else.
Well, the west has been working on DDOS mitigation for decades now. CloudFlare and AWS are happy to help you solve this problem, just insert money. Not all attacks will necessarily be reported. But also, I think that there is more cyber-warfare than people realize because it isn't making front page news. In some cases I'm not sure if the US and its allies wouldn't politely request it not making the news. IDK, I work in software but I never deal with three letter agencies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/us/politics/ukraine-russia-microsoft.html
https://venturebeat.com/2022/03/02/microsoft-data-wiper-cyberattacks-continuing-in-ukraine/
https://www.newsweek.com/ddos-attack-definition-meaning-liveuamap-ukraine-russia-cyberattack-mapping-tool-1683978
-
WSJ: Congress Introduces Bill to Ban Russian Crude, Seeking to Squeeze Putin Revenue Source (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/congress-introduces-bill-to-ban-russian-crude-seeking-to-squeeze-putin-revenue-source-ppUZbgVfQZTbpGTa6fN8). If you are a US citizen I encourage you to contact your elected officials to support this bill.
You don't think it would push Putin to use a nuclear weapon, at least as a show of force to prove the world he's not scared to launch one?
From the Russian perspective, the amount of oil that the US buys from Russia is rather trivial.
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.11.14/main.png)
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33732 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33732)
-
The Ruble is now trading at 118/$1, and Russia has now been downgraded to junk status (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/03/1084177384/russia-credit-rating-ruble). Russian citizens are lining up at ATMs to withdraw money in anything-but-rubles. I suppose that makes sense, with the Russian Central Bank doubling interest rates to 20%.
This guy (https://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/1499449799573188619/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1499449799573188619%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fjohn-s-2%2F2022%2F03%2F03%2Frussias-credit-rating-at-junk-status-annual-inflation-at-61-will-putin-institute-martial-law-n452803) is projecting >60% annual inflation in Russia as a result of the sanctions.
-
The Ruble is now trading at 118/$1, and Russia has now been downgraded to junk status (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/03/1084177384/russia-credit-rating-ruble). Russian citizens are lining up at ATMs to withdraw money in anything-but-rubles. I suppose that makes sense, with the Russian Central Bank doubling interest rates to 20%.
This guy (https://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/1499449799573188619/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1499449799573188619%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fjohn-s-2%2F2022%2F03%2F03%2Frussias-credit-rating-at-junk-status-annual-inflation-at-61-will-putin-institute-martial-law-n452803) is projecting >60% annual inflation in Russia as a result of the sanctions.
Putin wants to bring back the past glory of Russia. Looks like their average person is going to be as poor as one of the peasants prior to 1918.
-
From the Russian perspective, the amount of oil that the US buys from Russia is rather trivial.
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.11.14/main.png)
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33732 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33732)
I don't disagree. But still:
1. Why wouldn't we do this?
2. It might encourage some European nations to follow.
-
WSJ: Congress Introduces Bill to Ban Russian Crude, Seeking to Squeeze Putin Revenue Source (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/congress-introduces-bill-to-ban-russian-crude-seeking-to-squeeze-putin-revenue-source-ppUZbgVfQZTbpGTa6fN8). If you are a US citizen I encourage you to contact your elected officials to support this bill.
You don't think it would push Putin to use a nuclear weapon, at least as a show of force to prove the world he's not scared to launch one?
I think that during the Korean war US pilots went head-to-head with pilots from the USSR and no one launched a nuke. I don't personally think that Putin is more nuts than Stalin.
-
i haven't heard anything on the cyberwarfare front. russia is supposed to be good at this.
There have been. CNBC: Cyberattack hits Ukrainian banks and government websites (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/23/cyberattack-hits-ukrainian-banks-and-government-websites.html) Microsoft: Cyber threat activity in Ukraine: analysis and resources (https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2022/02/28/analysis-resources-cyber-threat-activity-ukraine/). They released brand new never before noticed malware AFAIK.
Honestly, even with all that being reported - it's less than I would have expected. And I haven't heard of DDOS hitting Ukraine, or the countries backing Ukraine in unusual numbers. The hackers may be making an impact, in distraction if nothing else.
Well, the west has been working on DDOS mitigation for decades now. CloudFlare and AWS are happy to help you solve this problem, just insert money. Not all attacks will necessarily be reported. But also, I think that there is more cyber-warfare than people realize because it isn't making front page news. In some cases I'm not sure if the US and its allies wouldn't politely request it not making the news. IDK, I work in software but I never deal with three letter agencies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/us/politics/ukraine-russia-microsoft.html
https://venturebeat.com/2022/03/02/microsoft-data-wiper-cyberattacks-continuing-in-ukraine/
https://www.newsweek.com/ddos-attack-definition-meaning-liveuamap-ukraine-russia-cyberattack-mapping-tool-1683978
Ukraine government was on the receiving end of DDOS on Day 1. Since then, Russia has been on the defensive. Anonymous and every other hackivist group with some time on their hands has been going after Russian and Belorussian government sites, power plants, railroads, defense contractors, and air traffic control.
-
Russia has been touting for years that they can do more with less and are developing all these new weapons. The reality is they can't, and they haven't. It's all been a lie and it's now on full display.
They sent in a bunch of conscripts with decades old equipment - and even the more modern equipment is getting destroyed just as easily by anti-tank guided missiles provided by the US and European allies (Javelin, NLAW, etc.). They've touted active protection systems (basically a system that blows up incoming missiles) but those are nowhere to be seen. Instead, they've mounted metal cages with sandbags on top of the turret of tanks to try and stop Javelin missiles which attack the top of the tank where it's the most vulnerable.
The T-14 Armata tank they introduced years ago is nowhere to be seen because they can't actually build them at scale - just a few prototypes to display at a parade. Even T-90s (introduced in 1992) and T-80s (introduced in 1976) are rare and those are decades old. It's mostly T-72s (introduced in 1969).
They're using just a handful of missiles to try and destroy airfields and in one satellite photo (attached) it showed that only 2 out of 6 hit the tarmac. The other 4 hit the dirt next to the runway causing no real damage. An American strike on a similar target would have probably used 15-20 cruise missiles or precision guided bombs precisely targeted at specific targets (fuel facilities, runway intersections, hangars, control tower, etc.). The thing is, Russia has relatively few precision weapons. They're using modern fighters to drop 50-year-old unguided bombs - and having to fly relatively close to do so - putting them at risk from Ukranian anti-aircraft fire.
This is one reason why they're attacking cities with area effect weapons (artillery, rockets, cluster munitions, etc.) they simply don't have enough precision weapons to actually hit specific targets. Also, it's a terror thing to try and demoralize the military and civilians and get them to surrender or face more civilian casualties.
If Russia actually possesses the weapons and kit we've been worried about, it's probably in the hands of the soldiers allocated to face Poland and the Baltics. The Russian air force has been mostly absent, and the conjecture is that they don't have the stand-off weapons to use without putting pilots at risk for low-altitude attacks and they haven't figured out how to have their own aircraft and SAMs in the same area. The Ukrainian air force isn't very big, but every couple days they're still able to fly and get results.
The army in Ukraine mostly came from central and southern Russia. It also seems like in the Russian system, the longer you stay in the army, the better equipment you have. Their 1st/2nd year soldiers on the frontline get crap to work with, but their paratroopers have better gear. Not that it's helping them much. On paper the Russians are making progress in the south, but they're paying for it dearly. They captured Kherson yesterday which partially links the forces in Crimea and Donbas, but as soon as the sun went down the Ukrainians counterattacked and destroyed a number of helicopters that were landed at the Kherson airport as reinforcements. Ukrainian forces cut off and encircled an attempt to surround Kyiv from the west in the town of Bucha. A Russian general was killed yesterday. I don't have access to full internet at work, but from I was reading before I left the house, that convoy everyone was worried about north of Kyiv has been stalled for four days for lack of fuel, and today it's being bombed. An American civilian who does depot-level maintenance for the US Army looked at photos of a Russian wheeled artillery piece stuck on the road and surmised it hadn't left the motorpool in a year based on the wear pattern from the tire blowout it had.
-
WSJ: Congress Introduces Bill to Ban Russian Crude, Seeking to Squeeze Putin Revenue Source (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-03/card/congress-introduces-bill-to-ban-russian-crude-seeking-to-squeeze-putin-revenue-source-ppUZbgVfQZTbpGTa6fN8). If you are a US citizen I encourage you to contact your elected officials to support this bill.
You don't think it would push Putin to use a nuclear weapon, at least as a show of force to prove the world he's not scared to launch one?
Given the state displayed by the Russian army, it makes me wonder if they still have an ICBM capability. Those missiles require expensive maintenance to the point that even the US is having trouble keeping up to date...
See for example https://www.airforcemag.com/report-icbms-to-fall-short-of-mission-needs-in-2026/ (https://www.airforcemag.com/report-icbms-to-fall-short-of-mission-needs-in-2026/)
-
Yeah, it's a real mystery.
Some say it's because Putin expected to Ukraine army to falter from the first shot, so they didn't bother lossing expensive equipment.
Some say because the soldiers should not look intimidating - they are there to rescue people from Nazis after all.
It may also be some propaganda thing.
But none of that makes sense imho.
Can't say for sure, but the theories here in my office are:
-Thought it would be a cakewalk, so no planning or preparation
-Russian doctrine hasn't been updated in 30 years. They really thought going in with unsupported light infantry was a winning move. Would also explain why they did four airborne operations that all ended in slaughter
-They believed their own bullshit that they were going to liberate a friendly population
-Their maintenance program is crap. They're only resourced to attack weak neighbors. Their logistics program is definitely crap. There's video out there of soldiers saying they haven't eaten in four days.
-The army attacking Ukraine is second-tier and doesn't get the good toys. Only partially true as several T-90s (their best tank) have been destroyed/captured.
-
The BBC is reporting that the Russians have been firing at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Enerhodar, south Ukraine, and that it is now on fire.
Shit, shit, shit.
-
The BBC is reporting that the Russians have been firing at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Enerhodar, south Ukraine, and that it is now on fire.
Shit, shit, shit.
Watch it live if you'd like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8)
-
I don't know, shelling a nuclear plant, to me, constitutes an attack on all of Europe/NATO. I'd probably tell the Russians to get 100km away from the plant ASAP or NATO joins the war.
But then again, nuclear weapons...
-W
-
The BBC is reporting that the Russians have been firing at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Enerhodar, south Ukraine, and that it is now on fire.
Shit, shit, shit.
This seems insanely stupid considering that it is immediately upwind from the disputed territories, many of the Russian's own forces and, well, portions of Russia itself. FFS.
-
On paper the Russians are making progress in the south, but they're paying for it dearly. They captured Kherson yesterday which partially links the forces in Crimea and Donbas, but as soon as the sun went down the Ukrainians counterattacked and destroyed a number of helicopters that were landed at the Kherson airport as reinforcements. Ukrainian forces cut off and encircled an attempt to surround Kyiv from the west in the town of Bucha. A Russian general was killed yesterday. I don't have access to full internet at work, but from I was reading before I left the house, that convoy everyone was worried about north of Kyiv has been stalled for four days for lack of fuel, and today it's being bombed. An American civilian who does depot-level maintenance for the US Army looked at photos of a Russian wheeled artillery piece stuck on the road and surmised it hadn't left the motorpool in a year based on the wear pattern from the tire blowout it had.
I hadn't heard about the counterattack or Bucha, although I had heard about the rest. Where did you hear about those two?
The BBC is reporting that the Russians have been firing at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Enerhodar, south Ukraine, and that it is now on fire.
Shit, shit, shit.
That, to me, is a red line. I don't care if you've got nukes. If I'm president, and you're shelling a nuclear power plant, my jets would be scrambled and taking out your artillery tout de suite. I'm not bothering with any warning. You ought to know better than that.
EDIT: The building that was on fire is a training building, and the fire has now been put out. Most of the reactors are shut down, but it sounds like the plant is taking heavy fire. Whether this is intentional or incidental isn't clear, but c'mon, man, that's just insane either way.
-
EDIT: The building that was on fire is a training building, and the fire has now been put out. Most of the reactors are shut down, but it sounds like the plant is taking heavy fire. Whether this is intentional or incidental isn't clear, but c'mon, man, that's just insane either way.
There seems to be no real strategy other than "blow things up!", as far as I can tell.
-
If they wanted the same effect on the population, they would only need to blow up the towers leaving the site. Are they just dumb? I would think the Russians would want the physical infrastructure if they are going to take over. They aren't smart enough to be good pirates.
-
A bit of good news.
Germans welcome Ukrainian refugees by train: 'It could have been us'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60611188
In Berlin's central railway station the trains arriving from the east come carrying thousands of refugees every day - men, women and children fleeing Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine.
Those who want to head onwards get free train tickets to anywhere in Europe. Those who don't, or don't know where they should go, get ushered down to a cavernous hall.
What they find is a huge operation to welcome them. Food and drink is handed out along with sim cards for phones, and there medical teams, translators, volunteers and organisers to help.
And there's a crowd, hundreds strong, of German families standing there too, offering places in their homes to the refugees.
-
On paper the Russians are making progress in the south, but they're paying for it dearly. They captured Kherson yesterday which partially links the forces in Crimea and Donbas, but as soon as the sun went down the Ukrainians counterattacked and destroyed a number of helicopters that were landed at the Kherson airport as reinforcements. Ukrainian forces cut off and encircled an attempt to surround Kyiv from the west in the town of Bucha. A Russian general was killed yesterday. I don't have access to full internet at work, but from I was reading before I left the house, that convoy everyone was worried about north of Kyiv has been stalled for four days for lack of fuel, and today it's being bombed. An American civilian who does depot-level maintenance for the US Army looked at photos of a Russian wheeled artillery piece stuck on the road and surmised it hadn't left the motorpool in a year based on the wear pattern from the tire blowout it had.
I hadn't heard about the counterattack or Bucha, although I had heard about the rest. Where did you hear about those two?
The BBC is reporting that the Russians have been firing at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Enerhodar, south Ukraine, and that it is now on fire.
Shit, shit, shit.
That, to me, is a red line. I don't care if you've got nukes. If I'm president, and you're shelling a nuclear power plant, my jets would be scrambled and taking out your artillery tout de suite. I'm not bothering with any warning. You ought to know better than that.
EDIT: The building that was on fire is a training building, and the fire has now been put out. Most of the reactors are shut down, but it sounds like the plant is taking heavy fire. Whether this is intentional or incidental isn't clear, but c'mon, man, that's just insane either way.
I agree re the red line. You DO NOT THREATEN NUCLEAR. Whether its bombs or power plants. You just don't. Anyone who does is just insane and needs to be removed from power for the safety of the world.
And all the problems of NATO/US/other getting involved still exist. I really hope that someone in Russia takes action. I don't really expect it however.
-
(following the thread and broader topic with great interest, but not much or maybe too much too say, and not enough time).
Does anyone think it likely that Ukraine will win a decisive ground victory over the Russian army? This thought has been in my head since the second day, when Russia seemed to be moving a little slowly, and the first videos of farmers pulling away Russian armored vehicles with tractors started to pop up. I thought "wow, the Russians launched an attack with 6 prongs, and with a force of 180,000 and half in reserve, some of the prongs must be pretty small. If NATO saturated the countryside with weapons, they could be cut off and soon annihilated." Since then the Russians seem to be doing, if anything, worse. If they were destined for success it seems like their momentum should be accelerating.
War is not just a numbers game. Like a stock market, it is also a mind game. If the Ukrainians destroy enough equipment and the Russians start to run out of supplies, a surrender could become contagious. Could we see a rapid collapse of nearly all Russian units deployed more than 50 miles from their border?
Arm chair generalling. Not an expert at all, though I read quite a bit of military history as a kid, including The Encyclopedia of Battles several times.
-
A bit of good news.
Germans welcome Ukrainian refugees by train: 'It could have been us'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60611188
In Berlin's central railway station the trains arriving from the east come carrying thousands of refugees every day - men, women and children fleeing Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine.
Those who want to head onwards get free train tickets to anywhere in Europe. Those who don't, or don't know where they should go, get ushered down to a cavernous hall.
What they find is a huge operation to welcome them. Food and drink is handed out along with sim cards for phones, and there medical teams, translators, volunteers and organisers to help.
And there's a crowd, hundreds strong, of German families standing there too, offering places in their homes to the refugees.
A friend of mine is from the region and he had his girlfriend in Kiev up until Tuesday when she and some friends managed to get away. Once they reached the Moldovan border, it was pretty smooth sailing - supplies were given to them, friendly people everywhere, transport available. I think she arrives in Sweden today.
-
No, I think most of the world is watching the situation in Ukraine right now. Those of us with an interest in 20th century geopolitics immediately spotted similarities to 1939. I certainly appreciate the idea of a low-information diet and am grateful that I don't have cable TV, but I don't think it's a superior position to be completely ignorant of the broader world.
When you say 1939, my thoughts go to the Soviet invasion of Finland starting the Finnish Winter War. Was that what you meant or do you think of a wider scope?
-
A bit of good news.
Germans welcome Ukrainian refugees by train: 'It could have been us'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60611188
In Berlin's central railway station the trains arriving from the east come carrying thousands of refugees every day - men, women and children fleeing Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine.
Those who want to head onwards get free train tickets to anywhere in Europe. Those who don't, or don't know where they should go, get ushered down to a cavernous hall.
What they find is a huge operation to welcome them. Food and drink is handed out along with sim cards for phones, and there medical teams, translators, volunteers and organisers to help.
And there's a crowd, hundreds strong, of German families standing there too, offering places in their homes to the refugees.
A friend of mine is from the region and he had his girlfriend in Kiev up until Tuesday when she and some friends managed to get away. Once they reached the Moldovan border, it was pretty smooth sailing - supplies were given to them, friendly people everywhere, transport available. I think she arrives in Sweden today.
Good to hear she's safe!
In my corner of Europe I hear similar sories. Ukrainians arrive in my city every day. Some by train, but it also seems like many Ukrainians just put their most important belongings in their car and drove here. Many people are donating clothing, food, pet supplies and toys and offer living spaces for those people. I also know of several local initiatives of people who are driving to Poland with a truck full of supplies. Trains are free for refugees in most European countries and in my country roadside assistance is free for Ukrainians too now.
In the past we've not always been kind to refugees in my country so I'm really glad to see people are all supporting the Ukraine right now. There are some Putin apologists in our parliament but I would see public opinion is 95% behind Ukraine and it's citizens.
-
To quote a former Ukrainian prime minister yesterday: "Putin will create a desert and call it peace".
-
This thought has been in my head since the second day, when Russia seemed to be moving a little slowly
The experts were surpised by how "restrained" the initial attack was, very low share of forces were deployed. The prevailing idea appears to be that they hoped to be able to achieve a swift victory and meet little resistance / whatever was there would crumble quickly, but that didn't work out as planned so now the more traditional russian approach is underway with massive shelling etc.
-
I hadn't heard about the counterattack or Bucha, although I had heard about the rest. Where did you hear about those two?
Yesterday was a short video of soldiers raising the flag at city hall after surrounding Russian units (can't find it right now).
Today was this video of an armored column approaching Bucha.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1499699405477322754 (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1499699405477322754)
And this video of what's left of one in Irpin. Videos were filmed just a couple miles apart, but I can't say in which order they were filmed or if it's the same unit. The area is still contested.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1499443476420861954 (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1499443476420861954)
-
One thing I've noticed is what seem like bots out in force. If someone on Reddit, Instagram posts something sympathetic to Ukraine, a number of people posting that it is fake news, that Russia is only fighting USA, Nato forces, not Ukraine, that captured soldiers are not Russian but Ukraine is fighting Ukrainians. I mean to me it seems patiently false, but the amount of these bots is crazy..
-
(following the thread and broader topic with great interest, but not much or maybe too much too say, and not enough time).
Does anyone think it likely that Ukraine will win a decisive ground victory over the Russian army? This thought has been in my head since the second day, when Russia seemed to be moving a little slowly, and the first videos of farmers pulling away Russian armored vehicles with tractors started to pop up. I thought "wow, the Russians launched an attack with 6 prongs, and with a force of 180,000 and half in reserve, some of the prongs must be pretty small. If NATO saturated the countryside with weapons, they could be cut off and soon annihilated." Since then the Russians seem to be doing, if anything, worse. If they were destined for success it seems like their momentum should be accelerating.
War is not just a numbers game. Like a stock market, it is also a mind game. If the Ukrainians destroy enough equipment and the Russians start to run out of supplies, a surrender could become contagious. Could we see a rapid collapse of nearly all Russian units deployed more than 50 miles from their border?
I don't think so. For several reasons:
1) The Russian troops on the ground are in the dark, and don't have independent access to news. There are a number of videos from Ukrainians, in which the Russian troops have no idea even what their destination is, or the Russian troops have been told that they'd be welcomed with open arms by the Ukrainians, or they'd been told they weren't going into combat. You'd better believe the boots on the ground have no idea about the 40-mile convoy, or the disastrous airborne assaults, or the videos of farmers towing abandoned equipment, or the massive destruction from artillery barrages.
2) Putin appears to be willing to dig in his heels. Criminalizing dissent, attempting to prop up the ruble via the central bank (we'll see how long that lasts), feeding troops into the wood chipper. It'll get worse in Russia before it gets better, and the same goes for Ukraine.
3) As much as farmers towing tanks is amusing, overall, Russians are gaining ground in the south. It's a slog, but they're progressing. The good news stories show the Ukrainians taking out a handful of vehicles here, a few hundred troops there, but in the big picture isn't as rosy.
4) There are some opinions that the Russians don't *have* to run a Blitzkrieg, and that the 40-mile traffic jam is just their way of doing things, until their artillery is in range of Kiev and they can start the bombardment, a la Aleppo. In other words, Russia is simply going scorched earth.
Now, Ukraine has seemed cautious so far, and hasn't made any large frontal attacks. Which I think is wise. With all the weapons flooding into the country, the Ukrainians have an awful lot of ability to strike back. The question then becomes: how to strike back most efficiently and effectively?
-
One thing I've noticed is what seem like bots out in force. If someone on Reddit, Instagram posts something sympathetic to Ukraine, a number of people posting that it is fake news, that Russia is only fighting USA, Nato forces, not Ukraine, that captured soldiers are not Russian but Ukraine is fighting Ukrainians. I mean to me it seems patiently false, but the amount of these bots is crazy..
They've been honing this disinformation strategy on US elections. Why not use it during a war?
-
One thing I've noticed is what seem like bots out in force. If someone on Reddit, Instagram posts something sympathetic to Ukraine, a number of people posting that it is fake news, that Russia is only fighting USA, Nato forces, not Ukraine, that captured soldiers are not Russian but Ukraine is fighting Ukrainians. I mean to me it seems patiently false, but the amount of these bots is crazy..
They've been honing this disinformation strategy on US elections. Why not use it during a war?
it's just crazy. Very 1984esqe. Makes me realize, it's not necessarily to convince people of these things, but cause enough hesitation and doubt, or rationalizations so that other countries do not act, or delay in acting. I do know from my Polish relative that for real, Poland is taking in Ukrainians fleeing the war. Is helping in other ways. It's heavy and serious on everyone's mind whether Poland will be pulled into the war. I am going to limit my news to something in eve (but not right before bed) and this thread.
-
One thing I've noticed is what seem like bots out in force. If someone on Reddit, Instagram posts something sympathetic to Ukraine, a number of people posting that it is fake news, that Russia is only fighting USA, Nato forces, not Ukraine, that captured soldiers are not Russian but Ukraine is fighting Ukrainians. I mean to me it seems patiently false, but the amount of these bots is crazy..
They've been honing this disinformation strategy on US elections. Why not use it during a war?
it's just crazy. Very 1984esqe. Makes me realize, it's not necessarily to convince people of these things, but cause enough hesitation and doubt, or rationalizations so that other countries do not act, or delay in acting. I do know from my Polish relative that for real, Poland is taking in Ukrainians fleeing the war, is helping in other ways, and heavy on everyone's mind whether Poland will be pulled into the war as well. I am going to limit my news to something in eve (but not right before bed) and this thread.
I mean, if you scroll up enough in this thread you'll see evidence of the propaganda. There have been a couple people who were firmly smacked down for falling for the propaganda.
-
One thing I've noticed is what seem like bots out in force. If someone on Reddit, Instagram posts something sympathetic to Ukraine, a number of people posting that it is fake news, that Russia is only fighting USA, Nato forces, not Ukraine, that captured soldiers are not Russian but Ukraine is fighting Ukrainians. I mean to me it seems patiently false, but the amount of these bots is crazy..
They've been honing this disinformation strategy on US elections. Why not use it during a war?
it's just crazy. Very 1984esqe. Makes me realize, it's not necessarily to convince people of these things, but cause enough hesitation and doubt, or rationalizations so that other countries do not act, or delay in acting. I do know from my Polish relative that for real, Poland is taking in Ukrainians fleeing the war. Is helping in other ways. It's heavy and serious on everyone's mind whether Poland will be pulled into the war. I am going to limit my news to something in eve (but not right before bed) and this thread.
You can thank cigarette companies for introducing the world to this type of hesitation/doubt strategy (to great effect) and then the huge industry of climate change deniers/apologists for showing the world how powerful deceitful messaging really is. Russia was just paying attention.
-
One thing I've noticed is what seem like bots out in force. If someone on Reddit, Instagram posts something sympathetic to Ukraine, a number of people posting that it is fake news, that Russia is only fighting USA, Nato forces, not Ukraine, that captured soldiers are not Russian but Ukraine is fighting Ukrainians. I mean to me it seems patiently false, but the amount of these bots is crazy..
They've been honing this disinformation strategy on US elections. Why not use it during a war?
it's just crazy. Very 1984esqe. Makes me realize, it's not necessarily to convince people of these things, but cause enough hesitation and doubt, or rationalizations so that other countries do not act, or delay in acting. I do know from my Polish relative that for real, Poland is taking in Ukrainians fleeing the war. Is helping in other ways. It's heavy and serious on everyone's mind whether Poland will be pulled into the war. I am going to limit my news to something in eve (but not right before bed) and this thread.
You can thank cigarette companies for introducing the world to this type of hesitation/doubt strategy (to great effect) and then the huge industry of climate change deniers/apologists for showing the world how powerful deceitful messaging really is. Russia was just paying attention.
Lots of stuff like that. Think about global warming. The global warming war is the war Mr. Putin should be helping to fight and not killing babies. His young soldiers attacking the non greenhouse gas emitting nuke plant was definitely a** backwards.
I don't get why they aren't taking out the stalled super long convoy.
-
Lots of stuff like that. Think about global warming. The global warming war is the war Mr. Putin should be helping to fight and not killing babies. His young soldiers attacking the non greenhouse gas emitting nuke plant was definitely a** backwards. I don't get why they aren't taking out the stalled super long convoy.
From massive increases in agricultural production to opening up their northern water routes, Russia is positioned to gain from a warmer planet.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russia-climate-migration-crisis.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russia-climate-migration-crisis.html)
-
You can thank cigarette companies for introducing the world to this type of hesitation/doubt strategy (to great effect) and then the huge industry of climate change deniers/apologists for showing the world how powerful deceitful messaging really is. Russia was just paying attention.
FWIW, Russia also has a history of supporting environmentalist movements in Europe and the US. When those areas decide not to drill for their own oil, demand persists, and guess who stands ready to supply it? Yep, Russia. The same amount gets produced and consumed, but Russia benefits at the expense of western nations.
Lots of stuff like that. Think about global warming. The global warming war is the war Mr. Putin should be helping to fight and not killing babies. His young soldiers attacking the non greenhouse gas emitting nuke plant was definitely a** backwards.
I don't get why they aren't taking out the stalled super long convoy.
Putin and the Russian oligarchs don't care about climate change. It is literally about the least of their concerns. They care about money, power, and prestige. Taking "back" Ukraine is supposed to be Putin's legacy.
-
I don't get why they aren't taking out the stalled super long convoy.
Every day they have to decide where to send reinforcements to make the greatest effect. For four days now that line of vehicles hasn't moved. It's not a threat. Meanwhile the Russians keep trying to push into Kyiv from the west and they're gradually pushing from the south of the country and making progress there.
-
It's sad that Ukraine is basically on death watch now. My sister in Austria has registered with a couple of organizations to take in a Ukrainian refugee and says there have been lots of anti-war protests there.
-
I don't get why they aren't taking out the stalled super long convoy.
That convoy is probably out of fuel with multiple broken-down vehicles blocking the route. With the whole countryside turning to mud, even taking a tracked vehicle off road is likely to get it stuck - to say nothing of a wheeled vehicle.
Even with relatively good maintenance military vehicles are just not as reliable as a regular civilian vehicle. They sit in a parking lot 99% of the time and often goes months without driving. That has a lot of negative side effects (dried out seals, dry rot on tires, bad fuel, etc.). Also, the quality/reliability of the 500,000th Honda Civic that roles off the production line is going to be much higher than the 500th tank or truck. Military vehicles are produced in fairly small quantities and if anything, the factory has an incentive to keep producing spare parts and doing maintenance.
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
-
Every day they have to decide where to send reinforcements to make the greatest effect. For four days now that line of vehicles hasn't moved. It's not a threat. Meanwhile the Russians keep trying to push into Kyiv from the west and they're gradually pushing from the south of the country and making progress there.
Are you sure it's not a threat? Maybe it's just a coincidence that it stopped 30 km from the city which happens to be the range of artillery .... maybe it's not.
-
I have to say, this whole Ukraine thing is kinda bumming me out. It really seems like Putin's going to overrun the country and claim it for Russia. Bad for Ukraine obviously, but these sanctions are really going to hurt the Russian people . . . so bad for everyone really. Then there's the question of, now that he's committed to invading and annexing other countries, why stop at Ukraine? Latvia is right next door too . . .
-
Every day they have to decide where to send reinforcements to make the greatest effect. For four days now that line of vehicles hasn't moved. It's not a threat. Meanwhile the Russians keep trying to push into Kyiv from the west and they're gradually pushing from the south of the country and making progress there.
Are you sure it's not a threat? Maybe it's just a coincidence that it stopped 30 km from the city which happens to be the range of artillery .... maybe it's not.
Seems to me if they knock out that convoy, they will take a lot of Russians with it. The more Russians they kill, the harder it gets for Putin to lie to his people. The folks back home may be under a military dictatorship, but if enough of them know the truth of what is going on, this war may be resolved.
-
Then there's the question of, now that he's committed to invading and annexing other countries, why stop at Ukraine? Latvia is right next door too . . .
Latvia is a NATO member.
-
Every day they have to decide where to send reinforcements to make the greatest effect. For four days now that line of vehicles hasn't moved. It's not a threat. Meanwhile the Russians keep trying to push into Kyiv from the west and they're gradually pushing from the south of the country and making progress there.
Are you sure it's not a threat? Maybe it's just a coincidence that it stopped 30 km from the city which happens to be the range of artillery .... maybe it's not.
Seems to me if they knock out that convoy, they will take a lot of Russians with it. The more Russians they kill, the harder it gets for Putin to lie to his people. The folks back home may be under a military dictatorship, but if enough of them know the truth of what is going on, this war may be resolved.
As the Kremlin is shutting down all independent media and blocking foreign news websites, Putin can say whatever he wants and probably get away with it. BBC Radio's WWII-era shortwave signals only reach western Russia. Probably Ukraine's tactic of having captured young Russian soldiers call their mothers is the most effective way of getting the news out.
-
Then there's the question of, now that he's committed to invading and annexing other countries, why stop at Ukraine? Latvia is right next door too . . .
Latvia is a NATO member.
Yes.
-
Finland is not in NATO. Moldova is not in NATO.
Is this his plan? Is he saving the best troops for post Ukraine adventures? Will he have created a bunch of Ukrainian terrorists (freedom fighters)
-
Finland is not in NATO. Moldova is not in NATO.
Is this his plan? Is he saving the best troops for post Ukraine adventures? Will he have created a bunch of Ukrainian terrorists (freedom fighters)
The Belarus Prime Minister dictator accidentally leaked the Moldova plans.
-
Finland is not in NATO. Moldova is not in NATO.
Is this his plan? Is he saving the best troops for post Ukraine adventures? Will he have created a bunch of Ukrainian terrorists (freedom fighters)
Do...do people really not understand what he's trying to do here? Messed up as it is, he sees the dissolution of the USSR as the great geopolitical failure of the 20th century. A handful of neighboring countries have joined NATO, which he views as a threat to Russia. So in his mind, Ukraine is rightfully Soviet territory. He started with Crimea and got very little international pushback. He tested out some strategies in Syria. Very little international pushback (compared to now, that is).
He views Ukraine is Soviet territory. I suppose he may want to expand into non-NATO countries to restore most of what was the USSR.
-
Finland is not in NATO. Moldova is not in NATO.
Is this his plan? Is he saving the best troops for post Ukraine adventures? Will he have created a bunch of Ukrainian terrorists (freedom fighters)
Do...do people really not understand what he's trying to do here? Messed up as it is, he sees the dissolution of the USSR as the great geopolitical failure of the 20th century. A handful of neighboring countries have joined NATO, which he views as a threat to Russia. So in his mind, Ukraine is rightfully Soviet territory. He started with Crimea and got very little international pushback. He tested out some strategies in Syria. Very little international pushback (compared to now, that is).
He views Ukraine is Soviet territory. I suppose he may want to expand into non-NATO countries to restore most of what was the USSR.
Yes, putler will continue. Moldavia next. Then probably Baltics (and WW3 starts).
NATO should continue avoid direct intervention until he comes there.
It is really important meantime to starve putler as much as possible. Starve his economy and everything. Yes, russian citizens will and should suffer meantime (economically). The best hope is that putler is taken away internally. End the starvation when new russia leaders condemn putler and his regime 100%. The new regime must condemn the whole concept of russian imperialism. Not just face change.
This probably will take years.
Regarding Finland. It would take some time for putler to prepare the offensive there. I think that if Finland sees it, it will urgently ask for NATO membership, and it will be granted swiftly. So, Moldavia, then Latvia...
-
Finland is not in NATO. Moldova is not in NATO.
Is this his plan? Is he saving the best troops for post Ukraine adventures? Will he have created a bunch of Ukrainian terrorists (freedom fighters)
Historically, major invasions into Russia tend to be through Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, etc. rather than Finland. So, my guess would be that the Finns will be left alone. Moldova is a different matter.
-
Finland is not in NATO. Moldova is not in NATO.
Is this his plan? Is he saving the best troops for post Ukraine adventures? Will he have created a bunch of Ukrainian terrorists (freedom fighters)
Do...do people really not understand what he's trying to do here? Messed up as it is, he sees the dissolution of the USSR as the great geopolitical failure of the 20th century. A handful of neighboring countries have joined NATO, which he views as a threat to Russia. So in his mind, Ukraine is rightfully Soviet territory. He started with Crimea and got very little international pushback. He tested out some strategies in Syria. Very little international pushback (compared to now, that is).
He views Ukraine is Soviet territory. I suppose he may want to expand into non-NATO countries to restore most of what was the USSR.
Yes, putler will continue. Moldavia next. Then probably Baltics (and WW3 starts).
NATO should continue avoid direct intervention until he comes there.
It is really important meantime to starve putler as much as possible. Starve his economy and everything. Yes, russian citizens will and should suffer meantime (economically). The best hope is that putler is taken away internally. End the starvation when new russia leaders condemn putler and his regime 100%. The new regime must condemn the whole concept of russian imperialism. Not just face change.
This probably will take years.
Seems like that starvation approach doesn't really work though. At least it doesn't seem to have with North Korea . . . we've been starving them forever. Doesn't seem to have made the Kim's any less fat.
-
Seems like that starvation approach doesn't really work though. At least it doesn't seem to have with North Korea . . . we've been starving them forever. Doesn't seem to have made the Kim's any less fat.
Right, but i don't see other way. Putler is afraid of his own people (more than Kim). The starvation goal is for russian people (and oligarchs) to remove him. In NK people never seen living normal live in history. Many russians want to live 21 century way. So, i hope that there is some difference here.
Plus obviously continue to support Ukraine with weapons, and in any other way excluding direct NATO involvement.
So, the starvation, and russia bleeding in Ukraine war, for months, years to come.
-
Seems like that starvation approach doesn't really work though. At least it doesn't seem to have with North Korea . . . we've been starving them forever. Doesn't seem to have made the Kim's any less fat.
Right, but i don't see other way. Putler is afraid of his own people (more than Kim). The starvation goal is for russian people (and oligarchs) to remove him. In NK people never seen living normal live in history. Many russians want to live 21 century way. So, i hope that there is some difference here.
Plus obviously continue to support Ukraine with weapons, and in any other way excluding direct NATO involvement.
So, the starvation, and russia bleeding in Ukraine war, for months, years to come.
Putin has turned Russia into a place where even saying the word "war" can get you sent to prison. All outside sources of information are being cut off, and even with those available most Russians still believed what they were being told by State television and newspapers. The ones who didn't, and who protested, have been vanished into the gulags.
Some Russians who see what's happening and can are getting out: across the border to Finland or on planes to points south, I wouldn't bet against Putin closing the borders to that sooner rather than later.
The chances of the Russian people successfully rising up against a dictator as ruthless and powerful as Putin currently is are nil.
-
Seems like that starvation approach doesn't really work though. At least it doesn't seem to have with North Korea . . . we've been starving them forever. Doesn't seem to have made the Kim's any less fat.
Right, but i don't see other way. Putler is afraid of his own people (more than Kim). The starvation goal is for russian people (and oligarchs) to remove him. In NK people never seen living normal live in history. Many russians want to live 21 century way. So, i hope that there is some difference here.
Plus obviously continue to support Ukraine with weapons, and in any other way excluding direct NATO involvement.
So, the starvation, and russia bleeding in Ukraine war, for months, years to come.
Putin has turned Russia into a place where even saying the word "war" can get you sent to prison. All outside sources of information are being cut off, and even with those available most Russians still believed what they were being told by State television and newspapers. The ones who didn't, and who protested, have been vanished into the gulags.
Some Russians who see what's happening and can are getting out: across the border to Finland or on planes to points south, I wouldn't bet against Putin closing the borders to that sooner rather than later.
The chances of the Russian people successfully rising up against a dictator as ruthless and powerful as Putin currently is are nil.
Look at his army. A low morale. Even some higher ranking taking Ukrainian side. The rotting already started. The process will not be quick.
A flood of dead soldiers, think about Afghanistan. That war was the starting moment of soviets collapsing.
-
For a guy who's living in a series of underground bunkers, Zelensky sure does get out there.
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official
The zoom has translation on it - I believe it was projected (live?) to large gatherings in Europe. Honestly, too lazy to figure out the details.
The video posted about 4:30pm today (Central time) has subtitles, and he's pissed at NATO for not closing the airspace.
If anyone happens to have links to transcripts or translation to the video posted before the Zoom, please share. I haven't found one yet.
Edit: Looks like the zoom was to Prague?
-
I do hope that the war has some long term silver lining. I know that it sounds awful.
1. Western fascination of putler (read aggressive russia) will be eliminated (some republicans, Germany, Hungary, extreme right/left wing European inteligencia)
2. The elimination of fossil fuels dependency will be accelerated.
3. China needs to rethink how to confront the west. The putler aggressive way not working.
4. Turkey will shift more away from russia.
5. Bitcoin will be crashed by US government since putler will use BTC to avoid some sanctions.
6. NATO has strong reason to continue its existence.
7. USA and Europe back together.
8. And the list can go on.
I was hoping before that Covid would be such cathartic, but i guess more is needed for the world to fix itself.
-
I honestly believe the next steps are:
1) Massive counter-offensive of social media/trying to turn the narrative and try to discredit Ukraine's efforts (I'm already seeing the first shimmers of that - it depends whether it'll get any credence outside crazed US evangelicals/QAnons/Trumpskis)
2) Groznyfication of Kyiv and other cities (wider use of thermobaric, so-called "vacuum" bombs and massive artillery strikes on civilian infrastructure, cutting off utilities etc)
3) Cutting off internet and spreading fake news (such as that Ukraine has "surrendered")
4) Starvation of the population
5) Continued hunt of the president and his wife/children (this has been ongoing from the start) to kill them
wow you have been pretty spot on. Looks like 1-3 has happened or is happening.
-
Here is a military historian's take on this:
https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ (https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/)
Not that it changes what to do, but it is nice to understand why things happen.
The same blogger has a new post that is interesting, discussing how weaker parties can win against stronger ones.
https://acoup.blog/2022/03/03/collections-how-the-weak-can-win-a-primer-on-protracted-war/
Edit:
Ok, I've read that post twice now. This matches the instinct that I've had (which frankly, is probably bs cause I've got zero military ability, but still) that Russia can take Ukraine but they can't hold it. And yes, that song linked is catchy and stuck in my head and I really don't like that. But its clever.
-
Every day they have to decide where to send reinforcements to make the greatest effect. For four days now that line of vehicles hasn't moved. It's not a threat. Meanwhile the Russians keep trying to push into Kyiv from the west and they're gradually pushing from the south of the country and making progress there.
Are you sure it's not a threat? Maybe it's just a coincidence that it stopped 30 km from the city which happens to be the range of artillery .... maybe it's not.
Its less of a threat today than the tanks that are actually moving and taking ground. Wrecking that concentration of vehicles would be amazing, but that's a tomorrow problem. Today Ukraine is still giving ground in the south.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
-
How does a government pacify a populace? The Romans did it long ago with bread and circuses.
Will the sanctions sow enough discord? Russia is rather self sufficient in the food category. Hunger has toppled rulers in the past. It doesn't look applicable here.
Will the sanctions cause unemployment and thus idle time? The idle mind is the devil's playground. They won't have international sports any more, but there must be intercity rivalries in Russia. Will the Russians see much of a drop in living standards with the sanctions? I wouldn't think the loss of imported luxury goods would be enough.
The guys on top do not seem to be the type to respect the rule of law. Maybe the loss of part of their fortunes will be enough for them to displace Putin.
This country put up with Stalin for many years. He was a nasty piece of work. They do not really have a democratic tradition.
-
Good news! We need good news, so here is some good news. Any good news, no matter how trivial, is still good news.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lions-tigers-driven-out-ukraine-safety-polish-zoo-2022-03-03/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR39uu0H4DTqHDs2zu2szLxKFwv_ObcSknU0W_O1XmaDjstZ4rsT1AOkgb4
(Yes, I like animals more than people.)
-
Good news! We need good news, so here is some good news. Any good news, no matter how trivial, is still good news.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lions-tigers-driven-out-ukraine-safety-polish-zoo-2022-03-03/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR39uu0H4DTqHDs2zu2szLxKFwv_ObcSknU0W_O1XmaDjstZ4rsT1AOkgb4
(Yes, I like animals more than people.)
I don’t like people. I like robots 🤖
-
Good news! We need good news, so here is some good news. Any good news, no matter how trivial, is still good news.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lions-tigers-driven-out-ukraine-safety-polish-zoo-2022-03-03/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR39uu0H4DTqHDs2zu2szLxKFwv_ObcSknU0W_O1XmaDjstZ4rsT1AOkgb4
(Yes, I like animals more than people.)
I don’t like people. I like robots 🤖
Then you must like cats at least, since the robot vacuums seem to adore giving cats rides around the house. lol
-
Putin indiscriminately bombing civilians pretty much deserves "Putler"
-
I do hope that the war has some long term silver lining. I know that it sounds awful.
1. Western fascination of putler (read aggressive russia) will be eliminated (some republicans, Germany, Hungary, extreme right/left wing European inteligencia)
2. The elimination of fossil fuels dependency will be accelerated.
3. China needs to rethink how to confront the west. The putler aggressive way not working.
4. Turkey will shift more away from russia.
5. Bitcoin will be crashed by US government since putler will use BTC to avoid some sanctions.
6. NATO has strong reason to continue its existence.
7. USA and Europe back together.
8. And the list can go on.
I was hoping before that Covid would be such cathartic, but i guess more is needed for the world to fix itself.
@Blender Bender
Just in case you're interested in people actually reading your posts.
After the 5th time you used the juvenile "putler" I decided not to read anything else you wrote.
The first time it made your point, after that it's annoying.
MoseyingAlong, then I recommend you stay off social media entirely, because I'm seeing Putin referred to as "Putler" widely. I'm seeing it on Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook, in addition to here. Those are all the sites I'm on at all. Not exclusively, no, and not by "official" people (usually). But its common.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
National Guard, JRTC. About 10 years ago.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
National Guard, JRTC. About 10 years ago.
They made you road march to JRTC instead of rail load? Oof.
I was in Germany when 2SCR drove a big circuit around Poland and the Baltics as a show of force to Russia. It was also a good lesson in maintenance and planning for everyone involved.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
National Guard, JRTC. About 10 years ago.
They made you road march to JRTC instead of rail load? Oof.
I was in Germany when 2SCR drove a big circuit around Poland and the Baltics as a show of force to Russia. It was also a good lesson in maintenance and planning for everyone involved.
I went to a Unit Movement Officer Course and was the only National Guard Soldier in the class (rest were active duty). Convoys were barely mentioned as the assumption was everything would move via rail or line-haul (loaded on commercial flatbed trucks). It was a bit of an eye-opener realizing that even with motor pool Mondays active-duty units were having vehicles break down just driving to the range 30-40 miles away and we routinely drove a few hundred miles for a drill weekend.
A broken-down vehicle is lost just as much as one blown up by enemy fire. The Russians are definitely learning this the hard way.
Per the latest update from Oryx (tracking every vehicle loss through open-source intelligence) Russia - 661, of which: destroyed: 268, damaged: 10, abandoned: 141, captured: 241
So that's over 20% of their vehicle losses from breakdowns or running out of fuel. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars of vehicles abandoned or captured.
-
And Oryx's numbers are based on what has been photographed, so the bare minimum. The Ukrainian government is claiming three times that number.
In case anybody wanted to get a closer look at the convoy stuck north of Kyiv. They've been there long enough that any supplies they brought to distribute to other forces have probably been consumed by them.
https://twitter.com/kamerknc/status/1499622026755117056 (https://twitter.com/kamerknc/status/1499622026755117056)
Today was a bad day for the Russian Air Force. Four Five attack jets, three helicopters, and a UAV. All brought down by shoulder-launched missiles.
-
a Ukraine twitter list https://twitter.com/i/lists/101285580
-
I do feel terribly for what is happening, and helpless. Russia doesn't have a good track record for sparing civilians during wartime. I think it's to be expected there will be widespread human rights abuses on the Russian side.
https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010764/putins-brutal-record-in-chechnya-and-syria-is-ominous-for-ukraine
-
I have a really dumb and possibly insensitive question.
What happens to Ukrainians who lose their homes through Russian shelling/bombing? Those bombed out apartment buildings--were they state owned? Or did civilians own them? Insurance doesn't cover acts of war, I think (I did some googling). Are they just SOL?
The situation of the refugees is very sad when watched on the news, but I'm trying to think through the full implications of what is happening to them. Am I correct in assuming they are essentially losing everything except whatever they have in the bank?
-
Just read today USA sent Ukraine hundreds of these Stinger Anti-Aircraft shoulder launchers. Watched a great video on them demonstrating how to use them.. amazing tech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0nuhI05QyA
I love how at 1:30 the missile drastically alters course the last couple seconds to hit target.
And here is a video of a Russian helicopter being shot down by what appears to be one of these Stinger missiles we sent the Ukranians. Notice how the missile guides itself up and down track anti-uv target. Looks ljust like the video I saw the other day demo'ing the stinger. This is awesome. I hope they shoot down all Russian aircraft with these. https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/03/05/ukrainian-armed-forces-share-video-showing-russian-helicopter-being-shot-down-ndwknd-vpx.cnn
-
I have a really dumb and possibly insensitive question.
What happens to Ukrainians who lose their homes through Russian shelling/bombing? Those bombed out apartment buildings--were they state owned? Or did civilians own them? Insurance doesn't cover acts of war, I think (I did some googling). Are they just SOL?
The situation of the refugees is very sad when watched on the news, but I'm trying to think through the full implications of what is happening to them. Am I correct in assuming they are essentially losing everything except whatever they have in the bank?
Asking a question like that sends the opposite message. It shows sensitivity. It's a war. There are people who lose everything, including their lives. It's been like that since the dawn of time.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
National Guard, JRTC. About 10 years ago.
They made you road march to JRTC instead of rail load? Oof.
I was in Germany when 2SCR drove a big circuit around Poland and the Baltics as a show of force to Russia. It was also a good lesson in maintenance and planning for everyone involved.
Not to butt in and I should probably PM you instead, but it's Ukraine related and maybe @Michael in ABQ has input too. I'm currently stateside but last month accepted a job (contractor) in Germany prior to this whole conflict starting. Now I'm worried that it's a bad time to move there because it might have a big impact on quality of life... especially if/when it grows and NATO gets involved. Would you guys still take an assignment in Germany, or Europe in general in this environment?
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
National Guard, JRTC. About 10 years ago.
They made you road march to JRTC instead of rail load? Oof.
I was in Germany when 2SCR drove a big circuit around Poland and the Baltics as a show of force to Russia. It was also a good lesson in maintenance and planning for everyone involved.
Not to butt in and I should probably PM you instead, but it's Ukraine related and maybe @Michael in ABQ has input too. I'm currently stateside but last month accepted a job (contractor) in Germany prior to this whole conflict starting. Now I'm worried that it's a bad time to move there because it might have a big impact on quality of life... especially if/when it grows and NATO gets involved. Would you guys still take an assignment in Germany, or Europe in general in this environment?
Germany is one of the safe places that Ukrainians are emigrating to. And none of the 80 million Germans are going anywhere at the moment. (Nor are any of the 200 million other citizens of the EU.)
If Germany isn't safe it's because WWiII has gone nuclear and we're all done for.
-
Putler is a fitting name for the war criminal Putin to all except Russian apologists. I predict we are headed to war one way or another in the not too distant future.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I have a really dumb and possibly insensitive question.
What happens to Ukrainians who lose their homes through Russian shelling/bombing? Those bombed out apartment buildings--were they state owned? Or did civilians own them? Insurance doesn't cover acts of war, I think (I did some googling). Are they just SOL?
The situation of the refugees is very sad when watched on the news, but I'm trying to think through the full implications of what is happening to them. Am I correct in assuming they are essentially losing everything except whatever they have in the bank?
President Zelensky has promised to rebuild with reparations from Russia. I'm not sure how realistic that is, and the precedent after WWI of requiring reparations from Germany is not a happy one.
But there are very significant sums being confiscated from the assets of Russian billionaires held outside Russia. Depending on the laws of the country doing the confiscating those sums might be returned to Ukraine for rebuilding.
After WWII the UK government compensated those who had lost property through German bombing. But it took years to pay the compensation and decades to do the rebuilding - there were bomb sites where no reconstruction had taken place well into the 1960s, and arguably the shortage of housing caused through wartime losses has left us behind the curve in house building ever since and so contributed to current high costs.
I think it's highly likely that a significant proportion of the people leaving Ukraine because of the war will not go back for many years, if ever, so depopulation may be a factor too - although that could make economic recovery even harder.
-
I was a convoy commander for a 1,300-mile convoy to go to a training site several years ago. Out of 20ish vehicles at least 5-6 had breakdowns and a couple ended up having to be towed. And that was frankly a better result than average. For some units even going 30-40 miles they will probably have at least one vehicle breakdown.
2SCR? I was in Graf just before you guys rolled out. One of my NCOs spent an afternoon with one of your battalions giving radio classes.
National Guard, JRTC. About 10 years ago.
They made you road march to JRTC instead of rail load? Oof.
I was in Germany when 2SCR drove a big circuit around Poland and the Baltics as a show of force to Russia. It was also a good lesson in maintenance and planning for everyone involved.
Not to butt in and I should probably PM you instead, but it's Ukraine related and maybe @Michael in ABQ has input too. I'm currently stateside but last month accepted a job (contractor) in Germany prior to this whole conflict starting. Now I'm worried that it's a bad time to move there because it might have a big impact on quality of life... especially if/when it grows and NATO gets involved. Would you guys still take an assignment in Germany, or Europe in general in this environment?
Germany is one of the safe places that Ukrainians are emigrating to. And none of the 80 million Germans are going anywhere at the moment. (Nor are any of the 200 million other citizens of the EU.)
If Germany isn't safe it's because WWiII has gone nuclear and we're all done for.
Yeah that's a big fear I have... but you're right, at that point it doesn't really matter where you are.
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
It could be that some of the Russian units operating in Ukraine are in separate command structures - there seem to have been a lot of saboteur units embedded before the war started, for instance. It's possible that a negotiated cease fire with some Russian forces isn't communicated to or agreed by other Russian forces.
Or it's a deliberate and organised terror tactic, of course. Which seems entirely plausible, in the circumstances.
-
Putler is a fitting name for the war criminal Putin to all except Russian apologists.
Given the way devastation in Ukraine is ramping up, I suspect Putin’s own name will soon be an epithet like few others in history.
-
Putler is a fitting name for the war criminal Putin to all except Russian apologists.
Given the way devastation in Ukraine is ramping up, I suspect Putin’s own name will soon be an epithet like few others in history.
trumps admires putler deeply. Calling the attack on Ukraine genius and brilliant. And actually looking happy saying that.
So, trump fits the few monsters of 20 century. Just vote for him again and see him in action.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/trump-reacts-putins-invasion-ukraine-exactly-youd-expect/
Please, whoever is votable, don't vote for him.
-
Putler is a fitting name for the war criminal Putin to all except Russian apologists.
Given the way devastation in Ukraine is ramping up, I suspect Putin’s own name will soon be an epithet like few others in history.
trumps admires putler deeply. Calling the attack on Ukraine genius and brilliant. And actually looking happy saying that.
So, trump fits the few monsters of 20 century. Just vote for him again and see him in action.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/trump-reacts-putins-invasion-ukraine-exactly-youd-expect/
Please, whoever is votable, don't vote for him.
Who cares? What does that have to do with anything anyone was talking about?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
It could be that some of the Russian units operating in Ukraine are in separate command structures - there seem to have been a lot of saboteur units embedded before the war started, for instance. It's possible that a negotiated cease fire with some Russian forces isn't communicated to or agreed by other Russian forces.
Or it's a deliberate and organised terror tactic, of course. Which seems entirely plausible, in the circumstances.
When I heard about gathering points for evacuation, my first thought was that it would turn the people into sitting ducks. I would not be surprised if that was Russia’s intent from the start. From their point of view, why wouldn’t they want to kill as many resistors as possible? They would see it as payback for refusing to submit.
-
Putler is a fitting name for the war criminal Putin to all except Russian apologists.
Given the way devastation in Ukraine is ramping up, I suspect Putin’s own name will soon be an epithet like few others in history.
trumps admires putler deeply. Calling the attack on Ukraine genius and brilliant. And actually looking happy saying that.
So, trump fits the few monsters of 20 century. Just vote for him again and see him in action.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/trump-reacts-putins-invasion-ukraine-exactly-youd-expect/
Please, whoever is votable, don't vote for him.
Who cares? What does that have to do with anything anyone was talking about?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
OK, sounds you strongly think that trump is not coming back to the office ever (going to jail instead). Then i agree, who cares.
-
Putler is a fitting name for the war criminal Putin to all except Russian apologists.
Given the way devastation in Ukraine is ramping up, I suspect Putin’s own name will soon be an epithet like few others in history.
trumps admires putler deeply. Calling the attack on Ukraine genius and brilliant. And actually looking happy saying that.
So, trump fits the few monsters of 20 century. Just vote for him again and see him in action.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/trump-reacts-putins-invasion-ukraine-exactly-youd-expect/
Please, whoever is votable, don't vote for him.
Who cares? What does that have to do with anything anyone was talking about?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
OK, sounds you strongly think that trump is not coming back to the office ever (going to jail instead). Then i agree, who cares.
Except for an unhealthy obsession why are you bringing up Trump in relation to the Ukraine war which is happening now? Even if he were to win the next election are you implying the war will go the next 3 years?
I surely hope not. I hope it's done well before that. If it's not we have a lot to worry about.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
It could be that some of the Russian units operating in Ukraine are in separate command structures - there seem to have been a lot of saboteur units embedded before the war started, for instance. It's possible that a negotiated cease fire with some Russian forces isn't communicated to or agreed by other Russian forces.
Or it's a deliberate and organised terror tactic, of course. Which seems entirely plausible, in the circumstances.
That really doesn't help them. Because not hitting women and children and the elderly with bombs should be a given. Not something you need to be ordered to do.
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
It could be that some of the Russian units operating in Ukraine are in separate command structures - there seem to have been a lot of saboteur units embedded before the war started, for instance. It's possible that a negotiated cease fire with some Russian forces isn't communicated to or agreed by other Russian forces.
Or it's a deliberate and organised terror tactic, of course. Which seems entirely plausible, in the circumstances.
That really doesn't help them. Because not hitting women and children and the elderly with bombs should be a given. Not something you need to be ordered to do.
Well, the Russian army has killed civilians in every war they've fought in the last 40 years (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria) so I don't think in those circumstances we can use "should be a given". It's just that previous versions of the current war in Ukraine have taken place just far enough away from Europe to minimise Western interest and interests, and against people who are just different enough, that we haven't previously read much or done much about it.
-
Except for an unhealthy obsession why are you bringing up Trump in relation to the Ukraine war which is happening now? Even if he were to win the next election are you implying the war will go the next 3 years?
I surely hope not. I hope it's done well before that. If it's not we have a lot to worry about.
OK, let me explain:
1. The only chance for Ukraine to survive if the west is united.
2. The west is mostly united. But in some places e.g. USA, the former president supports and admires Putler. Not only trump but some of his supporters too.
3. Basically putin elected trump to the office. That was putin's objective to make him president. The plan started 20 years ago, this is well documented online.
4. Thus trump was part of the plan to challenge the west, as putin is doing now.
So, like it or not, there is a strong connection, or just only to me?
-
Except for an unhealthy obsession why are you bringing up Trump in relation to the Ukraine war which is happening now? Even if he were to win the next election are you implying the war will go the next 3 years?
I surely hope not. I hope it's done well before that. If it's not we have a lot to worry about.
OK, let me explain:
1. The only chance for Ukraine to survive if the west is united.
2. The west is mostly united. But in some places e.g. USA, the former president supports and admires Putler. Not only trump but some of his supporters too.
3. Basically putin elected trump to the office. That was putin's objective to make him president. The plan started 20 years ago, this is well documented online.
4. Thus trump was part of the plan to challenge the west, as putin is doing now.
So, like it or not, there is a strong connection, or just only to me?
I think the West is as unified as ever and I don't see that changing no matter what Trump does or doesn't do. Unless you think Biden's actions would be swayed by it? I don't think it matters one iota, no one is listening to Trump in relation to this war.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I think the West is as unified as ever and I don't see that changing no matter what Trump does or doesn't do. Unless you think Biden's actions would be swayed by it? I don't think it matters one iota, no one is listening to Trump in relation to this war.
Glad to hear that he is not listen to.
About Biden, could be. One scenario:
1. Strong sanctions against russia needed. now happening, good.
2. The sanctions for sure will cost acceleration of the inflation. So, likely will be worse.
3. The public getting more upset about the inflation.
4. Far right says: We were right, Biden destroyed the country. We were saying that if we were in office, such war would never happen. And putin is my friend, I would ask him not invade [or whatever].
5. Democrats defeated in all the next elections.
Regarding how long the war will last? Impossible to tell, but i think years; unless internal revolt in russia.
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
The general consensus is that Putin is scared of hwo successfull the Ukraine is definding against his 2-day long special operation (see the cesoring of basically everything now) and wants to break the spirit of the defenders and population (as were the Allied city bombings in WWII).
Imho at this moment this is a backfiring move. It's too early for serious moral attrition and the hideousness will only make the Ukrainians fight even harder.
-----
There are Putin fans everywhere. It hurts seeing people regurgitating the "Russia is only defending itself" even now. Some people just value "strength" more than anythign else. Maybe the 1% psychopaths.
Unfotunately the situation is unsolveable.
Putin won't stop. It's his dream to bring back Little Russia and this is likely his last chance. He is totally out of touch/uninterested in his people and still key figures and army will not revolt.
Ukraine (and the West) will cannot accept his peace conditions (which are his war goals), because those basically mean the end of the country.
This will end with about 1/3 of Ukraine destroyed, 5 millions fleeing, Russian people suffering too and the Russian army having to retreat eventually because they are not strong/numerous enough for a long real occupation (checkpoints at every third corner etc.) which is the only thing that could stop guerilla attacks.
And that's assuming there is no nuclear in the war.
Ah, I am going to vomit, excuse me.
-
THOSE FUCKING BASTARDS.
There was a ceasefire in Mariupol, so that civilians could evacuate. Except that Russia didn't ceasefire. They started shelling the gathering points for the evacuating civilians. Specifically those spots. I haven't seen a death count, but I did see that 2000 were attempting to evacuate.
https://twitter.com/lfrayer/status/1500097201732829194?t=ERCfTbgA7tG5wkV5_Dp1fg&s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1500129586117427201?t=QDf5r7eFFtpT5kb83uixWQ&s=19
I hope Putin burns in hell.
I saw this, and it's just insane. I mean, this makes no strategic or military sense that I'm aware of. It's one (very evil) thing to not care about civilian casualties as you're trying to destroy the other nation's military. This is a whole other level. What on earth does he think something like this will accomplish.....
The general consensus is that Putin is scared of hwo successfull the Ukraine is definding against his 2-day long special operation (see the cesoring of basically everything now) and wants to break the spirit of the defenders and population (as were the Allied city bombings in WWII).
Imho at this moment this is a backfiring move. It's too early for serious moral attrition and the hideousness will only make the Ukrainians fight even harder.
-----
There are Putin fans everywhere. It hurts seeing people regurgitating the "Russia is only defending itself" even now. Some people just value "strength" more than anythign else. Maybe the 1% psychopaths.
Unfotunately the situation is unsolveable.
Putin won't stop. It's his dream to bring back Little Russia and this is likely his last chance.
Ukraine will cannot accept his peace conditions (which are his war goals), because those basically mean the end of the country.
This will end with about 1/3 of Ukraine destroyed, 5 millions fleeing, Russian people suffering too and the Russian army having to retreat eventually because they are not strong/numerous enough for a long real occupation (checkpoints at every third corner etc.) which is the only thing that could stop guerilla attacks.
Ah, I am going to vomit, excuse me.
Sharing the same outlook.
-
I think something's changed in Ukraine. And I'm basing this solely on Zelenky's videos. I've been watching them as we go, I've watched all of them but one (can't find a translation). There's been a progression, a pattern. The parts directed towards the Ukrainians have been consistent: praising the military for fighting, praising people for volunteering to fight, praising people for helping in the war effort. Keeping people's spirits up, giving them hope, etc.
Well, he posted a new video about 2 hours ago, the English subtitles one about an hour ago. And this one is very different. He's calling on the people to fight. All of them, in big or little ways. He's appealing to the people in the Donbas region as well.
I don't know what's changed, but something has. Something with the war, or something with their strategy.
-
I think something's changed in Ukraine. And I'm basing this solely on Zelenky's videos. I've been watching them as we go, I've watched all of them but one (can't find a translation). There's been a progression, a pattern. The parts directed towards the Ukrainians have been consistent: praising the military for fighting, praising people for volunteering to fight, praising people for helping in the war effort. Keeping people's spirits up, giving them hope, etc.
Well, he posted a new video about 2 hours ago, the English subtitles one about an hour ago. And this one is very different. He's calling on the people to fight. All of them, in big or little ways. He's appealing to the people in the Donbas region as well.
I don't know what's changed, but something has. Something with the war, or something with their strategy.
I think that the NATO's refusal for the no fly zone disappointed him and damped his spirit. I think he was counting on that.
Now he really feels that no-one from outside will help (directly) and the outlook is not looking good.
He i guess was hoping on some quickish "clean" resolution of the conflict. But now sees that the war will be dragged for years, relying on the future gorilla tactics.
In my opinion that was too much to ask NATO for such no fly zone, too dangerous for the whole world.
-
Haven't read through the entire thread so forgive me if this was mentioned before page 6..
I don't know how Putin 'wins' this war. Conquering all of Ukraine militarily will lead to an inevitable counter-insurgency of the largest land mass in Europe excluding Russia itself. Trying to control that entire space against guerrilla style tactics will turn into a bloodbath for years to come for Russians and Ukrainians alike. Preventing NATO re-supply from the West would be an extreme challenge while trying to maintain control over the major cities scattered about the country.
At the same time, Putin backed himself into an unwinnable corner by invading a country with the professed idea of "liberating it from neo-Nazis" and all other sorts of insanely deranged statements. To retreat would present him as a weak leader who couldn't even liberate people who in his mind wanted to be liberated. The one thing he cannot afford to do to maintain his strongman image is retreat from the situation or even acknowledge that the effort is going poorly.
Call me crazy here but it feels like Putin is putting himself into a purposeful trap at this point with two possible conclusions.
- Escalate the situation and pull NATO into the war with some subterfuge - this will allow him to blame the West and claim this is now a defensive struggle to defend Russia and try to rally people into a defensive war of the motherland
- Tactically nuke Ukraine and dare the rest of the world to respond knowing they will be afraid of escalating nuclear warfare
I am struggling to see an easy out here to the whole situation. The world is hamstrung because of Russia's vast nuclear arsenal and Putin's clear willingness to make any and everyone suffer for his deranged desires. I fear what happens if Putin feels trapped in a corner with no clear path to victory.
-
another Biden scenario:
Strong sanctions against Russia continues, worsening inflation.
The public getting more upset about the inflation.
Democrats blame inflation on Putin’s war.
Biden highlights his foreign policy in keeping international anti-Putin coalition intact / supporting Ukraine without enlarging the war (resists calls for no-fly zone).
Far right discredited with their pro-Putin leanings.
Democrats keep hold of Congress, White House.
-
Haven't read through the entire thread so forgive me if this was mentioned before page 6..
I don't know how Putin 'wins' this war. Conquering all of Ukraine militarily will lead to an inevitable counter-insurgency of the largest land mass in Europe excluding Russia itself. Trying to control that entire space against guerrilla style tactics will turn into a bloodbath for years to come for Russians and Ukrainians alike. Preventing NATO re-supply from the West would be an extreme challenge while trying to maintain control over the major cities scattered about the country.
At the same time, Putin backed himself into an unwinnable corner by invading a country with the professed idea of "liberating it from neo-Nazis" and all other sorts of insanely deranged statements. To retreat would present him as a weak leader who couldn't even liberate people who in his mind wanted to be liberated. The one thing he cannot afford to do to maintain his strongman image is retreat from the situation or even acknowledge that the effort is going poorly.
Call me crazy here but it feels like Putin is putting himself into a purposeful trap at this point with two possible conclusions.
- Escalate the situation and pull NATO into the war with some subterfuge - this will allow him to blame the West and claim this is now a defensive struggle to defend Russia and try to rally people into a defensive war of the motherland
- Tactically nuke Ukraine and dare the rest of the world to respond knowing they will be afraid of escalating nuclear warfare
I am struggling to see an easy out here to the whole situation. The world is hamstrung because of Russia's vast nuclear arsenal and Putin's clear willingness to make any and everyone suffer for his deranged desires. I fear what happens if Putin feels trapped in a corner with no clear path to victory.
I think the most likely future for years is the bolded one. Putin will execute this script (no-one of his advisor would mention problems you see there). Will continue to bring more solders until whole Ukraine under control.
Putin will declare the end of the "operation". The world would disagree. And putin will continue to fight the Ukrainians gorrilas.
Then he continues with Moldavia, Latvia etc. Until someone "replaces" him internally, or something very horrible happens.
-
Haven't read through the entire thread so forgive me if this was mentioned before page 6..
I don't know how Putin 'wins' this war. Conquering all of Ukraine militarily will lead to an inevitable counter-insurgency of the largest land mass in Europe excluding Russia itself. Trying to control that entire space against guerrilla style tactics will turn into a bloodbath for years to come for Russians and Ukrainians alike. Preventing NATO re-supply from the West would be an extreme challenge while trying to maintain control over the major cities scattered about the country.
At the same time, Putin backed himself into an unwinnable corner by invading a country with the professed idea of "liberating it from neo-Nazis" and all other sorts of insanely deranged statements. To retreat would present him as a weak leader who couldn't even liberate people who in his mind wanted to be liberated. The one thing he cannot afford to do to maintain his strongman image is retreat from the situation or even acknowledge that the effort is going poorly.
Call me crazy here but it feels like Putin is putting himself into a purposeful trap at this point with two possible conclusions.
- Escalate the situation and pull NATO into the war with some subterfuge - this will allow him to blame the West and claim this is now a defensive struggle to defend Russia and try to rally people into a defensive war of the motherland
- Tactically nuke Ukraine and dare the rest of the world to respond knowing they will be afraid of escalating nuclear warfare
I am struggling to see an easy out here to the whole situation. The world is hamstrung because of Russia's vast nuclear arsenal and Putin's clear willingness to make any and everyone suffer for his deranged desires. I fear what happens if Putin feels trapped in a corner with no clear path to victory.
I think the most likely future for years is the bolded one. Putin will execute this script (no-one of his advisor would mention problems you see there). Will continue to bring more solders until whole Ukraine under control.
Putin will declare the end of the "operation". The world would disagree. And putin will continue to fight the Ukrainians gorrilas.
Then he continues with Moldavia, Latvia etc. Until someone "replaces" him internally, or something very horrible happens.
Latvia is NATO meaning US joins the war with the rest of NATO.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I think the most likely future for years is the bolded one. Putin will execute this script (no-one of his advisor would mention problems you see there). Will continue to bring more solders until whole Ukraine under control.
Putin will declare the end of the "operation". The world would disagree. And putin will continue to fight the Ukrainians gorrilas.
Then he continues with Moldavia, Latvia etc. Until someone "replaces" him internally, or something very horrible happens.
Latvia is NATO meaning US joins the war with the rest of NATO.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Putin has started to talk about sanctions being "akin to an act of war", so he's started laying the groundwork for a further "defensive invasion".
-
I think the most likely future for years is the bolded one. Putin will execute this script (no-one of his advisor would mention problems you see there). Will continue to bring more solders until whole Ukraine under control.
Putin will declare the end of the "operation". The world would disagree. And putin will continue to fight the Ukrainians gorrilas.
Then he continues with Moldavia, Latvia etc. Until someone "replaces" him internally, or something very horrible happens.
Latvia is NATO meaning US joins the war with the rest of NATO.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Putin has started to talk about sanctions being "akin to an act of war", so he's started laying the groundwork for a further "defensive invasion".
That is also my understanding of his words.
-
..
[/quote]
Putin has started to talk about sanctions being "akin to an act of war", so he's started laying the groundwork for a further "defensive invasion".
[/quote]
we may finally find out, how good the F-22 Raptor really is, in air-to-air combat
-
Providing, he doesn't use nukes, he'll get his a** kicked. I doubt whether the Chinese will back him up.
-
Providing, he doesn't use nukes, he'll get his a** kicked.
If the latter becomes clear to him, he'll use nukes.
-
Ok, yes, but look at the mess that is Russia's attack right now. Logistics are a mess, morale is a mess, equipment is old and in poor condition. Even if they have better troops and equipment elsewhere, the economy is collapsing from sanctions. The Russian people have fallen for the propaganda so far, but will that hold up to the cognitive dissonance between devastating sanctions and what Putin is telling them? It's possible that the brainwashing could start to develop cracks. Europe doesn't want to stop buying oil/gas right now, but if Putin attacks someone else that might change, and would be another massive blow to Putin. If invading Ukraine is unwinnable, then invading any NATO country is probably suicidal.
Even with nukes in the picture, I'm starting to wonder how much of that threat is a bluff. The fabled Russian army is so powerful, and yet look at Ukraine. What has the corruption that is so evident in the Russian army done to the nukes? The passage of time isn't kind to machinery - how old are these weapons? Have they been maintained, repaired? What about the launch sites? I hope that the military knows, or someone is taking steps to find out. If it turns out that the nukes are largely useless that changes the situation.
As for China, they have a healthy regard for their own interests. If being cozy with Russia is going to hurt too much they'll back off. I doubt they want to face down NATO either.
-
Just saw this: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-russia-ukraine-war-zelensky-adviser/
In short, one of the guys who's been negotiating with Russia says that Russia is starting to feel the pinch, and discussions are starting to be constructive.
-
I have a really dumb and possibly insensitive question.
What happens to Ukrainians who lose their homes through Russian shelling/bombing? Those bombed out apartment buildings--were they state owned? Or did civilians own them? Insurance doesn't cover acts of war, I think (I did some googling). Are they just SOL?
The situation of the refugees is very sad when watched on the news, but I'm trying to think through the full implications of what is happening to them. Am I correct in assuming they are essentially losing everything except whatever they have in the bank?
President Zelensky has promised to rebuild with reparations from Russia. I'm not sure how realistic that is, and the precedent after WWI of requiring reparations from Germany is not a happy one.
But there are very significant sums being confiscated from the assets of Russian billionaires held outside Russia. Depending on the laws of the country doing the confiscating those sums might be returned to Ukraine for rebuilding.
After WWII the UK government compensated those who had lost property through German bombing. But it took years to pay the compensation and decades to do the rebuilding - there were bomb sites where no reconstruction had taken place well into the 1960s, and arguably the shortage of housing caused through wartime losses has left us behind the curve in house building ever since and so contributed to current high costs.
I think it's highly likely that a significant proportion of the people leaving Ukraine because of the war will not go back for many years, if ever, so depopulation may be a factor too - although that could make economic recovery even harder.
I don't think we'll see a shortage of international reconstruction aid. If this all ends in Ukraine's favor, the victory lap will be "welcome to the EU. Here's $Billions in new homes, highways, bridges, and weapons."
I think something's changed in Ukraine. And I'm basing this solely on Zelenky's videos. I've been watching them as we go, I've watched all of them but one (can't find a translation). There's been a progression, a pattern. The parts directed towards the Ukrainians have been consistent: praising the military for fighting, praising people for volunteering to fight, praising people for helping in the war effort. Keeping people's spirits up, giving them hope, etc.
Well, he posted a new video about 2 hours ago, the English subtitles one about an hour ago. And this one is very different. He's calling on the people to fight. All of them, in big or little ways. He's appealing to the people in the Donbas region as well.
I don't know what's changed, but something has. Something with the war, or something with their strategy.
I think that the NATO's refusal for the no fly zone disappointed him and damped his spirit. I think he was counting on that.
Now he really feels that no-one from outside will help (directly) and the outlook is not looking good.
He i guess was hoping on some quickish "clean" resolution of the conflict. But now sees that the war will be dragged for years, relying on the future gorilla tactics.
In my opinion that was too much to ask NATO for such no fly zone, too dangerous for the whole world.
He's been on a media blitz to get NATO to set up a no-fly, but that's just not going to happen. Hopefully yesterday's surface to air slaughter will raise his spirits about doing that part himself.
As for China, they have a healthy regard for their own interests. If being cozy with Russia is going to hurt too much they'll back off. I doubt they want to face down NATO either.
I think China was hoping for a quick invasion and annexation (and was probably promised one by Putin), but since that didn't happen they have no choice but to keep Russia at arm's length until this is over. They're probably as stunned as the rest of the world how this war is turning out, and going back to the drawing board for their Taiwan plans.
-
Even with nukes in the picture, I'm starting to wonder how much of that threat is a bluff. The fabled Russian army is so powerful, and yet look at Ukraine. What has the corruption that is so evident in the Russian army done to the nukes? The passage of time isn't kind to machinery - how old are these weapons? Have they been maintained, repaired? What about the launch sites? I hope that the military knows, or someone is taking steps to find out. If it turns out that the nukes are largely useless that changes the situation.
When it comes to nukes "largely" useless doesn't do it after the great excesses of the cold war. Even if 99.9% of the Russian nuclear arsenal were nonfunctional or on nonfunctional delivery systems, it would still leave Russia enough nukes to destroy Kyiv, Paris, Berlin, London, New York, and DC.*
The old cold war logic was based on having so many nuclear weapons distributed in so many places that even a first strike with 100s or 1000s of bombs would leave enough remaining weapons to destroy the other nation. Unfortunately the same logic that provides resilience to a nuclear first strike also provides resilience to poor maintenance, shoddy replacement parts, and indifferently trained operators.
The last two weeks have made me really start to appreciate how remarkable it is that folks of my parents generation came through the cold war and associated constant threats of nuclear annihilation without much worse and deeper psychological consequences.
*Based on 6,000 known nuclear warheads as of early 2022, down from a peak of 45,000 in the '90s.
-
Even with nukes in the picture, I'm starting to wonder how much of that threat is a bluff. The fabled Russian army is so powerful, and yet look at Ukraine. What has the corruption that is so evident in the Russian army done to the nukes? The passage of time isn't kind to machinery - how old are these weapons? Have they been maintained, repaired? What about the launch sites? I hope that the military knows, or someone is taking steps to find out. If it turns out that the nukes are largely useless that changes the situation.
When it comes to nukes "largely" useless doesn't do it after the great excesses of the cold war. Even if 99.9% of the Russian nuclear arsenal were nonfunctional or on nonfunctional delivery systems, it would still leave Russia enough nukes to destroy Kyiv, Paris, Berlin, London, New York, and DC.*
The old cold war logic was based on having so many nuclear weapons distributed in so many places that even a first strike with 100s or 1000s of bombs would leave enough remaining weapons to destroy the other nation. Unfortunately the same logic that provides resilience to a nuclear first strike also provides resilience to poor maintenance, shoddy replacement parts, and indifferently trained operators.
The last two weeks have made me really start to appreciate how remarkable it is that folks of my parents generation came through the cold war and associated constant threats of nuclear annihilation without much worse and deeper psychological consequences.
*Based on 6,000 known nuclear warheads as of early 2022, down from a peak of 45,000 in the '90s.
. My ex and his friends in late 80s threw an art show called "Fuck the Bomb", anti war art show. One of the pieces was where a light would flash and your shadow would be fixed on the wall, and slowly fade, similar to shadows seen in Hiroshima after the blast. Dr strange love is a great movie detail the sureealness of the cold war.
-
Updated Ukrainian military tactics:
https://apple.news/AOULtBbPXQNivm3_fJIsbcQ
-
The US should give up its nukes. If we cannot engage Russia because of M.A.D., then what good is having the world’s mightiest military? What happens when China takes the same strategy as Russia? Sanctions are fine and good, but they will not prevent things like this from happening.
As it sits now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a sitting target. We can probably begin the countdown for when his death is announced. Meanwhile, the west and its partners are sitting back and waiting for it to happen. This man has shown incredible bravery and leadership and has instantly become a global icon as someone who will stand up to the bad guys and protect democracy. Perhaps the west is using him as a pawn in the game – a necessary sacrifice to justify the next steps. Or, perhaps he will just be another one of the senseless casualties of this war and that will be that. Only time will tell what the true answer is, but I do not believe he should be a sacrifice in this war game calculation
I believe we should be proactive in this situation. Russia has more-or-less preemptively declared war against any country that supports Ukraine. If we collectively say no to this kind of behavior, it will serve as a turning point for this and future wars. If we allow this to pass and allow Putin’s military to take down city after city until there are none left in Ukraine, we can mark this point in history as the turning point for 21st century imperialism. Only this time will the imperialist countries be able to tout nuclear weapons as the ultimate justification to prevent resistance.
After decades of the US decline as the beacon of hope for the world, this is the chance for it to redeem itself. This is the WWII moment of modern day. This is the chance to hopefully reunite Americans behind a common cause. As it stands today, the Russian army is in a position to get obliterated by a small series airstrike by the US and its partners. The longer we wait, the harder this gets. Do we really want to let this war simmer for the next 10 years of infighting? Is the goal to outlast Putin so that hopefully his successor sees the light of day and pulls out?
Putting this altogether, it does not seems like the west is playing the long game very well. We are past due for imposing all available sanctions. Sanctions should be made permanent. Assets should be seized and liquidated. Oil and gas should be at the top of the sanctions list. There is no more time to pussyfoot around this.
Unless the US and the nuclear powers around the world that supposedly support democracy want to become imperialist countries themselves, they might as well give up their nukes now so there is a way to at least engage the powerful enemies in the world, because as this 2022 war is showing us, having a nuclear deterrent for the “good guys” isn’t actually a deterrent; it’s a hindrance.
-
I was so angry tonight after reading the latest news of Zelensky's heroics and Russia's atrocities. I'm ready to go. Why shouldn't Zelensky formally request (again) military support from willing countries, and those countries, including the USA, move into Ukraine and make it known to Russia that they need to move out? Establish a no-fly zone, go in on the ground from the west, and steadily move east. The option for Russia is to leave before shots are fired, or don't leave and be destroyed. Put the full weight of the nuclear arsenal behind it. Say that we will not stand by while a totalitarian regime invades a democracy, and then prove it.
And then formally recognize Taiwan and tell the Chinese to f--- themselves, too.
-
I think something's changed in Ukraine. [...]
I don't know what's changed, but something has. Something with the war, or something with their strategy.
The Russians have changed their approach. They are now doing a real war, the Russian way. Means the aforementioned bombing and intentionally killing of civilians.
This "special operation" was intended by Putin to be a short "Free the Country!" holiday for his troops. Now it's a real war. And the enemy will be squashed by all means.
-
In the days of World War 1, the Russian soldiers fought the Europeans. Their military was not too good. They served under officers they didn't respect. Mistakes were made. At the end of the war, they went home and made changes.
Here are a people with many that can speak their language. The Russians cannot help but see how valiantly they fight for their freedom. Is it possible that this war will put the germ of an idea in their heads that they can change their own society for the better?
I saw a Netflix program of how the Ukrainian people made the Russian puppet leader, Viktor Yanukovych. flee in 2014. You couldn't fake this. Those people are brave. They've been fighting the Russians a long time now. The show gave the impression that all the people pulled together to make it happen. Apparently, they haven't lost those qualities shown in the film. (Winter on Fire)
The Ukrainians claim to have killed 10,000 Russians. There were 15,000 Soviets killed in Afghanistan. At least some of those Russian soldiers must wonder as to why they are really doing this fighting.
-
In the last twenty years, the 9/11 attacks have appeared in at least half a dozen American fiction books I've read. It was clearly a big trauma for the USA and it's citizens.
For many in Europe - not just Ukraine - I think this war will be much more important than 9/11 decades from now. This is when the world changed DRASTICLY for us, again. I spoke to my dad this weekend and he told me how he was called into the military up here in Sweden when the Warsaw pact tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia back in 1968 - he must have been 23 at the time. He asked me to where I'd go if the Russians attack Sweden now - assuming he'd be to old to go somewhere and I should save myself and run overseas. I had no answer to that question. I still do not have an answer.
-
In the last twenty years, the 9/11 attacks have appeared in at least half a dozen American fiction books I've read. It was clearly a big trauma for the USA and it's citizens.
For many in Europe - not just Ukraine - I think this war will be much more important than 9/11 decades from now. This is when the world changed DRASTICLY for us, again. I spoke to my dad this weekend and he told me how he was called into the military up here in Sweden when the Warsaw pact tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia back in 1968 - he must have been 23 at the time. He asked me to where I'd go if the Russians attack Sweden now - assuming he'd be to old to go somewhere and I should save myself and run overseas. I had no answer to that question. I still do not have an answer.
Looking at it from the far side of the Atlantic, I cannot really understand what it feels like for folks in Europe, but I can tell -- particularly for folks in western europe* -- it is an experience that is changing people's whole perspective on the world they live in.
The analogy to September 11th is a frightening one though. When hundreds of millions of people who thought they were safe are suddenly afraid for their safety, and the safety of their loved ones it is possible for them to make rapid changes to the world they live in for the better or the worse. I just hope you folks can learn some lessons from the mistakes we in the USA made in the decade after that attack.
*I work with one guy from Poland, whose whole family and fiance still live there, and while he's clearly worried for them he doesn't seem to be shaken to his core in the same way as the folks I know from countries farther west. I think because either he personally, or poland in general, always considered what Russia is doing to Ukraine to be a possible part of their own future rather than something that was completely unthinkable in the modern era.
-
There is an interesting book, released 2010.
https://www.amazon.ca/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057
The author George Friedman quite accurately describes the future of the world.
Some of the points:
1. The whole threat to the west from middle east (Sept 11) will disappear.
2. Russia will try to restore its imperium (as i recall in 2020ties).
3. West will unite and defeat russia.
4. Turkey, Japan will rise to become major regional (super) powers.
5. Poland becomes the key to stop russia.
6. Interestingly, he foresee Germany going downwards...
7. China collapses internally.
-
Do remember that it's only 33 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and all the changes that followed in the few years thereafter. USSR collapsed in 1991. I remember these times clearly as I was in the end of high school and my first year of university at the time.
-
The US should give up its nukes. If we cannot engage Russia because of M.A.D., then what good is having the world’s mightiest military? What happens when China takes the same strategy as Russia? Sanctions are fine and good, but they will not prevent things like this from happening.
I'm guessing that right now Ukraine really wishes they hadn't given up their nukes.
-
Well @Blender Bender good thing Friedman doesn't foresee WWIII until Thanksgiving 2050, and it will happen between most of the Western world + China against the UK, Japan and Germany. I think for the early 2020s Friedman has predicted the total collapse of both Russia and China instead.
Seriously though, there are some interesting ideas in Friedman's work. But as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
@maizefolk I'm not sure if it's that different for Western Europeans as opposed to Eastern Europeans. Of course, we are much more sheltered from the consequences - 1,5 million Ukrainian people have already fled into neighbouring countries and only a small percentage of them have travelled on to Western Europe. Although it still feels like quite a lot - in one week, dozens of Ukrainian families have arrived in my city already. But, as a Western Europeans, I think we've always had that idea that the Russians were out to get us.
It wasn't too long ago that the Iron Curtain was a couple of hours driving away from the North Sea. Of course, we don't have the experience of living in an Eastern Bloc country that people in, say, Poland have, but I was born a little bit before the collapse of the Berlin Wall, in the Netherlands, and the idea of "the Russians are coming" has always been in the back of my mind. Tensions between Europe and Russia pre-date the Cold War. No one remembers when Russia wasn't a threat. It's always been a when, not an if.
That's very different than my experience of 9/11 (as a European, and still in highschool when it happened, so maybe my experience is flawed). One big issue about 9/11 is that no one saw it coming. The western world was suddenly under attack by an enemy that no one knew they had.
I have a friend from a former Eastern Bloc country who has lived here for a very long time. They've been thinking about potentially moving back home for years but one thing that has stopped them that it's much more dangerous to live there when the Russians come.
@lemanfan Yes, I do believe that this is something that will change our lives for the long-term. In that sense it's a lot like 9/11. I remember having a conversation with a relative when Russia first invaded Ukraine, and we discussed whether in hindsight we'd say that's where WWIII started. We may have been right.
My personal plan has been the Dutch overseas territories for a while (Scandinavia is my climate refugee back-up plan, but too close to Russia right now). The Dutch overseas territories are too remote to be an interesting target for attack by anyone and, being located in the Carribean, an excellent spot to either stay for a longer period or travel on to Canada or the US. Those have always been the traditional safe havens for Europeans since they're just too big to be invaded by a foreign army.
When WWII happened, a lot of wealthy people fled to the UK (and from there some travelled to the US or Canada) from the Netherlands in spring 1940. When Germany invaded in May, for a couple of days people were able to get out of the country, but it would have been extremely hard. After a few days the Germans made that impossible. Physically, due to disability I'm not able to stay and fight for my country. If something happens, I want to be able to get out, and I want to make sure I can get out while I still can. That's why I like having access to money and credit cards in case I have to urgently pack my bags. I have enough money to pay for all of my loved ones to get out.
-
@Imma
The book is more about understanding the geopolitical forces.
Even the author is clear that his forecasted events should not be taken verbatim.
-
Someone said it would become more apparent who the Russia assets are. This looks like one. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/former-trump-official-called-ukrainian-president-zelensky-a-puppet-2022-3%3famp
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
-
The US should give up its nukes. If we cannot engage Russia because of M.A.D., then what good is having the world’s mightiest military? What happens when China takes the same strategy as Russia? Sanctions are fine and good, but they will not prevent things like this from happening.
As it sits now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a sitting target. We can probably begin the countdown for when his death is announced. Meanwhile, the west and its partners are sitting back and waiting for it to happen. This man has shown incredible bravery and leadership and has instantly become a global icon as someone who will stand up to the bad guys and protect democracy. Perhaps the west is using him as a pawn in the game – a necessary sacrifice to justify the next steps. Or, perhaps he will just be another one of the senseless casualties of this war and that will be that. Only time will tell what the true answer is, but I do not believe he should be a sacrifice in this war game calculation
I believe we should be proactive in this situation. Russia has more-or-less preemptively declared war against any country that supports Ukraine. If we collectively say no to this kind of behavior, it will serve as a turning point for this and future wars. If we allow this to pass and allow Putin’s military to take down city after city until there are none left in Ukraine, we can mark this point in history as the turning point for 21st century imperialism. Only this time will the imperialist countries be able to tout nuclear weapons as the ultimate justification to prevent resistance.
After decades of the US decline as the beacon of hope for the world, this is the chance for it to redeem itself. This is the WWII moment of modern day. This is the chance to hopefully reunite Americans behind a common cause. As it stands today, the Russian army is in a position to get obliterated by a small series airstrike by the US and its partners. The longer we wait, the harder this gets. Do we really want to let this war simmer for the next 10 years of infighting? Is the goal to outlast Putin so that hopefully his successor sees the light of day and pulls out?
Putting this altogether, it does not seems like the west is playing the long game very well. We are past due for imposing all available sanctions. Sanctions should be made permanent. Assets should be seized and liquidated. Oil and gas should be at the top of the sanctions list. There is no more time to pussyfoot around this.
Unless the US and the nuclear powers around the world that supposedly support democracy want to become imperialist countries themselves, they might as well give up their nukes now so there is a way to at least engage the powerful enemies in the world, because as this 2022 war is showing us, having a nuclear deterrent for the “good guys” isn’t actually a deterrent; it’s a hindrance.
To your point about getting rid of nuclear weapons, the United States actually tried to do this during the 1980s/1990s with the START treaty with USSR/Russian Federation. And it was European & Japanese allies who kindly asked the United States not to get rid of the nuclear umbrella under which they have been protected from adversaries far closer to their shores.
It is also important to note that we do not know what wars nuclear weapons have prevented over the last 8 decades. It seems likely that a third global war was avoided due to their existence and may yet still be prevented because of their presence.
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
Park them in residential areas and blow them up, like other terrorists have been known to do?
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
Park them in residential areas and blow them up, like other terrorists have been known to do?
Isn't it part of war rules to have your war equipment clearly marked what side you are on? I could be mistaken.
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
I am also thinking that they cannot sustain for very long. There have been several points in the timeline where I thought the Russians would lose badly, and at each point I thought they would lose sooner than I did before.
1. When Ukrainians started holding patriotic demonstrations before the war began
2. When Russia failed to attain any meaningful objectives within three days
3. When every Western country announced arms shipments and sanctions (and you can bet some did things they did not announce)
4. Around yesterday, when the Russians had not made any more meaningful gains
I still think the darkest days are still in front of us though. I have been thinking that Putin's army's greatest advantage would be after 14 days, at which point they will have destroyed all Ukrainian equipment they could easily destroy and advanced as far as they can advance. Then they will be facing all that they could not easily destroy, tied down, and with a constant stream of highly capable portable weapons from NATO that will never cease. It doesn't seem like they have really been conquering Ukraine so much as driving though.
So what happens when their military offensive becomes unsustainable? I think there are four options.
Negotiated truce Putin would not let happen
strategic retreat Putin would not let happen
Massive reinforcement
Massive clusterfuck
I am leaning toward the latter, and I think the 3-6 weeks of the war will become increasingly bad for Putin.
Also Putin decisively lost the propaganda war yesterday be deliberately killing fleeing civilians and telling Ukraine to let him destroy them, or else he would destroy them. Now everybody in the country will think there is no choice but to fight.
I too hope I am not a victim of wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
-
Delusional russian leadership: an abandoned Russian convoy transporting, among other things, police riot gear.
For what? To control the enthusiastic crowds celebrating their liberation?
They for sure had it all figured out.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1500156105967685633
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
Park them in residential areas and blow them up, like other terrorists have been known to do?
Those are convoy replacements for sure. There's already video of civilian vehicles with big white Zs taking part in supply convoys and getting ambushed.
Oryx's website is entirely based on what has been photographed so whatever he posts is confirmed, but also the bare minimum. A train full of military vehicles was spotted on the Trans-Siberian railroad moving west, so they're pulling equipment from other commands. When we need to replace combat losses we dip into depots of equipment that can be made ready in a few days. We don't strip other active units. Rumor has it that Russian depots look more like junk yards. Reserves are being called up as personnel replacements, and they're trying to pull in Syrian and Belorussian proxies.
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
Park them in residential areas and blow them up, like other terrorists have been known to do?
Isn't it part of war rules to have your war equipment clearly marked what side you are on? I could be mistaken.
Geneva Convention says that you have to wear a uniform. It doesn't specify equipment. The white painted markings are to differentiate Russian and Ukrainian vehicles since they use the same stuff. You'll also see individual soldiers with colored tape around their arms since their uniforms are nearly the same as well.
-
Also Putin decisively lost the propaganda war yesterday be deliberately killing fleeing civilians and telling Ukraine to let him destroy them, or else he would destroy them. Now everybody in the country will think there is no choice but to fight.
Russian government trying to claim the Ukrainians fired on their own nuclear power plant, that they're hiding American biological weapons factories, that we were helping them develop nuclear weapons (cause those are easy to hide), and that Turkish forces are in Ukraine directly fighting. The evidence for the former is a random laptop on a desk. The evidence for the latter is a bunch Radio Shack parts and a grenade spread neatly over a Turkish flag.
It would be funny if not for the fact that Russia has turned into North Korea with its control of the media. Most links to the outside world have been blocked.
-
As one Sunday news panelist put it, this war could end in a draw because it's not Ukraine vs. Russia, it's Ukraine and allies vs. Russia.
Or, Russia could "conquer" Ukraine but not be able to occupy it ala the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ukranian sniper attacks, bombs and other guerilla warfare could see Russia slink away in a few years but let it declare some kind of phony victory.
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
Park them in residential areas and blow them up, like other terrorists have been known to do?
Isn't it part of war rules to have your war equipment clearly marked what side you are on? I could be mistaken.
Don't know about the war rules (assuming Russia cares about those), but the video I saw the vehicles seemed to have big white "Z"'s on the sides. So that would be a marker.
-
I forgot the other way Putin is losing the propaganda war: Ukraine is free to publicize as much as possible all Russian losses. Russia cannot reciprocate because it will destroy their easy victorious war of liberation message. Thus the propaganda war structurally favors Ukraine on all levels.
-
I hope Western companies learn their lesson from this and make permanent decisions to not do business in Russia until major reforms take place. But I doubt it.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Ok, this is interesting. Crazy? Weird? Something.
On Twitter, one of the big hacker accounts is DeepNetAnon. She (as stated by the user) posted tonight that Russia is planning to disconnect the entire country from the global internet by March 11th. As support, there's screenshots of a government communication, mostly in Russian but the last is in English.
https://twitter.com/AnonymissInfo/status/1500630284227784706
If true, that will be interesting. It would certainly make hacking attempts more difficult. And it would isolate the Russian people from contact with the outside world.
-
I was hoping that Putin's disinformation would leave social media, but it looks like they have just redirected their attention:
"A Russian bot farm reportedly produced 7,000 accounts to post fake information about Ukraine on social media, including Telegram, WhatsApp and Viber, according to the security service of Ukraine.
And influencers who previously demonstrated against vaccines are now turning their support to Russia."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/04/bot-holiday-covid-misinformation-ukraine-social-media
-
As one Sunday news panelist put it, this war could end in a draw because it's not Ukraine vs. Russia, it's Ukraine and allies vs. Russia.
Or, Russia could "conquer" Ukraine but not be able to occupy it ala the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ukranian sniper attacks, bombs and other guerilla warfare could see Russia slink away in a few years but let it declare some kind of phony victory.
Russian forces are in no shape to occupy/pacify Ukraine. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with the intention of staying only as long as needed and we saw how difficult that was. Iraq has a population of 20 million and we maintained an occupation force of 150,000 with the majority of the population at least ambivalent to our purpose. Ukraine has twice that population with most of it hostile to Russia (who doesn't plan on leaving). They would have to burn the country to the ground to win, and every day this war continues the sanctions will gut the Russian economy and many/most will stay in place as long as Putin is in power.
An alleged FSB analyst sent out an editorial over the weekend stating the Russian economy won't survive the summer. He also expressed frustration and bewilderment that the invasion even happened. According to him, the bureau was asked to present an opinion on what a hypothetical Ukrainian invasion would look like - but it had to have a happy ending. He said pessimism resulted in interrogations and they didn't know the invasion was real until days before it happened. Their report was an optimistic "what if," but the army took it at face value. The Russian army sent to Ukraine was not structured for a real fight, and definitely not for a potential insurgency. They still have forces in Syria, and with all of their focus on Ukraine and with Turkey cutting them off from the Mediterranean they have to fly all of their supplies which in his words "is heating your home by throwing cash in the oven."
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
No clue. But, there is at least one video of a Russian train sending equipment to Ukraine - and it had very obviously civilian vehicles on it. Now, maybe there's a good reason to send minivans and delivery trucks instead of military vehicles, but it's not exactly a good look.
Park them in residential areas and blow them up, like other terrorists have been known to do?
Isn't it part of war rules to have your war equipment clearly marked what side you are on? I could be mistaken.
Don't know about the war rules (assuming Russia cares about those), but the video I saw the vehicles seemed to have big white "Z"'s on the sides. So that would be a marker.
The Russians are using different markings for different parts of their Army. The Z is one, in other areas it's a V. Here's one list, I can't vouch for it's accuracy but it seems reasonable.
Z Eastern Military District
Z in a box Russian army stationed in Crimea
O Russian army stationed in Belarus
V Russian Naval Infantry
X Kadyrov Chechnya
A Alpha Ground Special Forces
Most vehicles I've seen are marked with a Z or V, so it makes sense.
-
Re: FSB editorial… What? Putin not believing his own intelligence services? I’m sure no head of state would ever do that!
-
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
Anyone who still believes Western bluster about preserving freedom will look like a moron, and China will take Taiwan in a few years. Nuclear proliferation will spiral out of control as every dictator realizes that the easiest way to keep the US from interfering with a desired territorial expansion is threatening use of nuclear weapons. I’m betting Putin will be happy to sell a few. It only takes a few, all that matters is there’s a credible threat of lobbing one at a major US city. There is literally nothing in the world that the US would be willing to defend at the cost of nuclear attack, or even a major ground war. Yeah sure we’ll send some soldiers to die for pointless endeavors to satisfy our civilians’ bloodlust, but nothing like a whole war that could hurt our soft bellies. I won’t pretend to be any different, that’s how most societies function.
Our society as a whole just doesn’t care about anything that much, as long as we get our cheap stuff from China into our grubby hands and oil from elsewhere into our gas guzzlers. We’re not early 1900s out-to-prove-ourselves-and-maybe-make-some-money America, we’re Netflix-and-chill America. Of course our military volunteers are an exception and probably the only thing (other than distance) that’ll keep us from being a vassal state too at some point.
Europeans may be a bit different, since they’re the ones who’ll get bombed after Ukraine falls. But that proximity scares them more than the US is scared.
I think any situation that doesn’t result in Ukraine eventually surrendering is overly
optimistic. Ukraine isn’t Afghanistan - it has much easier terrain for conventional wars and apparently much more significance for Putin than Afghanistan had for the USSR. The madman is literally destroying his country’s economy temporarily to get that extra 5% of land (and maybe those natural gas lines?) because he knows that US companies will come back as soon as the West gets distracted by some other squirrel. Remember corporate virtue signaling last year during social justice protests? That was so last year! Ukraine is so this year. Something else will be the next hashtag and money will flow to the oligarchs before their retirement accounts get hit too hard.
In the mean time, support humanitarian organizations. The Ukrainians will need the support while they look for apartments in the rest of Europe.
-
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
Anyone who still believes Western bluster about preserving freedom will look like a moron, and China will take Taiwan in a few years. Nuclear proliferation will spiral out of control as every dictator realizes that the easiest way to keep the US from interfering with a desired territorial expansion is threatening use of nuclear weapons. I’m betting Putin will be happy to sell a few. It only takes a few, all that matters is there’s a credible threat of lobbing one at a major US city. There is literally nothing in the world that the US would be willing to defend at the cost of nuclear attack, or even a major ground war. Yeah sure we’ll send some soldiers to die for pointless endeavors to satisfy our civilians’ bloodlust, but nothing like a whole war that could hurt our soft bellies. I won’t pretend to be any different, that’s how most societies function.
Our society as a whole just doesn’t care about anything that much, as long as we get our cheap stuff from China into our grubby hands and oil from elsewhere into our gas guzzlers. We’re not early 1900s out-to-prove-ourselves-and-maybe-make-some-money America, we’re Netflix-and-chill America. Of course our military volunteers are an exception and probably the only thing (other than distance) that’ll keep us from being a vassal state too at some point.
Europeans may be a bit different, since they’re the ones who’ll get bombed after Ukraine falls. But that proximity scares them more than the US is scared.
I think any situation that doesn’t result in Ukraine eventually surrendering is overly
optimistic. Ukraine isn’t Afghanistan - it has much easier terrain for conventional wars and apparently much more significance for Putin than Afghanistan had for the USSR. The madman is literally destroying his country’s economy temporarily to get that extra 5% of land (and maybe those natural gas lines?) because he knows that US companies will come back as soon as the West gets distracted by some other squirrel. Remember corporate virtue signaling last year during social justice protests? That was so last year! Ukraine is so this year. Something else will be the next hashtag and money will flow to the oligarchs before their retirement accounts get hit too hard.
In the mean time, support humanitarian organizations. The Ukrainians will need the support while they look for apartments in the rest of Europe.
Unfortunately a likely scenario.
-
I think any situation that doesn’t result in Ukraine eventually surrendering is overly
optimistic. Ukraine isn’t Afghanistan - it has much easier terrain for conventional wars and apparently much more significance for Putin than Afghanistan had for the USSR. The madman is literally destroying his country’s economy temporarily to get that extra 5% of land (and maybe those natural gas lines?) because he knows that US companies will come back as soon as the West gets distracted by some other squirrel. Remember corporate virtue signaling last year during social justice protests? That was so last year! Ukraine is so this year. Something else will be the next hashtag and money will flow to the oligarchs before their retirement accounts get hit too hard.
In the mean time, support humanitarian organizations. The Ukrainians will need the support while they look for apartments in the rest of Europe.
Unfortunately a likely scenario.
Yes, I think a different outcome is fantasizing.
It is so dispiriting. It takes a group of 20-30 volunteers all year to get a refugee family sort of on their feet. Then, in a week, this sociopath Putin creates 1.5 million more refugees! It feels like we're fighting the ocean. Throwing a handful of pebbles at the sun.
-
I wish the Russian military in Ukraine would experience the full force of the NATO forces. Let Putin know he can't go into a country and take it over. His army would be obliterated. I heard he has 95% of his armed forces there in Ukraine.
Putin can't retaliate by nuking because that means the end of the world and humanity. He would just have to withdraw.
This is making me sick what he is doing and we are just letting him do it.
I also agree with Lindsay Graham.. Someone needs to assasinate that madman.
EDIT: Maybe I am not thinking this through and this is an emotional response. Seeing the destruction he is doing the Ukranians is breaking my heart and disgusts me. I also am NOT afraid of him or nuclear weapons.
-
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
...
Europeans may be a bit different, since they’re the ones who’ll get bombed after Ukraine falls. But that proximity scares them more than the US is scared.
I think any situation that doesn’t result in Ukraine eventually surrendering is overly
optimistic. Ukraine isn’t Afghanistan - it has much easier terrain for conventional wars and apparently much more significance for Putin than Afghanistan had for the USSR. The madman is literally destroying his country’s economy temporarily to get that extra 5% of land (and maybe those natural gas lines?) because he knows that US companies will come back as soon as the West gets distracted by some other squirrel. Remember corporate virtue signaling last year during social justice protests? That was so last year! Ukraine is so this year. Something else will be the next hashtag and money will flow to the oligarchs before their retirement accounts get hit too hard.
I disagree. I don't think that the EU wants Russia in Ukraine, especially west of the Dnieper. Also, I'm not sure why Russia would wish to commit itself to holding land west of the Dnieper. As much as Ukraine is open for conventional warfare $20k anti-tank munitions seem to be taking out $5m tanks. I'm not sure anyone will ever fight another tank war.
If the USSR couldn't hold Afghanistan then Russia certainly can't hold all of Ukraine with a bunch of EU and/or NATO aid. Especially if their government will be bankrupt by summer. Also, the more civilians flee to western Europe and the more damaged the cities get the less the civilian population has to gain from surrender. Bombed out building suck to live in but provide all sorts of interesting cover for insurgents.
The civilian population knows that Putin is happy to just let them farm wheat like 19th century peasants but that the EU would provide actual aid. Also, 1.5 million Ukrainians have fled the country in 10 days. How much more will that number grow? I don't think that the EU wants half of Ukraine in Poland but I also don't think that they are going to send them back without securing Ukraine.
-
If Russia goes into Uktraine to take over a country I don't see why it wouldnt be unreasonable for NATO to also go into that country to defend it. NATO isn't invading Russia. Russia would just have to retreat and that's that. No nukes. What could Putin really do besides withdraw?
NATO should start making counter demands and counter threats. "If you don't leave, expect the full force of NATO .. you don't get to take over countries, go back home and we'll leave you alone."
-
If Russia goes into Uktraine to take over a country I don't see why it wouldnt be unreasonable for NATO to also go into that country to defend it. NATO isn't invading Russia. Russia would just have to retreat and that's that. No nukes. What could Putin really do besides withdraw?
I happen to agree. That would be very similar to both the Korean and Vietnam wars. Speaking of which the USSR covertly provided pilots in the Korean war and openly provided aircraft.
-
Maybe NATO could make a deal with Putin that Uktraine wont' join EU or NATO, on the condition that Russia leaves.
Putin demanded that Ukraine not join NATO, perhaps if we had said okay, then he wouldn't of went in there.
Then Russia and NATO both work to rebuild the damage done to Ukraine.
Treat Ukraine like a DMZ between NATO and Russia. And an understanding if either side invades Ukraine then the other country has a right to defend.
-
I wish millions of micro-drones existed, which were very affordable to make costing maybe $5000 bucks a piece. Which fuel off nuclear power, with that reactor also being a nuclear weapon large enough to destroying a missile/warhead. Maybe some day. Would be nice if there was zero chance a nuke could reach another country via ICBM or otherwise.
-
I wish the Russian military in Ukraine would experience the full force of the NATO forces. Let Putin know he can't go into a country and take it over. His army would be obliterated. I heard he has 95% of his armed forces there in Ukraine.
Some estimates are that 95% of the forces staged on the border with Ukraine have been committed. That build up was around 150,000 - 200,000 troops. A very significant portion of the Russian military to be sure, but their total active-duty army is close to a million troops. Grante, many of those are not combat troops and they wouldn't be able to get to Ukraine to fight. But by no means has Russia committed everything they have.
Putin can't retaliate by nuking because that means the end of the world and humanity. He would just have to withdraw.
Maybe, but that is a risk that no one is willing to take. The upside is relatively limited for the US, and the downside is the end of the world. Russia can also decide to use a limited nuclear strike. If a relatively small nuclear bomb was used in Ukraine - especially if it was against something like an airbase vs. a large city the reality is that we're not going to launch 1,000 nukes at Russia. They know that we'll never conduct a limited nuclear strike but it's part of their doctrine.
This is making me sick what he is doing and we are just letting him do it.
I also agree with Lindsay Graham.. Someone needs to assasinate that madman.
EDIT: Maybe I am not thinking this through and this is an emotional response. Seeing the destruction he is doing the Ukranians is breaking my heart and disgusts me. I also am NOT afraid of him or nuclear weapons.
I don't have a strong desire to go fight Russia (I'm a Soldier so that is a real possibility) but the reality is it will probably never come to that. The nuclear threat can't be ignored, especially after Putin's judgement has already been shown to be fairly poor. He wanted to keep Ukraine out of the European/NATO sphere and within the Russian sphere. Instead, he's drawn Europe and NATO together more strongly than ever and made Russia a pariah along with the likes of Iran and North Korea.
-
Putin can't retaliate by nuking because that means the end of the world and humanity. He would just have to withdraw.
Maybe, but that is a risk that no one is willing to take.
Is there really no limit to what Russia can do before the west intervenes? Along those lines, perhaps we will kick Russia off of the UN security council and they can enforce the Budapest memorandum.
Or maybe a coalition of non-NATO countries will decide to do something.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
-
OK, well I feel the need to restate my ignorant contrary opinion one last time. Putin's army in Ukraine is capital-F Fucked. They will suffer a catastrophic defeat (but still likely hold eastern parts of the country, just that they will also fail at their ambitious objectives while suffering incredible losses).
Two sources for my opinion. First, having read a lot of books with pictographic maps of troop movements (Time Life Picture History of World War II, etc), you don't launch an invasion like Putin did unless you have a lot of well-placed confidence in your army. Because it is a high stakes move: you lose big or win big, not much of a middle ground. A safe bet would have focused on the eastern part of the country, so that whenever they ran out of steam naturally they could just stop and hold the ground and say "ok, this part is ours." But instead they went for the whole thing in a dozen tiny, not-mutually reinforcing prongs. Stopping results in being surrounded and wiped out. They seem to be losing momentum. When they run out completely, they will be surrounded and wiped out.
Second, a Taleb-ian (Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan, Antifragile) assessment. Consider Taleb's concept of antifragility, a thing which the more force you apply the stronger it gets. Ukraine started in 2014 very weak. However, Putin treated Ukrainians in a fashion which causes them to be anti-fragile. Putin sent a series of minor aggressions toward Ukraine which, like a body receiving a vaccine, trained them how to fight him. They started with no equipment and no ties to the west, and the more Putin pushed the more equipment they got and the better and harder they trained. Even after the war started, Putin has made terrible choices of actions and words which have ramped up Ukraine's anti-fragility to incredible levels. If he had said things like, "we love you, here is some money, Russia isn't so bad" he would have had effective propaganda. Instead he said "if I kill you because you resisted me, you have only yourself to blame" and then he shelled civilians who were trying not to resist him. Basically every action he has ever taken and every word he has ever said is nearly perfectly calibrated to unite Ukrainians to fight against him, and to encourage the west to band together to apply harder sanctions and send more military aid. The West has not yet come even close to the full level of sanctions and military power available to them, and by all indications there will be more of these the more he pushes.
On the opposite side, the way the Russians deployed set them into a very fragile position, see my first point. The Russians are arrayed such that failure begets more failure, and they are very vulnerable to attack from all directions. The more they lose, the more they can lose, and the more resources Ukraine will have to send against them, in an accelerating process. This combination of Russian fragility and Ukrainian anti-fragility makes a Russian victory nearly impossible. Their only path to victory is to send in literally their entire army and also reserves. OK, that could still happen. They would still lose eventually like in Afghanistan because their position is not sustainable, but Ukraine would be annihilated as well. I am just assuming that it would be a bad look for Putin to have literally his entire army stuck in a pointless occupation for a decade, taking heavy losses especially of equipment along the way, while Europe decides maybe it doesn't need to buy any Russian oil and gas whatsoever.
But, I am as far as I can tell I am a natural contrarian. That doesn't mean I do the opposite of what everyone says just because, it means I am most optimistic when things are darkest, and when things are great I'm like "omg not this again." So it may just be my personality to say something like this. Still, I think this will be a giant clusterfuck for Putin and his army, an epic military defeat for the ages.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
-
OK, well I feel the need to restate my ignorant contrary opinion one last time. Putin's army in Ukraine is capital-F Fucked. They will suffer a catastrophic defeat (but still likely hold eastern parts of the country, just that they will also fail at their ambitious objectives while suffering incredible losses).
Two sources for my opinion. First, having read a lot of books with pictographic maps of troop movements (Time Life Picture History of World War II, etc), you don't launch an invasion like Putin did unless you have a lot of well-placed confidence in your army. Because it is a high stakes move: you lose big or win big, not much of a middle ground. A safe bet would have focused on the eastern part of the country, so that whenever they ran out of steam naturally they could just stop and hold the ground and say "ok, this part is ours." But instead they went for the whole thing in a dozen tiny, not-mutually reinforcing prongs. Stopping results in being surrounded and wiped out. They seem to be losing momentum. When they run out completely, they will be surrounded and wiped out.
Second, a Taleb-ian (Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan, Antifragile) assessment. Consider Taleb's concept of antifragility, a thing which the more force you apply the stronger it gets. Ukraine started in 2014 very weak. However, Putin treated Ukrainians in a fashion which causes them to be anti-fragile. Putin sent a series of minor aggressions toward Ukraine which, like a body receiving a vaccine, trained them how to fight him. They started with no equipment and no ties to the west, and the more Putin pushed the more equipment they got and the better and harder they trained. Even after the war started, Putin has made terrible choices of actions and words which have ramped up Ukraine's anti-fragility to incredible levels. If he had said things like, "we love you, here is some money, Russia isn't so bad" he would have had effective propaganda. Instead he said "if I kill you because you resisted me, you have only yourself to blame" and then he shelled civilians who were trying not to resist him. Basically every action he has ever taken and every word he has ever said is nearly perfectly calibrated to unite Ukrainians to fight against him, and to encourage the west to band together to apply harder sanctions and send more military aid. The West has not yet come even close to the full level of sanctions and military power available to them, and by all indications there will be more of these the more he pushes.
On the opposite side, the way the Russians deployed set them into a very fragile position, see my first point. The Russians are arrayed such that failure begets more failure, and they are very vulnerable to attack from all directions. The more they lose, the more they can lose, and the more resources Ukraine will have to send against them, in an accelerating process. This combination of Russian fragility and Ukrainian anti-fragility makes a Russian victory nearly impossible. Their only path to victory is to send in literally their entire army and also reserves. OK, that could still happen. They would still lose eventually like in Afghanistan because their position is not sustainable, but Ukraine would be annihilated as well. I am just assuming that it would be a bad look for Putin to have literally his entire army stuck in a pointless occupation for a decade, taking heavy losses especially of equipment along the way, while Europe decides maybe it doesn't need to buy any Russian oil and gas whatsoever.
But, I am as far as I can tell I am a natural contrarian. That doesn't mean I do the opposite of what everyone says just because, it means I am most optimistic when things are darkest, and when things are great I'm like "omg not this again." So it may just be my personality to say something like this. Still, I think this will be a giant clusterfuck for Putin and his army, an epic military defeat for the ages.
I hope you are right. Thanks for your insight, very interesting!
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
Thank you, your reply is calming me down :) Your's and Radagast's.
-
I don't have a strong desire to go fight Russia (I'm a Soldier so that is a real possibility)
Btw, thank you for your service!
-
OK, well I feel the need to restate my ignorant contrary opinion one last time. Putin's army in Ukraine is capital-F Fucked. They will suffer a catastrophic defeat (but still likely hold eastern parts of the country, just that they will also fail at their ambitious objectives while suffering incredible losses).
Two sources for my opinion. First, having read a lot of books with pictographic maps of troop movements (Time Life Picture History of World War II, etc), you don't launch an invasion like Putin did unless you have a lot of well-placed confidence in your army. Because it is a high stakes move: you lose big or win big, not much of a middle ground. A safe bet would have focused on the eastern part of the country, so that whenever they ran out of steam naturally they could just stop and hold the ground and say "ok, this part is ours." But instead they went for the whole thing in a dozen tiny, not-mutually reinforcing prongs. Stopping results in being surrounded and wiped out. They seem to be losing momentum. When they run out completely, they will be surrounded and wiped out.
Second, a Taleb-ian (Fooled by Randomness, Black Swan, Antifragile) assessment. Consider Taleb's concept of antifragility, a thing which the more force you apply the stronger it gets. Ukraine started in 2014 very weak. However, Putin treated Ukrainians in a fashion which causes them to be anti-fragile. Putin sent a series of minor aggressions toward Ukraine which, like a body receiving a vaccine, trained them how to fight him. They started with no equipment and no ties to the west, and the more Putin pushed the more equipment they got and the better and harder they trained. Even after the war started, Putin has made terrible choices of actions and words which have ramped up Ukraine's anti-fragility to incredible levels. If he had said things like, "we love you, here is some money, Russia isn't so bad" he would have had effective propaganda. Instead he said "if I kill you because you resisted me, you have only yourself to blame" and then he shelled civilians who were trying not to resist him. Basically every action he has ever taken and every word he has ever said is nearly perfectly calibrated to unite Ukrainians to fight against him, and to encourage the west to band together to apply harder sanctions and send more military aid. The West has not yet come even close to the full level of sanctions and military power available to them, and by all indications there will be more of these the more he pushes.
On the opposite side, the way the Russians deployed set them into a very fragile position, see my first point. The Russians are arrayed such that failure begets more failure, and they are very vulnerable to attack from all directions. The more they lose, the more they can lose, and the more resources Ukraine will have to send against them, in an accelerating process. This combination of Russian fragility and Ukrainian anti-fragility makes a Russian victory nearly impossible. Their only path to victory is to send in literally their entire army and also reserves. OK, that could still happen. They would still lose eventually like in Afghanistan because their position is not sustainable, but Ukraine would be annihilated as well. I am just assuming that it would be a bad look for Putin to have literally his entire army stuck in a pointless occupation for a decade, taking heavy losses especially of equipment along the way, while Europe decides maybe it doesn't need to buy any Russian oil and gas whatsoever.
But, I am as far as I can tell I am a natural contrarian. That doesn't mean I do the opposite of what everyone says just because, it means I am most optimistic when things are darkest, and when things are great I'm like "omg not this again." So it may just be my personality to say something like this. Still, I think this will be a giant clusterfuck for Putin and his army, an epic military defeat for the ages.
I hope you are right. Thanks for your insight, very interesting!
Yes, that's a good analysis. I hope you are right as well.
I can't imagine what Putin thinks he's gaining by declaring ceasefires for civilian evacuations, and then attacking them anyway. I even just read that the Red Cross spotted landmines on evacuation routes. If I was in Putin's situation, I would think civilians are a liability (every single one could suddenly decide to start fighting back) so you'd want them gone asap. Every civilian gone is one less potential guerilla fighter.
Offering a road to safety and then attacking it anyway not only causes people to not even attempt to leave anymore, but it also lets people know that staying and fighting is the only option, that Russia can never be trusted. You are creating people who will never surrender. They are creating cities full of people with Ukrainian weapons, NATO weapons, homemade weapons, IEDs, and smartphones, attacking you from absolutely every side. Russian soldiers don't seem that motivated anyway, imagine walking into a city where you know there could be snipers in every building, drones in the sky, IEDs everywhere and every civilian you encouter is potentially armed and ready to confront you. It sounds like a situation that can't be won and it will probably terrify the young, inexperienced boys Putin sent.
-
Putin really sucks as a war leader doesn’t he? He thinks he’s all bad ass but really is an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Not only is he insane he’s a moron.
-
Putin is now proposing safe evacuation routes that go to Russia and Belarus - and making it the only option for Kyiv and Kharkiv.
And in other news, he's cut off supplies to the agricultural fertiliser industry -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60623941
-
Road sign in Odesa -
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1500735087398240256
-
Maybe NATO could make a deal with Putin that Uktraine wont' join EU or NATO, on the condition that Russia leaves.
Putin demanded that Ukraine not join NATO, perhaps if we had said okay, then he wouldn't of went in there.
Then Russia and NATO both work to rebuild the damage done to Ukraine.
Treat Ukraine like a DMZ between NATO and Russia. And an understanding if either side invades Ukraine then the other country has a right to defend.
Actually, both the EU and NATO have rejected Ukraine in the past. They're not joining. Putin knows.
But Ukraine is a free country. They've liberated themselves from Russia. They can request membership of any club they want to be in and it's not Russia's business. Imagine that the UK would get to dictate US foreign policy just because they used to rule there. That would be absurd.
I don't believe the EU will give up on the Ukraine. For two reasons:
- we can't cope with 40 million Ukrainian refugees. Or even just 5 or 10 million.
- we are all strongly aware of Putin's ambitions. If you tolerate this, then your country will be next. The next options ( Baltic States, Moldova, Romania) are all EU/NATO. It's like he's testing the waters by going for the Ukraine first.
What's interesting is that Putin is occupying other territories in Georgia. And there are some regions within Russia that seek independence. With a large proportion of the military preoccupied with the Ukraine, this might be a great opportunity for them.
-
- we are all strongly aware of Putin's ambitions. If you tolerate this, then your country will be next. The next options ( Baltic States, Moldova, Romania) are all EU/NATO. It's like he's testing the waters by going for the Ukraine first.
I thought Moldova was not part of either the EU or NATO (like Ukraine)? It seems quite clear that they'd be next if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. They even have their own Russian backed separated movement in Transnistria.
After Moldova Russia is out of countries that he could invade without crossing some sort of new red line. Either Romania, Poland or the the Baltics would mean triggering a war with NATO and the EU. Finland isn't in NATO but is in the EU.
-
Ukraine's best hope might be the collapse of the Russian economy. Which will take time, but there have already been cracks showing.
-
As one Sunday news panelist put it, this war could end in a draw because it's not Ukraine vs. Russia, it's Ukraine and allies vs. Russia.
Or, Russia could "conquer" Ukraine but not be able to occupy it ala the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ukranian sniper attacks, bombs and other guerilla warfare could see Russia slink away in a few years but let it declare some kind of phony victory.
Russian forces are in no shape to occupy/pacify Ukraine. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with the intention of staying only as long as needed and we saw how difficult that was. Iraq has a population of 20 million and we maintained an occupation force of 150,000 with the majority of the population at least ambivalent to our purpose. Ukraine has twice that population with most of it hostile to Russia (who doesn't plan on leaving). They would have to burn the country to the ground to win, and every day this war continues the sanctions will gut the Russian economy and many/most will stay in place as long as Putin is in power.
The potential here for insurgency seems greater than Iraq or Afghanistan for the simple reason that Ukraine and Russia share a land border. I think it would look more like The Troubles in Northern Ireland with bombs randomly going off than a guerrilla war.
And speaking of blowing stuff up, I'm a bit astonished that there haven't been attacks in Russian cities yet. I would have expected some of these far right Ukrainian militias that we've been arming would have taken the fight to Russian soil by now.
The likeliest way that I see this spiraling out of control is for one of the far right militias to plant a series of weapons in Moscow and say that they'll set one off every Monday morning until the last Russian is off Ukrainian soil. With the arms the west has given them, plus the stuff that was never accounted for after the fall of the Soviet Union, plus all of the nuclear material from their reactors ... it seems like it's only a matter of time.
The bottom line is that it's easier for a nonstate actor to credibly commit to madness than a state, even an autocratic one.
-
I imagine this is playing out in Germany similarly to the rest of Europe (outrage, with some lingering support from the far right).
Is there any sense that any of this is directed at Germany? With the strongest economy in Europe and the gas pipeline project Germany has a lot to lose in this situation.
Any insight would be appreciated.
-
As one Sunday news panelist put it, this war could end in a draw because it's not Ukraine vs. Russia, it's Ukraine and allies vs. Russia.
Or, Russia could "conquer" Ukraine but not be able to occupy it ala the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ukranian sniper attacks, bombs and other guerilla warfare could see Russia slink away in a few years but let it declare some kind of phony victory.
Russian forces are in no shape to occupy/pacify Ukraine. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with the intention of staying only as long as needed and we saw how difficult that was. Iraq has a population of 20 million and we maintained an occupation force of 150,000 with the majority of the population at least ambivalent to our purpose. Ukraine has twice that population with most of it hostile to Russia (who doesn't plan on leaving). They would have to burn the country to the ground to win, and every day this war continues the sanctions will gut the Russian economy and many/most will stay in place as long as Putin is in power.
The potential here for insurgency seems greater than Iraq or Afghanistan for the simple reason that Ukraine and Russia share a land border. I think it would look more like The Troubles in Northern Ireland with bombs randomly going off than a guerrilla war.
And speaking of blowing stuff up, I'm a bit astonished that there haven't been attacks in Russian cities yet. I would have expected some of these far right Ukrainian militias that we've been arming would have taken the fight to Russian soil by now.
The likeliest way that I see this spiraling out of control is for one of the far right militias to plant a series of weapons in Moscow and say that they'll set one off every Monday morning until the last Russian is off Ukrainian soil. With the arms the west has given them, plus the stuff that was never accounted for after the fall of the Soviet Union, plus all of the nuclear material from their reactors ... it seems like it's only a matter of time.
The bottom line is that it's easier for a nonstate actor to credibly commit to madness than a state, even an autocratic one.
Zelensky seems to have control over the folks who might be motivated to do that. It would play right into Putin's hands to label Ukraine as a fascist threat if they went wild on Russian territory. They've been making great PR out of getting frontline troops to surrender and treating them well. Couple that with some epic ambushes it has a better chance of collapsing the front and demoralizing the rear as well as news of frontline conditions start to trickle back. Blowing up apartments in Moscow was Putin's excuse to level Grozny in 1999 (and probably a false flag at that). Ukraine has managed to get off a couple ballistic missile strikes on Russian airfields just inside the border. If the conventional war falls apart they may resort to guerilla/terrorist tactics, but I think we're a ways away from that.
-
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
If this goes into a guerrilla war, the longer that it goes on the more entrenched I suspect that the Ukranians will become. Look at Palestine and Israel - even though Israel has overwhelming force and total military/police/trade control over Palestine, tensions haven't reduced under occupation. Or remember the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
-
- we are all strongly aware of Putin's ambitions. If you tolerate this, then your country will be next. The next options ( Baltic States, Moldova, Romania) are all EU/NATO. It's like he's testing the waters by going for the Ukraine first.
I thought Moldova was not part of either the EU or NATO (like Ukraine)? It seems quite clear that they'd be next if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. They even have their own Russian backed separated movement in Transnistria.
After Moldova Russia is out of countries that he could invade without crossing some sort of new red line. Either Romania, Poland or the the Baltics would mean triggering a war with NATO and the EU. Finland isn't in NATO but is in the EU.
Sorry, my bad. I had assumed Moldavia was in the EU because there are so many people from Moldova that are working in my country. I just assumed they were in the single market. So theoretically Putin could grab that country too.
Finland has always been neutral in the Cold War and isn't in NATO for that reason, so the threats made to Finland feel particularly unfair (I've lived there so maybe that's my emotions speaking).
The Soviet invasion of Finland reminds me a bit of what's going on in the Ukraine now. A pointless war, that no one won, a small country that stood up against a large country, destruction in Finland and many casualties. Some sources say a million Sovjet deaths and tens of thousands Finns. Eventually they had to make a deal with the devil because no other countries wanted to help. I hope Ukraine doesn't have to make a choice like that.
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
Seems to match what Radagast says in his entry above.
One of the items of news was the Putin would allow refugees, but they would have to go to Russia or Belarus. I was thinking some would go Many of these folks speak Russian. They could blend in. I mean these are the ideal people to mess things up for Russia on the other side of the border. For example, Russia heavily relies on it's rail network to ship troops and supplies. It only takes a crowbar and some good moonlight to pry spikes from rails. Well - maybe a sledge hammer too. You could mess up an entire train. Maybe, Putin would put these refugees in a prison camp. Would he want them talking to the common folks of Russia? Would he want them talking to the other Ukrainians that live in Russia?
So, it forces people to stay and like Radagast says, it makes them harder.
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
Seems to match what Radagast says in his entry above.
One of the items of news was the Putin would allow refugees, but they would have to go to Russia or Belarus. I was thinking some would go Many of these folks speak Russian. They could blend in. I mean these are the ideal people to mess things up for Russia on the other side of the border. For example, Russia heavily relies on it's rail network to ship troops and supplies. It only takes a crowbar and some good moonlight to pry spikes from rails. Well - maybe a sledge hammer too. You could mess up an entire train. Maybe, Putin would put these refugees in a prison camp. Would he want them talking to the common folks of Russia? Would he want them talking to the other Ukrainians that live in Russia?
So, it forces people to stay and like Radagast says, it makes them harder.
Ukrainians aren't going to go to Russia as refugees because they know they would be handing Putin a propaganda win, with pictures of them crossing the border on national news.
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
Seems to match what Radagast says in his entry above.
One of the items of news was the Putin would allow refugees, but they would have to go to Russia or Belarus. I was thinking some would go Many of these folks speak Russian. They could blend in. I mean these are the ideal people to mess things up for Russia on the other side of the border. For example, Russia heavily relies on it's rail network to ship troops and supplies. It only takes a crowbar and some good moonlight to pry spikes from rails. Well - maybe a sledge hammer too. You could mess up an entire train. Maybe, Putin would put these refugees in a prison camp. Would he want them talking to the common folks of Russia? Would he want them talking to the other Ukrainians that live in Russia?
So, it forces people to stay and like Radagast says, it makes them harder.
Ukrainians aren't going to go to Russia as refugees because they know they would be handing Putin a propaganda win, with pictures of them crossing the border on national news.
They'd go from refugees to hostages the moment they crossed the border.
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
Seems to match what Radagast says in his entry above.
One of the items of news was the Putin would allow refugees, but they would have to go to Russia or Belarus. I was thinking some would go Many of these folks speak Russian. They could blend in. I mean these are the ideal people to mess things up for Russia on the other side of the border. For example, Russia heavily relies on it's rail network to ship troops and supplies. It only takes a crowbar and some good moonlight to pry spikes from rails. Well - maybe a sledge hammer too. You could mess up an entire train. Maybe, Putin would put these refugees in a prison camp. Would he want them talking to the common folks of Russia? Would he want them talking to the other Ukrainians that live in Russia?
So, it forces people to stay and like Radagast says, it makes them harder.
They would become a part of his story of how he liberated ukrainians from their evil government. As he punishes russians that are speaking about the war I would guess that those would not want to play his game would end up in prison camps.
I imagine this is playing out in Germany similarly to the rest of Europe (outrage, with some lingering support from the far right).
Is there any sense that any of this is directed at Germany? With the strongest economy in Europe and the gas pipeline project Germany has a lot to lose in this situation.
Any insight would be appreciated.
I don’t see that any of the outrage is directed towards Germany at least in Sweden and not what I can read in the finnish newspapers. Gas is only 2 % of our energy consumption so it is replaceable a lot more easily then in Germany. Diesel are up at app. 2,3 euro per liter so that is a bigger issue. On the other hand we are only at the beginning of this.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the area of Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
Seems to match what Radagast says in his entry above.
One of the items of news was the Putin would allow refugees, but they would have to go to Russia or Belarus. I was thinking some would go Many of these folks speak Russian. They could blend in. I mean these are the ideal people to mess things up for Russia on the other side of the border. For example, Russia heavily relies on it's rail network to ship troops and supplies. It only takes a crowbar and some good moonlight to pry spikes from rails. Well - maybe a sledge hammer too. You could mess up an entire train. Maybe, Putin would put these refugees in a prison camp. Would he want them talking to the common folks of Russia? Would he want them talking to the other Ukrainians that live in Russia?
So, it forces people to stay and like Radagast says, it makes them harder.
They would become a part of his story of how he liberated ukrainians from their evil government. As he punishes russians that are speaking about the war I would guess that those would not want to play his game would end up in prison camps.
I imagine this is playing out in Germany similarly to the rest of Europe (outrage, with some lingering support from the far right).
Is there any sense that any of this is directed at Germany? With the strongest economy in Europe and the gas pipeline project Germany has a lot to lose in this situation.
Any insight would be appreciated.
I don’t see that any of the outrage is directed towards Germany at least in Sweden and not what I can read in the finnish newspapers. Gas is only 2 % of our energy consumption so it is replaceable a lot more easily then in Germany. Diesel are up at app. 2,3 euro per liter so that is a bigger issue. On the other hand we are only at the beginning of this.
Sorry I wasn't clear.
I meant to ask if Germans (or Europeans) thought that any part of Putin's current actions were meant to hurt Germany.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the size of the Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the size of the Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
I'm as far as you can get from an expert on these things, but Taiwan looks different to me because it seems like China would have complete naval and air supremacy (if no one came to Taiwan's aid). Britain has never been in that situation.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the size of the Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
I'm as far as you can get from an expert on these things, but Taiwan looks different to me because it seems like China would have complete naval and air supremacy (if no one came to Taiwan's aid). Britain has never been in that situation.
China has very few troop carriers. It would have to use literally thousands of civilian boats to get enough troops over the Strait and a lot of Chinese soldiers would be lost courtesy of the many anti-ship missiles Taiwan has stockpiled.
-
China has very few troop carriers. It would have to use literally thousands of civilian boats to get enough troops over the Strait and a lot of Chinese soldiers would be lost courtesy of the many anti-ship missiles Taiwan has stockpiled.
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
-
China has very few troop carriers. It would have to use literally thousands of civilian boats to get enough troops over the Strait and a lot of Chinese soldiers would be lost courtesy of the many anti-ship missiles Taiwan has stockpiled.
I hope this is a real impediment.
Troop transports sounds like the easiest shortage to resolve, though, and I imagine China wouldn't try to land troops until they had already destroyed Taiwan's air and ground based missile defenses.
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
Before Ukraine I'd have said the US would probably defend Taiwan. Now I guess I'd downgrade that to might.
-
Perhaps China sees what is happening in Ukraine. Then it does a quick calculation. The result is that invading Taiwan is not worth it. There is a benefit to trade with Taiwan. That would be lost to China after an invasion. Look at the carnage with the Ukrainian invasion. What industry would be left on Taiwan? Giant bicycles would never be the same.
-
An analysis supposed to have been leaked from the FSB (Russian intelligence service):
Original text in Russian:
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
English translation (human, cannot determine quality, need Russian speaker to verify):
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1500301348780199937
Seems to match what Radagast says in his entry above.
One of the items of news was the Putin would allow refugees, but they would have to go to Russia or Belarus. I was thinking some would go Many of these folks speak Russian. They could blend in. I mean these are the ideal people to mess things up for Russia on the other side of the border. For example, Russia heavily relies on it's rail network to ship troops and supplies. It only takes a crowbar and some good moonlight to pry spikes from rails. Well - maybe a sledge hammer too. You could mess up an entire train. Maybe, Putin would put these refugees in a prison camp. Would he want them talking to the common folks of Russia? Would he want them talking to the other Ukrainians that live in Russia?
So, it forces people to stay and like Radagast says, it makes them harder.
Ukrainians aren't going to go to Russia as refugees because they know they would be handing Putin a propaganda win, with pictures of them crossing the border on national news.
They'd go from refugees to hostages the moment they crossed the border.
There are some refugees going into Russia (and a very tiny amount to Belarus) - see the attached image. Keep in mind that there are strong familial ties in eastern Ukraine/western Russia. 30 years ago, there was no border. So, you could easily have someone from western Russia that settled 50 miles away in what is now Eastern Ukraine but now their extended family is in a different country. It's just like the US/Mexico border where lots of families are on both sides of the border.
-
Ukraine isn’t Afghanistan - it has much easier terrain for conventional wars
I have to disagree on this point. Large cities can be quite good at grinding up armies.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the size of the Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
I know that's what they teach you guys at school, but last succesful land invasion of your island was actually in 1688.
The Dutch army invaded and put a Dutch king on the throne but invasions were a touchy subject even then so for PR reasons it was called a revolution instead.
Lesson to be learnt from this by Putin: King William III spent all of his time and money in getting Britain back into shape after the Civil War and used funds belonging to the Dutch Republic to do so. Although the idea was to form a powerful alliance between the UK and the Dutch Republic, it actuallly led directly to the decline of the Republic and 20 years later the UK had taken over as the superiour naval power of the world.
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the size of the Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
I know that's what they teach you guys at school, but last succesful land invasion of your island was actually in 1688.
The Dutch army invaded and put a Dutch king on the throne but invasions were a touchy subject even then so for PR reasons it was called a revolution instead.
Lesson to be learnt from this by Putin: King William III spent all of his time and money in getting Britain back into shape after the Civil War and used funds belonging to the Dutch Republic to do so. Although the idea was to form a powerful alliance between the UK and the Dutch Republic, it actuallly led directly to the decline of the Republic and 20 years later the UK had taken over as the superiour naval power of the world.
William was half English (his mother was Charles I's eldest daughter) and his wife Mary was all English and if you don't count those pesky Catholics (which for various reasons we didn't) William was next in line to the throne by right of birth, no invasion or revolution necessary, just a restoration. And he was only Prince of Orange, not King, as he was over here, so of course the money flowed to the senior side!
-
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
Wouldn't recreating that industry in a safer place be easier than a protracted war with China?
-
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan? Any day now? North Korea is doing a lot of missile testing lately as well. I guess Russia, China, North Korea will all be allies in WW III. What other countries would be allies with Russia?
Would we defend Taiwan if China invaded it? We have so many factories there. Imagine what would happen if we no longer had access to all those factories. Too bad the corporations starting in the 1970's were so greedy and decided to build factories in Taiwan & China. Wish we would of kept it all here along with all out tech.
How many American troops are in Taiwan now? Are we building it up there as well as Europe?
China is not ready to attack Taiwan. What was supposed to be the world's second most powerful army getting ambushed and stuck in the mud for 10 days by a handful of American weapons and persistence is going to make them go back to the drawing board for a while and rethink their options. The west hasn't been this united on anything since the 1940s. They'll probably come back around to this issue when the dust has settled. North Korea launches missiles from time to time. It's a thing they do. This year so far has been a busy one, but it's not unprecedented.
I also don't think China will soon invade Taiwan, and I generally think they are willing to wait out Taiwan for a long time to avoid a military conflict, but I do wonder what lessons they are learning from the war in Ukraine. China-Taiwan is a pretty different beast than Russia-Ukraine:
-Ukraine has one third the population of Russian, Taiwan has only 1.5% the population of China.
-Taiwan is also only about 6% the size of the Ukraine.
-I believe the Chinese military has actually modernized, as opposed the the Russians who just claimed to have.
-There is a large discrepancy been China and Taiwan's naval and air power, which I think would prevent Taiwan from copying the tactics Ukraine has been using.
So I'm not sure if Russia's experience would worry them at all. The one clear lesson for China here may be that the West is scared of escalation.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
I know that's what they teach you guys at school, but last succesful land invasion of your island was actually in 1688.
The Dutch army invaded and put a Dutch king on the throne but invasions were a touchy subject even then so for PR reasons it was called a revolution instead.
Lesson to be learnt from this by Putin: King William III spent all of his time and money in getting Britain back into shape after the Civil War and used funds belonging to the Dutch Republic to do so. Although the idea was to form a powerful alliance between the UK and the Dutch Republic, it actuallly led directly to the decline of the Republic and 20 years later the UK had taken over as the superiour naval power of the world.
William was half English (his mother was Charles I's eldest daughter) and his wife Mary was all English and if you don't count those pesky Catholics (which for various reasons we didn't) William was next in line to the throne by right of birth, no invasion or revolution necessary, just a restoration. And he was only Prince of Orange, not King, as he was over here, so of course the money flowed to the senior side!
That's all true as well! In those days the Netherlands was a Republic, he was stadtholder, sort of a heriditary Presidency. So no wonder he preferred being a King in a country with a strong tradition as a monarchy, where he was head of the church and anointed by God and all of that. But England was in ruins and the Dutch Republic was superpower of that era, so at school we learned he was to blame for the downfall of the Republic.
It's funny, we actually started out as a Republic ever since we gained independence, and our whole history has been trying to get rid of the House of Orange! First people felt they had way too much power as stadtholders, we had two Stadtholderless Eras in the 17th and 18th century but they kept finding a way back into government. Then Napoleon came and turned us into a monarchy. Only after the Napoleontic era the House of Orange finally managed to grab the crown and we're still trying to get rid of them to this day. After 500 years they have started to accept catholicism though - our current Queen is a catholic!
-
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
Wouldn't recreating that industry in a safer place be easier than a protracted war with China?
That's a question for people above my pay-grade. But AFAIK TSMC (and maybe Samsung) is/are top dog for fab tech on the planet at this point. Don't forget that this is true while the USA is trying to fight China for 5g dominance. Intel is trying to catch up by 2025 (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/06/how-intel-plans-to-catch-up-to-samsung-and-tsmc-with-44-billion-of-new-global-chip-fabs.html). It is hard for me to put into words what losing TSCM would mean to the high end smartphone market unless you are in the industry. Speaking of which, I would imagine that the USA would bomb the fabs before letting them fall into Chinese hands. It would be a little like bombing half of the productive capacity of all oil fields, or some such, but for high end SoCs that run things like smartphones.
But also, we've fought multiple protracted wars with China for less (Korea, Vietnam). I'm not sure how China would respond to us just shooting their ships out of the water.
-
It's not just chips for high-end smartphones. It extends all the way down to cheap, 8-bit embedded processors, and potentially even further down the chain from that. The whole auto industry supply chain fiasco right now is because of semiconductor shutdowns, including TSMC's.
-
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
If China thought the semi-conductor industry was enough to bring the US into a war, it seems like it would be extremely easy to destroy it in the first few minutes of an invasion. It doesn't take much to make clean rooms not clean. Even if the US was willing to fight for microchip manufacturing, I doubt it would fight for a pile of rubble that used be a chip fab.
-
Ptf, partly for Taiwan aspect. Elsewhere, I have read that China's military development is directed largely toward the possible Taiwan invasion, including aspects such as a full division of paratroopers, and plans to actually use that civilian fleet to transport troops. The analysis I read concluded that they would have a chance but not certainty of winning militarily.
Re Ukraine itself, my feelings are with the Ukrainian people. Fwiw, am in touch via a friend with Ukrainian family; they are in the midst of fleeing across Europe, already safely through most of Poland. Except that the husband had to stay in Ukraine.
I found @Radagast's antifragile remarks interesting - hope he's right.
-
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
If China thought the semi-conductor industry was enough to bring the US into a war, it seems like it would be extremely easy to destroy it in the first few minutes of an invasion. It doesn't take much to make clean rooms not clean. Even if the US was willing to fight for microchip manufacturing, I doubt it would fight for a pile of rubble that used be a chip fab.
That's a good point. But also, is China going to fight to the death over a big pile of rubble? I think that they want the actual productive capacity of the island.
-
US history shows a lot of people clamoring for war. The Maine is supposed to be a steam boiler explosion but it was supposed to precipitate the Spanish American war. Then there's the aluminum tubes and Gulf war. I really don't understand why the US stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years. I guess it was Bin Laden they were after when they went in. It's a big industry and there's money to be made.
I predict the Russians will make some kind of mistake. Then the war will escalate.
Hopefully, when it happens, it will be limited to just chasing the Russians back to the borders. Based on the propaganda videos I've seen I think the combined might of Europe can do it. This time get some crazy general to threaten Putin with a nuke first. He should have enough wise people around him to believe the world is worth saving.
I hope everyone realizes that this is low level BS.
-
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
If China thought the semi-conductor industry was enough to bring the US into a war, it seems like it would be extremely easy to destroy it in the first few minutes of an invasion. It doesn't take much to make clean rooms not clean. Even if the US was willing to fight for microchip manufacturing, I doubt it would fight for a pile of rubble that used be a chip fab.
That's a good point. But also, is China going to fight to the death over a big pile of rubble? I think that they want the actual productive capacity of the island.
That leads to the interesting question of "is it even possible to invade a country and seize its semi-conductor manufacturing capabilities?" I'm guessing no. Even if we assume that an invasion of Taiwan were to be successful beyond the mainland's wildest dreams, there's a near certainty that one side is going to destroy the semi-conductor fabs to keep the other side from benefiting from them.
-
Obviously Taiwan has a big moat around it that Ukraine does not. The other open question is whether or not the USA would decide that Taiwanese microchip manufacturing (TSMC in specific) is of vital strategic importance to the USA. Because the USA has a bunch of ships that are very capable of helping in that naval fight between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan.
If China thought the semi-conductor industry was enough to bring the US into a war, it seems like it would be extremely easy to destroy it in the first few minutes of an invasion. It doesn't take much to make clean rooms not clean. Even if the US was willing to fight for microchip manufacturing, I doubt it would fight for a pile of rubble that used be a chip fab.
That's a good point. But also, is China going to fight to the death over a big pile of rubble? I think that they want the actual productive capacity of the island.
I'm not Chinese myself, but my sense from talking to folks from mainland when this issue comes up is that the desire to conquer Taiwan is driving much more by national pride than any sort of cold economic calculus. Now in fairness I never try to bring it up, so I probably have a biased towards the folks who feel strongly enough to push the issue into conversation with an American when given the chance.
This is very different from other territorial disputes like the "nine-dashed line" in the south China sea which I believe are ultimately driven more by economic calculus rather than nationalism.
-
This guy has guts (Zelensky).
He posted a video on FB. He's in the official office. Looks like its probably a stunning building. Started with him videoing the skyline of Kyiv with his phone from a window, then him walking to his office where the big camera took over. I'm sure his security detail almost had a heart attack when they heard about this plan.
Oh, and by the way, sounds like he's not leaving Kyiv.
-
Assuming the Oryx numbers are at least in the ballpark, Russian losses are pretty shockingly high (~800 confirmed major pieces of equipment, probably much more than that in reality). Can they sustain this for very long, or am I falling victim to confirmation bias because I want Ukraine to win?
-W
Yes/No.
Russia can certainly win this war militarily. In the meaning of destroying the Ukrainian army. There is simply too much numbers Russia has.
The real question is if they can afford that, and by that I don't mean the economic sanctions (which still have a big role).
If this goes on, the Russian army will not be able for any real fight for at least a decade because they have nothing of it left.
that Turkish forces are in Ukraine directly fighting.
Could very well be true. Not necessarily Turkish active army, but volunteers. 2000 are already on the front, Ukraine says, with several thousand more on route/preparing/reserve.
Putin can't retaliate by nuking because that means the end of the world and humanity. He would just have to withdraw.
You still believe he is sane?!
I wonder when China is going to invade Taiwan?
I actually think the Ukraine situation is a brake for that.
It has shown that the West is ready to put serious economic sanctions (hurting itself) on the plate even for something "unimportant".
Oil prices are surging. An attack on Taiwan would only make that part worse, it would also mean a tremendous lack of chips. Really, TSMC is Taiwans best defence.
Both together would mean the collepse of the world economy. And even though China has a strong self-sufficiency policy, they are not.
The Chinese government is in power because they succeeded in raising wealth for their people. A collapsing economy means, put in historical terms, a loss of the mandate of heaven. NOTHING does a Chinese leader fear more. Both ideologically and in terms of power that is the worst. All through Chinese history, an economic collapse (hunger) was the main reason for rebellions.
I thought Moldova was not part of either the EU or NATO (like Ukraine)?
I am sorry to say, but the average EU citizen doesn't even know there is a state named Moldovia. It's cetainly far away, maybe farer than Syria. (thoughts, figurativly)
Is there any sense that any of this is directed at Germany?
What do you mean? Do Germans think Russia will invade them?
Not really. But most do think now that it's possible that there will be an attack on a NATO country.
The German government has announced a 100 billion investment into the army. Now, that is a lot more complicated than it sounds, and only means we are up to the 2% GDP we promised to invest, this time really, but 3 weeks ago such an sudden announcement would have been political suicide. Stocks of some weapon manufacturers have doubled.
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
Read up what the word "kamikaze" really means if you want to know how badly it can go :D
Wouldn't recreating that industry in a safer place be easier than a protracted war with China?
There is a reason why there are only a hand full of chip producers: Every factory literally costs billions.
And the only company that produces the machines in chip factory sits in Germany. If Germany (or the Netherlands since the produciton is in Germany, the headquarter in the Netherlands) decides to not sell those machines to China, China would not be able to produce any more (new) chips for several years. (A trained engineer, additionally trained in chip productions is trained for 3/4 of a year here in Germany to know how to use the machines.)
Really, this company (ASML) is probably the most bus-problem company in the world!
-
Invading a large and well-defended island is not at all the same proposition as invading across a land border.
(Source: resident of the British Isles, last successful land invasion 1066.)
Read up what the word "kamikaze" really means if you want to know how badly it can go :D
Surely. The last attempt at an airborne invasion came thisclose to succeeding. And as a result, somewhere out on the oceans there is a nuclear-armed UK submarine with the co-ordinates for Moscow programmed in and the choice to use them even if London, and the UK government, is destroyed - which is a fact known to the Russians, of course.
The problem is that Putin is both personally irrational and, in traditional long-term dictator fashion, has completely destroyed any possibility of his getting truthful and accurate information. As a result it's not clear that he will be able to find a face-saving way out of his war with Ukraine, once it becomes obvious even to him that his remaining tactic of bombing the cities with in massive destruction and loss of life won't produce the pacified population and puppet government that were his originally stated aims. His choices then are unenviable: public humiliation of him personally and the Russian military together with economic ruin for the Russian people, or the use of nuclear weapons.
-
Ive always thought Washington DC should be in Nebraska or something.
It seems a Russian sub could slip up the coast close to DC relatively easy.
-
Ive always thought Washington DC should be in Nebraska or something.
It seems a Russian sub could slip up the coast close to DC relatively easy.
Why ruin more good farmland?
So - another BS thought.
Let's say Russia does get Ukraine. All their military stuff is there. Almost all of their military people are there. This war has left them bruised. They got no money due to sanctions. They are busy.
Then there is the rest of the world. Is this the time when some other country has an opportunity to get away with doing something to Russia? I don't mean the US. I'm not even specific. However, the talking heads always talk about "power vacuums." It just seems that with Russia weakened that some of these little central Asian countries that don't like Russia all that much could be doing something. It just seems like an opportune time. Russia may need to make some concessions elsewhere that they otherwise would not make.
-
Ive always thought Washington DC should be in Nebraska or something.
It seems a Russian sub could slip up the coast close to DC relatively easy.
Why ruin more good farmland?
So - another BS thought.
Let's say Russia does get Ukraine. All their military stuff is there. Almost all of their military people are there. This war has left them bruised. They got no money due to sanctions. They are busy.
Then there is the rest of the world. Is this the time when some other country has an opportunity to get away with doing something to Russia? I don't mean the US. I'm not even specific. However, the talking heads always talk about "power vacuums." It just seems that with Russia weakened that some of these little central Asian countries that don't like Russia all that much could be doing something. It just seems like an opportune time. Russia may need to make some concessions elsewhere that they otherwise would not make.
Who would WANT Russia?
It's a small population, poor, backwards, and at this point pretty hopelessly brainwashed. Yes, Russia the land has a lot of resources, but it's also a difficult land to work on and survive in. No, if the Russian government is sufficiently distracted it's more likely IMO that sections of Russia may decide they'd like out and take advantage of the timing to get out.
-
Chiming in with thoughts on Taiwan.
My parents are Taiwanese immigrants to America strongly in support of independence. Their families have been Taiwanese for generations back. My grandparents all speak Japanese from living under the Japanese occupation. I remember their friends flying to Taiwan specifically to vote in the first election after martial law in 1996.
As much as I would like Taiwan to be independent, I think that long term they will be absorbed into China. China is becoming more nationalistic. The people and government are connecting more and more with the old imperial traditions. I think Xinjiang is an example of this.
One example I always think of regarding the issue is the national palace museum in Taiwan, which holds the best of the imperial collections from the Forbidden City, packed up and brought over by the KMT. Imagine if the USA had left the British empire holding the best artifacts from the British Museum or if a large portion of the Smithsonian was in Cuba.
Either Taiwan is a separate country in which case they should return these cultural items or it is a part of China in which case it will be absorbed since it is not strong enough to take over.
But Taiwan is not doing either, they are claiming China's cultural treasures as their own; which is not how being your own country works.
-
Re sanctions, this is an informative list.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain (https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain)
-
Chiming in with thoughts on Taiwan.
My parents are Taiwanese immigrants to America strongly in support of independence. Their families have been Taiwanese for generations back. My grandparents all speak Japanese from living under the Japanese occupation. I remember their friends flying to Taiwan specifically to vote in the first election after martial law in 1996.
As much as I would like Taiwan to be independent, I think that long term they will be absorbed into China. China is becoming more nationalistic. The people and government are connecting more and more with the old imperial traditions. I think Xinjiang is an example of this.
One example I always think of regarding the issue is the national palace museum in Taiwan, which holds the best of the imperial collections from the Forbidden City, packed up and brought over by the KMT. Imagine if the USA had left the British empire holding the best artifacts from the British Museum or if a large portion of the Smithsonian was in Cuba.
Either Taiwan is a separate country in which case they should return these cultural items or it is a part of China in which case it will be absorbed since it is not strong enough to take over.
But Taiwan is not doing either, they are claiming China's cultural treasures as their own; which is not how being your own country works.
What I've been led to believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that the communists drove the existing government from the mainland, and the old government set up shop in Taiwan. I think a more apt comparison would be if, say, the Confederates had driven the sitting US government out of DC into...Maine, and the sitting government had packed up the Smithsonian to take with them.
-
So Biden announced the US will no longer accept Russian oil. This is big, but I think this is a good move. And like what he says, freedom will cost. I am willing to shoulder that cost. I hope the rest of US understands that making true power moves, and to safeguard our Allies, will require sacrifice.
-
The Byzantine Empire called itself the Roman Empire for centuries after the fall of Rome.
In fairness to Taiwan, China has made it very clear that talking about themselves as an independent country, rather than a different government of China, is a red line they cannot cross without war. I don't think it reflects the worldview of the citizens or elected leaders of Taiwan.
-
Re sanctions, this is an informative list.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain (https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain)
Thanks for the list.
All the companies, that poison people for years with their food are still doing business with russia. Coca cola, Pepsi, Phillip Morris, Mac Donald, Starbucks. There is no a single product from them (maybe except daily coffee brew) i would eat/drink since i care about my body.
Now they will try to poison russians more, how cruel!. But we can clearly see that they are evil companies.
-
Two more BS thoughts:
So here's this big long convoy. It's been there about a week. They blow up the fuel trucks before they can refuel. How about the guys in all that armored stuff? How many weeks of food do they have? How much water? These are young men. These big metal cans aren't heated. After a few days,stuck in a can things get rank. Did they just grab their rifles and run into the woods to fight Ukrainian farmers and old women? What Have I missed? Maybe they have protein bars with them.
Then there are these sanctions. It just doesn't seem like the Russian people will be hurt very much by a lot of this stuff. I mean even without the imported goods, they are probably better than they had it under Joey Stalin. They have wheat, potatoes, barley, etc. They have a lot of fuel. It just seems like these sanctions would have to go on for a very long time before they would really hurt the average Russian. The news says their stock market has been closed. Will the average Russian care? There are rising prices, but are they rising prices on essential stuff? Some say that they won't be able to pay their soldiers. Print more rubles.
AS happens so often, am I wrong again? If so, I hope it isn't the last time.
-
Two more BS thoughts:
So here's this big long convoy. It's been there about a week. They blow up the fuel trucks before they can refuel. How about the guys in all that armored stuff? How many weeks of food do they have? How much water? These are young men. These big metal cans aren't heated. After a few days,stuck in a can things get rank. Did they just grab their rifles and run into the woods to fight Ukrainian farmers and old women? What Have I missed? Maybe they have protein bars with them.
Then there are these sanctions. It just doesn't seem like the Russian people will be hurt very much by a lot of this stuff. I mean even without the imported goods, they are probably better than they had it under Joey Stalin. They have wheat, potatoes, barley, etc. They have a lot of fuel. It just seems like these sanctions would have to go on for a very long time before they would really hurt the average Russian. The news says their stock market has been closed. Will the average Russian care? There are rising prices, but are they rising prices on essential stuff? Some say that they won't be able to pay their soldiers. Print more rubles.
AS happens so often, am I wrong again? If so, I hope it isn't the last time.
The convoy is thought to be out of food and ammunition. It's basically a self imposed prison camp at this point. They might be able to get out in a few months once the mud firms up a bit.
-
I hope it's ok to share some of the dispatches I am getting from my relative, who lives in the northeastern corner of Poland.
"The co-conflict seems to be getting worse. Nobody suspected that a real war would break out in the middle of Europe. But this is how the civilized world got together (gets along) with Putin and the KGB. Curently, 1 milllion women and children have reached Poland. Most of the men go to fight. There is widespread mobilization. All of Poland is watching this terrible war. Poles help a lot by accepting whole families with children into their own homes. We know very well here what the Russian occupation is. The Polish government sends whole railroad cars with weapons and ammunition (to Ukraine). In Poland necessary things for our neighbor are collected. Food, clothing, hygiene products, medicine. We all admire the Ukrainian nation how it fights with the unpredictable Russians. Military planes are constantly flying over our city patrolling the sky. Our region borders with Russia through the Kaliningrad Oblast, where 120000 people are stationed. Russian army. So far no one believes that Russia would attack the countries belonging to NATO. Russia announced that it had set up "Iskander" missiles at our border.
-
I hope it's ok to share some of the dispatches I am getting from my relative, who lives in the northeastern corner of Poland.
"The co-conflict seems to be getting worse. Nobody suspected that a real war would break out in the middle of Europe. But this is how the civilized world got together (gets along with) Putin and the KGB. Curently, 1 milllion women and children have reached Poland. Most of the men go to fight. There is widespread mobilization. All of Poland is watching this terrible war. Poles help a lot by accepting whole families with children into their own homes. We know very well here what the Russian occupation is. The Polish government sends whole railroad cars with weapons and ammunition (to Ukraine). In Poland necessary things for our neighbor are collected. Food, clothing, hygiene products, medicine. We all admire the Ukrainian nation how it fights with the unpredictable Russians. Military planes are constantly flying over our city patrolling the sky. Our region borders with Russia through the Kaliningrad Oblast, where 120000 people are stationed. Russian army. So far no one believes that Russia would attack the countries belonging to NATO. Russia announced that it had set up "Iskander" missiles at our border.
War shows both the best and the worst in people.
-
Two more BS thoughts:
So here's this big long convoy. It's been there about a week. They blow up the fuel trucks before they can refuel. How about the guys in all that armored stuff? How many weeks of food do they have? How much water? These are young men. These big metal cans aren't heated. After a few days,stuck in a can things get rank. Did they just grab their rifles and run into the woods to fight Ukrainian farmers and old women? What Have I missed? Maybe they have protein bars with them.
Then there are these sanctions. It just doesn't seem like the Russian people will be hurt very much by a lot of this stuff. I mean even without the imported goods, they are probably better than they had it under Joey Stalin. They have wheat, potatoes, barley, etc. They have a lot of fuel. It just seems like these sanctions would have to go on for a very long time before they would really hurt the average Russian. The news says their stock market has been closed. Will the average Russian care? There are rising prices, but are they rising prices on essential stuff? Some say that they won't be able to pay their soldiers. Print more rubles.
AS happens so often, am I wrong again? If so, I hope it isn't the last time.
That convoy is almost certainly out of fuel, filled with broken-down vehicles, and probably running out of food and water. I assume Russian soldiers have already looted any nearby food supplies along the route.
Russia has basically been cut off from world trade. So in a few days or weeks they'll start running out of many imported products. Those products that are still available have gone up in price 30% or more as the value of the ruble has dropped. Most credit cards don't work so unless you have cash, you can't buy anything. There was already a run on ATMs a week ago.
Just because Russia grows and exports wheat, doesn't mean they have a bunch of wheat ready to flood supermarket shelves. Much of that wheat was bound for the export market in bulk quantities. Just as we saw during COVID, supply chains are extremely complex and the supply chain for domestic consumption doesn't necessarily overlap with the one for export. The factories and equipment to make products for grocery store shelves may be completely different and dependent on imported ingredients (i.e. flour) instead of raw wheat.
-
Ive always thought Washington DC should be in Nebraska or something.
It seems a Russian sub could slip up the coast close to DC relatively easy.
Why ruin more good farmland?
So - another BS thought.
Let's say Russia does get Ukraine. All their military stuff is there. Almost all of their military people are there. This war has left them bruised. They got no money due to sanctions. They are busy.
Then there is the rest of the world. Is this the time when some other country has an opportunity to get away with doing something to Russia? I don't mean the US. I'm not even specific. However, the talking heads always talk about "power vacuums." It just seems that with Russia weakened that some of these little central Asian countries that don't like Russia all that much could be doing something. It just seems like an opportune time. Russia may need to make some concessions elsewhere that they otherwise would not make.
Who would WANT Russia?
It's a small population, poor, backwards, and at this point pretty hopelessly brainwashed. Yes, Russia the land has a lot of resources, but it's also a difficult land to work on and survive in. No, if the Russian government is sufficiently distracted it's more likely IMO that sections of Russia may decide they'd like out and take advantage of the timing to get out.
I would think that North Korea would LOVE to own Russia. The population has low expectations and all those natural resources would be a boon.
Seems like the perfect fit. I don't think they could manage it though, due to it's sheer size.
-
So here's this big long convoy. It's been there about a week. They blow up the fuel trucks before they can refuel. How about the guys in all that armored stuff? How many weeks of food do they have? How much water? These are young men. These big metal cans aren't heated. After a few days,stuck in a can things get rank. Did they just grab their rifles and run into the woods to fight Ukrainian farmers and old women? What Have I missed? Maybe they have protein bars with them.
There have been reports in recent days that some of the MREs that Russian troops deployed with expired in 2002. How long do those things last? Seems possible they were given food from the Soviet era.
Lots of observers have noted that their vehicles are horribly maintained, which they say indicates likely financial and disciplinary corruption in the military ranks.
And then there are the stories of Russian self-sabotage and mass surrender. If you're an 18 year old conscript who got sent out for military exercises and now face the prospect of being canon fodder in a war that your public doesn't think is a real war and against a country toward which you have no ill will, why not wait this thing out in a POW camp? Sure seems like a better idea than letting the sunflower seeds in your pocket sprout after your Army declines to bring your body home.
-
Re sanctions, this is an informative list.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain (https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain)
Thanks for the list.
All the companies, that poison people for years with their food are still doing business with russia. Coca cola, Pepsi, Phillip Morris, Mac Donald, Starbucks. There is no a single product from them (maybe except daily coffee brew) i would eat/drink since i care about my body.
Now they will try to poison russians more, how cruel!. But we can clearly see that they are evil companies.
Apparently Unilever and MacDonalds are also pulling out of Russia now.
-
I would think that North Korea would LOVE to own Russia. The population has low expectations and all those natural resources would be a boon.
Seems like the perfect fit. I don't think they could manage it though, due to it's sheer size.
A match made in heaven.
Perhaps as a counterpart to all of the do-good organizations on earth like MSF, the Red Cross, and the UN World Food Program that coordinate positive action, we should develop a Rogue State Prom so every state can find their perfect match.
Or just have a special Grindr Autocrat Edition so they can get right to business: "You show me your missiles, and you can watch me direct a whole battalion of young men to do my bidding."
-
There have been reports in recent days that some of the MREs that Russian troops deployed with expired in 2002. How long do those things last? Seems possible they were given food from the Soviet era.
...
And then there are the stories of Russian self-sabotage and mass surrender. If you're an 18 year old conscript who got sent out for military exercises and now face the prospect of being canon fodder in a war that your public doesn't think is a real war and against a country toward which you have no ill will, why not wait this thing out in a POW camp? Sure seems like a better idea than letting the sunflower seeds in your pocket sprout after your Army declines to bring your body home.
Yup, the food is better and you don't have to murder anyone.
-
I'm seeing reports that Poland has agreed to trade all of their MiG-29 jets with the US.
Based on previous things I've seen, the US is giving Poland a bunch of fighters we have in storage, so that the Polish jets can go to Ukraine. Ukraine pilots don't know how to fly the newer jets, but Poland has been training their pilots on the new ones so they're much more able to fully switch over.
Crossing my fingers that this is real and it works out.
Edit: Yep, its real. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-ready-place-all-its-mig-29-jets-disposal-us-2022-03-08/
A quick google search says they have just under 30 jets.... so hopefully Ukraine will soon have approx. 30 extra fighter jets.
-
My interpretation of the Polish Mig-29 deal (assuming it's true) is that Ukraine is doing so well that the EU/NATO thinks it's worth doing - ie, Ukraine could conceivably win or perhaps is actually winning right now.
I'm probably just overly optimistic, but who knows.
-W
-
Two more BS thoughts:
So here's this big long convoy. It's been there about a week. They blow up the fuel trucks before they can refuel. How about the guys in all that armored stuff? How many weeks of food do they have? How much water? These are young men. These big metal cans aren't heated. After a few days,stuck in a can things get rank. Did they just grab their rifles and run into the woods to fight Ukrainian farmers and old women? What Have I missed? Maybe they have protein bars with them.
Then there are these sanctions. It just doesn't seem like the Russian people will be hurt very much by a lot of this stuff. I mean even without the imported goods, they are probably better than they had it under Joey Stalin. They have wheat, potatoes, barley, etc. They have a lot of fuel. It just seems like these sanctions would have to go on for a very long time before they would really hurt the average Russian. The news says their stock market has been closed. Will the average Russian care? There are rising prices, but are they rising prices on essential stuff? Some say that they won't be able to pay their soldiers. Print more rubles.
AS happens so often, am I wrong again? If so, I hope it isn't the last time.
That convoy is almost certainly out of fuel, filled with broken-down vehicles, and probably running out of food and water. I assume Russian soldiers have already looted any nearby food supplies along the route.
Russia has basically been cut off from world trade. So in a few days or weeks they'll start running out of many imported products. Those products that are still available have gone up in price 30% or more as the value of the ruble has dropped. Most credit cards don't work so unless you have cash, you can't buy anything. There was already a run on ATMs a week ago.
Just because Russia grows and exports wheat, doesn't mean they have a bunch of wheat ready to flood supermarket shelves. Much of that wheat was bound for the export market in bulk quantities. Just as we saw during COVID, supply chains are extremely complex and the supply chain for domestic consumption doesn't necessarily overlap with the one for export. The factories and equipment to make products for grocery store shelves may be completely different and dependent on imported ingredients (i.e. flour) instead of raw wheat.
Russia also has a middle class that likes to travel. The finnish ski resorts are normally full of russian tourist in big suvs this time of the year. Try traveling with 30 % more expensive trips and no visa or Mastercard to a country your president threathens to occupy or to some other european country. A lot of people will not welcome you.
Add to the equation that I at least read every day about companies that are shutting down their factories in Russia or stoppning their trade with russian companies. My Linkedin feed are dispalying webinars from law firms, trade associations and business associations about how to deal with agreeements made with Russian companies, i e how to break them. Russia have lost a massive amount of jobs, that will directly affect the average russian.
-
Well that’s disheartening. CNN is reporting that 70 % of Russians support the war and a bunch of “Z”s are popping up in public as a symbol of support, including one made of lined up people.
-
I have read that the sanctions are aimed at the oligarchs, who may be the only ones who can stop the war.
-
Well that’s disheartening. CNN is reporting that 70 % of Russians support the war and a bunch of “Z”s are popping up in public as a symbol of support, including one made of lined up people.
is this surprising, given they only have access to very distorted reports from their government? One thing you do have to give to Putin, any kind of opposition has been squashed, for years and years now.
-
Well that’s disheartening. CNN is reporting that 70 % of Russians support the war and a bunch of “Z”s are popping up in public as a symbol of support, including one made of lined up people.
is this surprising, given they only have access to very distorted reports from their government? One thing you do have to give to Putin, any kind of opposition has been squashed, for years and years now.
Well, in a way, yes. After having gone through or heard stories of Stalin etc, you would think that more people would be at least skeptical of their government, if not downright distrusting.
-
Well that’s disheartening. CNN is reporting that 70 % of Russians support the war and a bunch of “Z”s are popping up in public as a symbol of support, including one made of lined up people.
is this surprising, given they only have access to very distorted reports from their government? One thing you do have to give to Putin, any kind of opposition has been squashed, for years and years now.
Well, in a way, yes. After having gone through or heard stories of Stalin etc, you would think that more people would be at least skeptical of their government, if not downright distrusting.
I'm more surprised it's only 70%. Look at the US - we have 1/3 of the population roughly that's bought into some version of lala land, and we have all sorts of adequate/good/excellent media available (there's a spectrum). The Russian people have had pretty much only what Putin approved of as media, for decades. As the saying goes - a person can be smart, people are dumb. Well, the people are dumb.
Also, Russia is in process of closing off the rest of the world from their internet. It's only going to get worse. They're headed towards North Korea levels of information control, not that they were all that far away to start with.
-
Well that’s disheartening. CNN is reporting that 70 % of Russians support the war and a bunch of “Z”s are popping up in public as a symbol of support, including one made of lined up people.
is this surprising, given they only have access to very distorted reports from their government? One thing you do have to give to Putin, any kind of opposition has been squashed, for years and years now.
Well, in a way, yes. After having gone through or heard stories of Stalin etc, you would think that more people would be at least skeptical of their government, if not downright distrusting.
I'm more surprised it's only 70%. Look at the US - we have 1/3 of the population roughly that's bought into some version of lala land, and we have all sorts of adequate/good/excellent media available (there's a spectrum). The Russian people have had pretty much only what Putin approved of as media, for decades. As the saying goes - a person can be smart, people are dumb. Well, the people are dumb.
Also, Russia is in process of closing off the rest of the world from their internet. It's only going to get worse. They're headed towards North Korea levels of information control, not that they were all that far away to start with.
putin even does not want bodies of his solders going back to russia. that would take dent on the 70% a lot.
I'm worried about the 1/3 US too. I cannot fully explain how it is possible. putin has been corrupting the ellites of the 1/3 could be one major reason.
-
Well, in a way, yes. After having gone through or heard stories of Stalin etc, you would think that more people would be at least skeptical of their government, if not downright distrusting.
I did some survey work in the Czech Republic in January 2004, just a few months before they joined the EU. I was stunned by the amount of unsolicited Soviet nostalgia people offered.
If that's the case in a country where life has massively improved by most measures since 1990, I can't even imagine the ways up is down in Russia.
-
Re sanctions, this is an informative list.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain (https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain)
Thanks for the list.
All the companies, that poison people for years with their food are still doing business with russia. Coca cola, Pepsi, Phillip Morris, Mac Donald, Starbucks. There is no a single product from them (maybe except daily coffee brew) i would eat/drink since i care about my body.
Now they will try to poison russians more, how cruel!. But we can clearly see that they are evil companies.
McDonald's announced they are closing their stores. Is it in solidarity with Ukraine or supply chain issues?
-
Re sanctions, this is an informative list.
https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain (https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain)
Thanks for the list.
All the companies, that poison people for years with their food are still doing business with russia. Coca cola, Pepsi, Phillip Morris, Mac Donald, Starbucks. There is no a single product from them (maybe except daily coffee brew) i would eat/drink since i care about my body.
Now they will try to poison russians more, how cruel!. But we can clearly see that they are evil companies.
McDonald's announced they are closing their stores. Is it in solidarity with Ukraine or supply chain issues?
Solidarity or bandwagon. They seem to be one of the only western companies remaining still doing business there. Starbucks and Coca Cola joined in as well today.
-
- A GENUINE KA-SNIP -
Well, in a way, yes. After having gone through or heard stories of Stalin etc, you would think that more people would be at least skeptical of their government, if not downright distrusting.
I'm more surprised it's only 70%. Look at the US - we have 1/3 of the population roughly that's bought into some version of lala land, and we have all sorts of adequate/good/excellent media available (there's a spectrum). The Russian people have had pretty much only what Putin approved of as media, for decades. As the saying goes - a person can be smart, people are dumb. Well, the people are dumb.
Also, Russia is in process of closing off the rest of the world from their internet. It's only going to get worse. They're headed towards North Korea levels of information control, not that they were all that far away to start with.
[/quote]
Seems like the Lincoln quote fits this:
“You can fool all of the people some of time; you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.” Attributed to Abraham Lincoln in The New York Times, August 27, 1887.
Maybe people can be fooled better with color TV, laptops and cell phones. You would think they would question even more.
-
This shit is fucking crazy.
Posting to follow.
-
This shit is indeed crazy. What isn't crazy, apparently, is Putin. Or so says the CIA. But they have been known to lie, or they could just be wrong, so who knows?
Also in the crazy news: Putin is sanctioning himself possibly? Really can't see how not exporting is gonna help them. https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/russia-restricts-import-and-export-of-listed-goods-and-raw-materials-interfax
Russia may or may not be disconnecting themselves from the global internet: https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-runet-disconnect-ukraine-dns-chernenko-letter/ (my bet is yes, but we'll see for sure)
Zelensky is giving his security team more heart attacks, going outside, but I'm sure he appreciated the change in scene from underground bunkers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-x-ujiB-oE Also, it's snowing in Ukraine, and it's spring there, so I'm glad to see its not just my region that gets nasty weather in spring.
And Japan has decided to join the party! Challenging Russia on the Kuril Islands, which admittedly I've got zero clue what's going on, but ok. I also thought Japan didn't have much of a military, so more googling to come there (update: they have a military but its not a military? Seems to fit in the crazy theme). https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/japan-says-kuril-islands-primordially-japanese-russias-occupation-against-intl-order-articleshow.html
The hackers are trying to figure out what kind of computer Putin uses and can't agree. However, the back and forth is amusing. https://twitter.com/malwrhunterteam/status/1500800176629424133
Lots of groups of hackers involved.... https://twitter.com/MyWhiteNinja_/status/1500451692571209729
Though I'm fairly sure my internet problems are local hardware based, not the result of hackers or malware. Lovely, I get to spend money on equipment.
Poland said they'd give their Mig jets to the US, presumably so the US could give them to Ukraine! Yay! The US said they don't want them! Wha??? https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/08/poland-transfers-mig-fighters-to-the-us-as-ukraine-asks-for-help-00015259
Anyway, I suspect the diplomats and military and whoever else are still talking, we'll see what actually happens.
-
AFAIK, Russia started this up again on the South Kuril islands front, while it's in the midst of the war?
-
This shit is indeed crazy. What isn't crazy, apparently, is Putin. Or so says the CIA. But they have been known to lie, or they could just be wrong, so who knows?
Also in the crazy news: Putin is sanctioning himself possibly? Really can't see how not exporting is gonna help them. https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/russia-restricts-import-and-export-of-listed-goods-and-raw-materials-interfax
Russia may or may not be disconnecting themselves from the global internet: https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-runet-disconnect-ukraine-dns-chernenko-letter/ (my bet is yes, but we'll see for sure)
Zelensky is giving his security team more heart attacks, going outside, but I'm sure he appreciated the change in scene from underground bunkers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-x-ujiB-oE Also, it's snowing in Ukraine, and it's spring there, so I'm glad to see its not just my region that gets nasty weather in spring.
And Japan has decided to join the party! Challenging Russia on the Kuril Islands, which admittedly I've got zero clue what's going on, but ok. I also thought Japan didn't have much of a military, so more googling to come there (update: they have a military but its not a military? Seems to fit in the crazy theme). https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/japan-says-kuril-islands-primordially-japanese-russias-occupation-against-intl-order-articleshow.html
The hackers are trying to figure out what kind of computer Putin uses and can't agree. However, the back and forth is amusing. https://twitter.com/malwrhunterteam/status/1500800176629424133
Lots of groups of hackers involved.... https://twitter.com/MyWhiteNinja_/status/1500451692571209729
Though I'm fairly sure my internet problems are local hardware based, not the result of hackers or malware. Lovely, I get to spend money on equipment.
Poland said they'd give their Mig jets to the US, presumably so the US could give them to Ukraine! Yay! The US said they don't want them! Wha??? https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/08/poland-transfers-mig-fighters-to-the-us-as-ukraine-asks-for-help-00015259
Anyway, I suspect the diplomats and military and whoever else are still talking, we'll see what actually happens.
I bet they'll still work that out. There is always some bureaucrat that comes out of the woodwork to squelch things. Maybe there is some magic radio that needs to be disconnected. It seems that they could smuggle the Ukraine pilots out and have them fly the planes in.
I wonder if Japan will be the last to come out and hassle Russia while they are occupied with Ukraine. The more that hassle Putin the better. Japan and Russia had a war in 1905. Little Japan kicked their a**.
I used to drive through NW Indiana on a semi regular basis. That area actually looks a bit like what I see on these videos of Ukraine, flat farmland.
-
Russia is agreeing to a temporary ceasefire in some cities (i.e. agreeing not to commit war crimes for a bit) - is this a ploy to buy more time to bring in reinforcements and level Ukraine? A ploy to declare "victory" and keep the eastern parts of the country? A ploy to lure more civilians out to be massacred? Some combination of the above?
-
Russia is agreeing to a temporary ceasefire in some cities (i.e. agreeing not to commit war crimes for a bit) - is this a ploy to buy more time to bring in reinforcements and level Ukraine? A ploy to declare "victory" and keep the eastern parts of the country? A ploy to lure more civilians out to be massacred? Some combination of the above?
Are we sure that they'll actually ceasefire? Because there's been several attempts to arrange safe corridors to get civilians out and Russia has kept shelling....
-
Russia is agreeing to a temporary ceasefire in some cities (i.e. agreeing not to commit war crimes for a bit) - is this a ploy to buy more time to bring in reinforcements and level Ukraine? A ploy to declare "victory" and keep the eastern parts of the country? A ploy to lure more civilians out to be massacred? Some combination of the above?
Are we sure that they'll actually ceasefire? Because there's been several attempts to arrange safe corridors to get civilians out and Russia has kept shelling....
Yep, that's why I added option 3. I personally think that's the most likely scenario.
-
Russia is agreeing to a temporary ceasefire in some cities (i.e. agreeing not to commit war crimes for a bit) - is this a ploy to buy more time to bring in reinforcements and level Ukraine? A ploy to declare "victory" and keep the eastern parts of the country? A ploy to lure more civilians out to be massacred? Some combination of the above?
Are we sure that they'll actually ceasefire? Because there's been several attempts to arrange safe corridors to get civilians out and Russia has kept shelling....
Yep, that's why I added option 3. I personally think that's the most likely scenario.
Oh, oops. Reading comprehension fail there.
-
It’s horrible what’s happening and also senseless. My DIL’s family lives in Poland and we are very worried.
-
This shit is indeed crazy. What isn't crazy, apparently, is Putin. Or so says the CIA. But they have been known to lie, or they could just be wrong, so who knows?
Also in the crazy news: Putin is sanctioning himself possibly? Really can't see how not exporting is gonna help them. https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/russia-restricts-import-and-export-of-listed-goods-and-raw-materials-interfax
Well, Russia is a major supplier of some raw material that the world needs.
If you want to see another case of unintended consequences, check out the airline industry:
Step 1: Since supply of spare parts is mostly halted due to sanctions, russian authorities have changed the rules to allow for longer times between service and maintenance on the planes. That won't end well.
Step 2: Since many airlines lease large parts of their fleets, the western leasing companies are forced to comply with sanctions and are trying to reposess the planes - which in turn have made the Russians to order airlines to bring all leased planes back in to Russia effective immedately.
This in turn can turn into a big liability for the leasing companies and their insurance companies. A "nationalized" airplane can probably be considered a loss to claim on the insurance. If we assume a loss of 745 planes, each costing $100 million to replace... Especially if the plane has not followed the service schedule and gotten new parts. To re-certify such a plane for flight would be a big job.
And the next step is that parts of the world with high requirements on safety (like the EU) would consider Russian airlines unsafe and not allowed to enter their airspace at all even after politically motivated sanctions are lifted.
Sources:
https://theaircurrent.com/tac-explains/ukraine-russia-conflict-derail-global-aerospace/
https://youtu.be/Lz4gCE4ccRM
-
This shit is indeed crazy. What isn't crazy, apparently, is Putin. Or so says the CIA. But they have been known to lie, or they could just be wrong, so who knows?
Also in the crazy news: Putin is sanctioning himself possibly? Really can't see how not exporting is gonna help them. https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/russia-restricts-import-and-export-of-listed-goods-and-raw-materials-interfax
Russia may or may not be disconnecting themselves from the global internet: https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-runet-disconnect-ukraine-dns-chernenko-letter/ (my bet is yes, but we'll see for sure)
From a western democratic citizens point of view Putin seems crazy but from a dictators/non democratic point of view he is behaving according to the handbook. A couple of years ago I read an interesting book called Dictator’s handbook by Alastair Smith about how dictators stay in power. Get rid of your enemies, restrict the information etc. Putin is behaving accordingly so my guess is that CIA is correct.
-
Russian economy. Many underestimate its dependency upon technological import. Russia's so deeply integrated into Western technological chains that severing these ties will lead to its collapse. Sanctions are already effective and can be made even more efficient https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501360272442896388
Putin's moves make more sense if you consider that Russia is run by a mafia. By a criminal group which extracts tradable export goods through violence or threats. Violent image is Kremlin's means of production and must be kept https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501389422683738123
-
And Japan has decided to join the party! Challenging Russia on the Kuril Islands, which admittedly I've got zero clue what's going on, but ok. I also thought Japan didn't have much of a military, so more googling to come there (update: they have a military but its not a military? Seems to fit in the crazy theme). https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/japan-says-kuril-islands-primordially-japanese-russias-occupation-against-intl-order-articleshow.html
The Kuriles are a century old thing, and the last treaty is interpreted differently by both sides. Some small Islands, but a lot of valuable (e.g. fishing) waters around.
Japan has "Self Defense Forces". Yes, they are an army, even though they specialize (for lack of fights you could say) in catastrophy help (lots of opportunities in Japan for that).
No, they are not an army, they tell you. Because while they have attack helicopters, they use the infrared cameras on them to search for avalanche victims.
They did increase their 1% of BIP cap to 2% a few years ago though.
-
This shit is indeed crazy. What isn't crazy, apparently, is Putin. Or so says the CIA. But they have been known to lie, or they could just be wrong, so who knows?
Also in the crazy news: Putin is sanctioning himself possibly? Really can't see how not exporting is gonna help them. https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/russia-restricts-import-and-export-of-listed-goods-and-raw-materials-interfax
Well, Russia is a major supplier of some raw material that the world needs.
If you want to see another case of unintended consequences, check out the airline industry:
Step 1: Since supply of spare parts is mostly halted due to sanctions, russian authorities have changed the rules to allow for longer times between service and maintenance on the planes. That won't end well.
Step 2: Since many airlines lease large parts of their fleets, the western leasing companies are forced to comply with sanctions and are trying to reposess the planes - which in turn have made the Russians to order airlines to bring all leased planes back in to Russia effective immedately.
This in turn can turn into a big liability for the leasing companies and their insurance companies. A "nationalized" airplane can probably be considered a loss to claim on the insurance. If we assume a loss of 745 planes, each costing $100 million to replace... Especially if the plane has not followed the service schedule and gotten new parts. To re-certify such a plane for flight would be a big job.
And the next step is that parts of the world with high requirements on safety (like the EU) would consider Russian airlines unsafe and not allowed to enter their airspace at all even after politically motivated sanctions are lifted.
Sources:
https://theaircurrent.com/tac-explains/ukraine-russia-conflict-derail-global-aerospace/
https://youtu.be/Lz4gCE4ccRM
Re the exports - yes, losing those exports will hurt the rest of the world, but its going to hurt Russia first. We might be ok for a while. Russia won't be ok very quickly.
And the flip side to the aviation is that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and the sanctions are lifted, there will be consequences which will be around for a very long time. Not only is Putin catapulting Russia back in time, he's making it much harder for them to reverse that in future.
-
Re the exports - yes, losing those exports will hurt the rest of the world, but its going to hurt Russia first. We might be ok for a while. Russia won't be ok very quickly.
And the flip side to the aviation is that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and the sanctions are lifted, there will be consequences which will be around for a very long time. Not only is Putin catapulting Russia back in time, he's making it much harder for them to reverse that in future.
I think it's worth pointing out here that oil going from Russia to the US is a small fraction of the US's consumption, and also a small fraction of Russia production. Realistically, while it's a strong PR move, the practical effect won't be much.
-
So about wheat...
There's been a lot of chatter that Ukraine is a huge supplier of the World Food Program, and it's a major source of grain for some food-insecure countries.
If we assume that the Ukrainian wheat crop is zero this year, what happens?
If the US and Canada were to take action now, could we stabilize the world wheat market?
It seems like the problem isn't really our ability to produce enough calories to feed the world, it's what we're doing with our productive capacity and how food is distributed that are the problems.
It would be politically hard, but it seems feasible to put all of the CRP back into production, forbid the production of ethanol using corn, and greatly curtail or eliminate the planting of sugar beets. Just those three policies would free up a lot of arable acres for growing grain.
Ag would lose their minds, but I think it's pretty clear that the President would have the power to do all of those things under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as long as the SCOTUS follows Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
I don't really know that much about world food supply chains work, though. I'm sure others here can enlighten me.
-
Re the exports - yes, losing those exports will hurt the rest of the world, but its going to hurt Russia first. We might be ok for a while. Russia won't be ok very quickly.
And the flip side to the aviation is that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and the sanctions are lifted, there will be consequences which will be around for a very long time. Not only is Putin catapulting Russia back in time, he's making it much harder for them to reverse that in future.
I think it's worth pointing out here that oil going from Russia to the US is a small fraction of the US's consumption, and also a small fraction of Russia production. Realistically, while it's a strong PR move, the practical effect won't be much.
If they made peace with Venezuela, they could get some oil. I've heard it's not the best crude in town, but as the price for a barrel gets up there, refiners will find a way to crack it. A few years ago, it was said that the US was a net oil exporter. It seems like a relaxation of some rules would allow a supply increase. I think there's a lot of places in the world where they don't pump the oil because the price per barrel has been too low. The higher price will bring those supplies to market.
Actually, if it could be determined that these sanctions with Russia were going to last for a while, it would present investment opportunities to find alternative supplies to the Russian exports. For example, nickel, deposits could be developed with new mines and investments could be made to expand existing production.
I don't think history will be too kind to Putin when this is all said and done. I think the kids reading the history books will see a picture of a nasty looking bald man with a scowl on his face.
It's a big world. Russian exports can be replaced. They appear to be largely commodities and not high tech stuff.
-
Re the exports - yes, losing those exports will hurt the rest of the world, but its going to hurt Russia first. We might be ok for a while. Russia won't be ok very quickly.
And the flip side to the aviation is that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and the sanctions are lifted, there will be consequences which will be around for a very long time. Not only is Putin catapulting Russia back in time, he's making it much harder for them to reverse that in future.
I think it's worth pointing out here that oil going from Russia to the US is a small fraction of the US's consumption, and also a small fraction of Russia production. Realistically, while it's a strong PR move, the practical effect won't be much.
If they made peace with Venezuela, they could get some oil. I've heard it's not the best crude in town, but as the price for a barrel gets up there, refiners will find a way to crack it. A few years ago, it was said that the US was a net oil exporter. It seems like a relaxation of some rules would allow a supply increase. I think there's a lot of places in the world where they don't pump the oil because the price per barrel has been too low. The higher price will bring those supplies to market.
The US is a net exporter (barely) of oil but that's because it exports refined oil. Mexico, for example, exports crude to the US, where it's refined, and then imports it as petrol.
-
So about wheat...
There's been a lot of chatter that Ukraine is a huge supplier of the World Food Program, and it's a major source of grain for some food-insecure countries.
If we assume that the Ukrainian wheat crop is zero this year, what happens?
If the US and Canada were to take action now, could we stabilize the world wheat market?
It seems like the problem isn't really our ability to produce enough calories to feed the world, it's what we're doing with our productive capacity and how food is distributed that are the problems.
It would be politically hard, but it seems feasible to put all of the CRP back into production, forbid the production of ethanol using corn, and greatly curtail or eliminate the planting of sugar beets. Just those three policies would free up a lot of arable acres for growing grain.
Ag would lose their minds, but I think it's pretty clear that the President would have the power to do all of those things under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as long as the SCOTUS follows Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
I don't really know that much about world food supply chains work, though. I'm sure others here can enlighten me.
I've been thinking about this too. I live in Canada's breadbasket, but wheat is grown at a much lower rate than previously. I see lots of canola, feed corn and soy beans now, on occasion, flax. It's probably too late to change planned crops this year, as I would think that farmers would already have their seed supply ordered, if not received. Although, locally, we've received lots of snow, so it may be a late spring, allowing for some change of plans. Not sure if different equipment is needed to plant/harvest wheat than other crops. If wheat prices rise enough, it might motivate farmers to change their crops next year.
-
I read an interesting thread that a lot (or most) of Ukraine's wheat is winter wheat, so it's already in the ground (harvest in September). Damage will focus on cities, so chances are it'll all be still there when the Russians have (hopefully) been kicked out.
-
Ukraine's wheat harvest won't be zero. There are still large swathes of the country where no fighting is occurring. Russia simply doesn't have the ability to take western Ukraine by force. Not unless they started conscripting hundreds of thousands or calling up their entire reserves. They've committed 150,000+ troops to take the eastern edge of the country.
If Ukranian farmers can pull themselves away from hauling away millions of dollars of Russian equipment (one estimate I saw jokingly put Ukranian farmers as the 5th largest military in Europe by the number of tanks, APCs, etc. they now have) they'll go back to their fields and trying to make a living.
Frankly the larger issue is fertilizer. Most modern agriculture uses nitrogen-based fertilizer to improve yields. One of the reasons why we can get 100-150 bushels of wheat per acre whereas 100 years ago it was more like 10-20 bushels. Most nitrogen-based fertilizer is made from natural gas. Fertilizer plants in Europe have been suspending operations as the price of their input has gotten so high that they can't make a profit. So, farmers will either choose to use less fertilizer and have lower crop yields, or they'll have to pay a lore more for fertilizer which means prices will go up due to higher costs. Either way, more inflation in food costs which will affect the global market since many agricultural products are traded globally.
-
I suspect Ukraine's raw agricultural production capacity won't be affected much--the Russians aren't salting the land or tearing it up or anything. It'll be more an issue of transportation/distribution/etc, given the damage to cities and infrastructure.
That said, they might face a tractor shortage, since many of them seem to be busy towing abandoned tanks...
Re the exports - yes, losing those exports will hurt the rest of the world, but its going to hurt Russia first. We might be ok for a while. Russia won't be ok very quickly.
And the flip side to the aviation is that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and the sanctions are lifted, there will be consequences which will be around for a very long time. Not only is Putin catapulting Russia back in time, he's making it much harder for them to reverse that in future.
I think it's worth pointing out here that oil going from Russia to the US is a small fraction of the US's consumption, and also a small fraction of Russia production. Realistically, while it's a strong PR move, the practical effect won't be much.
If they made peace with Venezuela, they could get some oil. I've heard it's not the best crude in town, but as the price for a barrel gets up there, refiners will find a way to crack it. A few years ago, it was said that the US was a net oil exporter. It seems like a relaxation of some rules would allow a supply increase. I think there's a lot of places in the world where they don't pump the oil because the price per barrel has been too low. The higher price will bring those supplies to market.
The US is a net exporter (barely) of oil but that's because it exports refined oil. Mexico, for example, exports crude to the US, where it's refined, and then imports it as petrol.
I believe it was 2018 when the US became a net exporter of petroleum products, and only very recently a net exporter of oil altogether.
Whether or not it affects gasoline prices, IMO it's a worthy endeavor to replace Russia as a major supplier of European energy.
-
A few years ago, it was said that the US was a net oil exporter.
The US is a net exporter (barely) of oil but that's because it exports refined oil. Mexico, for example, exports crude to the US, where it's refined, and then imports it as petrol.
The USA was never been a net exporter of oil. The USA is a net exporter of "energy" and as you correctly state "net petroleum products." Further reading:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338
-
I read an interesting thread that a lot (or most) of Ukraine's wheat is winter wheat, so it's already in the ground (harvest in September). Damage will focus on cities, so chances are it'll all be still there when the Russians have (hopefully) been kicked out.
I recently listened to an interview with an economist talking about the next crop of wheat. Farmers need to have enough stability to buy and plant that crop, and if they don't it's gone for that year.
EDITed to add that a lot of this year's wheat crop would ship out of the Black Sea where cargo carriers are having their insurance policies dropped and some of the port towns are currently in a literal war.
-
Anyone else suspect that China is rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of lots of cheap oil and gas in the future? If Russia can't sell to anyone else then Beijing should be able to negotiate a very good price indeed...
-
Anyone else suspect that China is rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of lots of cheap oil and gas in the future? If Russia can't sell to anyone else then Beijing should be able to negotiate a very good price indeed...
Russia's economy in ruins is a gold mine for China. They'll be the only ones wanting to buy whatever Russia has to sell, be their sole provider of technology, and be the only way the Russian military builds anything new for a generation.
-
A few years ago, it was said that the US was a net oil exporter.
The US is a net exporter (barely) of oil but that's because it exports refined oil. Mexico, for example, exports crude to the US, where it's refined, and then imports it as petrol.
The USA was never been a net exporter of oil. The USA is a net exporter of "energy" and as you correctly state "net petroleum products." Further reading:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/imports-and-exports.php
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338
Correct. I was using "oil" to mean both crude (oil) + refined (oil), combined. That's what your chart and the one below show. As stated, it's confusing because the US uses 20M barrels of oil/day but only produces ~12M/day. However, it produces petro products for its neighbors using their own crude.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49596
---
As far as Russian oil, Russia supplies almost 25% of crude oil to Europe.* It also has substantial refinery capacity and exports fuel oil and diesel. Weaning Europe from using Russian oil is not an easy undertaking. (And look at Russia's increasing sales to China. Russia's oil will make it to market eventually.)
*https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33732
-
I'll bet the OPEC folks are rubbing their hands together with glee. Happy Days are here again! The rich oil sheikh will be able to pay off his yacht or buy a used one from the Russians.
-
I'll bet the OPEC folks are rubbing their hands together with glee. Happy Days are here again! The rich oil sheikh will be able to pay off his yacht or buy a used one from the Russians.
Or buy a football club from a Russian oligarch worried about having his foreign assets seized: https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/saudi-chelsea-takeover-roman-abramovich-23317553
-
It looks like the brain drain from Russia is accelerating: WSJ: Russians Rush to Leave as Sanctions Bite and Putin Clamps Down on Dissent Over Ukraine War (https://www.wsj.com/articles/russians-rush-to-leave-as-sanctions-bite-and-putin-clamps-down-on-dissent-over-ukraine-war-11646848224).
-
After this is all over, I have to wonder how many of them will want to return to the motherland.
-
So about wheat...
There's been a lot of chatter that Ukraine is a huge supplier of the World Food Program, and it's a major source of grain for some food-insecure countries.
If we assume that the Ukrainian wheat crop is zero this year, what happens?
If the US and Canada were to take action now, could we stabilize the world wheat market?
It seems like the problem isn't really our ability to produce enough calories to feed the world, it's what we're doing with our productive capacity and how food is distributed that are the problems.
It would be politically hard, but it seems feasible to put all of the CRP back into production, forbid the production of ethanol using corn, and greatly curtail or eliminate the planting of sugar beets. Just those three policies would free up a lot of arable acres for growing grain.
Ag would lose their minds, but I think it's pretty clear that the President would have the power to do all of those things under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as long as the SCOTUS follows Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
I don't really know that much about world food supply chains work, though. I'm sure others here can enlighten me.
Changing the ethanol blending requirements could be done today. You are right that farmers would scream, but as little sense as ethanol makes as a way to limit carbon emissions is makes a great deal of sense as a way to ensure our farming infrastructure is set up to have plenty of buffer calories in the system in the case of crop failures or geopolitical unrest.
But that gets you a lot of corn. Corn keeps the US food system running (so being able to cut ethanol requirements when we need to is good for internal food security), but it's not a drop in substitute for wheat which is the primary calorie source of poorer middle eastern countries. The last time it spiked this high we got global unrest and the Arab Spring.
Growing more wheat is trickier. The winter wheat crops all got planted last fall so it's too late to increase their acreage. Spring wheat can and will still be planted (although it tends to have lower yields than winter wheat). But producing the seed for farmers is its whole own supply chain with lead times ditacted by the lifecycle of the crop in question. If farmers decided they wanted to plant 2x as many acres with wheat this year as last there just wouldn't be enough seed for them to buy.
As someone else mentioned, even for Russia invaded Ukraine, this was already going to be a scary year for the food supply. The price of nitrogen fertilizer has tripled, which means farmers are going to use a lot less of it, which is likely to translate to lower yields across almost all the major crops in the developed world.
It's been bone dry where I am all winter, and we had a very dry fall. Still time for it to turn around, but if not we may add drought to the list of challenges we're gonna face in terms of producing enough food to keep prices stable.*
*Note: If you're reading this, you don't have to worry about starvation. The average american spends a small percentage of their money on food and most of that is on the cost of labor and processing. It's the people in countries where 30-50% of their monthly income goes to just buying food, and a lot of that is plain rice or flour (wheat or maize) who are going to suffer when commodity grain prices spike.
-
My understanding of ethanol's major benefit is not one of reducing CO2 emissions*, but because it reduces other emissions (carbon monoxide, specifically) and increases the octane rating of the fuel (a role formerly filled by TEL, the lead in leaded gas).
* Which it does, but not as much as you'd expect. Once you include all the energy required to produce it, the benefit drops significantly. Of course, you have to also consider the impact from the huge tracts of land used for farming it, its lower energy density, its tendency to absorb water, its shorter shelf life, etc.
-
I'll bet the OPEC folks are rubbing their hands together with glee. Happy Days are here again! The rich oil sheikh will be able to pay off his yacht or buy a used one from the Russians.
The Albertans certainly are. The provincial government is already finding ways to spend it's surplus.
-
Re the exports - yes, losing those exports will hurt the rest of the world, but its going to hurt Russia first. We might be ok for a while. Russia won't be ok very quickly.
And the flip side to the aviation is that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine and the sanctions are lifted, there will be consequences which will be around for a very long time. Not only is Putin catapulting Russia back in time, he's making it much harder for them to reverse that in future.
I think it's worth pointing out here that oil going from Russia to the US is a small fraction of the US's consumption, and also a small fraction of Russia production. Realistically, while it's a strong PR move, the practical effect won't be much.
I wasn't really thinking about the US. Russia exports a good chunk of oil and gas to Europe. If he stops doing that, then yes, he hurts Europe - but he also hurts Russia. Europe can scramble around and find alternatives. It'll hurt, but it won't be fatal. The complete loss of that income will massively hurt Russia. They'll sell at least some to China, but I think I read that the pipeline to China can't move all of the oil. And I also read that China pays a reduced price to Russia, so not only would Russia be selling less overall all, it would also be for a lower price.
I'm sure there's similarities on other commodities. Yes, not exporting will hurt Europe or the rest of the world. But it will likely hurt Russia more.
-
I'll bet the OPEC folks are rubbing their hands together with glee. Happy Days are here again! The rich oil sheikh will be able to pay off his yacht or buy a used one from the Russians.
The Albertans certainly are. The provincial government is already finding ways to spend it's surplus.
Same with New Mexico. About 25-30% of the state's budget is based off oil and gas revenue. The total state budget for FY 2022 is up 14% to about $8.5 billion, almost all of that based on higher energy revenue. Free college tuition, raises for teachers and state police, more money for Medicaid, some minimal tax breaks (reducing sales tax a whooping 0.25%), etc.
Every $1 change in New Mexico’s average price of oil represents about a $23 million impact on the state’s general fund. For reference, the LFC is anticipating average prices to be around $49 per barrel for FY2021 and go up to $57 per barrel in FY2022 – roughly a $184 million increase for the general fund.
Every million barrels of oil is about $3 million for the general fund. The LFC is projecting a 20 million barrel increase over previous FY2021 projections, or about $60 million in additional revenue for the general fund.
While the LFC doesn’t provide an estimate for FY2021 natural gas production, it does explain that “each additional 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas generates about $2 million for the general fund.” It also explains that for every $0.10 change in natural gas prices, the general fund sees about a $14 million impact. With an estimated $0.30 price increase in FY2022, that’s about $42 million extra for the general fund.
-
Since we don't want to step into Ukraine to help them, but we aren't against sending weapons to Ukraine, what would happen if we sent Zelensky 50 hydrogen bombs? They would then become a nuclear state and Russia would have to withdraw and never invade again.
Sorry I just watched an emotional video of a Ukranian diplomat crying and pleading for help. Seriously I don't know why we don't all just go in and help. Putin would just have to withdraw. There is no such thing as a World War III anymore.. nuclear bombs put an end to world wars.. there's no way he'd use one.. if he used one on Ukraine, then Ukraine would have 50 to fire back.
-
Since we don't want to step into Ukraine to help them, but we aren't against sending weapons to Ukraine, what would happen if we sent Zelensky 50 hydrogen bombs? They would then become a nuclear state and Russia would have to withdraw and never invade again.
Having read the full contents of the Budapest Memorandum I would consider that entirely appropriate. To be clear the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say that we can do that, but it doesn't say that we can't either.
-
Wow, I just read this from Wikipedia on Ukraine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]"
I bet they wish they didn't destroy them all.. Wow they none left?
-
Nukes don't kill people, only bad guys with nukes kill people. That's why I'm campaigning for a nuke in every classroom - for safety!
- GuitarStv card carrying member of the Nuke Resolution Association
-
Nukes don't kill people, only bad guys with nukes kill people. That's why I'm campaigning for a nuke in every classroom - for safety!
- GuitarStv card carrying member of the Nuke Resolution Association
LOL
-
Putin would just have to withdraw. There is no such thing as a World War III anymore.. nuclear bombs put an end to world wars.. there's no way he'd use one..
There is very much such a thing as World War III. All thousands of nuclear bombs in missile silos and submarines and circling bombers across the globe ensures is that there is no such thing as World War IV.
May I suggest Level 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_7_(novel)) as good reading?
Or if TV is more your style: Threads (https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/threads) (British) or The Day After (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/) (Set in the USA).
This is the stuff our parents' generations knew by heart. I grew up 30 year interval where it was possible to pretend the threat of nuclear annihilation wasn't real. Maybe you did too. But the reality and consequences of nuclear war haven't changed. We just didn't have to think about it as much as previous generations did. Until now.
-
Since we don't want to step into Ukraine to help them, but we aren't against sending weapons to Ukraine, what would happen if we sent Zelensky 50 hydrogen bombs? They would then become a nuclear state and Russia would have to withdraw and never invade again.
Sorry I just watched an emotional video of a Ukranian diplomat crying and pleading for help. Seriously I don't know why we don't all just go in and help. Putin would just have to withdraw. There is no such thing as a World War III anymore.. nuclear bombs put an end to world wars.. there's no way he'd use one.. if he used one on Ukraine, then Ukraine would have 50 to fire back.
I am just going to quit reading'/watching it. Gonna start on my garden tomorrow and play with the dog outside. I can't control what Putin does and it isn't good for my mental health to worry. Thanks for the advice everyone.
Jenn, this is the second time this week you've practically called for nuclear war. Seriously, go take that walk.
-
I'm not calling for nuclear war. I am saying I don't believe Putin would use a bomb. I think he'd retreat.
-
Really I don't see how we can just stand by while Putin genocides people bombing a maternity hospital. Holding hundreds of thousands hostage without water. I am just trying to think of ways Ukraine can defend itself better if we don't want to go in and help.
-
Unless you are someone who has political or military power - there is nothing that you, personally can do. Not really. Does it suck? Yes. But the world isn't fair. The world isn't kind. Feel free to scream into the sky or beat your pillow if it helps.
Ukraine's best hope is for Russia to collapse. Run out of money, run out of will. A revolution, an assassination, or simply a strike. But that takes time. And yes, more people will die. More people will be displaced. More buildings, more infrastructure, more blood and death. War is hell.
-
Unless you are someone who has political or military power - there is nothing that you, personally can do. Not really. Does it suck? Yes. But the world isn't fair. The world isn't kind. Feel free to scream into the sky or beat your pillow if it helps.
Ukraine's best hope is for Russia to collapse. Run out of money, run out of will. A revolution, an assassination, or simply a strike. But that takes time. And yes, more people will die. More people will be displaced. More buildings, more infrastructure, more blood and death. War is hell.
Well - it doesn't have to be all of Russia. What if the people of White Russia, Belarus, started to clamor for stuff? I don't see why they don't. This is the ideal time to negotiate with their government for more freedom. Their military is still at home, but the people don't have to be concerned about Russia stomping all over cuz their soldiers are kinda busy right now. There were demonstrations in Belarus not too long ago so it is apparent they have concerns about how things are run. The more turmoil that the Russian government has the better.
-
Unless you are someone who has political or military power - there is nothing that you, personally can do. Not really. Does it suck? Yes. But the world isn't fair. The world isn't kind. Feel free to scream into the sky or beat your pillow if it helps.
Ukraine's best hope is for Russia to collapse. Run out of money, run out of will. A revolution, an assassination, or simply a strike. But that takes time. And yes, more people will die. More people will be displaced. More buildings, more infrastructure, more blood and death. War is hell.
Well - it doesn't have to be all of Russia. What if the people of White Russia, Belarus, started to clamor for stuff? I don't see why they don't. This is the ideal time to negotiate with their government for more freedom. Their military is still at home, but the people don't have to be concerned about Russia stomping all over cuz their soldiers are kinda busy right now. There were demonstrations in Belarus not too long ago so it is apparent they have concerns about how things are run. The more turmoil that the Russian government has the better.
And that would be great for Belarus, if that's what the people want (from what I can tell, the current leader is not popular). If Belarus did revolt in some way, would that help Ukraine? I don't know. I can hope so. If Japan actually decided to go after those islands rather than just saying that the islands are theirs that might help too. I'm perfectly happy to wish chaos on Putin.
And hopefully all the diplomatic stuff and the logistical stuff will get figured out and Ukraine will get more fighter jets. It probably wouldn't be enough to deny the air to Russia, but it might help.
-
https://www.reuters.com/business/russia-approves-first-step-towards-nationalising-assets-firms-that-leave-ruling-2022-03-09/
Isn't it fun when actions taken to help short term are likely to hurt long term?
-
It's being reported that Russia has "walked out of" the Council of Europe. I haven't seen anything yet which confirms whether there is a possible way back (ie just refusing to participate for the time being) or if it is intended to be permanent (ie denouncing ratification of the international convention that sets up the Council).
This is significant because membership of the Council of Europe is what applies the European Convention on Human Rights in Russia, and while the Convention has never been fully applied in Russia, as it should have been since their accession to in in 1996, acceptance of the Convention has variously been lip service/aspiration towards the application of human rights in Russia, and has provided a mechanism for investigating human rights abuses in Russia. Withdrawal is a clear and definite indicator that the current regime in Russia is making a definitive break from dialogue with the west and from western values, and that any way for Russia out of the war in Ukraine is not going to come from a voluntary move back towards acceptance of the international legal order.
-
It's being reported that Russia has "walked out of" the Council of Europe. I haven't seen anything yet which confirms whether there is a possible way back (ie just refusing to participate for the time being) or if it is intended to be permanent (ie denouncing ratification of the international convention that sets up the Council).
This is significant because membership of the Council of Europe is what applies the European Convention on Human Rights in Russia, and while the Convention has never been fully applied in Russia, as it should have been since their accession to in in 1996, acceptance of the Convention has variously been lip service/aspiration towards the application of human rights in Russia, and has provided a mechanism for investigating human rights abuses in Russia. Withdrawal is a clear and definite indicator that the current regime in Russia is making a definitive break from dialogue with the west and from western values, and that any way for Russia out of the war in Ukraine is not going to come from a voluntary move back towards acceptance of the international legal order.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-suspends-russia-s-rights-of-representation
Well the Council of Europe calls their suspension temporary.
It almost seems like Putin is determined make NATO/US/others attack Russia.
Edit: You know you've fucked up when even China nopes out. And China is playing the long game, they're going to benefit massively from Russia's reliance on them.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-russia-airlines-idUSR4N2V1013?utm_source=reddit.com
-
It's being reported that Russia has "walked out of" the Council of Europe. I haven't seen anything yet which confirms whether there is a possible way back (ie just refusing to participate for the time being) or if it is intended to be permanent (ie denouncing ratification of the international convention that sets up the Council).
This is significant because membership of the Council of Europe is what applies the European Convention on Human Rights in Russia, and while the Convention has never been fully applied in Russia, as it should have been since their accession to in in 1996, acceptance of the Convention has variously been lip service/aspiration towards the application of human rights in Russia, and has provided a mechanism for investigating human rights abuses in Russia. Withdrawal is a clear and definite indicator that the current regime in Russia is making a definitive break from dialogue with the west and from western values, and that any way for Russia out of the war in Ukraine is not going to come from a voluntary move back towards acceptance of the international legal order.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-suspends-russia-s-rights-of-representation
Well the Council of Europe calls their suspension temporary.
It almost seems like Putin is determined make NATO/US/others attack Russia.
Edit: You know you've fucked up when even China nopes out. And China is playing the long game, they're going to benefit massively from Russia's reliance on them.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-russia-airlines-idUSR4N2V1013?utm_source=reddit.com
China plays the long game, but what about the West? Putin plays the long game too. Putin knows that the goal of the firm is to make money. Let's say he takes Ukraine. It won't be long after that he dangles some offer that the West cannot deny. He will make a minor concession and the West will use it as an excuse to trade with him again. He knows this. For example, he could participate in this "Council of Europe" in a few months. All the news reporters would then be saying he is turning a "new leaf." Tucker Carlson would rant that the world is mistreating Putin. Other reporters would say that Ukraine has always been a part of Russia. They would, in fact, parrot his lines.
-
Really I don't see how we can just stand by while Putin genocides people bombing a maternity hospital. Holding hundreds of thousands hostage without water. I am just trying to think of ways Ukraine can defend itself better if we don't want to go in and help.
I get your thought process. It's tough to just watch it.
In my mind, I've drawn a parallel to a schoolyard fight where a jock is beating up a nerd. The other kids feel sorry for the nerd, they might offer Band Aids, they might help him to his feet when he goes down, they might even buy him elbow pads and a helmet to mitigate the damage a tiny bit, but what they WON'T do is...actually make the bully stop beating up the nerd. It just keeps happening and happening and happening.
Oh they will say, "Bully, you can't sit with us at lunch! You can't go to our parties!" but absolutely nothing provides an immediate stop to the physical brutality. It would feel like such an...impotent response.
Back to the macro scale, it's a very helpless feeling. We spend a gazillion dollars on our military, but we can't do anything when Russia (apparently) attacks hospitals and civilian escape routes. I wonder where our red lines are? What if Russia breaks out chemical weapons? Do we just watch no matter what happens? (I realize the answer might have to be "yes").
I also wonder when does one country (Russia) view others as 'declaring war' against them? I mean, I read about the Polish idea with the fighter planes. If (and I realize we probably won't) the US assisted in moving fighter planes to Urkaine how the hell is that any different, in Putin's view, than the US deploying our direct resources? Honestly I don't see how he doesn't view the other European countries providing missiles, 'defensive' or otherwise, to be an act of war. I don't pretend to understand any of this.
-
In my mind, I've drawn a parallel to a schoolyard fight where a jock is beating up a nerd. The other kids feel sorry for the nerd, they might offer Band Aids, they might help him to his feet when he goes down, they might even buy him elbow pads and a helmet to mitigate the damage a tiny bit, but what they WON'T do is...actually make the bully stop beating up the nerd. It just keeps happening and happening and happening.
...
Back to the macro scale, it's a very helpless feeling. We spend a gazillion dollars on our military, but we can't do anything when Russia (apparently) attacks hospitals and civilian escape routes. I wonder where our red lines are? What if Russia breaks out chemical weapons? Do we just watch no matter what happens? (I realize the answer might have to be "yes").
If the only thing that doesn't count as "just watching" in your view is sending in US troops or committing to firing on Russian planes, then I think the answer is that the red line we have is the invasion of a NATO country and nothing short of that, no matter how horrible, is going to shift the calculus that global thermonuclear war is worse.
Instead of your analogy to a schoolyard bully where a bunch of kids ganging up really could solve the issue, consider a bank robber with a bunch of explosives and ball bearings strapped to his chest on a dead man's trigger who has taken 20 people hostage in a bank. He beats of some of the hostages. Shoots one of them. At what point do you storm the bank, knowing that if you don't he is killing and hurting people and will almost certainly continue, but that if you do all the people you're trying to protect will almost certainly die, plus the people you send in to try to save them?
-
The "red line" of attacking a NATO country seems so arbitrary to me. The reasoning no one can step in and directly help is because NATO is not an offensive treaty, and god forbid anyone attack russia because OMG NUKES WW3! but the ultimate extension of that logic is that it's never appropriate to attack Russia. If allowing Russia to genocide a country is preferable to potentially invoking WW3 because everyone is scared shitless, then why doesn't it also apply when he attacks a NATO country? I know NATO is supposed to defend all members, but if he attacks Poland what is the better scenario: We allow Poland to be attacked, or we fight back and risk WW3? If WW3 is so terrible I don't see how the calculus changes when the genocide moves from Ukraine and goes 1 inch into NATO territory; if losing Ukraine is preferable to MAD, then surely losing Poland is also preferable to MAD. We are allowing him to terrorize the world. I understand not wanting to go into Russia proper and attack them, but no one is seriously suggesting that, the only suggestions are to possibly attack Russia while they are invading Ukraine.
I also don't understand the arguments of "lets cripple them economically and wait for them to collapse" as an argument that we can't attack, or at a minimum defend Ukraine. Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically. Like it's some kind of "gotcha" technicality that we can sanction them to hell and back and arguable do more damage to the country than a few fighters that aren't even in Russia's territory, and Russia somehow can't retaliate against anyone because of a technicality, even though they are openly committing war crimes. He's using all the conventions that outlaw war crimes as a god damn check list, but we are all banking on the fact that we can ruin their economy with no repercussions because he technically can't attack us since it wasn't a direct attack, even though this entire situation is because he directly attacked a sovereign country completely unprovoked.
I sure hope the powers that be are playing some 4d chess and making moves that are beyond my comprehension to bring about the best possible solution with the lowest amount of casualties, because it sure is frustrating to watch this shit go down in real time and feel so helpless.
-
In my mind, I've drawn a parallel to a schoolyard fight where a jock is beating up a nerd. The other kids feel sorry for the nerd, they might offer Band Aids, they might help him to his feet when he goes down, they might even buy him elbow pads and a helmet to mitigate the damage a tiny bit, but what they WON'T do is...actually make the bully stop beating up the nerd. It just keeps happening and happening and happening.
...
Back to the macro scale, it's a very helpless feeling. We spend a gazillion dollars on our military, but we can't do anything when Russia (apparently) attacks hospitals and civilian escape routes. I wonder where our red lines are? What if Russia breaks out chemical weapons? Do we just watch no matter what happens? (I realize the answer might have to be "yes").
If the only thing that doesn't count as "just watching" in your view is sending in US troops or committing to firing on Russian planes, then I think the answer is that the red line we have is the invasion of a NATO country and nothing short of that, no matter how horrible, is going to shift the calculus that global thermonuclear war is worse.
Instead of your analogy to a schoolyard bully where a bunch of kids ganging up really could solve the issue, consider a bank robber with a bunch of explosives and ball bearings strapped to his chest on a dead man's trigger who has taken 20 people hostage in a bank. He beats of some of the hostages. Shoots one of them. At what point do you storm the bank, knowing that if you don't he is killing and hurting people and will almost certainly continue, but that if you do all the people you're trying to protect will almost certainly die, plus the people you send in to try to save them?
...But if he takes a single NATO member hostage then all of a sudden the calculus changes? If we truly fear MAD then there is no line he can cross where MAD suddenly becomes preferable, because literally anything is preferable to extinction. He has a golden nuke with unlimited power.
-
In my mind, I've drawn a parallel to a schoolyard fight where a jock is beating up a nerd. The other kids feel sorry for the nerd, they might offer Band Aids, they might help him to his feet when he goes down, they might even buy him elbow pads and a helmet to mitigate the damage a tiny bit, but what they WON'T do is...actually make the bully stop beating up the nerd. It just keeps happening and happening and happening.
...
Back to the macro scale, it's a very helpless feeling. We spend a gazillion dollars on our military, but we can't do anything when Russia (apparently) attacks hospitals and civilian escape routes. I wonder where our red lines are? What if Russia breaks out chemical weapons? Do we just watch no matter what happens? (I realize the answer might have to be "yes").
If the only thing that doesn't count as "just watching" in your view is sending in US troops or committing to firing on Russian planes, then I think the answer is that the red line we have is the invasion of a NATO country and nothing short of that, no matter how horrible, is going to shift the calculus that global thermonuclear war is worse.
Instead of your analogy to a schoolyard bully where a bunch of kids ganging up really could solve the issue, consider a bank robber with a bunch of explosives and ball bearings strapped to his chest on a dead man's trigger who has taken 20 people hostage in a bank. He beats of some of the hostages. Shoots one of them. At what point do you storm the bank, knowing that if you don't he is killing and hurting people and will almost certainly continue, but that if you do all the people you're trying to protect will almost certainly die, plus the people you send in to try to save them?
...But if he takes a single NATO member hostage then all of a sudden the calculus changes? If we truly fear MAD then there is no line he can cross where MAD suddenly becomes preferable, because literally anything is preferable to extinction. He has a golden nuke with unlimited power.
bib So does the USA.
Nuclear weapons, other than in the hands of a madman, are essentially defensive rather than offensive.
There's a genocide going in in China at the moment, against the Uighurs, I don't see the USA doing anything about that.
Or how about a non-nuclear power: there's a genocide going on in Ethiopia at the moment, is the USA going to do anything about that?
Why is Ukraine different enough to potentially get the nukes out for?
-
The "red line" of attacking a NATO country seems so arbitrary to me. The reasoning no one can step in and directly help is because NATO is not an offensive treaty, and god forbid anyone attack russia because OMG NUKES WW3! but the ultimate extension of that logic is that it's never appropriate to attack Russia. If allowing Russia to genocide a country is preferable to potentially invoking WW3 because everyone is scared shitless, then why doesn't it also apply when he attacks a NATO country? I know NATO is supposed to defend all members, but if he attacks Poland what is the better scenario: We allow Poland to be attacked, or we fight back and risk WW3? If WW3 is so terrible I don't see how the calculus changes when the genocide moves from Ukraine and goes 1 inch into NATO territory; if losing Ukraine is preferable to MAD, then surely losing Poland is also preferable to MAD. We are allowing him to terrorize the world. I understand not wanting to go into Russia proper and attack them, but no one is seriously suggesting that, the only suggestions are to possibly attack Russia while they are invading Ukraine.
I also don't understand the arguments of "lets cripple them economically and wait for them to collapse" as an argument that we can't attack, or at a minimum defend Ukraine. Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically. Like it's some kind of "gotcha" technicality that we can sanction them to hell and back and arguable do more damage to the country than a few fighters that aren't even in Russia's territory, and Russia somehow can't retaliate against anyone because of a technicality, even though they are openly committing war crimes. He's using all the conventions that outlaw war crimes as a god damn check list, but we are all banking on the fact that we can ruin their economy with no repercussions because he technically can't attack us since it wasn't a direct attack, even though this entire situation is because he directly attacked a sovereign country completely unprovoked.
I sure hope the powers that be are playing some 4d chess and making moves that are beyond my comprehension to bring about the best possible solution with the lowest amount of casualties, because it sure is frustrating to watch this shit go down in real time and feel so helpless.
You expressed your thoughts probably a lot better than I did. I share all of these questions and concerns. I'm not sure who has the answers (hopefully General Milley and others do).
-
This hour-long lecture about Russia by a Finnish intelligence colonel was really helpful to me, and IMO worth the watch (subtitles available): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw&t=1903s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw&t=1903s)
-
Putin would just have to withdraw. There is no such thing as a World War III anymore.. nuclear bombs put an end to world wars.. there's no way he'd use one..
There is very much such a thing as World War III. All thousands of nuclear bombs in missile silos and submarines and circling bombers across the globe ensures is that there is no such thing as World War IV.
May I suggest Level 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_7_(novel)) as good reading?
Or if TV is more your style: Threads (https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/threads) (British) or The Day After (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/) (Set in the USA).
This is the stuff our parents' generations knew by heart. I grew up 30 year interval where it was possible to pretend the threat of nuclear annihilation wasn't real. Maybe you did too. But the reality and consequences of nuclear war haven't changed. We just didn't have to think about it as much as previous generations did. Until now.
Oh my, I must be old. I grew up in Nebraska and was 9 when The Day After came out. I had a palpable fear of the USSR and nuclear holocaust for years thereafter.
-
The "red line" of attacking a NATO country seems so arbitrary to me. The reasoning no one can step in and directly help is because NATO is not an offensive treaty, and god forbid anyone attack russia because OMG NUKES WW3! but the ultimate extension of that logic is that it's never appropriate to attack Russia. If allowing Russia to genocide a country is preferable to potentially invoking WW3 because everyone is scared shitless, then why doesn't it also apply when he attacks a NATO country? I know NATO is supposed to defend all members, but if he attacks Poland what is the better scenario: We allow Poland to be attacked, or we fight back and risk WW3? If WW3 is so terrible I don't see how the calculus changes when the genocide moves from Ukraine and goes 1 inch into NATO territory; if losing Ukraine is preferable to MAD, then surely losing Poland is also preferable to MAD. We are allowing him to terrorize the world. I understand not wanting to go into Russia proper and attack them, but no one is seriously suggesting that, the only suggestions are to possibly attack Russia while they are invading Ukraine.
I also don't understand the arguments of "lets cripple them economically and wait for them to collapse" as an argument that we can't attack, or at a minimum defend Ukraine. Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically. Like it's some kind of "gotcha" technicality that we can sanction them to hell and back and arguable do more damage to the country than a few fighters that aren't even in Russia's territory, and Russia somehow can't retaliate against anyone because of a technicality, even though they are openly committing war crimes. He's using all the conventions that outlaw war crimes as a god damn check list, but we are all banking on the fact that we can ruin their economy with no repercussions because he technically can't attack us since it wasn't a direct attack, even though this entire situation is because he directly attacked a sovereign country completely unprovoked.
I sure hope the powers that be are playing some 4d chess and making moves that are beyond my comprehension to bring about the best possible solution with the lowest amount of casualties, because it sure is frustrating to watch this shit go down in real time and feel so helpless.
You expressed your thoughts probably a lot better than I did. I share all of these questions and concerns. I'm not sure who has the answers (hopefully General Milley and others do).
Same.
As far as I can see, there's really only 2 ways this gets resolved: Putin is removed from power by someone internal to Russia, or Russia collapses economically/socially/politically/other sufficiently to force the cessation of attacks. Both have their own secondary problems. No matter what, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt.
The really depressing part is this isn't the last time the world is going to see these types of conflict break out. Climate change is going to trigger a lot more.
-
In my mind, I've drawn a parallel to a schoolyard fight where a jock is beating up a nerd. The other kids feel sorry for the nerd, they might offer Band Aids, they might help him to his feet when he goes down, they might even buy him elbow pads and a helmet to mitigate the damage a tiny bit, but what they WON'T do is...actually make the bully stop beating up the nerd. It just keeps happening and happening and happening.
...
Back to the macro scale, it's a very helpless feeling. We spend a gazillion dollars on our military, but we can't do anything when Russia (apparently) attacks hospitals and civilian escape routes. I wonder where our red lines are? What if Russia breaks out chemical weapons? Do we just watch no matter what happens? (I realize the answer might have to be "yes").
If the only thing that doesn't count as "just watching" in your view is sending in US troops or committing to firing on Russian planes, then I think the answer is that the red line we have is the invasion of a NATO country and nothing short of that, no matter how horrible, is going to shift the calculus that global thermonuclear war is worse.
Instead of your analogy to a schoolyard bully where a bunch of kids ganging up really could solve the issue, consider a bank robber with a bunch of explosives and ball bearings strapped to his chest on a dead man's trigger who has taken 20 people hostage in a bank. He beats of some of the hostages. Shoots one of them. At what point do you storm the bank, knowing that if you don't he is killing and hurting people and will almost certainly continue, but that if you do all the people you're trying to protect will almost certainly die, plus the people you send in to try to save them?
...But if he takes a single NATO member hostage then all of a sudden the calculus changes? If we truly fear MAD then there is no line he can cross where MAD suddenly becomes preferable, because literally anything is preferable to extinction. He has a golden nuke with unlimited power.
bib So does the USA.
Nuclear weapons, other than in the hands of a madman, are essentially defensive rather than offensive.
There's a genocide going in in China at the moment, against the Uighurs, I don't see the USA doing anything about that.
Or how about a non-nuclear power: there's a genocide going on in Ethiopia at the moment, is the USA going to do anything about that?
Why is Ukraine different enough to potentially get the nukes out for?
Yeah, but Putin's swinging his around threatening to use it against everyone offensively, no one else is doing that.
Yes those are infuriating also, as well as Burma. I think Ukraine is different because it's so in your face and visible. The entire world is watching it live streamed on every channel. But if none of those atrocities call for brining the nukes out, then literally nothing does. There is no scenario where global extinction is preferable to anything, no matter how horrendous it is. Ukraine can fall, a NATO country can fall, an ethnic group can be completely cleansed. A full scale holocaust could go down, and it would be technically preferable to extinction via MAD, and therefore will be tolerated. And forget about even bringing the nukes out, apparently directly confronting any nation in control of nukes is also completely off the table because it could escalate to MAD. And Russia has just shined a spot light on this fact.
The message to genocidal dictators with nukes is clear: We will shake our fists extremely hard and economically sanction you, so make sure your economy can weather sanctions and be self reliant if you want to indiscriminately murder innocent people and terrorize the world.
-
The message to genocidal dictators with nukes is clear: We will shake our fists extremely hard and economically sanction you, so make sure your economy can weather sanctions and be self reliant if you want to indiscriminately murder innocent people and terrorize the world.
Yes, but that way lies North Korea. There can't be that many genocidal dictators who want to run the equivalent of North Korea. Even Putin would rather not do that, it's just a matter of his realising that's where he's currently headed.
-
The "red line" of attacking a NATO country seems so arbitrary to me. The reasoning no one can step in and directly help is because NATO is not an offensive treaty, and god forbid anyone attack russia because OMG NUKES WW3! but the ultimate extension of that logic is that it's never appropriate to attack Russia. If allowing Russia to genocide a country is preferable to potentially invoking WW3 because everyone is scared shitless, then why doesn't it also apply when he attacks a NATO country? I know NATO is supposed to defend all members, but if he attacks Poland what is the better scenario: We allow Poland to be attacked, or we fight back and risk WW3? If WW3 is so terrible I don't see how the calculus changes when the genocide moves from Ukraine and goes 1 inch into NATO territory; if losing Ukraine is preferable to MAD, then surely losing Poland is also preferable to MAD. We are allowing him to terrorize the world. I understand not wanting to go into Russia proper and attack them, but no one is seriously suggesting that, the only suggestions are to possibly attack Russia while they are invading Ukraine.
I also don't understand the arguments of "lets cripple them economically and wait for them to collapse" as an argument that we can't attack, or at a minimum defend Ukraine. Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically. Like it's some kind of "gotcha" technicality that we can sanction them to hell and back and arguable do more damage to the country than a few fighters that aren't even in Russia's territory, and Russia somehow can't retaliate against anyone because of a technicality, even though they are openly committing war crimes. He's using all the conventions that outlaw war crimes as a god damn check list, but we are all banking on the fact that we can ruin their economy with no repercussions because he technically can't attack us since it wasn't a direct attack, even though this entire situation is because he directly attacked a sovereign country completely unprovoked.
I sure hope the powers that be are playing some 4d chess and making moves that are beyond my comprehension to bring about the best possible solution with the lowest amount of casualties, because it sure is frustrating to watch this shit go down in real time and feel so helpless.
Yes, Prime Minister covered this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
-
Putin and Russia are fucked. But that just brings me back to my original post. Sanctioning them to bajeesus and back so that they are isolated and a pariah, and they are absolutely crushed economically is somehow not an act of aggression that will escalate (despite Russia claiming it is), but putting planes into Ukrainian airspace is somehow an act of aggression that no one will commit for fear of WW3, even though that's just a rule Russia has made up and no agrees with. I don't understand why one is acceptable and the other isn't, especially when the severity of the actions seems so far apart. Putting jets into Ukraine's airspace would be bad for Russia, but not nearly as bad as wrecking their entire economy, but the world has no fear from imposing the latter, but is absolutely terrified of the former.
Like I said, it seems to be some kind of "gotcha" technicality, but Russia isn't following any kind of convention or playing by any of the rules anyway. They are playing by their own rules they made up, and everyone is just allowing it.
It's like the jock is bullying kids, and no one dares punch him in the face while he's on top of the nerd and pummeling them for fear of him detonating nukes, but they will go steal all of his money and ban him from doing business without fear of repercussion, even though the latter is far more aggressive and should be interpreted as a much greater threat than simply getting punched in the face IMO.
-
This hour-long lecture about Russia by a Finnish intelligence colonel was really helpful to me, and IMO worth the watch (subtitles available): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw&t=1903s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw&t=1903s)
That was an excellent lecture.
-
Putin would just have to withdraw. There is no such thing as a World War III anymore.. nuclear bombs put an end to world wars.. there's no way he'd use one..
There is very much such a thing as World War III. All thousands of nuclear bombs in missile silos and submarines and circling bombers across the globe ensures is that there is no such thing as World War IV.
May I suggest Level 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_7_(novel)) as good reading?
Or if TV is more your style: Threads (https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/threads) (British) or The Day After (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/) (Set in the USA).
This is the stuff our parents' generations knew by heart. I grew up 30 year interval where it was possible to pretend the threat of nuclear annihilation wasn't real. Maybe you did too. But the reality and consequences of nuclear war haven't changed. We just didn't have to think about it as much as previous generations did. Until now.
Oh my, I must be old. I grew up in Nebraska and was 9 when The Day After came out. I had a palpable fear of the USSR and nuclear holocaust for years thereafter.
I grew up in DC and lived about 3.5 miles from the White House. After the Day After (when I was about 12?) I realized it was probably lucky we lived in the immediate blast zone and wouldn't have to die slow lingering deaths from radiation poisoning. Not a time of my life I'm enjoying revisiting...
-
In my mind, I've drawn a parallel to a schoolyard fight where a jock is beating up a nerd. The other kids feel sorry for the nerd, they might offer Band Aids, they might help him to his feet when he goes down, they might even buy him elbow pads and a helmet to mitigate the damage a tiny bit, but what they WON'T do is...actually make the bully stop beating up the nerd. It just keeps happening and happening and happening.
But it's worse than that. The other kids are armed to the teeth and would thug beat the bully in a second if only the nerd was in the right gang.
-
I'm not calling for nuclear war. I am saying I don't believe Putin would use a bomb. I think he'd retreat.
And nobody would blow themselves up just to take a hand full of unbelievers with them.
Putin plays the long game too. Putin knows that the goal of the firm is to make money. Let's say he takes Ukraine. It won't be long after that he dangles some offer that the West cannot deny. He will make a minor concession and the West will use it as an excuse to trade with him again. He knows this. For example, he could participate in this "Council of Europe" in a few months. All the news reporters would then be saying he is turning a "new leaf." Tucker Carlson would rant that the world is mistreating Putin. Other reporters would say that Ukraine has always been a part of Russia. They would, in fact, parrot his lines.
I think this time he has done too much.
But if none of those atrocities call for brining the nukes out, then literally nothing does. There is no scenario where global extinction is preferable to anything, no matter how horrendous it is. Ukraine can fall, a NATO country can fall, an ethnic group can be completely cleansed.
The important difference here is that Putin cannot win a non-nuclear war against NATO.
In Ukraine he attacked to get a fast victory, fulfill hid dream and use the victory and the sanctions as propaganda to secure power for the rest fo this life.
If he attack NATO, it's a decision between a heavy loss or mutual destruction.
-
I had to look when "The Day After" came out. It was 1983.
Then I think back to what I remember hearing as a kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I
Change the lyrics just a bit and it is still valid today.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
-
Now that is interesting:
Even Russian State TV Is Pleading With Putin to Stop the War
"State propagandists called for Putin to end the “special military operation” before “frightening” sanctions destabilize his regime and risk civil war in Russia."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-russias-state-tv-admits-ukraine-disaster-has-putin-in-trouble?ref=home
-
This is what is going on in the Ukrainian countryside.
Western anti-armor weaponry has surely arrived and is being put to use.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1501967817247281158
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
I was listening to an NPR interview on Sunday, where some congresscritter was explaining this, and I apologize for mangling the interpretation, but what he said was basically that the US won't impose a no-fly zone unless we can keep our pilots safe (-ish, I guess). Which means taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations on the Ukranian/Russian border, but INSIDE Russia. Which means dropping actual explosives inside Russia. Which ... I think we can see where this is going no?
-
The "red line" of attacking a NATO country seems so arbitrary to me. The reasoning no one can step in and directly help is because NATO is not an offensive treaty, and god forbid anyone attack russia because OMG NUKES WW3! but the ultimate extension of that logic is that it's never appropriate to attack Russia. If allowing Russia to genocide a country is preferable to potentially invoking WW3 because everyone is scared shitless, then why doesn't it also apply when he attacks a NATO country? I know NATO is supposed to defend all members, but if he attacks Poland what is the better scenario: We allow Poland to be attacked, or we fight back and risk WW3? If WW3 is so terrible I don't see how the calculus changes when the genocide moves from Ukraine and goes 1 inch into NATO territory; if losing Ukraine is preferable to MAD, then surely losing Poland is also preferable to MAD. We are allowing him to terrorize the world. I understand not wanting to go into Russia proper and attack them, but no one is seriously suggesting that, the only suggestions are to possibly attack Russia while they are invading Ukraine.
I agree it is arbitrary but it boils down to drawing a red line in advance rather than after the fact. That's how mutually assured destruction works:
You draw some line in the sand, say "if you cross this we both die" and then (hopefully) they don't cross it and we all live to see tomorrow.
Saying "you crossed the invisible line I didn't tell you about in advance already, so now we shall both die" defeats the ultimate goal A) not dying B) still putting some constraints on your nuclear armed opponent's actions instead of letting them do whatever the hell they want for fear of WW III.
It's also why it is so important that Biden is putting US soldiers into Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. It's not that a few hundred or a few thousand soldiers would be able to stop Russian invasions of any of those countires, but because it makes the red line more credible. The USA might or might not be willing to go to war to defend a country many of us cannot find on a map. And even if we are willing to go to war, a Russian military planner could talk themself into the fact that that we wouldn't (the same "they'll have no choice but to back down" we've heard about Russia over and over in this thread).
But no one in Russia is going to believe that Russian soldiers can directly kill US soldiers and the USA will still back down. An invasion of any of those four countries would necessarily involve killing the US soldiers stationed there. As a result it is harder for Russia to talk themselves into believing the red line is not really a red line, and as a result of the line being more credible it is less likely the Russians will cross it in the first place.
-
The "red line" of attacking a NATO country seems so arbitrary to me. The reasoning no one can step in and directly help is because NATO is not an offensive treaty, and god forbid anyone attack russia because OMG NUKES WW3! but the ultimate extension of that logic is that it's never appropriate to attack Russia. If allowing Russia to genocide a country is preferable to potentially invoking WW3 because everyone is scared shitless, then why doesn't it also apply when he attacks a NATO country? I know NATO is supposed to defend all members, but if he attacks Poland what is the better scenario: We allow Poland to be attacked, or we fight back and risk WW3? If WW3 is so terrible I don't see how the calculus changes when the genocide moves from Ukraine and goes 1 inch into NATO territory; if losing Ukraine is preferable to MAD, then surely losing Poland is also preferable to MAD. We are allowing him to terrorize the world. I understand not wanting to go into Russia proper and attack them, but no one is seriously suggesting that, the only suggestions are to possibly attack Russia while they are invading Ukraine.
I agree it is arbitrary but it boils down to drawing a red line in advance rather than after the fact. That's how mutually assured destruction works:
You draw some line in the sand, say "if you cross this we both die" and then (hopefully) they don't cross it and we all live to see tomorrow.
Saying "you crossed the invisible line I didn't tell you about in advance already, so now we shall both die" defeats the ultimate goal A) not dying B) still putting some constraints on your nuclear armed opponent's actions instead of letting them do whatever the hell they want for fear of WW III.
It's also why it is so important that Biden is putting US soldiers into Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. It's not that a few hundred or a few thousand soldiers would be able to stop Russian invasions of any of those countires, but because it makes the red line more credible. The USA might or might not be willing to go to war to defend a country many of us cannot find on a map. And even if we are willing to go to war, a Russian military planner could talk themself into the fact that that we wouldn't (the same "they'll have no choice but to back down" we've heard about Russia over and over in this thread).
But no one in Russia is going to believe that Russian soldiers can directly kill US soldiers and the USA will still back down. An invasion of any of those four countries would necessarily involve killing the US soldiers stationed there. As a result it is harder for Russia to talk themselves into believing the red line is not really a red line, and as a result of the line being more credible it is less likely the Russians will cross it in the first place.
Well put. I started to write something similar but couldn't quite find the words and deleted my post.
-
I have to wonder if there's a whole lot of projection going on from the
Russian Putin side. We, as westerners, have zero interest in invading Russia, so we think it's weird that Russians want to invade their neighbors. However, Putin is obviously *very* interested in invading his neighbors, so perhaps his instinct is to believe that the West wants to invade Russia in turn? Or, put another way, since Putin clearly has imperial ambitions, and wants to conquer other countries, he assumes other countries have the same ambitions?
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
Agreed. I'm trying to think of a time when appeasement worked. I suppose you could point at North/South Korea, since they've been fairly peaceful for about 70 years, despite ceding the northern half of the country. Certainly it hasn't worked, historically, in Europe.
There is a huge capability gap between Russia and everyone else, in terms of incremental responses. Everyone else has everything from economic sanctions, to supplying arms to Ukraine, to supplying money to Ukraine, to all sorts of direct, conventional warfare, all the way up to nuclear strikes. And all of that is backed by economies that are functioning just fine, albeit with higher fuel costs. In other words, we have a whole spectrum of increasingly-painful ways to respond to Russia's aggression without actually putting our own people in harm's way.
What leverage does Russia have? They have a military, and could ratchet up the war crimes until we say "enough" or they have destroyed the entire country. They could cut off natural gas supplies to Europe (but that might harm them more than it would harm Europe, and would devastate them in the long run as Europe transitions off of Russian oil). They have chemical weapons, and they have nukes. And Putin apparently has few inhibitions against sacrificing the lives of his subjects. With few levers at hand, he's using what he can, which at this point means mass destruction and incrementally-worse war crimes.
What if we flipped the script, and forced him to deal with the same sort of incrementalism the Russians are displaying?
We're supplying infantry weapons currently, and presumably (hopefully!) a lot of intel, and thus far, Putin hasn't responded with either of his last two cards--nukes or chemical weapons. The international sanctions have devalued the Ruble tremendously, and frozen much of Russia's assets, and while they have vocally complained, it hasn't crossed their red line (if there is one). What if we started to supply, say, fuel? Fuel trucks? Anti tank barricades? Radar systems? An MLRS or dozen? Personnel to train the UA on the MLRS? The MiG-29's from Poland? Some light artillery? Heavier artillery? What if we start flying unmanned, unarmed drones around Ukraine, with the Ukrainian government's permission, as "observers"? Which of those is a step too far for the Russians to tolerate?
-
I have to wonder if there's a whole lot of projection going on from the Russian Putin side. We, as westerners, have zero interest in invading Russia, so we think it's weird that Russians want to invade their neighbors. However, Putin is obviously *very* interested in invading his neighbors, so perhaps his instinct is to believe that the West wants to invade Russia in turn?
Western European powers have invaded Russia three times in last two centuries, and the NATO members don't exactly have the most stellar reputation when it comes to invading others countries and toppling foreign governments.
-
I have to wonder if there's a whole lot of projection going on from the Russian Putin side. We, as westerners, have zero interest in invading Russia, so we think it's weird that Russians want to invade their neighbors. However, Putin is obviously *very* interested in invading his neighbors, so perhaps his instinct is to believe that the West wants to invade Russia in turn? Or, put another way, since Putin clearly has imperial ambitions, and wants to conquer other countries, he assumes other countries have the same ambitions?
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
Agreed. I'm trying to think of a time when appeasement worked. I suppose you could point at North/South Korea, since they've been fairly peaceful for about 70 years, despite ceding the northern half of the country. Certainly it hasn't worked, historically, in Europe.
There is a huge capability gap between Russia and everyone else, in terms of incremental responses. Everyone else has everything from economic sanctions, to supplying arms to Ukraine, to supplying money to Ukraine, to all sorts of direct, conventional warfare, all the way up to nuclear strikes. And all of that is backed by economies that are functioning just fine, albeit with higher fuel costs. In other words, we have a whole spectrum of increasingly-painful ways to respond to Russia's aggression without actually putting our own people in harm's way.
What leverage does Russia have? They have a military, and could ratchet up the war crimes until we say "enough" or they have destroyed the entire country. They could cut off natural gas supplies to Europe (but that might harm them more than it would harm Europe, and would devastate them in the long run as Europe transitions off of Russian oil). They have chemical weapons, and they have nukes. And Putin apparently has few inhibitions against sacrificing the lives of his subjects. With few levers at hand, he's using what he can, which at this point means mass destruction and incrementally-worse war crimes.
What if we flipped the script, and forced him to deal with the same sort of incrementalism the Russians are displaying?
We're supplying infantry weapons currently, and presumably (hopefully!) a lot of intel, and thus far, Putin hasn't responded with either of his last two cards--nukes or chemical weapons. The international sanctions have devalued the Ruble tremendously, and frozen much of Russia's assets, and while they have vocally complained, it hasn't crossed their red line (if there is one). What if we started to supply, say, fuel? Fuel trucks? Anti tank barricades? Radar systems? An MLRS or dozen? Personnel to train the UA on the MLRS? The MiG-29's from Poland? Some light artillery? Heavier artillery? What if we start flying unmanned, unarmed drones around Ukraine, with the Ukrainian government's permission, as "observers"? Which of those is a step too far for the Russians to tolerate?
The US military firing on Russian soldiers would do it. Shooting down Russian planes. Destroying Russian armour and air defense. Any direct conflict between the US and Russia.
-
_ SNIP-
What if we flipped the script, and forced him to deal with the same sort of incrementalism the Russians are displaying?
We're supplying infantry weapons currently, and presumably (hopefully!) a lot of intel, and thus far, Putin hasn't responded with either of his last two cards--nukes or chemical weapons. The international sanctions have devalued the Ruble tremendously, and frozen much of Russia's assets, and while they have vocally complained, it hasn't crossed their red line (if there is one). What if we started to supply, say, fuel? Fuel trucks? Anti tank barricades? Radar systems? An MLRS or dozen? Personnel to train the UA on the MLRS? The MiG-29's from Poland? Some light artillery? Heavier artillery? What if we start flying unmanned, unarmed drones around Ukraine, with the Ukrainian government's permission, as "observers"? Which of those is a step too far for the Russians to tolerate?
At least the MiG-29's from Poland.
The US is not the only folks supplying them stuff. The US is not the only country that builds sophisticated military hardware For example, the Ukrainians have been getting drones from Turkey. I never considered Turkey as manufacturing such stuff. Maybe, it's time for the entire world to begin doing as you suggested. This would be a great test site for the powers of the world to find out how the weapons work in an actual war.
Putin can only take the entire world on if he uses nukes. Hopefully, someone will slap his hand as he reaches for the big red button.
-
The US military firing on Russian soldiers would do it. Shooting down Russian planes. Destroying Russian armour and air defense. Any direct conflict between the US and Russia.
That's an untested hypothesis. In particular there is historic president in the Korean war for one side to covertly provide planes and pilots without starting a nuclear war or WWIII.
-
_ SNIP-
What if we flipped the script, and forced him to deal with the same sort of incrementalism the Russians are displaying?
We're supplying infantry weapons currently, and presumably (hopefully!) a lot of intel, and thus far, Putin hasn't responded with either of his last two cards--nukes or chemical weapons. The international sanctions have devalued the Ruble tremendously, and frozen much of Russia's assets, and while they have vocally complained, it hasn't crossed their red line (if there is one). What if we started to supply, say, fuel? Fuel trucks? Anti tank barricades? Radar systems? An MLRS or dozen? Personnel to train the UA on the MLRS? The MiG-29's from Poland? Some light artillery? Heavier artillery? What if we start flying unmanned, unarmed drones around Ukraine, with the Ukrainian government's permission, as "observers"? Which of those is a step too far for the Russians to tolerate?
At least the MiG-29's from Poland.
But why would planes be a red line, while drones are not? From what I've seen, all the "MiG-29's will incite the Russians to nuke!" concerns have been pure speculation, with little rational basis. I mean, do you seriously think Putin would consider the Polish blameless if they sent the planes to Rammstein and the US then passed them on to Ukraine?
-
The US military firing on Russian soldiers would do it. Shooting down Russian planes. Destroying Russian armour and air defense. Any direct conflict between the US and Russia.
That's an untested hypothesis. In particular there is historic president in the Korean war for one side to covertly provide planes and pilots without starting a nuclear war or WWIII.
I think you need to put emphasis on the word "covertly" as in "deniably".
I don't understand where all these rules came from, but they're there. Or, at least they're there until they aren't.
-
The US military firing on Russian soldiers would do it. Shooting down Russian planes. Destroying Russian armour and air defense. Any direct conflict between the US and Russia.
That's an untested hypothesis. In particular there is historic president in the Korean war for one side to covertly provide planes and pilots without starting a nuclear war or WWIII.
I think you need to put emphasis on the word "covertly" as in "deniably".
We knew about it, they knew about it, everyone pretended it wasn't happening (the pilots, the planes were out in the open).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War
-
The US military firing on Russian soldiers would do it. Shooting down Russian planes. Destroying Russian armour and air defense. Any direct conflict between the US and Russia.
That's an untested hypothesis. In particular there is historic president in the Korean war for one side to covertly provide planes and pilots without starting a nuclear war or WWIII.
I think you need to put emphasis on the word "covertly" as in "deniably".
We knew about it, they knew about it, everyone pretended it wasn't happening (the pilots, the planes were out in the open).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War
The public didn't know back then, and these days it's damn near impossible to hide anything.
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
I was listening to an NPR interview on Sunday, where some congresscritter was explaining this, and I apologize for mangling the interpretation, but what he said was basically that the US won't impose a no-fly zone unless we can keep our pilots safe (-ish, I guess). Which means taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations on the Ukranian/Russian border, but INSIDE Russia. Which means dropping actual explosives inside Russia. Which ... I think we can see where this is going no?
This is what I've been trying to tell people for days now. It will be impossible to keep any air activities on our part limited to the borders of Ukraine. Our pilots would be flying with a loaded gun pointed at them the entire patrol, and if just one of our pilots was shot down because we didn't pre-emptively go after that SAM site the moment it locked on, the headlines would read "Biden threatening WW3 by upping the ante and getting our pilots killed with weak Rules Of Engagement." We've put the hammer down on Putin so much lately that he has no incentive not to take a shot at us and try to call our bluff. The Russian people are already brainwashed to believe his NATO aggression/Ukrainian Nazis/Bio weapon labs/Ukrainians shelling themselves bullshit. Putting us in the position to actually bomb their territory ourselves would just confirm everything their media is saying.
Believe me, I hate that we're dancing around these issues in order to avoid getting our own hands bloody. The weapons, supplies, and intel we've given Ukraine has helped them make a global embarrassment of one of the world's largest militaries. Given enough support and time there is the possibility they could even defeat Russia in the field by themselves; however, countless thousands of Ukrainian noncombatants will die first. Our national policy is written such that its better to start WW3 over a single NATO citizen's death than 1 million of a non-NATO friend. If there was ever a war to get into of our own volition outside of treaty obligations, this feels like the one.
-
]But why would planes be a red line, while drones are not? From what I've seen, all the "MiG-29's will incite the Russians to nuke!" concerns have been pure speculation, with little rational basis. I mean, do you seriously think Putin would consider the Polish blameless if they sent the planes to Rammstein and the US then passed them on to Ukraine?
Maybe you misunderstood - I was agreeing with you about the planes. One concern I heard was that if they flew the planes in that it would be an act of war. So, smuggle some Ukraine pilots out and have them fly them in I also heard they were specially equipped for NATO. So, un-special equip them.
It has been said that the last good war was World War 2. I guess they mean that the fight was practically good vs evil. There was Hitler and the Japanese who subjugated and tortured the Poles, Jewish people and the Chinese. Many have pointed out the resemblance of this war to aspects of that war. I've seen comparisons to the Winter War of 1939. They didn't help the fight against Stalin in 1939. The world can help with this one.
-
How many people will be left in Ukraine if this continues on? More will flee, lots will be killed and eventually a lot will die of starvation as supplies are cut off. Once the major cities are emptied out and leveled, Russia won't have a lot of trouble with the rest of the country. It could simply end up being a war of attrition. Then, it's easy enough to offer the country to it's own people. As the saying goes, possession is 9/10th of the law.
-
How many people will be left in Ukraine if this continues on? More will flee, lots will be killed and eventually a lot will die of starvation as supplies are cut off. Once the major cities are emptied out and leveled, Russia won't have a lot of trouble with the rest of the country. It could simply end up being a war of attrition. Then, it's easy enough to offer the country to it's own people. As the saying goes, possession is 9/10th of the law.
A war of attrition may appear to be in Russia's favour when you just look at the number of troops and equipment that each side possesses, but I think that's deceptive. Russian people have their limits too, and they may not tolerate several hundred thousand of their young men dying for some "military action" they didn't want and didn't even know about. On the other hand, Ukrainian forces are growing stronger in time. They have mobilized their entire reserve which takes time, as the members have to receive additional training. Their reserve force greatly outnumbers Russia's allotment of troops that they committed to this attack. There's a limit to how many more they can commit as they still have the whole rest of the country to defend.
On the topic of unilaterally engaging Russia without the backing of NATO: That is an action that may eventually lead to the disbanding of NATO. One of the negative aspects of being a NATO member, especially one of the stronger ones, is that it ties the member's hands. If one of the members is attacked, the other members have to come to its defence. That's what they agreed to. This is one reason why becoming a member of NATO is somewhat difficult and they don't just let anyone in. The country needs to be fairly stable. If you have a member that goes around provoking aggressive nations and starts putting itself in harms way to defend non-members, then suddenly the other members are not going to want to have much to do with them. Eventually, the whole alliance could fall apart.
-
Regarding questions from earlier around Taiwan and Ukraine and the end outcome of this all. I think it is more likely than not that this invasion of Ukraine is scaring China away from trying to militarily conquer Taiwan anytime soon. Uniting the global community against you becomes a very isolating place to be, regardless of how big your economy is - not to mention the fact that once you show your face as an aggressor, no one will trust your word or intentions again.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine are proving that it is awfully hard to conquer countries that don't want to be conquered in this day and age. Especially when other super powers are committed to supporting the conflict behind the scene and stirring up the pot every chance they get.
I know what we are seeing and hearing coming out of Ukraine is awful, but caution must be used in these situations. Getting it wrong by one degree a single time can take a refugee situation of several million and turn it into a global war that involves the loss of billions of lives over the course of a couple hours. I am grateful that our leaders are showing an abundance of caution and not trading New York City for Kyiv.
Also keep in mind that this is a political and information war on a global scale as well as a hot war on the ground in Ukraine. It is important not to provide Putin with any sort of political wins at home - such as attacking Russian solders or providing a situation where this turns into a defensive war for Russia against the west. Right now Putin has to jump through hoops to try and explain why so many soldiers are dying in what was supposed to be a special military operation with the Ukrainian people welcoming the Russians as liberators. The longer body bags are returning to Russia, the more Russian family members and communities will be questioning why a liberation required so much sacrifice on their part. I know it is the most obnoxious approach to have to take, but this is a problem that Putin will eventually have to deal with. We would be idiots to galvanize public support behind Putin defending Russia at this point.
-
How many people will be left in Ukraine if this continues on? More will flee, lots will be killed and eventually a lot will die of starvation as supplies are cut off. Once the major cities are emptied out and leveled, Russia won't have a lot of trouble with the rest of the country. It could simply end up being a war of attrition. Then, it's easy enough to offer the country to it's own people. As the saying goes, possession is 9/10th of the law.
Nah, I don't see Russia winning a war of attrition. Ukraine, with all their reservists, actually outnumber the Russian forces committed to this war. Russia is limited in how much it can draw forces from other parts of the country--there are plenty of wolves (perceived or real) around other borders. Given the support Ukraine has received from the rest of Europe so far, I don't think they're too worried about the security of their western and southwestern borders. Western nations are all too happy to supply them with all the weapons the could want, as long as Ukraine can supply the manpower to employ them.
-
How many people will be left in Ukraine if this continues on? More will flee, lots will be killed and eventually a lot will die of starvation as supplies are cut off. Once the major cities are emptied out and leveled, Russia won't have a lot of trouble with the rest of the country. It could simply end up being a war of attrition. Then, it's easy enough to offer the country to it's own people. As the saying goes, possession is 9/10th of the law.
Nah, I don't see Russia winning a war of attrition. Ukraine, with all their reservists, actually outnumber the Russian forces committed to this war. Russia is limited in how much it can draw forces from other parts of the country--there are plenty of wolves (perceived or real) around other borders. Given the support Ukraine has received from the rest of Europe so far, I don't think they're too worried about the security of their western and southwestern borders. Western nations are all too happy to supply them with all the weapons the could want, as long as Ukraine can supply the manpower to employ them.
There’s a risk orban attempting taking Zakarpattia.
-
I think Putin’s scorched-earth policy shows they had no real plan other than marching into Kyiv and taking over on day 2. The Russians were absolutely not ready for a sad lasting more than 48 hours. Now time is on Ukraine’s side, as nato funnels weapons for the guerrilla tactics needed to grind Russian heavy weapons into the ground. I still think a stalemate where Ukraine loses a large amount of territory will happen, but they will at least make Putin think twice about any more shenanigans. They may even get the territory back in a few years if Putin is toppled by this craziness.
-
I also wonder when does one country (Russia) view others as 'declaring war' against them? I mean, I read about the Polish idea with the fighter planes. If (and I realize we probably won't) the US assisted in moving fighter planes to Urkaine how the hell is that any different, in Putin's view, than the US deploying our direct resources? Honestly I don't see how he doesn't view the other European countries providing missiles, 'defensive' or otherwise, to be an act of war. I don't pretend to understand any of this.
Suppose the US decides to sell a bunch of modern jets cheap to the Polish, but somehow the Polish get REALLY careless about security of the old planes? And somehow a bunch of rogue Ukrainian pilots manage to steal them?
I know, this is getting into fantasy territory, but why should Putin be the only one allowed to play in this farce? He makes up a fake reason to invade Ukraine, NATO countries pretend they're not involved. He rages that Poland gave jet fighters to Ukraine, Poland promises that whoever was responsible for the lax security will surely be fired.
-
<3 Javelin Anti-Tank :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYiAopYInQM
and the stinger..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnuHo8_EQQI
-
I also wonder when does one country (Russia) view others as 'declaring war' against them? I mean, I read about the Polish idea with the fighter planes. If (and I realize we probably won't) the US assisted in moving fighter planes to Urkaine how the hell is that any different, in Putin's view, than the US deploying our direct resources? Honestly I don't see how he doesn't view the other European countries providing missiles, 'defensive' or otherwise, to be an act of war. I don't pretend to understand any of this.
Suppose the US decides to sell a bunch of modern jets cheap to the Polish, but somehow the Polish get REALLY careless about security of the old planes? And somehow a bunch of rogue Ukrainian pilots manage to steal them?
I know, this is getting into fantasy territory, but why should Putin be the only one allowed to play in this farce? He makes up a fake reason to invade Ukraine, NATO countries pretend they're not involved. He rages that Poland gave jet fighters to Ukraine, Poland promises that whoever was responsible for the lax security will surely be fired.
Yeah. I mean the Ukraine pilots now know where the fighter are, and since there was a transfer offered, they surely are flight-ready, right?
Imagine a bunch of pilots running in their and forcing the few guards with drawn weapons to surrender. Then they take the planes.
Damn Nazis stealing weapons from their neighbors!!
That's exactly how Putin would have done it.
-
I have to wonder if there's a whole lot of projection going on from the Russian Putin side. We, as westerners, have zero interest in invading Russia, so we think it's weird that Russians want to invade their neighbors. However, Putin is obviously *very* interested in invading his neighbors, so perhaps his instinct is to believe that the West wants to invade Russia in turn?
Western European powers have invaded Russia three times in last two centuries, and the NATO members don't exactly have the most stellar reputation when it comes to invading others countries and toppling foreign governments.
Let's make it three centuries and you can count Sweden to... the battle of Poltava ended the days when Sweden was a major force in Europe even if it took a hundred years until we lost all overseas possessions.
For @zolotiyeruki - may I recommend watching that Finnish lecture that was posted earlier. It was actually enlightening and made by a guy who seem to know his stuff. It explains part of the invasion fear.
This hour-long lecture about Russia by a Finnish intelligence colonel was really helpful to me, and IMO worth the watch (subtitles available): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw&t=1903s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw&t=1903s)
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
I was listening to an NPR interview on Sunday, where some congresscritter was explaining this, and I apologize for mangling the interpretation, but what he said was basically that the US won't impose a no-fly zone unless we can keep our pilots safe (-ish, I guess). Which means taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations on the Ukranian/Russian border, but INSIDE Russia. Which means dropping actual explosives inside Russia. Which ... I think we can see where this is going no?
This is what I've been trying to tell people for days now. It will be impossible to keep any air activities on our part limited to the borders of Ukraine. Our pilots would be flying with a loaded gun pointed at them the entire patrol, and if just one of our pilots was shot down because we didn't pre-emptively go after that SAM site the moment it locked on, the headlines would read "Biden threatening WW3 by upping the ante and getting our pilots killed with weak Rules Of Engagement." We've put the hammer down on Putin so much lately that he has no incentive not to take a shot at us and try to call our bluff. The Russian people are already brainwashed to believe his NATO aggression/Ukrainian Nazis/Bio weapon labs/Ukrainians shelling themselves bullshit. Putting us in the position to actually bomb their territory ourselves would just confirm everything their media is saying.
Believe me, I hate that we're dancing around these issues in order to avoid getting our own hands bloody. The weapons, supplies, and intel we've given Ukraine has helped them make a global embarrassment of one of the world's largest militaries. Given enough support and time there is the possibility they could even defeat Russia in the field by themselves; however, countless thousands of Ukrainian noncombatants will die first. Our national policy is written such that its better to start WW3 over a single NATO citizen's death than 1 million of a non-NATO friend. If there was ever a war to get into of our own volition outside of treaty obligations, this feels like the one.
Not sure I buy these arguments.
If the concern is that flying close to the border of Ukraine will open up planes to Russian anti-air from Russia, just set a no fly buffer zone of a certain distance at the border. And then blow the shit out of anything that crosses over from safely on the Ukrainian side. If Russia doesn't like having their aircraft blown up while invading another country, maybe they'll realize that they shouldn't invade another country.
The Russian people are now in a bubble. The only 'truth' they get is what Putin tells them. So because no truth exists in Russia, it seems silly to worry about how the Russian people will react to what's really going on. They're never going to get the real story anyway . . . so let's stop worrying about how we're perceived through that curtain of lies.
-
The Operational and Legal Risks of a No-Fly Zone Over Ukrainian Skies
"I approach this question from both an operational and a legal perspective. Twenty years ago, I served as a tactical jet aviator with the U.S. Navy, playing a small role in helping to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. From personal experience, I can attest that no-fly zones are not benign air patrols. Even in instances where the U.S. enjoys immediate air superiority over the skies, we should anticipate that U.S. and NATO planes will be fired upon. In what follows, I address a host of questions that should be answered and understood well before this is viewed as a remotely credible policy option."
...
"The international response to date has been encouraging. The United States and its allies and partners should allow some time for the punishing economic sanctions to take effect while supplying the brave Ukrainians with the weapons and resources they need to continue their heroic fight. But unless conditions in Ukraine fundamentally change, U.S. and allied policymakers should remove any discussion of a Ukraine no-fly zone from the table as a credible policy option."
https://www.justsecurity.org/80641/the-operational-and-legal-risks-of-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukrainian-skies/
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
I was listening to an NPR interview on Sunday, where some congresscritter was explaining this, and I apologize for mangling the interpretation, but what he said was basically that the US won't impose a no-fly zone unless we can keep our pilots safe (-ish, I guess). Which means taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations on the Ukranian/Russian border, but INSIDE Russia. Which means dropping actual explosives inside Russia. Which ... I think we can see where this is going no?
This is what I've been trying to tell people for days now. It will be impossible to keep any air activities on our part limited to the borders of Ukraine. Our pilots would be flying with a loaded gun pointed at them the entire patrol, and if just one of our pilots was shot down because we didn't pre-emptively go after that SAM site the moment it locked on, the headlines would read "Biden threatening WW3 by upping the ante and getting our pilots killed with weak Rules Of Engagement." We've put the hammer down on Putin so much lately that he has no incentive not to take a shot at us and try to call our bluff. The Russian people are already brainwashed to believe his NATO aggression/Ukrainian Nazis/Bio weapon labs/Ukrainians shelling themselves bullshit. Putting us in the position to actually bomb their territory ourselves would just confirm everything their media is saying.
Believe me, I hate that we're dancing around these issues in order to avoid getting our own hands bloody. The weapons, supplies, and intel we've given Ukraine has helped them make a global embarrassment of one of the world's largest militaries. Given enough support and time there is the possibility they could even defeat Russia in the field by themselves; however, countless thousands of Ukrainian noncombatants will die first. Our national policy is written such that its better to start WW3 over a single NATO citizen's death than 1 million of a non-NATO friend. If there was ever a war to get into of our own volition outside of treaty obligations, this feels like the one.
Not sure I buy these arguments.
If the concern is that flying close to the border of Ukraine will open up planes to Russian anti-air from Russia, just set a no fly buffer zone of a certain distance at the border. And then blow the shit out of anything that crosses over from safely on the Ukrainian side. If Russia doesn't like having their aircraft blown up while invading another country, maybe they'll realize that they shouldn't invade another country.
The Russian people are now in a bubble. The only 'truth' they get is what Putin tells them. So because no truth exists in Russia, it seems silly to worry about how the Russian people will react to what's really going on. They're never going to get the real story anyway . . . so let's stop worrying about how we're perceived through that curtain of lies.
A no-fly zone covering only part of Ukraine would effectively cede part of Ukraine to Russia, which is something that couldn't be done without Ukrainian agreement - which is not going to come. And why should it?
-
Finally had drinks with my friend originally from Russia. She looks like she doesn't know whether to laugh, or cry. She has family in Russia, and knows people in Ukraine, including 2 households in kyiv. Her nationalist family members believe that Russia is: fighting neo Nazis. (Ukraine is) bombing themselves. That Russia is "saving" Ukraine from itself. But also that it is all US and Nato fault. When I say, why Ukraine be fighting- Ukraine? Why if neo Nazis controlled the country, they elected a Jewish man for president? She says what are they supposed to believe, there IS no other viewpoint.State news runs 24/7. And the 25% who don't believe, are not going to fight Putin. If they have the means and money to escape they are doing so. She says that anyone with education, western ties, money, are leaving. And I said, what next? And she said, Russia will become North Korea.
-
Finally had drinks with my friend originally from Russia. She looks like she doesn't know whether to laugh, or cry. She has family in Russia, and knows people in Ukraine, including 2 households in kyiv. Her nationalist family members believe that Russia is: fighting neo Nazis. Bombing themselves. That Russia is "saving" Ukraine from itself. But also that it is all US and Nato fault. When I say, why Ukraine be fighting- Ukraine? Why if neo Nazis controlled the country, they elected a Jewish man for president? She says what are they supposed to believe, there IS no other viewpoint.State news runs 24/7. And the 25% who don't believe, are not going to fight Putin. If they have the means and money to escape they are doing so. She says that anyone with education, western ties, money, are leaving. And I said, what next? And she said, Russia beecomes another North Korea.
Sounds like she needed that drink and time with her friend.
-
Finally had drinks with my friend originally from Russia. She looks like she doesn't know whether to laugh, or cry. She has family in Russia, and knows people in Ukraine, including 2 households in kyiv. Her nationalist family members believe that Russia is: fighting neo Nazis. Bombing themselves. That Russia is "saving" Ukraine from itself. But also that it is all US and Nato fault. When I say, why Ukraine be fighting- Ukraine? Why if neo Nazis controlled the country, they elected a Jewish man for president? She says what are they supposed to believe, there IS no other viewpoint.State news runs 24/7. And the 25% who don't believe, are not going to fight Putin. If they have the means and money to escape they are doing so. She says that anyone with education, western ties, money, are leaving. And I said, what next? And she said, Russia beecomes another North Korea.
There's an estimate that the Russian economy would contract 15% this year because of sanctions.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/russias-gdp-fall-15-this-year-ukraine-linked-sanctions-iif-2022-03-10/
And sanctions are not the end of it, a lot of western companies are ending business with Russia because reputationally they can't be seen to be doing business with Russia any more. So that will have additional effects on the economy -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60571133
The cost of the war itself won't help either, with the loss of materiel and payment of compensation for the killed and wounded.
North Korea has a nominal GDP of $1,300 per capita. Russia's has been about $11,000. It'll take a while to get down to North Korea levels but the way down will be a shock.
-
Russian anti-aircraft missiles can reach 100 miles or more. If we established a no-fly zone, there is no scenario in which US/NATO planes do not kill Russian Soldiers on Day 1. None. Any other idea is a fantasy. We established no-fly zones over Iraq and the former Yugoslavia in the 90s and we shot down planes and blew up anti-aircraft sites on the ground. They were combat missions and people were killed.
Even the Polish planes are not that big of deal. Russia somehow failed to gain air superiority and has just been ceding it bit by bit every day the war goes on. Ukraine may not have many planes left, but they've got plenty of missiles and have shot down numerous Russian planes and helicopters. I've seen the pictures of the wreckage on the ground with the tail number matching planes Russian media is showing taking off. Russia can't sustain the loss of even one plane a day for long. These are not just older planes either, some are fairly modern. But they're vulnerable because they've run out of precision guided bombs and are dropping "dumb" bombs that are little different than what was done in WW2. In order to have any chance of hitting their targets they have to go in low which means they can (and do) get shot down.
Would the Polish planes help Ukraine? Yes, but it's not going to make any significant difference. In another week or two Russian planes will probably be to scared to fly inside Ukraine - especially as the Ukrainians keep capturing state-of-the-art Russian anti-aircraft systems. Nothing like watching a $25 million Russian system towed out of a field by a tractor because it ran out of gas (or was abandoned by demoralized troops).
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously.
(Apologies if I got that quote wrong and attributed to incorrect author)
I know very little about the nuances of NFZs, and a "Just war" (i.e., following principles), but am concerned about not being suckered into action that could spin out of control, [ETA: and giving Putin / Russians the target they want, US / NATO justification, letting Putin escape his culpability] and find this fellow's writing quite informative (short thread):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502115066786856979.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502115066786856979.html)
-
Russia says setting up a no-fly zone would be a declaration of war, but so fucking what? It's not Russia's airspace so I don't understand why anyone takes that demand seriously. It's straight up terrorism: I'm going to take Ukraine, and if any other country tries to come into THEIR airspace we will nuke them. What? It's fucking insane that anyone is tolerating that bullshit. And if the logic is that we must acquiesce to all of Russia's insane and illogical demands because we fear MAD, then I don't understand how it makes sense to cripple them economically.
I keep thinking this through in my head, and your logic does seem sound.
There's no reason at all to avoid defending Ukraine's airspace. It might escalate things with Russia . . . but that's entirely on Russia. They escalated things by invading a sovereign nation without cause. A policy of appeasement in the hopes of avoiding war has not historically worked out all that well when tried against an unreasonable aggressor in Europe.
I was listening to an NPR interview on Sunday, where some congresscritter was explaining this, and I apologize for mangling the interpretation, but what he said was basically that the US won't impose a no-fly zone unless we can keep our pilots safe (-ish, I guess). Which means taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations on the Ukranian/Russian border, but INSIDE Russia. Which means dropping actual explosives inside Russia. Which ... I think we can see where this is going no?
This is what I've been trying to tell people for days now. It will be impossible to keep any air activities on our part limited to the borders of Ukraine. Our pilots would be flying with a loaded gun pointed at them the entire patrol, and if just one of our pilots was shot down because we didn't pre-emptively go after that SAM site the moment it locked on, the headlines would read "Biden threatening WW3 by upping the ante and getting our pilots killed with weak Rules Of Engagement." We've put the hammer down on Putin so much lately that he has no incentive not to take a shot at us and try to call our bluff. The Russian people are already brainwashed to believe his NATO aggression/Ukrainian Nazis/Bio weapon labs/Ukrainians shelling themselves bullshit. Putting us in the position to actually bomb their territory ourselves would just confirm everything their media is saying.
Believe me, I hate that we're dancing around these issues in order to avoid getting our own hands bloody. The weapons, supplies, and intel we've given Ukraine has helped them make a global embarrassment of one of the world's largest militaries. Given enough support and time there is the possibility they could even defeat Russia in the field by themselves; however, countless thousands of Ukrainian noncombatants will die first. Our national policy is written such that its better to start WW3 over a single NATO citizen's death than 1 million of a non-NATO friend. If there was ever a war to get into of our own volition outside of treaty obligations, this feels like the one.
Not sure I buy these arguments.
If the concern is that flying close to the border of Ukraine will open up planes to Russian anti-air from Russia, just set a no fly buffer zone of a certain distance at the border. And then blow the shit out of anything that crosses over from safely on the Ukrainian side. If Russia doesn't like having their aircraft blown up while invading another country, maybe they'll realize that they shouldn't invade another country.
The Russian people are now in a bubble. The only 'truth' they get is what Putin tells them. So because no truth exists in Russia, it seems silly to worry about how the Russian people will react to what's really going on. They're never going to get the real story anyway . . . so let's stop worrying about how we're perceived through that curtain of lies.
A no-fly zone covering only part of Ukraine would effectively cede part of Ukraine to Russia, which is something that couldn't be done without Ukrainian agreement - which is not going to come. And why should it?
If a partial no-fly zone cedes part of Ukraine to Russia . . . what does the current policy of no no-fly zone at all do?
-
A no-fly zone covering only part of Ukraine would effectively cede part of Ukraine to Russia, which is something that couldn't be done without Ukrainian agreement - which is not going to come. And why should it?
If a partial no-fly zone cedes part of Ukraine to Russia . . . what does the current policy of no no-fly zone at all do?
Keep us from starting World War 3.
Russia's Air Force is not much of a factor at this point. They're out of precision guided bombs, they probably have a lot of aircraft down for maintenance, they're flying fewer and fewer sorties every day, and they're losing experienced pilots as they're getting shot down and captured or killed.
-
I still have this thought that this is the opportune time for some third party country to make trouble for Russia. I was thinking if the dictator of Belarus sends his army to Ukraine, the people left back home could maybe make some changes.
-
A no-fly zone covering only part of Ukraine would effectively cede part of Ukraine to Russia, which is something that couldn't be done without Ukrainian agreement - which is not going to come. And why should it?
If a partial no-fly zone cedes part of Ukraine to Russia . . . what does the current policy of no no-fly zone at all do?
Keep us from starting World War 3.
Russia's Air Force is not much of a factor at this point. They're out of precision guided bombs, they probably have a lot of aircraft down for maintenance, they're flying fewer and fewer sorties every day, and they're losing experienced pilots as they're getting shot down and captured or killed.
Another point is: the Ukrainians are claiming to have killed three Russian Generals in the field. If that's true, it's not some grunt getting lucky with a rifle, grenade or hand-held missile, it's serious real-time military intelligence directing firepower onto specific targets. I don't think anyone's going to admit it, but the amount of satellite and signals intelligence that must be being passed to the Ukrainians, along with all the modern weaponry crossing the Poland/Ukraine border, is worth far more to them than a few aircraft. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out that all the fuss about no-fly zones and Polish airplanes is a great and probably intentional distraction from what is really going on.
-
Ukraine's Air Force reported on FB that Russian fighter jets turned around while over Ukraine, then attacked Belarus.
Thus far, the people in Belarus haven't been willing to attack Ukraine - they had military leaders resign, troops refused directly, etc. Let's hope that the propaganda doesn't work.
Edit: Oh, and India is saying that they accidently fired a missile into Pakistan on March 9th. Let's hope they don't start fighting.
-
Ukraine Needs Ground-Based Air Defenses Way More Than MiGs. Here Are The Best Options
"When it comes to helping Ukraine continue to keep Russia from gaining air superiority over its skies — a miraculous achievement thus far in the conflict that is now in its third week — all the focus has been on providing the embattled country with a couple of dozen decades-old MiG-29 Fulcrums. This has been an unfortunate distraction. What Ukraine really needs more than anything else are ground-based air defense systems — surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs — especially the kind with medium or greater altitude engagement capabilities that are optimized for high mobility. And not just any SAM systems that fulfill the requirements, but Soviet-era systems that the Ukrainian military is fully trained on employing in combat and supporting in the field."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44673/ukraine-needs-ground-based-air-defenses-way-more-than-migs-here-are-the-best-options
-
Ukraine Needs Ground-Based Air Defenses Way More Than MiGs. Here Are The Best Options
"When it comes to helping Ukraine continue to keep Russia from gaining air superiority over its skies — a miraculous achievement thus far in the conflict that is now in its third week — all the focus has been on providing the embattled country with a couple of dozen decades-old MiG-29 Fulcrums. This has been an unfortunate distraction. What Ukraine really needs more than anything else are ground-based air defense systems — surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs — especially the kind with medium or greater altitude engagement capabilities that are optimized for high mobility. And not just any SAM systems that fulfill the requirements, but Soviet-era systems that the Ukrainian military is fully trained on employing in combat and supporting in the field."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44673/ukraine-needs-ground-based-air-defenses-way-more-than-migs-here-are-the-best-options
Fortunately, Russia has generously donated lots of working equipment to the Ukranian Army (and farmers) in the last few weeks. Just tow it away and it's all yours.
-
"A Ukrainian farmer has now "borrowed" an abandoned 9T217 transloader for the 9K33 Osa SAM system, meaning if transferred to the UA military there is 24 more missiles to fire. Captured examples are already being put into use according to reports."
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1502305633449689090/photo/1
-
Ukraine Needs Ground-Based Air Defenses Way More Than MiGs. Here Are The Best Options
"When it comes to helping Ukraine continue to keep Russia from gaining air superiority over its skies — a miraculous achievement thus far in the conflict that is now in its third week — all the focus has been on providing the embattled country with a couple of dozen decades-old MiG-29 Fulcrums. This has been an unfortunate distraction. What Ukraine really needs more than anything else are ground-based air defense systems — surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs — especially the kind with medium or greater altitude engagement capabilities that are optimized for high mobility. And not just any SAM systems that fulfill the requirements, but Soviet-era systems that the Ukrainian military is fully trained on employing in combat and supporting in the field."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44673/ukraine-needs-ground-based-air-defenses-way-more-than-migs-here-are-the-best-options
I assume that they want the Mig 29s to fly sorties against Russian MLRS, convoys, etc. The Mig 29 can carry over three metric tons of bombs on its six hardpoints and there is a column of Russian equipment just asking to get bombed.
-
Ukraine Needs Ground-Based Air Defenses Way More Than MiGs. Here Are The Best Options
"When it comes to helping Ukraine continue to keep Russia from gaining air superiority over its skies — a miraculous achievement thus far in the conflict that is now in its third week — all the focus has been on providing the embattled country with a couple of dozen decades-old MiG-29 Fulcrums. This has been an unfortunate distraction. What Ukraine really needs more than anything else are ground-based air defense systems — surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs — especially the kind with medium or greater altitude engagement capabilities that are optimized for high mobility. And not just any SAM systems that fulfill the requirements, but Soviet-era systems that the Ukrainian military is fully trained on employing in combat and supporting in the field."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44673/ukraine-needs-ground-based-air-defenses-way-more-than-migs-here-are-the-best-options
I assume that they want the Mig 29s to fly sorties against Russian MLRS, convoys, etc. The Mig 29 can carry over three metric tons of bombs on its six hardpoints and there is a column of Russian equipment just asking to get bombed.
Another quote from the article:
"What's even stranger is that somehow, as part of the MiG transfer drama, some in the media and on Capitol Hill reimagined the utility of the decades-old MiG-29 variants in question. While these aircraft do have an austere ground attack capability, somehow they have morphed into being a pivotal air-to-ground platform capable of unilaterally wiping out massive columns of Russian heavy armor that sit under their own anti-air umbrella. This is pure fantasy that has been created by people who have no idea what the MiG-29's capabilities actually are and think it is just an analog to a late-block F-16. And even then, their understanding of what an F-16 is actually capable of would also have to be of Hollywood action film level and outright divorced from reality. So no, a MiG-29 armed with a couple of rocket pods or a few dumb bombs is not going to repulse Russia's northern advance to Kyiv. And any mission of that sort has a high probability of being a one-way trip, regardless."
-
Given the support Ukraine has received from the rest of Europe so far, I don't think they're too worried about the security of their western and southwestern borders. Western nations are all too happy to supply them with all the weapons the could want, as long as Ukraine can supply the manpower to employ them.
In basic terms NATO is supplying everything but manpower and jets to Ukraine. Hopefully they will continue to have the manpower and expertise to make use of it.
I too would like to see the skies locked down over Ukraine. And missile defense systems in place to reduce the death and destruction.
Time for Putin to be deposed or shot.
-
Ukraine's Air Force reported on FB that Russian fighter jets turned around while over Ukraine, then attacked Belarus.
Thus far, the people in Belarus haven't been willing to attack Ukraine - they had military leaders resign, troops refused directly, etc. Let's hope that the propaganda doesn't work.
Edit: Oh, and India is saying that they accidently fired a missile into Pakistan on March 9th. Let's hope they don't start fighting.
Yeh here it is:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/03/11/7330425/ (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/03/11/7330425/)
Such an odd story. It is given from Russian sources. It makes me wonder if it is the Russians, if it is true or if it is Ukrainians looking for an ally. When a story is that odd, it grants it credibility in my feeble mind as it belies the form of reality and is too strange for fiction.
India and Pakistan are always having some kind of "row."
-
Here are the Ukrainians giving the same news of the Russian jet planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53jf_pwnDf8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53jf_pwnDf8)
It also tells of a wayward drone.
-
Ukraine's Air Force reported on FB that Russian fighter jets turned around while over Ukraine, then attacked Belarus.
Thus far, the people in Belarus haven't been willing to attack Ukraine - they had military leaders resign, troops refused directly, etc. Let's hope that the propaganda doesn't work.
Edit: Oh, and India is saying that they accidently fired a missile into Pakistan on March 9th. Let's hope they don't start fighting.
Yeh here it is:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/03/11/7330425/ (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/03/11/7330425/)
Such an odd story. It is given from Russian sources. It makes me wonder if it is the Russians, if it is true or if it is Ukrainians looking for an ally. When a story is that odd, it grants it credibility in my feeble mind as it belies the form of reality and is too strange for fiction.
India and Pakistan are always having some kind of "row."
Beware of any media outlet called Pravda...
-
"What's even stranger is that somehow, as part of the MiG transfer drama, some in the media and on Capitol Hill reimagined the utility of the decades-old MiG-29 variants in question. While these aircraft do have an austere ground attack capability, somehow they have morphed into being a pivotal air-to-ground platform capable of unilaterally wiping out massive columns of Russian heavy armor that sit under their own anti-air umbrella. This is pure fantasy that has been created by people who have no idea what the MiG-29's capabilities actually are and think it is just an analog to a late-block F-16. And even then, their understanding of what an F-16 is actually capable of would also have to be of Hollywood action film level and outright divorced from reality. So no, a MiG-29 armed with a couple of rocket pods or a few dumb bombs is not going to repulse Russia's northern advance to Kyiv. And any mission of that sort has a high probability of being a one-way trip, regardless."
I agree entirely that the air-to-ground capabilities of the Mig-29 look very dated. But I'm sure the the Ukrainian chain of command knows that. I also agree that these might be one-way missions. I'm not sure how many qualified pilots Ukraine has to fly such missions. I also agree entirely that we should have been sending medium range anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine starting in 2014. Thanks Obama!
-
Given the support Ukraine has received from the rest of Europe so far, I don't think they're too worried about the security of their western and southwestern borders. Western nations are all too happy to supply them with all the weapons the could want, as long as Ukraine can supply the manpower to employ them.
In basic terms NATO is supplying everything but manpower and jets to Ukraine. Hopefully they will continue to have the manpower and expertise to make use of it.
I too would like to see the skies locked down over Ukraine. And missile defense systems in place to reduce the death and destruction.
Time for Putin to be deposed or shot.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/why-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-could-be-literally/id1594471023?i=1000553550646
I'm not so sure those actions will lead to a reduction in death and destruction, especially the NFZ (it certainly could). I don't have the answers and am gathering different viewpoints.
The link above has some decent talking points including the history of NATO and W's push for Georgia and Ukraine membership (and the Russian perspective on that), a famous speech by Putin, and a desire for the US to obey international law regarding military actions (so that then we might see other countries also follow by example).
Man, this sucks.
-
I still have this thought that this is the opportune time for some third party country to make trouble for Russia. I was thinking if the dictator of Belarus sends his army to Ukraine, the people left back home could maybe make some changes.
That's why he didn't.
I assume that they want the Mig 29s to fly sorties against Russian MLRS, convoys, etc. The Mig 29 can carry over three metric tons of bombs on its six hardpoints and there is a column of Russian equipment just asking to get bombed.
Yes, it's more about bombing than air fights.
The column has moved, but Russia is still trying to encircled Kyiv. Would be a lot harder if the slowly advancing troops that are fighting with the defenders get a hand full of bombs dropped on them every half hour. Or if the bombs just destroyed the roads and the tanks can't find a way where they don't get stuck or only where they are very open to a handshake with a stinger. This is less about real damage and more about moral damage, especially by keeping Kyiv open to resupplies. Time is working strongly for them.
-
"Russia threatens to live US astronaught behind in space". Have they not heard of NASA and/or Space X? We don't need them.
-
"Russia threatens to live US astronaught behind in space". Have they not heard of NASA and/or Space X? We don't need them.
ars Technica: No, Russia has not threatened to leave an American astronaut behind in space (https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/after-two-weeks-of-war-the-international-space-station-flies-on/)
-
Does anyone know what Russians are using to destroy those cities? Are they howitzers and other heavy artillery? Or planes? If the former, we need to send drones to take them out rather than planes. MiGs are so 1900s.
-
Does anyone know what Russians are using to destroy those cities? Are they howitzers and other heavy artillery? Or planes? If the former, we need to send drones to take them out rather than planes. MiGs are so 1900s.
BM-21 MLRS.
-
Does anyone know what Russians are using to destroy those cities? Are they howitzers and other heavy artillery? Or planes? If the former, we need to send drones to take them out rather than planes. MiGs are so 1900s.
There seem to be a lot of Russian planes blowing shit up.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-widens-attack-with-airstrikes-on-western-ukraine-cities (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-widens-attack-with-airstrikes-on-western-ukraine-cities)
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/russia-ukraine-live-updates.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/russia-ukraine-live-updates.html)
-
Not sure I buy these arguments.
If the concern is that flying close to the border of Ukraine will open up planes to Russian anti-air from Russia, just set a no fly buffer zone of a certain distance at the border. And then blow the shit out of anything that crosses over from safely on the Ukrainian side. If Russia doesn't like having their aircraft blown up while invading another country, maybe they'll realize that they shouldn't invade another country.
The Russian air force isn't a concern. We'd sweep them from the sky. Their surface to air missiles are supposed to be some of the best in the world. Their radars can pick up and target our aircraft up to 250 miles. We wouldn't be able to overfly Kyiv in your "buffer zone" scenario.
-
Does anyone know what Russians are using to destroy those cities? Are they howitzers and other heavy artillery? Or planes? If the former, we need to send drones to take them out rather than planes. MiGs are so 1900s.
There seem to be a lot of Russian planes blowing shit up.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-widens-attack-with-airstrikes-on-western-ukraine-cities (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-widens-attack-with-airstrikes-on-western-ukraine-cities)
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/russia-ukraine-live-updates.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/russia-ukraine-live-updates.html)
Grads are causing the most widespread damage, but the air force is dropping the biggest bombs.
If a building/area looks like it's been peppered with small explosions - rockets and cannon.
If a building is mostly just gone or you see a giant hole in the ground - air force bombs.
-
I still have this thought that this is the opportune time for some third party country to make trouble for Russia. I was thinking if the dictator of Belarus sends his army to Ukraine, the people left back home could maybe make some changes.
This would be a great time for the Chechnyan separatists to rise again. https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/03/01/Chechnya-s-Ramzan-Kadyrov-says-his-fighters-killed-in-Ukraine
-
Evidence for widespread command and control failure in Russian invasion forces:
"We will soon make as much raw recordings as possible freely available for journalists and translators, with the hope of shining lights on a historical situation where a regular army is being tracked by thousand of individuals." March 1. 2022
https://twitter.com/sbreakintl/status/1498619303717142529?s=21
https://twitter.com/sbreakintl
-
The organizational structure of the Russian military does not seem to favor them at this time.
https://twitter.com/raguileramx/status/1502040265422422017
https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf
-
More on Russian communication failures in Ukraine:
"The electromagnetic spectrum does not always capture the interest and imagination of students of war or the public. The electromagnetic spectrum, where radio waves reside, is an environment humans cannot appreciate with their own senses. It is invisible, silent, odourless, flavourless and formless. Yet it matters. Commanders and personnel are an army’s brain and its strike assets its limbs. Radio communications are its nervous system. Disrupt the nervous system and the brain and limbs communicate with great difficulty, or not at all."
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-comms-ukraine-world-hertz
-
Happy NATO Day to all the Poles out there!
In light of recent events, March 12th certainly is deserving of being designated a national holiday.
https://www.gov.pl/web/national-defence/poland-in-nato-20-years
-
Often the MIG-29 topic has been discussed here. Let me try to show how the whole drama looks from Polish side.
1. Zelensky weeks ago was begging the west to deliver jets. Preferably the russian made, since they know them. He was pointing out Poland's biggest stake.
2. Polish government was saying no. Saying that Poland helps and continue to help in many other ways.
3. Then suddenly blinked in public gives "green light" telling that Poles can go ahead delivering the jets.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/07/ukr--m07.html
4. Poland was pissed off with this:
a) why do it in public, like a stunt.
b) Blinken wanted to Poland to be the direct delivery, exposing russia against Poland, without NATO/US risking anything. Poland was keeping saying that such delivery should be done together, taking together (as the west) the responsibility. US just wanted to test the waters to see what russia would do with Poland. Felt like sacrificing its ally. So lame!
c) Poland felt to be in impossible situation. If they say no to Ukraine, the help is refused.
d) Poland assumed that Blinken was coordinating his green light with Pentagon.
5. So, Poland reciprocated. They made public statement as well: we are ready to give all the Migs to NATO base in Germany for free. Let's do the transfer as a collective instead.
I consider that Poland played their had boldly, but reasonably, given its given hand.
Maybe it could had been less in public, but looks like that's the best Polish government could do.
-
Blinken wanted to Poland to be the direct delivery, exposing russia against Poland, without NATO/US risking anything. Poland was keeping saying that such delivery should be done together, taking together (as the west) the responsibility. US just wanted to test the waters to see what russia would do with Poland. Felt like c its ally. So lame!
I don't doubt your sequence of events, but would the EU and NATO "sacrifice" Poland? I guess what we don't know is what the other EU nations were telling Poland behind closed doors. Perhaps France and Germany were telling them not to deliver the jets.
-
Blinken wanted to Poland to be the direct delivery, exposing russia against Poland, without NATO/US risking anything. Poland was keeping saying that such delivery should be done together, taking together (as the west) the responsibility. US just wanted to test the waters to see what russia would do with Poland. Felt like c its ally. So lame!
I don't doubt your sequence of events, but would the EU and NATO "sacrifice" Poland? I guess what we don't know is what the other EU nations were telling Poland behind closed doors. Perhaps France and Germany were telling them not to deliver the jets.
Yes, Germany was against. I consider Germany the biggest putin enabler in the last 20 years.
All this played putin's hand. Making west not acting together and the wait and see (what happens) from NATO/US.
My personal thought: The more NATO talks about article 5, the more it is questionable in practice. If something is so obvious why keep saying it over and over again. Article 5 does not make every NATO country to rush right away with military. It could mean extra statements of condemnation and delivering limited and slow response from NATO countries. Perhaps making substantial response after half of Poland is destroyed.
Re: "scarify". What i stated previously is not about my personal thoughts (these are clearly noted). This is how Poles feel.
-
Growing more wheat is trickier. The winter wheat crops all got planted last fall so it's too late to increase their acreage. Spring wheat can and will still be planted (although it tends to have lower yields than winter wheat). But producing the seed for farmers is its whole own supply chain with lead times ditacted by the lifecycle of the crop in question. If farmers decided they wanted to plant 2x as many acres with wheat this year as last there just wouldn't be enough seed for them to buy.
As someone else mentioned, even for Russia invaded Ukraine, this was already going to be a scary year for the food supply. The price of nitrogen fertilizer has tripled, which means farmers are going to use a lot less of it, which is likely to translate to lower yields across almost all the major crops in the developed world.
Thanks, this is helpful. I've always lived far enough north that our wheat is spring wheat. That Ukraine grows winter wheat hadn't crossed my mind. The seeds and fertilizer are clear issues, too.
-
Blinken wanted to Poland to be the direct delivery, exposing russia against Poland, without NATO/US risking anything. Poland was keeping saying that such delivery should be done together, taking together (as the west) the responsibility. US just wanted to test the waters to see what russia would do with Poland. Felt like c its ally. So lame!
I don't doubt your sequence of events, but would the EU and NATO "sacrifice" Poland? I guess what we don't know is what the other EU nations were telling Poland behind closed doors. Perhaps France and Germany were telling them not to deliver the jets.
bib 1939 suggests that the UK wouldn't.
-
Stumbled onto this Twitter thread - enlightening read by a Woodrow Wilson scholar about how the Russian military is really a state security regime: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502673952572854278.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502673952572854278.html)
-
Ukraine also exports corn and ignoring the fact that all the ports are closed they should be planting that crop right about now, but they can't get fuel or tractor parts.
In the coming weeks, farmers should also start planting other crops, such as corn and sunflowers, but they are struggling to get the seeds they need, said Dykun Andriy, chairman of the Ukrainian Agricultural Council, which represents about 1,000 farmers cultivating five million hectares. - Reuters: Ukraine’s farmers stalled, fueling fears of global food shortages (https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-farmers-stalled-fueling-fears-global-food-shortages-2022-03-11/)
I enjoyed this interview with an agricultural commodities trader on the subject: Animal Spirits: The Craziest Commodities Market Ever (https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2022/03/animal-spirits____/)
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
-
Stumbled onto this Twitter thread - enlightening read by a Woodrow Wilson scholar about how the Russian military is really a state security regime: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502673952572854278.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1502673952572854278.html)
Very nice.
Quote:
"State security playing soldiers launched a Special Operation and accidentally got into a real war. They're scared."
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
-
More on the impact on wheat and commodity prices (https://agdatanews.substack.com/p/were-not-facing-a-global-food-crisis?s=r). The author concludes that current commodity prices already factor in the loss of ~75% of the total corn and wheat exports from Russia and Ukraine for this year.
This would correspond to a 2.2% decline in total calories available around the world from the "big four" sources of corn, rice, soybeans, and wheat. Not good, but well within the range of what we might and do see as a results of droughts or other extreme weather events without any more than the usual amount of global famine.
Right now the spike worst in winter wheat, although it's not like spring wheat or corn prices are cheap.
(https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9940fe32-54a8-4ade-9629-1debae4d8ae6_2908x1480.png)
-
Does Russia want Ukraine due to it's fertile land? Climate change I hear is drying out land all over the world making more demand for wheat and other grains. I read Ukraine was particulary good for grains.
-
Does Russia want Ukraine due to it's fertile land? Climate change I hear is drying out land all over the world making more demand for wheat and other grains. I read Ukraine was particulary good for grains.
From what I have read, Russia wants Ukraine for a combination of oil (economics) and a sense of historical "you are part of us therefore you must be part of us" thinking. Scroll through the thread, much of what I've been reading or watching has been linked here. Russia does not think the same as the Western world, so it makes it hard for us to comprehend.
-
Does Russia want Ukraine due to it's fertile land? Climate change I hear is drying out land all over the world making more demand for wheat and other grains. I read Ukraine was particulary good for grains.
Oil/gas is a fairly recent reason, but the other two reasons go back to at least Peter the Great: (1) the warm water ports, and (2) the 1200+ mile border on flat land is considered indefensible.
-
Does Russia want Ukraine due to it's fertile land? Climate change I hear is drying out land all over the world making more demand for wheat and other grains. I read Ukraine was particulary good for grains.
It is good farm country.
History is one factor. They've been linked for about a thousand years.
Oil plays in. The two rebel provinces are supposed to have oil shale. Crimea has gas.
Military buffer is the reason they've claimed. They don't want a "threat" on their doorstep.
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country. Mafioso people like to expand their operations. I guess they want Ukraine. I had never heard of this internal troops of Russia. They are not the army. They are not the police. They apparently are a bunch of thugs that prey on everyone. They are a part of the government. The internet says they were dissolved, but provided links above give the impression that they are alive and well.
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
Maybe I read it wrong. CNN is saying now.. it's the main headline:
"Russia issues warning to US that it would fire on weapon shipments to Ukraine, raising the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and a NATO country."
Maybe I read shipments as ships. But those shipments could be shipments from USA to Poland? They'd actually bomb US aircraft in Poland?
-
It is good farm country.
History is one factor. They've been linked for about a thousand years.
They have been linked off and on since ~900AD with the rise of Kievan Rus' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27). But for hundreds of years after the Mongol invasion (~1220) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Kievan_Rus%27) they were not linked, at least politically. So much so that the languages drifted. The modern Russian state arguably first appears in ~1480 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia) when they finally kicked the mongols out of Russia with Moscow as the political capitol. But they didn't retake Kyiv until ~1654 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv) and they didn't capture most of modern day Ukraine until the second half of the 18th century (https://cdn.britannica.com/48/3848-050-2473BB98/russia-expansion-1300-1796.jpg). Then, when Imperial Russia collapsed in 1917 the Ukrainians declared independence and were involved in a four year war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_War_of_Independence) trying to stay away from the USSR. Of course they were beaten into submission by the Red Army and were rewarded for their troubles by the Holodomor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) finally gaining their independence in 1991 with the fall of the USSR.
So yes, there is some history, but part of that history is being the bread basket for Russia and part of that history is having Kyiv (the center of power) fall to the mongols only to have the modern Russian state emerge out of Moscow and invade them and make them farm for them. This is a little bit like if Mexico successfully invaded the USA and hundreds of years later Los Angeles was the center of power and they invaded and subjugated the eastern seaboard.
Putin thinks that it is still the 18th century and land wars in Europe for farm land and peasants are still a good idea. I might have screwed part of that up but some of my family were actually peasant farmers in modern day Ukraine (during the Russian Empire) and I have done my best over the last five years to get some grasp of the history.
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
Maybe I read it wrong. CNN is saying now.. it's the main headline:
"Russia issues warning to US that it would fire on weapon shipments to Ukraine, raising the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and a NATO country."
Maybe I read shipments as ships. But those shipments could be shipments from USA to Poland? They'd actually bomb US aircraft in Poland?
Right, "shipments" does not mean "ships" specifically, rather a movement of goods. It would mean that Russia is saying that it would fire on movements of arms after the cross the land border into Ukraine (its recent bombing of two cities in the west of Ukraine might be intended as a warning of this). If they were going to fire on the movement of goods within eg Poland then that would be taken as an act of war by NATO, and I would hope in any case that 1) the Russians didn't have any accurate information allowing them to identify the movement of arms within Poland and 2) that even if they do have such information it's much easier, safer and more effective for them to wait until the arms cross into Ukraine and fire on them then.
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
Maybe I read it wrong. CNN is saying now.. it's the main headline:
"Russia issues warning to US that it would fire on weapon shipments to Ukraine, raising the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and a NATO country."
Maybe I read shipments as ships. But those shipments could be shipments from USA to Poland? They'd actually bomb US aircraft in Poland?
Russia is bluffing. They wouldn't dare attack the US openly. We can squash them like a bug if we so chose. They're the bully on the playground who's trying to look big and strong but really they're not. Russia's economy is in freefall - they've announced that their stock market will be closed through at least the end of this coming week.
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
Maybe I read it wrong. CNN is saying now.. it's the main headline:
"Russia issues warning to US that it would fire on weapon shipments to Ukraine, raising the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and a NATO country."
Maybe I read shipments as ships. But those shipments could be shipments from USA to Poland? They'd actually bomb US aircraft in Poland?
Russia is bluffing. They wouldn't dare attack the US openly. We can squash them like a bug if we so chose. They're the bully on the playground who's trying to look big and strong but really they're not. Russia's economy is in freefall - they've announced that their stock market will be closed through at least the end of this coming week.
If they were going to push this issue, they'd attack the supply trucks inside Ukraine. Why they haven't already is up for conjecture. I don't know if all of these weapons and supplies are being driven by Poles or Ukrainians. Would we invoke Article 5 if a "volunteer" Polish truck was destroyed inside Ukraine? No idea, but I think Putin is willing to test that idea. There are so many in the West itching for Putin to do something as stupid as fire a weapon of any kind into Poland itself that I can't imagine he'd try it.
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
Maybe I read it wrong. CNN is saying now.. it's the main headline:
"Russia issues warning to US that it would fire on weapon shipments to Ukraine, raising the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and a NATO country."
Maybe I read shipments as ships. But those shipments could be shipments from USA to Poland? They'd actually bomb US aircraft in Poland?
Russia is bluffing. They wouldn't dare attack the US openly. We can squash them like a bug if we so chose. They're the bully on the playground who's trying to look big and strong but really they're not. Russia's economy is in freefall - they've announced that their stock market will be closed through at least the end of this coming week.
Russia is bluffing. They will never attack Ukraine. I heard that just a few weeks ago.
If Russia sent all those tanks into Ukraine, they would roll them over like bugs. - I heard that one too.
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
I wrote a whole long post and then deleted it as I suspect few people actually care about the trade offs between soft white winter wheats and hard red spring wheats. Suffice is to say that looking across all the types of wheat grown in the world and all the places that grow them, it is neither as simple or as clear cut as "higher protein" = "higher quality."
-
I just read that Russia is threatening the US that it will bomb any cargo ships carrying weapons to Ukraine. Most likely bluffing?
What cargo ships?
Come on, by air to Poland and then over the border into Ukraine. No way are any Nato ships going in to the Black Sea ports, with or without arms on board.
Not even a bluff, just an empty threat.
Oh okay, I didn't know :) If they start bombing Poland that's gonna be problematic for Russia I guess.
Maybe I read it wrong. CNN is saying now.. it's the main headline:
"Russia issues warning to US that it would fire on weapon shipments to Ukraine, raising the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and a NATO country."
Maybe I read shipments as ships. But those shipments could be shipments from USA to Poland? They'd actually bomb US aircraft in Poland?
Russia is bluffing. They wouldn't dare attack the US openly. We can squash them like a bug if we so chose. They're the bully on the playground who's trying to look big and strong but really they're not. Russia's economy is in freefall - they've announced that their stock market will be closed through at least the end of this coming week.
Russia is bluffing. They will never attack Ukraine. I heard that just a few weeks ago.
If Russia sent all those tanks into Ukraine, they would roll them over like bugs. - I heard that one too.
Ok, so say Putin attacks US troops.
https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_USA_vs_Russia
I don't think that's going to go so well.
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
I wrote a whole long post and then deleted it as I suspect few people actually care about the trade offs between soft white winter wheats and hard red spring wheats. Suffice is to say that looking across all the types of wheat grown in the world and all the places that grow them, it is neither as simple or as clear cut as "higher protein" = "higher quality."
I wish you hadn't deleted it. I am interested, if ignorant.
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
I wrote a whole long post and then deleted it as I suspect few people actually care about the trade offs between soft white winter wheats and hard red spring wheats. Suffice is to say that looking across all the types of wheat grown in the world and all the places that grow them, it is neither as simple or as clear cut as "higher protein" = "higher quality."
Regardless of the nutritional content of Ukrainian wheat, is somebody going to miss it if it's not grown this year? A lot of somebodys?
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
I wrote a whole long post and then deleted it as I suspect few people actually care about the trade offs between soft white winter wheats and hard red spring wheats. Suffice is to say that looking across all the types of wheat grown in the world and all the places that grow them, it is neither as simple or as clear cut as "higher protein" = "higher quality."
Regardless of the nutritional content of Ukrainian wheat, is somebody going to miss it if it's not grown this year? A lot of somebodys?
Yes of course, I said so in my post, but the quotes deleted it.
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
I wrote a whole long post and then deleted it as I suspect few people actually care about the trade offs between soft white winter wheats and hard red spring wheats. Suffice is to say that looking across all the types of wheat grown in the world and all the places that grow them, it is neither as simple or as clear cut as "higher protein" = "higher quality."
Regardless of the nutritional content of Ukrainian wheat, is somebody going to miss it if it's not grown this year? A lot of somebodys?
Yes of course, I said so in my post, but the quotes deleted it.
Sorry, it's Sunday morning. You can't expect me to read the entire page.
-
Although Ukraine grows a lot of wheat, my understanding is that it is not as good a quality as Canadian wheat. Less protein apparently. It’s not due to the soil but the wheat variety itself. Not to say it still won’t be a loss if no crops can be produced.
I wrote a whole long post and then deleted it as I suspect few people actually care about the trade offs between soft white winter wheats and hard red spring wheats. Suffice is to say that looking across all the types of wheat grown in the world and all the places that grow them, it is neither as simple or as clear cut as "higher protein" = "higher quality."
I'd read it. Red Fife was developed relatively near me. It may have had a Ukrainian origin. ;-) https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/red-fife-wheat
(https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/red-fife-wheat)
-
This is an interesting article about Russians using analog civilian/consumer grade Chinese radios you and I can buy on Amazon for $30.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-comms-ukraine-world-hertz
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
If you have a small geographic territory and control over all forms of media to facilitate brainwashing, you can keep the con going indefinitely, even if the population is highly impoverished (see N. Korea). I think Putin would be happy with a set-up like that, but geographically, Russia is huge and it's harder to keep control over modern communications over such a vast territory.
-
I wish you hadn't deleted it. I am interested, if ignorant.
Okay, the short version is that wheat is a much more differentiated commodity than corn or soybeans. Typically internationally traded corn is corn is corn. But different types of wheat are used for different purposes, food processors are optimized for very specific flour qualities, and it is not always possible or desirable to replace one kind of wheat with another.
Flour grades have specific percent protein targets. Sometimes mills will pay more for a high protein batch of grain because they know they'll be able to blend it into a different batch of wheat with less protein to hit the right overall percent protein in their finished product. This is where the idea that high protein = more valuable = higher quality comes from.
But a lot of farmers grow "soft" wheat varieties are genetically predisposed to have lower protein content. And, depending on the year and location, soft wheats can sell for more than "hard" wheats. Because the soft wheats produce flour that works a lot better for many types of baked goods including many european style breads that typically sell for higher prices even here in the USA than the standard bread in the bread aisle which will be made from higher protein wheat.
In the pacific northwest they primarily grow soft white wheats that produce extraordinarily fine flour. The "white" as opposed to "red" means there is a smaller bran component with fewer bitter compounds, which means it can be used to produce baked goods with less added sugar to mask the normal bitter taste of wheat. The vast majority of the wheat grown in the PNW isn't consumed in the USA because asian import markets pay more for the high quality flours it produces than we're willing to pay for internal consumption. So to me a great example of a high quality wheat with low protein.
Canada grows a lot of hard red spring wheat -- so do we, mostly in North Dakota and Montana -- whose claim to fame is higher protein content. It makes for good bagels and other baked goods that you expect to be really tough when you bite into them. But a pancake made from hard red spring wheat would not be particularly pleasant to eat.
In the end @Travis 's point is the important one. If tens of millions of tons of wheat go missing, a lot of people are going to miss it. But seeing all of Ukrainian wheat called "low quality" just because it isn't hard red spring wheat stuck in my craw.
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I'm hoping that a lot of the sanctions hit the oligarchs much much more than they hit most Russians, because they are the ones who might be able to have influence.
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I'm hoping that a lot of the sanctions hit the oligarchs much much more than they hit most Russians, because they are the ones who might be able to have influence.
Is this sort of an achilles heel of the RU economy? So much wealth in so few people makes them quite a target.
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I'm hoping that a lot of the sanctions hit the oligarchs much much more than they hit most Russians, because they are the ones who might be able to have influence.
Is this sort of an achilles heel of the RU economy? So much wealth in so few people makes them quite a target.
Saying that the oligarchs have influence over Putin is I think putting things the wrong way around. The oligarchs are rich because they toady up to Putin, and they continue to be rich at his whim - see for instance Khordorkovsky, who was the richest man in Russia until Putin wanted him not to be rich, at which point he went to prison and then into exile.
Putin has a small band of cronies around him who implement Putin's decisions, and even they are kept at the other end of that very long table. All of them are now implicated in the Ukraine disaster. There probably isn't anyone left who has influence over Putin, and anyone who tried would probably end up dead or in prison.
-
Thank you, @maizefolk - good to know!
It hurts to see the fantastic farm land in Ukraine being destroyed by heavy tanks and pollution from bombings. Destroying the best soil on earth should be added to the "crimes against humanity" list.
-
Thank you, @maizefolk - good to know!
It hurts to see the fantastic farm land in Ukraine being destroyed by heavy tanks and pollution from bombings. Destroying the best soil on earth should be added to the "crimes against humanity" list.
For what it's worth, China has been involved there a while back:
https://www.channel4.com/news/china-ukraine-farmland-food-security-investment-overseas
Perhaps that has changed over time... but I found it interesting back when it happened.
-
@maizefolk Thank you for the wheat information. Feel free to share esoteric knowledge with me at any time.
In other news, Russia is still in process of actively destroying its economy. Saying they'll make debt payments in rubles. I'm sure that's going to go over well in finance circles.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-11/card/russia-s-finance-minister-says-country-will-pay-debt-in-rubles-until-central-bank-sanctions-lifted-c9lJghNNgGzbzdPzbsLR
And Zelensky is still alive, and still giving his security team heart attacks. A video posted of him walking outside to visit wounded soldiers. And while he was surrounded by people, they don't look like they're heavily armed people. Probably kept out of view of the camera. Am guessing Zelensky is wearing bulletproof armor or something under his sweatshirt, because there's another video of him wearing the same sweatshirt and it doesn't look as tight.
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I'm hoping that a lot of the sanctions hit the oligarchs much much more than they hit most Russians, because they are the ones who might be able to have influence.
Is this sort of an achilles heel of the RU economy? So much wealth in so few people makes them quite a target.
That's the point where the "border between autoritarians and despots" come in.
An authoritarian rules by giving lucative posts to people to buy their loyality. There might be a few "accidents" and some inprisonment of too free journalists, but nothing too bloody happens from or towards the authoritarian.
If however the money runs dry, the leader has to decide: Either lose power or go more dictatorial (or sell resources or base rights to other countries). Putin has done the latter. It's a very slippery slope. The more you lose control through the indirect economic handouts, the more you need to rely on the direct (mostly military, but also think a seat in the security council). And you better not think about leaving the inner circle, or else...
This is also frequently the reason that militaries in despotic countries may suck as much as they suck off GDP. It's bought loyality from those who literally have all the guns.
More on this and related topics in the book in my signature ;)
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I'm hoping that a lot of the sanctions hit the oligarchs much much more than they hit most Russians, because they are the ones who might be able to have influence.
Is this sort of an achilles heel of the RU economy? So much wealth in so few people makes them quite a target.
That's the point where the "border between autoritarians and despots" come in.
An authoritarian rules by giving lucative posts to people to buy their loyality. There might be a few "accidents" and some inprisonment of too free journalists, but nothing too bloody happens from or towards the authoritarian.
If however the money runs dry, the leader has to decide: Either lose power or go more dictatorial (or sell resources or base rights to other countries). Putin has done the latter. It's a very slippery slope. The more you lose control through the indirect economic handouts, the more you need to rely on the direct (mostly military, but also think a seat in the security council). And you better not think about leaving the inner circle, or else...
This is also frequently the reason that militaries in despotic countries may suck as much as they suck off GDP. It's bought loyality from those who literally have all the guns.
More on this and related topics in the book in my signature ;)
CGP Grey did an excellent video on that book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
-
After reading some of these links, it almost appears that Russia is basically a mafia run country.
Yes, that is how countries on the border of authoritarian/despotic work.
The leader gives out easily to exploit position to ensure loyality. That includes of course the army. Result is that the army top is loyal and the small soldier (to whom nothing trickles down) is fucked.
On the economy side oil is loved - it can be extracted even without involving people from the country. Otherwise it's agriculture. You can easily threaten people to burn down their fields. Also thugs are generally not the smartest people, so you can't have them run a high tech company.
This was a good response. I've spent some time pondering as to why some countries with very old civilizations seem so slow to adopt more modern technology. When I was young teachers told me it was because those countries were poor. It never quite made sense to me. If they were poor, technology would lift them out of poverty. Their leaders are not poor since they are supported by the many poor people. They have no interest in helping the little guy. Wealth rarely "trickles down."
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I'm hoping that a lot of the sanctions hit the oligarchs much much more than they hit most Russians, because they are the ones who might be able to have influence.
Is this sort of an achilles heel of the RU economy? So much wealth in so few people makes them quite a target.
Saying that the oligarchs have influence over Putin is I think putting things the wrong way around. The oligarchs are rich because they toady up to Putin, and they continue to be rich at his whim - see for instance Khordorkovsky, who was the richest man in Russia until Putin wanted him not to be rich, at which point he went to prison and then into exile.
Putin has a small band of cronies around him who implement Putin's decisions, and even they are kept at the other end of that very long table. All of them are now implicated in the Ukraine disaster. There probably isn't anyone left who has influence over Putin, and anyone who tried would probably end up dead or in prison.
I was thinking more along the lines of oligarchs seeing that the person who made them wealthy is now destroying that wealth - so any loyalty they might have because of that is gone. If they want to hold on to the wealth, Putin can no longer do that for them, because of sanctions - so why be loyal any more? Not sure what they could do because of the setup, but they can potentially do more than the average Russian.
-
I have a couple of Russian friends (ie, were born in Russia/lived in Russia until adulthood) who I asked about the chances of a revolt either of commoners or oligarchs. They were both pretty dismissive, and when I asked why, they both gave a variant of "Russians have a slave mentality" as an answer.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Putin to be overthrown. The only way this ends "well" is if China decides to put some pressure on, IMO.
-W
-
I have a couple of Russian friends (ie, were born in Russia/lived in Russia until adulthood) who I asked about the chances of a revolt either of commoners or oligarchs. They were both pretty dismissive, and when I asked why, they both gave a variant of "Russians have a slave mentality" as an answer.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Putin to be overthrown. The only way this ends "well" is if China decides to put some pressure on, IMO.
-W
Well - How did the Ukrainians escape the "slave mentality?" Just a different history. The land of rebel cossacks? They sure ain't got it.
-
I have a couple of Russian friends (ie, were born in Russia/lived in Russia until adulthood) who I asked about the chances of a revolt either of commoners or oligarchs. They were both pretty dismissive, and when I asked why, they both gave a variant of "Russians have a slave mentality" as an answer.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Putin to be overthrown. The only way this ends "well" is if China decides to put some pressure on, IMO.
-W
Well - How did the Ukrainians escape the "slave mentality?" Just a different history. The land of rebel cossacks? They sure ain't got it.
Yes, rebel of cossacks is a good guess.
But also the Holomodor, living in memories and uniting Ukrainians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Also, Ukrainians have been rebuilding their national identity in the last 10 years: Orange revolution, Crimea, Donbas.
They have been also building their national identity looking into 30-ties, 40-ties of 20 century. They a bit collaborated with Hitler in attempt to win their independence. And this is the fuel to putler propaganda.
All these separate Ukrainians from russians. Making them not following the Tzar.
-
I have a couple of Russian friends (ie, were born in Russia/lived in Russia until adulthood) who I asked about the chances of a revolt either of commoners or oligarchs. They were both pretty dismissive, and when I asked why, they both gave a variant of "Russians have a slave mentality" as an answer.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Putin to be overthrown. The only way this ends "well" is if China decides to put some pressure on, IMO.
-W
Well - How did the Ukrainians escape the "slave mentality?" Just a different history. The land of rebel cossacks? They sure ain't got it.
Yes, rebel of cossacks is a good guess.
But also the Holomodor, living in memories and uniting Ukrainians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Also, Ukrainians have been rebuilding their national identity in the last 10 years: Orange revolution, Crimea, Donbas.
They have been also building their national identity looking into 30-ties, 40-ties of 20 century. They a bit collaborated with Hitler in attempt to win their independence. And this is the fuel to putler propaganda.
All these separate Ukrainians from russians. Making them not following the Tzar.
Putin wants to bring things back to the way they used to be. "Make Russia Great Again" The encirclement of cities and not allowing food and water seems to be a but reminiscent of when Stalin had all the Ukrainians starve. I hadn't realized that 10 million people died of starvation there in the depression years. This happened in a land with some of the best farmland on Earth. I can see them carrying a grudge.
-
I just had a chance for a video chat with a missionary in Ukraine. Crazy to think some people believe this is all a hoax. Heartbreaking, yet inspiring to hear of her work with refugees and I was glad to send my donation directly to someone on the ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I have a couple of Russian friends (ie, were born in Russia/lived in Russia until adulthood) who I asked about the chances of a revolt either of commoners or oligarchs. They were both pretty dismissive, and when I asked why, they both gave a variant of "Russians have a slave mentality" as an answer.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Putin to be overthrown. The only way this ends "well" is if China decides to put some pressure on, IMO.
-W
Well - How did the Ukrainians escape the "slave mentality?" Just a different history. The land of rebel cossacks? They sure ain't got it.
Yes, rebel of cossacks is a good guess.
But also the Holomodor, living in memories and uniting Ukrainians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Also, Ukrainians have been rebuilding their national identity in the last 10 years: Orange revolution, Crimea, Donbas.
They have been also building their national identity looking into 30-ties, 40-ties of 20 century. They a bit collaborated with Hitler in attempt to win their independence. And this is the fuel to putler propaganda.
All these separate Ukrainians from russians. Making them not following the Tzar.
Putin wants to bring things back to the way they used to be. "Make Russia Great Again" The encirclement of cities and not allowing food and water seems to be a but reminiscent of when Stalin had all the Ukrainians starve. I hadn't realized that 10 million people died of starvation there in the depression years. This happened in a land with some of the best farmland on Earth. I can see them carrying a grudge.
I think that it is worthy of clearly pointing out that Holomodor was not unintended consequence of e.g. mismanagement. It was deliberate punishment of Ukrainians for resisting the forced collectivization of the farms and economy.
Another reason for Ukrainians being different from russians again history. Ukraine (mostly western part) was part of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth, later part of Poland - western influence. Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was not autocratic. Russians were alway autocratic.
When talking about history - russia has some bad blood with Poland, e.g.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Day_(Russia) (Poland took Moscow)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War (Poland stop Communism coming to the western Europe).
Some of the reason russians rulers hate Poland deeply, and would do anything to score back, perhaps soon.
-
My guess is that Putin will continue to do brutal damage to Ukraine, continually baiting NATO (aka the US) to step in, which will be spun as US intervention in a regional conflict if they take the bait.
If the US (aka NATO) stays out, which they (US) are trying oh so hard to do, then at a certain point in the mindless destruction of Ukraine he will declare victory and pull his forces back to Russia, leaving the Ukranians proudly in control of their decimated country, fully expecting that in no way, shape , or form they will do any sort of counter attack onto Russian soil. Putin will have "won". A weakened Ukraine will be easier for Russia to undermine.
The domestic situation is under "control", the continued (I assume) sanctions on Russia for their bad behavior will be spun as continued US intervention and meddling, relations will at some point return to a bit of normalcy between many of the regional nations, because :oil and gas. There will be a huge outpouring of aid to help re-build Ukraine and much outrage about Russia's actions, and it will fundamentally change the relationship between the US and especially the UK in regards to offshore money laundering and Russian (and others) corruption. At least I hope that last part happens.
We're watching domestic violence, essentially, Putin is the abuser. But no one is willing to step in and make him stop, everyone is waiting for him to stop on his own. Which he will do as he has no other option, but apparently not until he's had his fill.
It's fucked up. Reading Kamil Galeev (linked to upthread) has convinced me that Putin is essentially a gangster, and in that view his actions make a certain sense, but that they are badly failing at executing the plan because of poor management and corruption. Unfortunately, internally Putin has weakened any rivals, and the current crackdown is likely pushing many opponents to leave the country (if they're not arrested) while increasing the power of his supporters because of nationalism.
-
I hope the situation gets no worse than that predicted by sonofsven.
Yet even more unwanted thoughts and opinions:
A Tale of Two Countries
There are two countries in the world with some similarities. One of which I think would be a great place to live and the other sucks. Both countries are huge. Both countries are resource intensive and make good money supplying what the world needs. Both countries have a degree of remoteness (unless you live there). One country is Australia and the other is Russia. One country appears destined to provide for it's people both in terms of opportunity and lifestyle. One country is oppressive and rife with corruption. This country is becoming a pariah to the world.
What's the point? Well there's a right way and wrong way to do things. That's all.
-
The Putin is progressing his war, there is a risk of a repeat of the Holodomor. He is willing to deliberately target civilians and he knows we won’t stop him because of his nuclear weapons. He is a Russian supremacist much like Hitler was a German supremacist. He has brainwashed his masses not as effectively as Hitler did, but the Third Reich didn’t rise in a day. Even his initial plan of Blitzkrieg, as outdated as they are now, are similar.
However, now Ukrainians can resist and an asymmetric war is all-but-guaranteed. We have not choice, because Poland and other European countries rightly point out the Red Army will not stop. This asymmetric war will eventually spread to Moscow, and when the first bomb goes off at a soft target in Moscow or St Petersburg, the world will collapse further into this abyss. We must stop Putin; arguing we are not in WW3 is semantics. This is the first battle. It is not the last. If he will use nuclear weapons, that is almost assured at some point during this conflict since his conventional forces have proven so ineffective. The only question is how to limit the fallout (literally). He has backed himself into a corner of his own making, the rotting core of Russia is exposed for what it is, and nuclear weapons will be his only (in his mind) way to save face.
-
I can't remember if it was discussed here or not, but there was a thread on twitter talking about the consequences of the sanctions to the Russian airline industry. Essentially, they had 2-3 weeks before they were pretty much shut down. Lack of parts, lack of maintenance, - which leads to lack of insurance/permission to fly over other countries, etc. Well, it's proceeding as predicted:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/bermuda-revokes-licences-russian-operated-planes-over-safety-concerns-2022-03-13/
Putin really screwed Russia.
-
I can't remember if it was discussed here or not, but there was a thread on twitter talking about the consequences of the sanctions to the Russian airline industry. Essentially, they had 2-3 weeks before they were pretty much shut down. Lack of parts, lack of maintenance, - which leads to lack of insurance/permission to fly over other countries, etc. Well, it's proceeding as predicted:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/bermuda-revokes-licences-russian-operated-planes-over-safety-concerns-2022-03-13/
Putin really screwed Russia.
Very good. To hear.
-
@Abe, how do you see this war as spreading to Moscow? Do you believe the Ukrainians will somehow infiltrate? I can’t see the US getting involved and the Russians themselves seem pretty much propagandized.
-
@Abe, how do you see this war as spreading to Moscow? Do you believe the Ukrainians will somehow infiltrate? I can’t see the US getting involved and the Russians themselves seem pretty much propagandized.
While waiting for Abe - I have a friend in personal communication with Ukrianians and also at least one Russian; these are personal contacts. Friend asserts that Ukrainians infiltrating Russia is quite possible because they look alike and in many cases speak the same language. Any territory seized by Russia is at risk to become a viable path of travel and sabotage.
-
I can't remember if it was discussed here or not, but there was a thread on twitter talking about the consequences of the sanctions to the Russian airline industry. Essentially, they had 2-3 weeks before they were pretty much shut down. Lack of parts, lack of maintenance, - which leads to lack of insurance/permission to fly over other countries, etc. Well, it's proceeding as predicted:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/bermuda-revokes-licences-russian-operated-planes-over-safety-concerns-2022-03-13/
Putin really screwed Russia.
I posted this (http://"https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/ukraine/msg2987907/#msg2987907")a couple of pages back.
Thanks, interesting.
-
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I feel the 'let's hope there's an uprising against the leadership' idea is unlikely to happen.
Hasn't happened in Cuba, Iran or North Korea, among others. Especially hard when the leadership controls all information flows and there's violent cronies that can respond to anyone who doesn't toe the line.
-
@Abe, how do you see this war as spreading to Moscow? Do you believe the Ukrainians will somehow infiltrate? I can’t see the US getting involved and the Russians themselves seem pretty much propagandized.
Agree with Bicycle B - attacks on military targets are part of war. Shelling of civilians is unforgivable and unforgettable. Attacks on civilians who live next to you and look / talk similarly is unforgivable and stupid. Not even the strongest police state can protect such a large land border from infiltration.
-
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I feel the 'let's hope there's an uprising against the leadership' idea is unlikely to happen.
Hasn't happened in Cuba, Iran or North Korea, among others. Especially hard when the leadership controls all information flows and there's violent cronies that can respond to anyone who doesn't toe the line.
Civilian uprising against autocrats are rarely organized or successful. I think the aim is to convince the autocrats in Russia (and military) that this is Putin’s war and not theirs.
-
So, I think these sanctions have to make things real bad for the guys on the bottom before change is sought. I hope I am wrong,.......again.
I feel the 'let's hope there's an uprising against the leadership' idea is unlikely to happen.
Hasn't happened in Cuba, Iran or North Korea, among others. Especially hard when the leadership controls all information flows and there's violent cronies that can respond to anyone who doesn't toe the line.
Civilian uprising against autocrats are rarely organized or successful. I think the aim is to convince the autocrats in Russia (and military) that this is Putin’s war and not theirs.
Yes, the strategy seems to be to make his inner circle uncomfortable enough to end things themselves. Of course, that's assuming that his inner circle is primarily mercenary and isn't packed with true believers.
-
Civilian uprising against autocrats are rarely organized or successful. I think the aim is to convince the autocrats in Russia (and military) that this is Putin’s war and not theirs.
Yes, the strategy seems to be to make his inner circle uncomfortable enough to end things themselves. Of course, that's assuming that his inner circle is primarily mercenary and isn't packed with true believers.
What I've heard, however, is that the inner circle is now more populated by the strongmen than oligarchs, and that the oligarchs have less influence than ever.
-
Civilian uprising against autocrats are rarely organized or successful. I think the aim is to convince the autocrats in Russia (and military) that this is Putin’s war and not theirs.
Yes, the strategy seems to be to make his inner circle uncomfortable enough to end things themselves. Of course, that's assuming that his inner circle is primarily mercenary and isn't packed with true believers.
What I've heard, however, is that the inner circle is now more populated by the strongmen than oligarchs, and that the oligarchs have less influence than ever.
What exactly are strongmen? Are these like paid thugs to act as body guards? It's gotta be a hell of a way to live. Despite the best efforts of the propagandists, the average Ivan in Russia ain't gonna love him after this war. The war critters ain't gonna love him either after Generals have been dying and the military has been humiliated. Ukrainians ain't gonna be fond of him and they say there are a lot of them living in Russia. The rich Oligarchs don't like him any more cuz a lot of them ain't so rich no more. These guys like their yachts and stuff. He surely has to watch his back the rest of his life. No fun at all. He still may be taken out because he is bad for business.
-
Civilian uprising against autocrats are rarely organized or successful. I think the aim is to convince the autocrats in Russia (and military) that this is Putin’s war and not theirs.
Yes, the strategy seems to be to make his inner circle uncomfortable enough to end things themselves. Of course, that's assuming that his inner circle is primarily mercenary and isn't packed with true believers.
What I've heard, however, is that the inner circle is now more populated by the strongmen than oligarchs, and that the oligarchs have less influence than ever.
What exactly are strongmen? Are these like paid thugs to act as body guards? It's gotta be a hell of a way to live. Despite the best efforts of the propagandists, the average Ivan in Russia ain't gonna love him after this war. The war critters ain't gonna love him either after Generals have been dying and the military has been humiliated. Ukrainians ain't gonna be fond of him and they say there are a lot of them living in Russia. The rich Oligarchs don't like him any more cuz a lot of them ain't so rich no more. These guys like their yachts and stuff. He surely has to watch his back the rest of his life. No fun at all. He still may be taken out because he is bad for business.
He's already watching his back: you don't think those long tables and groups on the other side of the room are because of covid, do you? There was a recent picture of him closely surrounded by about 20 air stewardesses (all women) who were both unlikely to try to assasinate him and more likely to have covid, which was a clear tell that all his other very distanced meetings are about personal safety not covid.
The only people he still talks to and trusts are the thugs he knew from his early political days in St Petersburg.
-
Civilian uprising against autocrats are rarely organized or successful. I think the aim is to convince the autocrats in Russia (and military) that this is Putin’s war and not theirs.
Yes, the strategy seems to be to make his inner circle uncomfortable enough to end things themselves. Of course, that's assuming that his inner circle is primarily mercenary and isn't packed with true believers.
What I've heard, however, is that the inner circle is now more populated by the strongmen than oligarchs, and that the oligarchs have less influence than ever.
What exactly are strongmen?
Oligarchs outsource their assassinations. Strongmen take the mustachian route and DIY.
-
One of the overseas oligarchs did put a $1M bounty on Putin's head.
-
One of the overseas oligarchs did put a $1M bounty on Putin's head.
Not enough.
-
I wonder if he has tasters? If his cook(s) can be bought, that's an easy way to eliminate him.
-
@Abe, how do you see this war as spreading to Moscow? Do you believe the Ukrainians will somehow infiltrate? I can’t see the US getting involved and the Russians themselves seem pretty much propagandized.
While waiting for Abe - I have a friend in personal communication with Ukrianians and also at least one Russian; these are personal contacts. Friend asserts that Ukrainians infiltrating Russia is quite possible because they look alike and in many cases speak the same language. Any territory seized by Russia is at risk to become a viable path of travel and sabotage.
I was just thinking to myself, that what Russia is doing, is a sure fired way to create home grown rebels and terrorists. But If Putin rules by fear, any kind of terrorists attacks by Ukrainians, will just make Putin stronger, because a) he doesn't care if Russians die(a lot of evidence he was behind the apartment bombings pinned on Chechnya), and fear increases nationalism, fear of the Other. So maybe this is all a feature, not a bug?
-
@Abe, how do you see this war as spreading to Moscow? Do you believe the Ukrainians will somehow infiltrate? I can’t see the US getting involved and the Russians themselves seem pretty much propagandized.
While waiting for Abe - I have a friend in personal communication with Ukrianians and also at least one Russian; these are personal contacts. Friend asserts that Ukrainians infiltrating Russia is quite possible because they look alike and in many cases speak the same language. Any territory seized by Russia is at risk to become a viable path of travel and sabotage.
I was just thinking to myself, that what Russia is doing, is a sure fired way to create home grown rebels and terrorists. But If Putin rules by fear, any kind of terrorists attacks by Ukrainians, will just make Putin stronger, because a) he doesn't care if Russians die(a lot of evidence he was behind the apartment bombings pinned on Chechnya), and fear increases nationalism, fear of the Other. So maybe this is all a feature, not a bug?
This nationalism works when you can point to someone different. It could be the Trump thing where the supporters will point to people who have darker hues of skin and/or do not have English as a first language. The Muslim thing worked too. Since people have been ignorant of Islam, it was easy to spread BS. A clear delineation can be made. Russia and Ukraine, maybe not so much. Each of these countries have interbred for generations. The languages are similar. Many Ukrainians speak good Russian. The faith is largely the Orthodox faith. Putin himself started this BS by basically saying the people were brothers. I don't think Russians would like Ukrainian terrorists, but I think there would be a great deal of understanding their cause.
-
This nationalism works when you can point to someone different. It could be the Trump thing where the supporters will point to people who have darker hues of skin and/or do not have English as a first language. The Muslim thing worked too. Since people have been ignorant of Islam, it was easy to spread BS. A clear delineation can be made.
This starts to get very off topic, but from personal experience living and interacting with a lot of Trump voters, what he tapped into had much less to do with a "other" composed of muslims/hispanics and a lot more to do with an "other" composed to what those folks see as culturally distinct populations of white people (college educated "elites": journalists, other politicians, experts, professors, etc).
I bring this up to illustrate that looking different or speaking another language is not a prerequisite for drumming up hatred and a shared identity defined by other people who are "not like us." Cultural markers work just fine for the same purposes.
-
Ok, this is hilariously good timing. Every 2 years NATO has a big war game exercise in Norway. Lots of different countries send people to participate, and it's apparently land, sea and air. It's.....now. March/April 2022. Right next to Russia. Russia is well aware, and apparently was even invited to observe. Planned long before Russia decided to begin their self-destruction by invading Ukraine.
https://www.forsvaret.no/en/exercises-and-operations/exercises/cr22
https://www.the-sun.com/news/4890360/nato-masses-troops-warships-war-games-border/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192351.htm
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/14/nato-military-exercises-kick-off-in-norway-with-30000-troops
-
I wonder if he has tasters? If his cook(s) can be bought, that's an easy way to eliminate him.
Yes, he has tasters.
-
Ok, this is hilariously good timing. Every 2 years NATO has a big war game exercise in Norway. Lots of different countries send people to participate, and it's apparently land, sea and air. It's.....now. March/April 2022. Right next to Russia. Russia is well aware, and apparently was even invited to observe. Planned long before Russia decided to begin their self-destruction by invading Ukraine.
https://www.forsvaret.no/en/exercises-and-operations/exercises/cr22
https://www.the-sun.com/news/4890360/nato-masses-troops-warships-war-games-border/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192351.htm
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/14/nato-military-exercises-kick-off-in-norway-with-30000-troops
This is probably also the reason why the USS Forrest Sherman is currently anchored in Stockholm. I really appreciate having it here right now, as it according to my more knowledgeable friends is probably more capable of shooting down any Iskander missile from Kaliningrad heading my way than our own Swedish defense systems are.
I thank all american taxpayers for this protection. Please feel free to park this ship here as long as you want. :)
-
Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/14/ukraine-weapons-backfire-nato?
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/diplomatic-compromise-ukrainian-neutrality-for-russia-withdrawal-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-03
-
And now it sounds like Tucker Carlson is a Russian propaganda asset. Tucker "Commie" Carlson, who would have thought?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones)
-
Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/14/ukraine-weapons-backfire-nato?
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/diplomatic-compromise-ukrainian-neutrality-for-russia-withdrawal-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-03
I'll save everyone else the time to read it. Both articles boil down to "If Ukraine surrenders, Russia will destroy less of it, so we should stop arming Ukraine and try to talk Russia into behaving better." and also "resisting Russia in Ukraine may incite Russia to attack other countries."
To which my response is simply this: The articles are a load of hogwash, full of "might"s and "may"s and "could"s and "what if"s, backed up by vapid speculation about Putin's thought process, and wishful thinking about peace in our time. Seriously, an air strike on a base 30 miles from the Polish border is seen as 'sending a message' because of its proximity to Poland? Um, how about "because it's a military training base"? Kharkiv is half that distance from the Russian border, and the Russians have still failed to take it after three weeks.
Whether or when Ukraine surrenders is entirely up to the Ukrainians. In the meantime, we should give them every resource they require in order to defend and preserve their independence from Russia. Russia's military is flailing about, mostly ineffectually, all over Ukraine. Do these authors honestly think Putin would order military strikes on Romania or Poland, or even has the forces to spare?
-
And now it sounds like Tucker Carlson is a Russian propaganda asset. Tucker "Commie" Carlson, who would have thought?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones)
He really does seem like a Russian operative at this point, along with Trump, who was still refusing to condemn Putin's actions as recently as his rally on Saturday.
-
There are heroes in Russia risking their personal freedom.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-tv-employee-interrupts-news-broadcast-marina-ovsyannikova
-
Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/14/ukraine-weapons-backfire-nato?
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/diplomatic-compromise-ukrainian-neutrality-for-russia-withdrawal-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-03
I've never seen so much stupidity in 2 articles.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I found this to be a fascinating read on a Chinese perspective on the war between Russia and Ukraine:
https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei-russia-ukraine-war-china-choice/
It's definitely not the only perspective being argued for within China, but I take it as a good sign that a government official felt safe articulating this argument.
-
A very brave Russian
https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1503445302119968769?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503445302119968769%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_
-
I found this to be a fascinating read on a Chinese perspective on the war between Russia and Ukraine:
https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei-russia-ukraine-war-china-choice/
It's definitely not the only perspective being argued for within China, but I take it as a good sign that a government official felt safe articulating this argument.
Wow.
That guy places a lot more faith in the trustworthiness and competence of USA than most Americans.
(For those not following the link: Chinese scholar seems confident that, after Putin's "irreversible mistake" in Ukraine, the West will consolidate around US leadership. He then concludes that if China doesn't soon publicly and decisively break with Putin, the world will label China as "bad guy" alongside him, with non aligned countries joining the West in a campaign to isolate and oppose Chinese interests over time. So he advocates cutting Putin off within another week or so.)
-
I know nothing about power structures in China, but a lot of people responding to his opinion noted he is "from Shanghai" implying (and stating, IIRC) that Shanghai is more tied to global market and more concerned about economic outcomes than the group in power in Beijing and would be discounted heavily due to this.
-
I know nothing about power structures in China, but a lot of people responding to his opinion noted he is "from Shanghai" implying (and stating, IIRC) that Shanghai is more tied to global market and more concerned about economic outcomes than the group in power in Beijing and would be discounted heavily due to this.
What would be in it for China to side with Russia? Would they get discount oil? Their military is getting chewed on in Ukraine so they won't be a great ally for a while. They have their own land disputes with Russia. They used to be united by ideology, but Russia is a dictatorship and no longer communist. China is run somewhat like a big business by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). Russia is currently a liability. Supporting them is a risky venture with nebulous returns.
-
I know zilch about Chinese internal politics, but the "staying neutral just pisses off everyone on both sides" point is well taken.
-W
-
I know nothing about power structures in China, but a lot of people responding to his opinion noted he is "from Shanghai" implying (and stating, IIRC) that Shanghai is more tied to global market and more concerned about economic outcomes than the group in power in Beijing and would be discounted heavily due to this.
What would be in it for China to side with Russia? Would they get discount oil? Their military is getting chewed on in Ukraine so they won't be a great ally for a while. They have their own land disputes with Russia. They used to be united by ideology, but Russia is a dictatorship and no longer communist. China is run somewhat like a big business by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). Russia is currently a liability. Supporting them is a risky venture with nebulous returns.
It's more complicated than that. The Soviets and the Chinese actually had a big falling out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split). Recent relations have actually been better (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_relations). Depending on who you ask Russia is doing it wrong and should be allying themselves with the USA before China is a threat to Russia. But I agree, other than oil I'm not sure what China wants with Russia, especially a strong Russia.
-
And oil they get anyway, Putin is not stopping his only income source.
-
I wonder if he has tasters? If his cook(s) can be bought, that's an easy way to eliminate him.
Yes, he has tasters.
And used his cooking staff to try to kill Yushchenko at a state dinner.
Today I've been reading opinions arguing against the West arming Ukraine (or at least highlighting the risks of doing so). I thought I would share these two:
One of the chief talking points for Russian sympathizers is to claim "this is all Ukraine's fault for not surrendering." Another popular one is to say this is the US' fault for hinting that Ukraine could join NATO and that required Putin to invade. There's a reason why the Baltic nations all joined NATO. They knew this might happen.
What would be in it for China to side with Russia? Would they get discount oil? Their military is getting chewed on in Ukraine so they won't be a great ally for a while. They have their own land disputes with Russia. They used to be united by ideology, but Russia is a dictatorship and no longer communist. China is run somewhat like a big business by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). Russia is currently a liability. Supporting them is a risky venture with nebulous returns.
China backing Russia: could turn Russia into a client state depending on how low Russia sinks and how much China is willing to invest. If the sanctions stick around for a while, Russia will require China going around the technology embargoes for Putin to rebuild the military. Every weapon, aircraft, or tank built since the 1990s and destroyed or lost this month is not getting replaced since they depend on imported electronics. China is North Korea's black marketeering big brother. They could serve that purpose for Russia. Or they could use this situation as leverage for gaining more influence over Central Asia. I'm not an expert in this area, but I don't see China going out of its way to antagonize the West right now unless they have a lot to gain from it. They could help Russia a little bit, but probably not outright ignoring all the sanctions.
-
I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
And trade is far more profitable with the west, especially after the Russian economy has collapsed, which has a high chance now.
-
I think the fellow from Shanghai does a good job of laying out why China valued the existence of Russa as a major military/political force in the world. But my attempt at a TL;DR version:
China sees itself as a target of "the west" and also in a long term contest for regional and global power and influence. As long as Russia exists as a significant political military actor, "the west's" attention has to be split between Europe and the Asia/Pacific region. When and if Russia collapses, there is nothing standing in front of the long term pivot towards focusing our political, military, and economic power on the Pacific (In the USA we've been talking about doing this since at least Obama).
Even shorter version: China sees value in Russia because Russia keeps America and Europe's attention divided.
-
I think the fellow from Shanghai does a good job of laying out why China valued the existence of Russa as a major military/political force in the world. But my attempt at a TL;DR version:
China sees itself as a target of "the west" and also in a long term contest for regional and global power and influence. As long as Russia exists as a significant political military actor, "the west's" attention has to be split between Europe and the Asia/Pacific region. When and if Russia collapses, there is nothing standing in front of the long term pivot towards focusing our political, military, and economic power on the Pacific (In the USA we've been talking about doing this since at least Obama).
Even shorter version: China sees value in Russia because Russia keeps America and Europe's attention divided.
There is value to the world not examining China. If the world examines China they see they have become more dependent on China and their manufacturing than the world is on Russia and the materials it produces.
I think there are smart people in the world who after Covid realize that all the eggs should not be put in the Chinese basket. Perhaps the Russian sanctions have had a similar effect. Sometimes it is worth not going with the lowest cost provider. There are intangibles that must be considered. It is the role of government to guide business to the path of greatest security for the consumer.
-
I think there are smart people in the world who after Covid realize that all the eggs should not be put in the Chinese basket. Perhaps the Russian sanctions have had a similar effect. Sometimes it is worth not going with the lowest cost provider. There are intangibles that must be considered. It is the role of government to guide business to the path of greatest security for the consumer.
In my part of the manufacturing world, this conversation had already been going on, but covid had a noticeable impact on how interested people were in having multiple suppliers and shorter supply chains.
Even shorter version: China sees value in Russia because Russia keeps America and Europe's attention divided.
This. I think anything that weakens or distracts the west is seen as a good thing by China. I suspect they'll flirt with supporting Russia enough to keep Russia's hopes up, but not enough to draw sanctions from US/Europe.
One of the chief talking points for Russian sympathizers is to claim "this is all Ukraine's fault for not surrendering." Another popular one is to say this is the US' fault for hinting that Ukraine could join NATO and that required Putin to invade. There's a reason why the Baltic nations all joined NATO. They knew this might happen.
I don't buy the "this is Ukraine/NATO's fault" argument, but I could see how someone with a really strong Cold War lens might say that in a "what did NATO think was going to happen?" way.
I do have some doubts about the morality of the west outsourcing a war with Russia to Ukraine. For me, those doubts are small as long as Ukrainians are successfully fighting back and requesting the assistance we are providing (and more that we aren't willing to provide). If the war goes bad for Ukraine, though, what does the west do? If we're going to not intervene and allow a (doomed, IMO) Russian occupation, then I'm less certain that what we are doing now makes us a good ally.
-
I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).
-
A better leader would have known how to read the room and realized exactly how little support he would have for this action.
Precisely.
Putin is a mediocre former KGB colonel lieutenant colonel (edit: Mr Putin did not make colonel in the KGB) and these characters are not known for being particularly smart.
Putin lost control of the narrative even before the invasion started and bet everything on immediate collapse of Ukrainian military capabilities, which was very unlikely to happen.
Now there are reports of Ukrainians taking up arms in support of the Ukrainian military in large numbers - particularly in Kyiv.
It is well known that the Russian military does not do well in city combat (I mean who does, but the Russians may be the worst).
As their initial foray into Kyiv was repelled, a destructive attack on the city with artillery etc. becomes a distinct possibility and that could justifiably be called a genocidal attack.
No one who takes part in or supports such an operation can avoid responsibilty and ultimately accountability for crimes committed - and that is true for the Russian foot soldier all the way up the chain to the leadership and its agents in the west.
There are many people involved in the Russian Ukraine operation who might have to make difficult decisions about further participation in the coming hours and days.
The Russian leadership and military have made their decision and are committing war crimes at increasing pace.
Nice to see that the investigations have already begun.
https://www.justsecurity.org/80679/the-intersection-of-accountability-and-diplomacy-in-addressing-russias-war-in-ukraine/
-
Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people. That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney. By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.
-
Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people. That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney. By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.
That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.
-
Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people. That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney. By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.
That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.
Bush and Cheney seem to do fine.
-
Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people. That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney. By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.
That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.
International war crimes tribunals are a back-up to national systems, so only come into play when the State responsible doesn't take its own action against the perpetrators. In the case of Abu Grahib there were prosecutions of the low-level perpetrators under national law. There were no prosecutions of higher-ups because of the failure of national law and there were no prosecutions of higher-ups under international law because the USA hasn't accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
-
Prosecution for war crimes only occurs against weak and defeated governments/people. That's why Abu Grahib didn't lead to any war crimes prosecution - despite all the rapes and torture going on there being fully authorized by Bush and Cheney. By the same token I doubt that Russia will suffer a large enough defeat for them to be prosecuted and held accountable in this way.
That's probably true. Except that if you are one of those war criminals you may never again be allowed in the west.
International war crimes tribunals are a back-up to national systems, so only come into play when the State responsible doesn't take its own action against the perpetrators. In the case of Abu Grahib there were prosecutions of the low-level perpetrators under national law. There were no prosecutions of higher-ups because of the failure of national law and there were no prosecutions of higher-ups under international law because the USA hasn't accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the various black sites are a stain on the United States. I am ashamed that those things were done in my name as a US citizen.
But, there was at least some war crime pushback on Bush, though it seems to have died down with time and separation:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland
While we are at it, Curtis LeMay would *absolutely* have been prosecuted as a war criminal for his actions in WWII and Vietnam if he wasn't a general in the US army. Macnamara would probably have gone down with him as complicit at a minimum.
-
And now it sounds like Tucker Carlson is a Russian propaganda asset. Tucker "Commie" Carlson, who would have thought?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/14/kremlin-memos-russian-media-tucker-carlson-fox-news-mother-jones)
He really does seem like a Russian operative at this point, along with Trump, who was still refusing to condemn Putin's actions as recently as his rally on Saturday.
A Russian oligarch, Andrey Muraviev, did make large and illegal donations to Trump's PAC.
Muraviev “attempted to influence the 2018 elections by conspiring to push a million dollars of his foreign funds to candidates and campaigns. He attempted to corrupt our political system to advance his business interests,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams announcing the indictment.
-
Dumb question. There was a meeting of various leaders with Zelensky in Kyiv today. What language did they likely use?
-
Dumb question. There was a meeting of various leaders with Zelensky in Kyiv today. What language did they likely use?
English.
-
There's some videos circulating: Zelensky is being translated into english on this one.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1503845988431237120 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1503845988431237120)
-
I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).
Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.
-
I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).
Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.
Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-china-agree-30-year-gas-deal-using-new-pipeline-source-2022-02-04/). Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.
-
I listened to a great interview with Timothy Snyder about Ukraine last night. He's written 6 books on Ukraine, though he is most recently well known as the author of On Tyranny. He provided a really insightful context for Putin's motivations in Ukraine and all the truly wacky shit Putin has been saying about Ukraine being part of Russia, etc. He also put the relationship to Europe in a much richer context as well. I can't recommend it enough.
audio and transcript:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-timothy-snyder.html
-
I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).
Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.
Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-china-agree-30-year-gas-deal-using-new-pipeline-source-2022-02-04/). Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.
They can, but this is a multi-year process. And there's a finite amount of oil/gas that can be pumped through a particular pipeline. Russia and Europe have spent decades building out the infrastructure to get oil and gas from east to west - it can't be changed quickly.
-
Good thing NATO isn't getting involved to try and stop this huh? It seems indiscriminate shelling/bombing of civilian shelters is getting worse and worse.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1504139039116562434
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Imagine how bad it would be if NATO started doing that too!
bad joke aside:
I don't think China is much interested in Russia. Long term (and China always thinks long term) there is not much in Russia that China needs, once the fossil fuel age has run out.
China lacks oil. I think that the one thing that Russia has the China would really like is the oil. Russia also has a bunch of other mineral resources (including cobalt which is a critical component of lithium-ion batteries).
Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.
Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-china-agree-30-year-gas-deal-using-new-pipeline-source-2022-02-04/). Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.
While that is true, and trains are good, building a pipeline takes quite some time. As does building hundreds of train wagons. You need a LOT of them to carry the slick, inflammable black liquid over several thousand kilometers in a meaningful amount, and that also is not cheap. That is why pipelines are used after all.
Also for trains I am sure you would need to build a new track. Even the Chinese need a year or two to build 1000km of track - and that is assuming you don't need any planning.
-
Although China & Russia are neighbors, there's a vast distance between where China needs oil and where Russia makes it - with no pipeline in between.
Not today, but they keep building natural gas pipelines (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-china-agree-30-year-gas-deal-using-new-pipeline-source-2022-02-04/). Maybe I'm just ignorant but if they can build a natural gas pipeline it seems like they can also build an oil pipeline. Russia also has an extensive rail network AFAIK.
They can, but this is a multi-year process. And there's a finite amount of oil/gas that can be pumped through a particular pipeline. Russia and Europe have spent decades building out the infrastructure to get oil and gas from east to west - it can't be changed quickly.
China thinks a lot longer term than The West does.
-
I do have some doubts about the morality of the west outsourcing a war with Russia to Ukraine. For me, those doubts are small as long as Ukrainians are successfully fighting back and requesting the assistance we are providing (and more that we aren't willing to provide). If the war goes bad for Ukraine, though, what does the west do? If we're going to not intervene and allow a (doomed, IMO) Russian occupation, then I'm less certain that what we are doing now makes us a good ally.
The west didn't outsource a war with Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine is resisting. The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.
Nuclear missiles mean that a conflict between NATO and Russia would probably escalate, it would be almost impossible to prevent escalation once one side started losing. Escalation in a nuclear confrontation means the end of the world, full stop.
I am rooting for Ukraine 100%, I am donating money to the UNHCR and Red Cross, and I think they are going to win. I do not and will not ever support NATO getting into a shooting war with a nuclear power because then we all die.
Finally, we in NATO are not allies with Ukraine. That's the whole point - Russia didn't want them to join NATO. We have no treaty obligations to Ukraine, which is a good thing because if they were in NATO and Russia invaded it would be WWIII and we all die.
We do have moral obligations because the invasion is a monstrous act, and we need to help where we can without making things worse. Escalation to a nuclear conflict is unambiguously worse in every way than the current catastrophe.
-
The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.
That is an untested hypothesis.
-
I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'. Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation. But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.
-
I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'. Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation. But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.
Putin gave a speech yesterday saying the war was going fine, but saying the country needs to "purge society" of "5th column" and "traitors." He's beating the usual dictator drums of whatever problem they're having being the fault of insider threats. If we drop bombs without a legally concrete reason, he can easily flip this and say it's all NATO's fault with photographic evidence. He could do this anyways even if he starts the fight with us, but why make it easy on him?
Russia hasn't made any significant battlefield gains in several days, and Ukrainian forces are still picking them apart a platoon or company at a time. We just pledged to send them advanced air defense systems and offensive drones while Putin is scraping the barrel for manpower. He's still stripping Far East Command of vehicles and enlisting Syrian and Georgian "volunteers." Ukrainian Ministry of Defense is alleging that Russia is graduating their officer academy class three months early to send them to the front.
-
I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'. Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation. But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.
Putin gave a speech yesterday saying the war was going fine, but saying the country needs to "purge society" of "5th column" and "traitors." He's beating the usual dictator drums of whatever problem they're having being the fault of insider threats. If we drop bombs without a legally concrete reason, he can easily flip this and say it's all NATO's fault with photographic evidence. He could do this anyways even if he starts the fight with us, but why make it easy on him?
Russia hasn't made any significant battlefield gains in several days, and Ukrainian forces are still picking them apart a platoon or company at a time. We just pledged to send them advanced air defense systems and offensive drones while Putin is scraping the barrel for manpower. He's still stripping Far East Command of vehicles and enlisting Syrian and Georgian "volunteers." Ukrainian Ministry of Defense is alleging that Russia is graduating their officer academy class three months early to send them to the front.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It seems like the Ukraine military is actually way more capable than was initially estimated by anyone, and the Russian militry is way worse. Honestly when I first heard that Russia was going to invade Ukraine I figured they'd have captured the capital within 3 days and have a puppet government installed within 2 weeks. But that's not what's happening at all. In the beginning would have given Ukraine zero chance to win. But now I think they are approaching even odds.
I mean, how much more humiliating would it be if Ukraine simply beat Russia straight up? Those would be some sweet, sweet Putin tears.
-
The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.
That is an untested hypothesis.
Shouldn't, because global nuclear war is objectively worse than every other option.
-
Nuclear missiles mean that a conflict between NATO and Russia would probably escalate, it would be almost impossible to prevent escalation once one side started losing. Escalation in a nuclear confrontation means the end of the world, full stop.
I do not and will not ever support NATO getting into a shooting war with a nuclear power because then we all die.
I don't quite understand this reasoning. If Putin is crazy/desperate enough to use nuclear weapons if NATO gets involved in Ukraine, it seems to me he would already be crazy/desperate enough to attack a NATO country. And if he wants to blame NATO for his failures and retaliate, he'll do that no matter what we have or haven't done. Anyway, just funneling in tens of thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles is plenty of justification, if he needed it.
I am rooting for Ukraine 100%, I am donating money to the UNHCR and Red Cross, and I think they are going to win.
I also hope Ukraine wins-- and they are doing better than I thought they could. But the best case outcome for them is probably still a country that's been absolutely devastated, and tens of thousands (or more) civilians dead.
Finally, we in NATO are not allies with Ukraine. That's the whole point - Russia didn't want them to join NATO. We have no treaty obligations to Ukraine, which is a good thing because if they were in NATO and Russia invaded it would be WWIII and we all die.
It's not a treaty relationship, but the kind of material support (and training, and almost certainly intelligence) we are providing clearly makes us an ally in this war.
We do have moral obligations because the invasion is a monstrous act, and we need to help where we can without making things worse. Escalation to a nuclear conflict is unambiguously worse in every way than the current catastrophe.
This is the point I was trying to make before. I worry that, if Ukraine loses and we let them be occupied, the support we provided will have ended up making things worse for them. As I said, as long as it seems clear that Ukraine wants to keep fighting and wants our support, this is a small concern.
-
Now here is where you guys shine, the money thing.
How long can old Putin keep throwing resources at this war? I realize he isn't motivated by the money thing. His money is locked up in western banks and he isn't going to be able to borrow easily. Will the money thing get him or is it inconsequential?
I also have an alternate viewpoint. People say Ukraine is winning. I look at battle maps and the cities are surrounded. It just doesn't look like winning.
-
Now here is where you guys shine, the money thing.
How long can old Putin keep throwing resources at this war?
I look at battle maps and the cities are surrounded. It just doesn't look like winning.
For the reasons you just implied, time is on Ukraine's side. The longer they can hold out, the worse for Russia. A couple major cities are surrounded and it sucks for them. A couple major cities are nearly surrounded, but still able to survive with enough forces to make it very painful for Russia. Russia's ability to make any more significant gains appears limited. They're losing hundreds of soldiers for gaining a few miles. Kyiv is considered safe enough that the Prime Ministers of four nations felt safe enough to show up for a meeting. Russia is asking China for food for its army. They're running out of trained people without completely stripping other borders. Right now for Ukraine, surviving is winning.
-
Now here is where you guys shine, the money thing.
How long can old Putin keep throwing resources at this war? I realize he isn't motivated by the money thing. His money is locked up in western banks and he isn't going to be able to borrow easily. Will the money thing get him or is it inconsequential?
I also have an alternate viewpoint. People say Ukraine is winning. I look at battle maps and the cities are surrounded. It just doesn't look like winning.
Money isn't really his problem, since he could not buy anything with it outside Russia anyway.
The thing is that Russia needs winning, while Ukraine simply needs not losing. Not losing means not stopping fighting.
Cities may be surrounded, but the point is they are surrounded, not taken over, right? Taking over a city in brutal house fights is extremely bloody and time consuming.
The casualties both in soldiers and equipment is mounting up. And way faster (and longer) than anyone thought.
This war - if you measure it with Putins goals, meaning installing a puppet regime in a swift operation - is already lost for Russia. If it goes on they might even lose in the sense of destroyed military capabilites. For the 3rd biggest army in the world, that is... well, hard to describe, but not good ;)
Even Putin in placid Russia might lose the grip to power if this goes on for another month or two. He has already destroyed the economic and political capital of Russia for at least a decade.
Every day longer tips the scales against him more, and that is especially true if the leading milliary needs to entertain the thoughts of getting killed in the war (or for their incompetency) themselves.
-
Ukrainians are apparently very good at fast ambush tactics, destroying tanks at an alarming (for Putin) rate. Now the US is sending cheaper, easy to use drones that are basically guided grenades designed to be flown from a sheltered area into enemy tank columns. This capitalizes on the Ukrainians’ tactics while exposing them to less return fire. Once the Russian artillery is destroyed, they will not even have the ability to carry out their war crimes. Regarding money - these drones are a fraction of the cost of even a troop carrier.
One of my professors in college was a targeting officer for the US in Vietnam. He asked himself (and us) “if I drop a $50,000 bomb on a bamboo bridge, did I destroy the bridge or did it destroy my bomb?” This is the reverse situation (from the NATO / Ukrainian perspective)
I still think this will be a grinding guerilla war that’ll eventually be replaced in the media by some stupid scandal or what have you. But at least Ukraine has a fighting chance. If they can end the conflict before the US midterm elections, they’ll be in good shape. After that we may find another squirrel to chase.
-
The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.
That is an untested hypothesis.
Shouldn't, because global nuclear war is objectively worse than every other option.
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
Should people be allowed to help Ukraine by donating arms? Nope. Putin might start nuclear armageddon if he doesn't win the war he created - and that's the worst option. Should NATO defend Poland if Russia invades? Nope. Putin might start nuclear armageddon if there is resistance - and that's the worst option. Should economic sanctions be levied against Russia? Nope. Putin might start nuclear armageddon if his economy collapses - and that's the worst option. Declaring global nuclear war as the worst option means that the craziest man in the room with access to nuclear codes will get anything he wants.
Should we try to avoid nuclear war? Hell yeah, of course. But empowering terrorists to do whatever they want out of fear of nuclear war doesn't seem like a viable option.
-
The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.
That is an untested hypothesis.
Shouldn't, because global nuclear war is objectively worse than every other option.
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
Should people be allowed to help Ukraine by donating arms? Nope. Putin might start nuclear armageddon if he doesn't win the war he created - and that's the worst option. Should NATO defend Poland if Russia invades? Nope. Putin might start nuclear armageddon if there is resistance - and that's the worst option. Should economic sanctions be levied against Russia? Nope. Putin might start nuclear armageddon if his economy collapses - and that's the worst option. Declaring global nuclear war as the worst option means that the craziest man in the room with access to nuclear codes will get anything he wants.
Should we try to avoid nuclear war? Hell yeah, of course. But empowering terrorists to do whatever they want out of fear of nuclear war doesn't seem like a viable option.
Global nuclear war is definitely worse than any other outcome.
-
Putin sounds like he knows he's in deep trouble here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJVYqP6eF2U
Just because western news is not talking about something doesn't mean it isn't happening. We are being told that arms are going to Ukraine but not in what quantity. We aren't even being told whether the Ukrainians are getting help from western satellite intelligence but can you doubt it? We aren't being told what help the Ukrainians are getting with intercepting Russian military communications but it is clear that this is happening. The Ukrainians have killed four Russian Generals so far, that's an indication of excellent co-ordination of intelligence and the supply of what are probably sophisticated weapons getting to boots on the ground who have got, or are getting, the training to use them. Ukraine is regularly shooting down Russian aircraft and Russian missiles.
Ukraine does need more surface missiles that can take out Russian artillery and more ground to air missiles that can take out aircraft. It probably needs more drones for surveillance and attack. Does anyone have any doubts that it is getting them, perhaps not as quickly as would be desirable but certainly on their way. The USA alone is giving $2 billion in armaments to Ukraine, on top of support from other Nato countries.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/16/fact-sheet-on-u-s-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
I don't suppose Putin has anything near $2 billion he can put into armaments for Ukraine.
What the west is doing for Ukraine is everything short of giving Putin an excuse to attack a Nato country. The death and destruction that is happening is hard to watch, but that's what war means and it's on Putin not the failure of the west to provide arms since the war started. If you want to pass blame, then blame Trump as his "we'll let Ukraine have the javelins if Zelensky concocts a corrupt lie against Biden", right? You might also blame the west for not taking action in relation to the Donbas and Crimea, but Putin was clever enough in those two cases to make a Nato response difficult. Not this time, though.
-
- SNIP -
I still think this will be a grinding guerilla war that’ll eventually be replaced in the media by some stupid scandal or what have you. But at least Ukraine has a fighting chance. If they can end the conflict before the US midterm elections, they’ll be in good shape. After that we may find another squirrel to chase.
I just find it a bit odd that the squirrel the media chase never really seems to be the global warming thing. I guess it is the power of advertising in action.
I saw a disturbing video about the Ukraine "special operation." Apparently, the Russians have these portable crematoria trucks. They had videos of them and I don't think this part was faked. So, the story goes that they are not sending bodies back home. Perhaps, they would do that for a war, but a "special operation" does not warrant it. The disturbing part was that the wounded don't stay wounded in the "special operation." The video said they get a shot in the head and then take their last ride in a crematoria truck. Retreating Russian soldiers also get shot, but that's not unexpected.
The truck story could be BS, but with the way Putin has treated his soldiers,.........truth is stranger than fiction.
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
-
- SNIP -
I still think this will be a grinding guerilla war that’ll eventually be replaced in the media by some stupid scandal or what have you. But at least Ukraine has a fighting chance. If they can end the conflict before the US midterm elections, they’ll be in good shape. After that we may find another squirrel to chase.
I just find it a bit odd that the squirrel the media chase never really seems to be the global warming thing. I guess it is the power of advertising in action.
I saw a disturbing video about the Ukraine "special operation." Apparently, the Russians have these portable crematoria trucks. They had videos of them and I don't think this part was faked. So, the story goes that they are not sending bodies back home. Perhaps, they would do that for a war, but a "special operation" does not warrant it. The disturbing part was that the wounded don't stay wounded in the "special operation." The video said they get a shot in the head and then take their last ride in a crematoria truck. Retreating Russian soldiers also get shot, but that's not unexpected.
The truck story could be BS, but with the way Putin has treated his soldiers,.........truth is stranger than fiction.
I don't know if its true, but I have seen things that indicate that Russia is killing wounded Russian soldiers AND captured Ukrainian soldiers.
-
"RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MARCH 16
Mar 16, 2022 - Press ISW
Mason Clark, George Barros, and Kateryna Stepanenko
March 16, 5:30 pm ET
Russian forces face mounting difficulties replacing combat losses in Ukraine, including the possible death of the commander of the 150th Motor Rifle Division near Mariupol. Russian efforts to deploy forces from Armenia, its proxy states in Georgia, and reserve units in the Eastern Military District will not provide Russian forces around Kyiv with the combat power necessary to complete the encirclement of the city in the near term. Russian forces made limited, unsuccessful attacks northwest of Kyiv and did not conduct offensive operations in northeastern Ukraine, toward Kharkiv, or toward Mykolayiv. Russian forces did make limited territorial gains in Donetsk Oblast and around Mariupol and continued to target civilian infrastructure in the city. Russian forces will likely continue to reduce the Mariupol pocket in the coming days, but Russian forces likely remain unable to conduct simultaneous attacks along multiple axes of advance."
...
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-16
-
“86.6% Russians support the idea of a military invasion of another country and believe that it should be Poland, according to an Active Group poll. According to the respondents, it is a logical continuation of the so-called military special operation of the Russian Federation.”
Those russians. They will never change. Always been this way. There should never be reset button.
https://activegroup.com.ua/2022/03/16/survey-says-86-6-of-russians-support-the-armed-invasion-of-russia-in-other-european-countries/
I hope that no-one is naive thinking that changing the putler regime, replacing with some russian opposition would matter. Nope. The opposition vastly supports the imperialism, including Navalny.
The replacement would work for maybe 10y allowing russia to lick their wounds, then rise and repeat. It was ALWAYS like that.
Russia never developed any other national policy, and will NEVER happen. This is what the russian mob wants.
-
My brother-in-law in Austria has begun driving a van to Moldova and bringing back Ukrainian refugees to Vienna for temporary housing. Lots of people have volunteered to host them. He says it is very sad and there are lots of women with babies, people crossing the border on foot.
-
Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.
[MOD NOTE: What the - ? Banned.]
-
Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.
That would be the racist take.
-
I don't believe support for invading Poland is anywhere near 85%. No way. No how. I don't care how hard Russia is pushing their propaganda.
So....I actually lived in Russia for about two years, from 2000-2002, in the area around St. Petersburg. There is definitely a generational divide between the old-timers who pine for the lost days of Soviet Greatness, and the younger generation, who were much more westernized. Now, I can't speak for how things may have changed in the last 20 years, but even then, only a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the old guard seemed to be a shrinking minority. Broader access to the internet can only have accelerated that trend.
People over there are a lot like people anywhere. The vast majority simply want to live their lives, have a family, be prosperous, and be safe. They have little interest in conquest for the sake of national pride. They are warm-hearted, genuine people.
When 9/11 happened, 80% of the people I talked with were extremely sympathetic, particularly because of the 1999 Russian apartment building bombings. The other 20% were of the "That's what you get, you capitalist dogs" attitude. :)
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
Is the new rule that any nuclear armed state can do whatever it wants? That outcome potentially seems worse.
-
Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.
That would be the racist take.
Not seeing how. A hammer in the head statements like that are needed to wake up and face the reality. Without understanding and knowledge there is no chance to make the word better.
It is an incredibly stupid statement that only exposes that you cannot recognize racism when it doesn´t come along as color line racism.
You are apparently living in North America which explains this ignorance.
But you are talking about Europe and Asia and there racism is much more complex and North Americans can get quickly tripped up because they are not even aware of their racist views ("Hey, they aren´t black so what are you talking about").
This problem is not just one of North American whites as Whoopi Goldberg´s recent problems illustrate.
So go and educate yourself before spewing forth more of this BS.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/whoopi-goldbergs-american-idea-race/621470/
-
Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.
That would be the racist take.
Not seeing how. A hammer in the head statements like that are needed to wake up and face the reality. Without understanding and knowledge there is no chance to make the word better.
I'm curious, do you genuinely not see why what you said is racist, or do you know but you think its okay because that kind of "bold" take is needed to wake people up ?
-
Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA. People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.
While dehumanizing the opponent may be useful for improving the combat effectiveness of the average grunt on the ground, doing so at a higher level can have disastrous consequences.
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want. Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card.
There is also the underlying assumption that while the actual odds may be low, the consequences are so dire that it's just taken as a given in the calculus. If something has a reasonable chance to possibly escalate to WW3, it must be avoided, even if that means turning a blind eye to genocide and other atrocities.
Thank god the Russia army has been so inept that they haven't even been able to take Ukraine. With the red line drawn at NATO borders they could have just steam rolled every non-NATO nation and expanded their empire apparently. And maybe even into NATO territory. NATO says it will respond with full force, but it's still unclear to me how the risk of nuclear war changes once he crosses that predetermined line and global nuclear war becomes the preferred outcome.
I do wonder just how much genocide we will sit back and watch before someone directly intervenes and risks nuclear war.
What if he starts geocoding his own population because they don't support the state and are thus not true Russians?
-
My brother-in-law in Austria has begun driving a van to Moldova and bringing back Ukrainian refugees to Vienna for temporary housing. Lots of people have volunteered to host them. He says it is very sad and there are lots of women with babies, people crossing the border on foot.
That is amazing, thanks to your brother-in-law!!!
I read from several sources the Russian army is holding a hospital in Mariupol hostage. Outrageous and disgusting!!
-
I do wonder just how much genocide we will sit back and watch before someone directly intervenes and risks nuclear war.
A lot of genocide ... just look at Rwanda in the mid-90s. 3/4 of a million Tutsis and there was a collective shrug by the international community. Even assuming that the NATO countries care ten times more about white Ukrainian lives than black Tutsi lives, we've got a ways to go.
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want. Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card.
There is also the underlying assumption that while the actual odds may be low, the consequences are so dire that it's just taken as a given in the calculus. If something has a reasonable chance to possibly escalate to WW3, it must be avoided, even if that means turning a blind eye to genocide and other atrocities.
Thank god the Russia army has been so inept that they haven't even been able to take Ukraine. With the red line drawn at NATO borders they could have just steam rolled every non-NATO nation and expanded their empire apparently. And maybe even into NATO territory. NATO says it will respond with full force, but it's still unclear to me how the risk of nuclear war changes once he crosses that predetermined line and global nuclear war becomes the preferred outcome.
I do wonder just how much genocide we will sit back and watch before someone directly intervenes and risks nuclear war.
What if he starts geocoding his own population because they don't support the state and are thus not true Russians?
The fundamental problem with nuclear arms is that they are a trump card. Having thousands of delivery devices (submarines, ICBMs, etc) scattered around the world is definitely so. Part of the calculus is absolutely whether we think that a given provocation will lead to nuclear retaliation. What are the ends that Putin is actually going for and what is the penalty to him for using nuclear weapons? He seems not that concerned about his home population's well being based on the systematic kleptocracy over decades and treatment of them in the last few weeks. He has demonstrated disregard for human life in his absolute decimation of entire cities in Georgia and Syria (see the term "Groznification"). He is very concerned with an abstract idea of a Russian whole (that is based in dodgy history), and how he will be ranked among the various tsars and leaders of Russia in the history books. If he loses in Ukraine and retreats to Moscow, he is also likely to lose power and not looked back on favorably. A cornered Putin with nothing to lose is a scary thing. A cornered Putin with a menu of nuclear options is very scary. I don't like it and I don't like that nukes give people like that so much power... but it does. This is why basically all former US secretaries of state work towards nuclear arms control after office (the last administration may be a departure from this).
If Putin is truly losing in Ukraine, I see a non-zero probability of a tactical nuke being used delivered by plane, artillery, or anything other than an ICBM that would trigger a massive counterstrike. Removing a city from the map in a few minutes does not seem off the table given Putin's objectives and demonstrated disregard for human life.
What are the triggers for deployment of nukes away from Ukranian soil? If NATO (and the US in particular) directly attacks Russians, especially on Russian soil, then things shift. The logic could easily shift to a validation of his vision of western aggression and "you attack my soil, I attack your soil." It doesn't have to be nuking a major US city either. It could be taking out a big chunk of a carrier group. Once the direct conflict hatch has been opened, escalation will be difficult to control and there is no guarantee that Putin will not use nukes. There have been plenty of near misses with nukes in the past, in addition to proxy conflicts between nuclear powers that did not escalate. This one is too close to Russia and the objectives and position of Putin in the conflict increase the odds of nuclear deployment in this conflict IMHO.
I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
The comment that you have pulled out of my post was poorly worded (I think it made more sense in context, but maybe not).
My concern is that fear of global nuclear war prevents us from opposing evil when it arises. Putin's actions in Ukraine are unusually and starkly evil. There is no shade of grey version or Russian side that makes the actions acceptable. He should be directly and militarily opposed for this.
Nuclear war is indeed terrible . . . but fear of nuclear war can't prevent us from making very clear moral decisions. I think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon is outweighed by the risk of fear preventing the world from doing the right thing.
I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.
There has been a push for nuclear disarmament for quite some time now. And man, I'd love to live in a world without nuclear weapons. But there just doesn't seem any realistic possibility of that ever happening. The more slack we cut guys with bombs (like we're doing with Putin), the harder it becomes to sell nuclear disarmament. Actually, if I was Ukranian right now, I'd be pretty upset that my country had disarmed it's nuclear weapons. I bet there would be more support for a no fly zone from world leaders if Zelensky said he would nuke Russia without one.
-
I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.
There have been four countries that have given up their nuclear weapons. One of them is currently being invaded by Russia. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I predict in the coming years there will be a lot of ink used postulating what would have happened without the Budapest Memorandum.
-
I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.
There have been four countries that have given up their nuclear weapons. One of them is currently being invaded by Russia. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I predict in the coming years there will be a lot of ink used postulating what would have happened without the Budapest Memorandum.
I think the underlying idea was that Eastern Europe nuclear disarmament was a first step toward worldwide disarmament. Obviously that turned out to be wrong, but I think it was worth at least trying.
-
Let's game out the "Russian whole" scenario for a minute. Let's say that Putin feels cornered, and sets off a nuke in Ukraine. What then?
One scenario (1): NATO responds by wiping out Russia's entire military operation Ukraine in about 2 days, using conventional weapons. Maybe they even go after all Russia's missile submarines. Maybe the rest of Russia's navy disappears, along with their satellites. Now Russia is fighting absolutely blind. What does Putin do here? Set off another nuke in Ukraine? That's status quo, except now, nukes are the *only* thing he has. Does he continue lobbing them willy-nilly at Ukraine? To what end? With no army to occupy the territory, it would accomplish nothing except increase his own cost of rebuilding, and further isolating him from the world.
Another scenario (2): NATO doesn't respond, but Ukraine surrenders, since it's much more likely than before that Putin will detonate another nuke. Tens of millions of people flee the country. Russia takes over, but now they have to deal with a radioactive city, a whole lot of rubble, and resources that Russia doesn't have the ability to exploit. This is the *best* scenario for Putin.
A third scenario(3): NATO doesn't respond, but Ukraine keeps fighting, and the West keeps supplying them. Will Putin drop another nuke? That just gets him back to either status quo, or scenario 2, but worse.
A fourth scenario (4): NATO responds with nukes, somewhere, and Russia uses that as an excuse for a full-on nuclear exchange.
Scenarios 1 and 4 don't help Putin establish himself as a great leader, but rather "the doofus who got our military wiped off the map" or "the doofus that started nuclear armageddon." Scenario 2, at best, labels him as "the idiot who ruined the place we wanted to conquer." If Ukraine wears down the Russians to the point they have to leave, Putin becomes "the moron who destroyed our army and economy."
IMO, the only way Putin gets in the history books for a good thing is if he is able to claim some sort of victory in Ukraine without nukes. And even then, it's likely to be at the cost of Ukraine joining the EU, and some of Russia's northern neighbors joining NATO.
Realistically, though, we are all just speculating at what Putin might do, and that's probably exactly what he wants. We've already called his bluff several times over the last few weeks, by imposing sanctions and continuing to arm the Ukrainians. If that keeps up, and the Ukrainians continue their success against the Russian army, he'll have to decide whether conquering an irradiated wasteland is worth the effort.
-
- SNIP -
The fundamental problem with nuclear arms is that they are a trump card. Having thousands of delivery devices (submarines, ICBMs, etc) scattered around the world is definitely so. Part of the calculus is absolutely whether we think that a given provocation will lead to nuclear retaliation. What are the ends that Putin is actually going for and what is the penalty to him for using nuclear weapons? He seems not that concerned about his home population's well being based on the systematic kleptocracy over decades and treatment of them in the last few weeks. He has demonstrated disregard for human life in his absolute decimation of entire cities in Georgia and Syria (see the term "Groznification"). He is very concerned with an abstract idea of a Russian whole (that is based in dodgy history), and how he will be ranked among the various tsars and leaders of Russia in the history books. If he loses in Ukraine and retreats to Moscow, he is also likely to lose power and not looked back on favorably. A cornered Putin with nothing to lose is a scary thing. A cornered Putin with a menu of nuclear options is very scary. I don't like it and I don't like that nukes give people like that so much power... but it does. This is why basically all former US secretaries of state work towards nuclear arms control after office (the last administration may be a departure from this).
- SNIP -
I just don't get that. Most. if all, of these Czars ruled a country with dirt poor primitive peasants. These guys led them on expeditions to conquer their neighbors. They used these peasants like cannon fodder. They were taught and believed that they were given their positions by God almighty In the many times their people tried to get a little bit of freedom, they squashed them like bugs. Why would any ruler want to be grouped with a bunch of a**holes like them?
Come to think of it Putin recently used the bug analogy and he has been treating Russian boys like cannon fodder. Whatever his odd motives, he seems to be succeeding.
Maybe we won't have to worry about nukes quite as much when we get people living off of the planet. Until then, that genie is out of the bottle.
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want. Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card.
It's not an argument. It's a question. Some people won't have any answers. Some people will.
What is a specific example of something that Russia could try doing that would be bad enough you'd be willing to have you, your family, and everyone you've ever met die to prevent them from doing it?
I'm not telling you that you cannot have answers to the question other than "nothing", I'm just curious what those answers are.
-
I continue to rely on experts for their read on the situation and tend to favour Tom Nichols' analysis, see for example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-war-nato-intervention/627092/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-war-nato-intervention/627092/)
Also, I was interested in a tactic towards (further?) collapsing Russia's army morale / commitment, mentioned at the end of the history lesson by Kamil Galeev:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1503768312236421120 (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1503768312236421120)
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
The comment that you have pulled out of my post was poorly worded (I think it made more sense in context, but maybe not).
My concern is that fear of global nuclear war prevents us from opposing evil when it arises. Putin's actions in Ukraine are unusually and starkly evil. There is no shade of grey version or Russian side that makes the actions acceptable. He should be directly and militarily opposed for this.
Nuclear war is indeed terrible . . . but fear of nuclear war can't prevent us from making very clear moral decisions. I think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon is outweighed by the risk of fear preventing the world from doing the right thing.
Okay, if you are arguing that less than 100% risk of global nuclear war is less bad than a certainty of some other bad thing, that's a position I can much more easily understand.
Then we're into the dark and murky waters of how likely is a given decision to lead to global nuclear war and how bad is the alternative thing if we don't risk it.
Kennedy was willing to risk a global nuclear war to keep nuclear missiles out of Cuba. Clearly that particular role of the dice paid off, but I honestly don't know I would have made the same calculus in his shoes.
In any case I'm glad we can agree that the actual fact of wiping out the vast majority of humanity, and a large fraction of the non-human biosphere is a really REALLY bad outcome.
-
You could also argue that since a nuclear war means nobody is going to survive, you must act like there are no nuclear weapons because otherwise you will be totally unable to do anything.
-
You could also argue that since a nuclear war means nobody is going to survive, you must act like there are no nuclear weapons because otherwise you will be totally unable to do anything.
I'm not sure that I agree with this.
If you're locked in an elevator with a crazy person wearing a suicide vest with a dead man's trigger, should you just act like the suicide vest doesn't exist because if the crazy person's hand slips off the trigger nobody is going to survive?
That doesn't mean you do absolutely anything the crazy person with the vest tells you (after all there are some things worse than death), but personally in that situation I would certainly factor the risk of death into my decision making.
-
To clarify - no country is worth total nuclear Armageddon. Not in my book. Not even my own, or the several countries I like more. If the price of not having the entire world explode, even in 1 of 100 multiverses, is a bunch of refugees and crumbled cities, then that’s the price we collectively will have to pay for not forseeing this and heading it off (obviously the non-Ukrainian price is much lower and it is crap because they’ve been warning us for years). Yeah it sucks he has a crazy suicide trigger switch, but the world does generally suck and we deal.
However, the current strategy is working, it’s just going to be a way worse slog than either side wants. That’s why starting wars is always stupid. however, trying to ride in on horses with shining armor isn’t always a good idea either. We just have to be smart about crippling Russia so they don’t try something stupid like this again. It’s worth noting that Russia has made basically no significant gains in the last week.
-
You could also argue that since a nuclear war means nobody is going to survive, you must act like there are no nuclear weapons because otherwise you will be totally unable to do anything.
That's basically the Mutually Assured Destruction that we lived under from 1960 until today. As long as the US and USSR/Russia didn't fight each other directly, the use of nukes was off the table because the expected outcome was total destruction.
-
You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option? That's bullshit.
What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?
I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want. Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card.
It's not an argument. It's a question. Some people won't have any answers. Some people will.
What is a specific example of something that Russia could try doing that would be bad enough you'd be willing to have you, your family, and everyone you've ever met die to prevent them from doing it?
I'm not telling you that you cannot have answers to the question other than "nothing", I'm just curious what those answers are.
I find it a hard question to answer, and I don't know if you even can it by only looking at isolated examples. When you make a binary comparison between "global nuclear war" or some alternative heinous act that doesn't cause global nuclear war, then the alternative act will win every time, no matter how heinous, because there is no single thing in isolation that warrants the extinction of our species. But when you follow that to the logical extreme it's absurd. If Putin declared himself king of the earth, and demanded 50% of the population was to be purged, and all world leaders executed, and everyone else would live peacefully forever after under the world russian federation, that would obviously be a no-go (IMO, maybe others disagree) and governments would risk nuclear warfare. Even though 50% of the population dead is objectively better than 100% dead, that kind of terrorism couldn't be tolerated.
I don't know where that line is that you need to risk it and put your foot down, or if it's even an objective line, or if everyone can agree on it.
-
Given that Russia is ruled by a mafia headed by Putin, devoid of deep ideological / religious fanaticism, the motivation for those gangsters is wealth and power maintenance to indulge in the good life.
Criminals gangs, Putin's included, rule by wanton violence to keep usurpers from getting uppity. Well, what more to show off power than by literally pummeling Ukraine to submission. Putin invading Ukraine, is just him wanting to show off he's the baddest mofo in the 'hood.
Thing is, with global nuclear war- then no more fancy lifestyle for the ruling Russian mafia. Someone, some sub-clique, within that coterie will off Putin before he crazily pulls the nuclear trigger
-
Given that Russia is ruled by a mafia headed by Putin, devoid of deep ideological / religious fanaticism, the motivation for those gangsters is wealth and power maintenance to indulge in the good life.
Criminals gangs, Putin's included, rule by wanton violence to keep usurpers from getting uppity. Well, what more to show off power than by literally pummeling Ukraine to submission. Putin invading Ukraine, is just him wanting to show off he's the baddest mofo in the 'hood.
Thing is, with global nuclear war- then no more fancy lifestyle for the ruling Russian mafia. Someone, some sub-clique, within that coterie will off Putin before he crazily pulls the nuclear trigger
Do you think these guys have less morals than the old USSR gang? Take Stalin, he was a bad person. However, I think the old government at least tried to do sh*t for their people. I'm kind of thinking the new crowd, the oligarchs, just do what they need to so they are pacified. Right now they are doing the thing that they used to do in some of the places I used to work. You guys know, "The Mushroom Management." The guys in charge of Russia are keeping the people in the dark and tossing some shi* on them once in a while.
-
Given that Russia is ruled by a mafia headed by Putin, devoid of deep ideological / religious fanaticism, the motivation for those gangsters is wealth and power maintenance to indulge in the good life.
Criminals gangs, Putin's included, rule by wanton violence to keep usurpers from getting uppity. Well, what more to show off power than by literally pummeling Ukraine to submission. Putin invading Ukraine, is just him wanting to show off he's the baddest mofo in the 'hood.
Thing is, with global nuclear war- then no more fancy lifestyle for the ruling Russian mafia. Someone, some sub-clique, within that coterie will off Putin before he crazily pulls the nuclear trigger
He's wrecking up their economy pretty fucking bad right now. I would think the same logic should hold true for causing economic devastation even without any nukes. Why hasn't someone stepped in and offed him? Surely they value their mega yachts, and billions of dollars, and lucrative international deals more than they value Putin's life, so why are they allowing all this economic havoc?
Maybe we just need more time for the reality of the devastation to fully sink in for them. Or maybe the devastation isn't targeted at the elite enough and they aren't hurting as much as we think they are. Or maybe they are more afraid of Putin than losing the money. Or maybe despite the embarrassing military show and laughable miscalculations, Putin is actually very shrewd and has insulated himself from domestic threats; Maybe they want to kill him, but can't, because he saw this coming a mile away and has internal barriers that prevent anyone from going rogue on him. You don't rise to the level Putin has without a good amount of competency in that area.
-
It's pretty clear this didn't go the way Putin intended. All signs are that he expect Ukraine to fold and be greeted as a great unifier/liberator. If this sounds insane, remember the absolute bullshit expectations leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Now he is stuck and doesn't have a good way out so is simply pressing forward by brute force, which has been the go to strategy in other conflicts. If the invasion seems like it doesn't make sense, that is an indicator that you are misjudging Putin's values and intended ends.
This is simply a shit situation for all parties at this point. Putin is fucked. As of today Ukraine is fucked from the damage of the invasion and there are no paths that won't have that getting worse. If NATO directly engages Russia, Putin will have a propaganda win at home and things are likely to escalate or spiral into bad places... even if it remains a conventional arms war. At the end of the day, this is a game of hard power and the goal needs to be the "least bad" way to get to the eventual political solution.
-
--------SNIP ------
He's wrecking up their economy pretty fucking bad right now. I would think the same logic should hold true for causing economic devastation even without any nukes. Why hasn't someone stepped in and offed him? Surely they value their mega yachts, and billions of dollars, and lucrative international deals more than they value Putin's life, so why are they allowing all this economic havoc?
Maybe we just need more time for the reality of the devastation to fully sink in for them. Or maybe the devastation isn't targeted at the elite enough and they aren't hurting as much as we think they are. Or maybe they are more afraid of Putin than losing the money. Or maybe despite the embarrassing military show and laughable miscalculations, Putin is actually very shrewd and has insulated himself from domestic threats; Maybe they want to kill him, but can't, because he saw this coming a mile away and has internal barriers that prevent anyone from going rogue on him. You don't rise to the level Putin has without a good amount of competency in that area.
They say there is no honor among thieves. Is it true?
Putin made these people what they were. I'm sure some of them went from near poverty in the Soviet Union to wealth they never dreamed of. Are these sanctions an attempt to buy their allegiance? Maybe they band together more than we conjecture? Much of their wealth has been removed. Has it been permanently been removed? Are they waiting it out? If they attempt to take the big man out, is there is a good chance they will be discovered and taken out themselves? Is there little doubt that Putin tracks every one of these oligarchs? It's only been three weeks, the fate of Ukraine can still turn on a dime.
What kind of chaos would ensue were Putin removed? Would the oligarchs be able to keep their wealth if it were returned or would the new Russian regime take this wealth that many say was stolen from the Russian people? Is it better to have the devil you know or the devil you do not?
-
Sanctions against the oligarchs are mainly about sending a message to western populations that their politicians are 1) honest and 2) taking effective action against Putin. Make your own mind up about those two. They are also partly about preventing Putin from accessing that money to get around other sanctions.
It is a mistake to think that the oligarchs have any influence on Putin. They are his clients, not his employer.
Sanctions in themselves are not confiscation: that would be a separate process.
Putin puts a lot of effort into not being assasinated: those long tables are nothing to do with covid because when the people in the room are not a potential threat (.all those air stewardesses) he sits next to them. Even if it were possible to kill Putin it would have to be a suicide mission.
-
Number of Russian troops deployed to Ukraine - 210k
Number of people in Ukraine Military - 200k
I'm not actually seeing a big numbers advantage for the Russians here. And the Ukraine's don't need to 'waste' any other their soldiers on things like logistics or convoys. So the actual number of fighters is quite possibly higher for Ukraine than for Russia.
-
Number of Russian troops deployed to Ukraine - 210k
Number of people in Ukraine Military - 200k
I'm not actually seeing a big numbers advantage for the Russians here. And the Ukraine's don't need to 'waste' any other their soldiers on things like logistics or convoys. So the actual number of fighters is quite possibly higher for Ukraine than for Russia.
Are you just counting their military? Because they also have the Territorial Defense, and the last number I heard for that was $100k, plus various international volunteers (many of whom have serious skills and experience).
Russia has more of everything of course, but it's really a question of what they're willing/able to commit.
From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.
-
Speaking from Sweden here:
One thing is for sure, this has changed a lot of politics in Europe. More unity, re-arming militaries that has been dormant since the fall of soviet / communist block, definitely some changes in upcoming elections (we have one in Sweden this fall). Not all of this may be good.
The 30 year effects of this is huge. Like Zelenskyy said recently, this is our 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
-
From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.
I really wonder how many of this long range missiles they have? They must be expensive and e.g. the Iskander system was at least before this invasion reported to be more at the borders to be able to reach northen Europe from Kaliningrad and near St Petersburg, and some in the east to be able to do some damage in Japan and China.
That's of course just the launching systems, but each missile must also cost a sweet dime so they cannot be endless in supply. Sending troops close to the target and just using simpler weapons must be cheaper, especially as they don't seem to care for russian soldiers lives.
-
From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.
I really wonder how many of this long range missiles they have? They must be expensive and e.g. the Iskander system was at least before this invasion reported to be more at the borders to be able to reach northen Europe from Kaliningrad and near St Petersburg, and some in the east to be able to do some damage in Japan and China.
That's of course just the launching systems, but each missile must also cost a sweet dime so they cannot be endless in supply. Sending troops close to the target and just using simpler weapons must be cheaper, especially as they don't seem to care for russian soldiers lives.
I haven't seen any numbers on how many they might have, or how many they can build a year (and do they need imported parts to do that?). But aren't these the same missile systems that would deliver nuclear warheads, so wouldn't they need to keep a lot of them reserved for that?
I do remember reading early on that they had used some of the older missile systems as well, in addition to the Iskander.
-
Speaking from Sweden here:
One thing is for sure, this has changed a lot of politics in Europe. More unity, re-arming militaries that has been dormant since the fall of soviet / communist block, definitely some changes in upcoming elections (we have one in Sweden this fall). Not all of this may be good.
The 30 year effects of this is huge. Like Zelenskyy said recently, this is our 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
Yep, nothing unites people like a common enemy.
-
I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'. Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation. But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.
Unfortunately regardless of the outcome - we are faced with a world placing new emphasis on their military might. The peace was nice while it lasted. Good gosh humans are a violent species.
-
From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.
I really wonder how many of this long range missiles they have? They must be expensive and e.g. the Iskander system was at least before this invasion reported to be more at the borders to be able to reach northen Europe from Kaliningrad and near St Petersburg, and some in the east to be able to do some damage in Japan and China.
That's of course just the launching systems, but each missile must also cost a sweet dime so they cannot be endless in supply. Sending troops close to the target and just using simpler weapons must be cheaper, especially as they don't seem to care for russian soldiers lives.
I haven't seen any numbers on how many they might have, or how many they can build a year (and do they need imported parts to do that?). But aren't these the same missile systems that would deliver nuclear warheads, so wouldn't they need to keep a lot of them reserved for that?
I do remember reading early on that they had used some of the older missile systems as well, in addition to the Iskander.
I'm at work, or there's a couple sources I could link for you. There's the OIST or something like that (I see on Twitter), they track visually confirmed destroyed equipment. Michael something is a researcher/policy/military/whatever guy, from what I can tell he's legit and I know I've seen some stuff from him somewhere about how much Russia is estimated to have. Then there's a Kamil something guy who's less military but very much seems to know his stuff on the culture/history side of things, which absolutely does impact the military. Then there's the Institute of War (thinktank) that is closely following events, and posting on their website. I haven't been reading their stuff but from what I can tell, they are respected and referred to by actual militaries.
I will try to remember to come back and update with links.
Bottom line - Russia has a LOT. It's more how much they're willing to spend on Ukraine, because their resupply is limited, especially with the sanctions.
-
Sibley mentioned:
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical)
Kamil Galeev
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani)
Michael Kofman (? I think this is who she they meant?)
https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael (https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael)
I like Trent Telenko also:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko)
ETA one more Trent has been re-tweeting: Association of Old Crows with some good maps of spy planes around Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/AOCrows (https://twitter.com/AOCrows)
-
Number of Russian troops deployed to Ukraine - 210k
Number of people in Ukraine Military - 200k
I'm not actually seeing a big numbers advantage for the Russians here. And the Ukraine's don't need to 'waste' any other their soldiers on things like logistics or convoys. So the actual number of fighters is quite possibly higher for Ukraine than for Russia.
Are you just counting their military? Because they also have the Territorial Defense, and the last number I heard for that was $100k, plus various international volunteers (many of whom have serious skills and experience).
Russia has more of everything of course, but it's really a question of what they're willing/able to commit.
From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.
In the US Army there's a significant "tooth-to-tail" ratio. I.e. how many Soldiers are actually fighting vs. how many it takes to support them with logistics, maintenance, etc. Only 20% of the US Army is combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery) that means the other 80% are some type of combat support or sustainment. Even if Russia has a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio that still means their invasion force of 200,000 only represents 40,000 - 100,000 combat troops. The rest are truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, clerks, etc.
Most of the Ukranian military can be in the fight as they're not worrying as much about the other stuff. Same with their Territorial Defense Force which is going to be almost entirely infantry.
Russia has launched about 1,000 missiles. That's a lot, but still a miniscule amount when spread across an entire country. And those types of weapons can't be quickly replaced - especially with the sanctions limiting some critical supplies like electronics. They're already running low or they wouldn't be using unguided bombs dropped from low altitude by modern fighter-bombers. That's very risky (as shown by them losing 1-2 planes almost every day). Those missiles are being saved for the most important targets, like airfields or fuel/ammo storage. They're not going to use them to target a few tanks or a platoon of infantry.
I just watched a video of Russian attack helicopters flying up at an angle to launch rocket salvos. These are unguided rockets that are meant to be fired directly at a target from hundreds or a few thousand meters away. This tactic extends their range but makes them completely inaccurate - unless your target is an entire city.
-
Read today that about 320,000 Ukrainians, mostly male, have returned to defend it also, so far.
-
Sibley mentioned:
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical)
Kamil Galeev
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani)
Michael Kofman (? I think this is who she they meant?)
https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael (https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael)
I like Trent Telenko also:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko)
ETA one more Trent has been re-tweeting: Association of Old Crows with some good maps of spy planes around Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/AOCrows (https://twitter.com/AOCrows)
Yep, I'm a she, and you're correct about each. Thanks for the Trent guy, I'll look for him. And thank you for linking. :)
-
Number of Russian troops deployed to Ukraine - 210k
Number of people in Ukraine Military - 200k
I'm not actually seeing a big numbers advantage for the Russians here. And the Ukraine's don't need to 'waste' any other their soldiers on things like logistics or convoys. So the actual number of fighters is quite possibly higher for Ukraine than for Russia.
Are you just counting their military? Because they also have the Territorial Defense, and the last number I heard for that was $100k, plus various international volunteers (many of whom have serious skills and experience).
Russia has more of everything of course, but it's really a question of what they're willing/able to commit.
From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.
In the US Army there's a significant "tooth-to-tail" ratio. I.e. how many Soldiers are actually fighting vs. how many it takes to support them with logistics, maintenance, etc. Only 20% of the US Army is combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery) that means the other 80% are some type of combat support or sustainment. Even if Russia has a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio that still means their invasion force of 200,000 only represents 40,000 - 100,000 combat troops. The rest are truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, clerks, etc.
Most of the Ukranian military can be in the fight as they're not worrying as much about the other stuff. Same with their Territorial Defense Force which is going to be almost entirely infantry.
Yep, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. In terms of actual fighting men/women on the ground, Ukraine may actually have a numbers advantage. Which would explain why this whole encounter has been such a meat grinder for the Russian army.
Just one telling stat. So far Russia has lost somewhere around 10,000 soldiers in the last 3 weeks. That's more than America lost in the entire 20 years of war with Iraq and Afghanistan. 3 weeks! And it seems to be accelerating.
-
Another interesting thread:
https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1504936532959850496 (https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1504936532959850496)
-
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop (https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop)
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
This is a list of all Russian and Ukrainian equipment losses that can be visually verified, updated several times a day. Meaning the real number could be much higher.
https://twitter.com/sentdefender (https://twitter.com/sentdefender)
https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron (https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron)
Other sources I check frequently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-order-pay-117-mln-eurobond-interest-fulfilled-2022-03-17/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-order-pay-117-mln-eurobond-interest-fulfilled-2022-03-17/)
Russia paid some of its bonds this week, and in dollars. The arguments seem to be "shouldn't sanctions stop this?" and "this is hard currency leaving Russia which they can't keep up for long."
-
Regarding missiles, nobody knows for sure how many they have in stockpile. Some think tanks say "nowhere close to the end" while Ukraine says "they're running out." Their ability to resupply is definitely limited. The guidance systems are imported. They expended a lot of the good stuff in Syria the last few years. It's noteworthy that most of the long-range missile strikes in the first two weeks were surface to surface launches. Now they're almost entirely coming from air force bombers. They're either running out of the surface-launched stuff or they had a high loss rate from air defenses.
-
I like Trent Telenko also:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko)
Trent was just interviewed by ABC for his recent contributions to the discussion.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/damage-russian-equipment-raises-questions-military-effectiveness-83536545 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/damage-russian-equipment-raises-questions-military-effectiveness-83536545)
-
Don't know if this is true or just propaganda, but I'm going to cross my fingers its true.
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1504893465112502282
Ukranian ambassador tweeted "Over 30 villages near #Kyiv freed from 🇷🇺 occupiers over the last 48 hours. At some directions #RussianArmy has been thrown back 70 km from #Ukraine’s capital."
Edit:
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1504861665434779651
Possibly more Russian generals/officers killed. Again, unconfirmed.
-
Don't know if this is true or just propaganda, but I'm going to cross my fingers its true.
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1504893465112502282
Ukranian ambassador tweeted "Over 30 villages near #Kyiv freed from 🇷🇺 occupiers over the last 48 hours. At some directions #RussianArmy has been thrown back 70 km from #Ukraine’s capital."
Edit:
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1504861665434779651
Possibly more Russian generals/officers killed. Again, unconfirmed.
The Russians may be just pulling back to dug-in lines to reduce losses from ambush and allow for long-range artillery. If seems their overall goal now is just blasting everything to rubble and then planting a flag on the pile.
-
Don't know if this is true or just propaganda, but I'm going to cross my fingers its true.
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1504893465112502282
Ukranian ambassador tweeted "Over 30 villages near #Kyiv freed from 🇷🇺 occupiers over the last 48 hours. At some directions #RussianArmy has been thrown back 70 km from #Ukraine’s capital."
In the south it is true. Ukrainian forces cleared Mykolaiv and have been pushing down the highway to the outskirts of Kherson. I haven't heard anything about northern gains yet. I usually wait a day or two for independent verification. I follow Ukrainian MoD's Twitter and they haven't said anything yet. Analysts are using satellite imagery normally used to spot forest fires to see where battles are taking place. Additional satellites can spot vehicle movements, and if there are identifiable buildings or terrain in photographs or videos taken on the ground they can be cross-referenced to show exactly where the image was taken.
Ukrainian forces have to be careful about going on the attack since it puts them at greater risk than the ambushes they've been doing for the last month. Each decision to attack has to be weighed with the risks and what might be gained. Kherson airfield was used as a field headquarters and a staging base for possible attacks further north and west. Now it's being abandoned. If there's momentum from this they could take back Kherson which would secure their southern flank and threaten Crimean supply lines. There's no help coming for Mariupol though. It's right in the middle of Russia's lines.
-
Oh! Apparently the Russian stock market is going to reopen on Monday. At least, that's what RT's tweet says, and aren't they controlled by the Russian government?
https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1504925770044559363
I've also seen some twitter account that claims that Ukraine's just about to beat the Russians. I tend to think that's BS, but I will hope.
-
At least some folks seem to be reporting that now Russia is saying the Moscow Exchange will open for trading of government bonds on Monday, but not for trading of stocks. Haven't found a good definitive source for that yet though.
-
Hypothesis: Putin's invasion will collapse spectacularly by mid-April at the latest.
I have seen comments in the media and here that the Ukrainians could fight the Russians to a standstill, and we could be in for a long war. I think neither can happen, and if it does it can only be after Russia first loses half their army. By the way Russia will lose half their army this spring, the question is will they be interested in the war (a conventional war) after that. There is a very basic reason they will lose half their army within a few weeks, and that is that Putin's army has a very large [surface area : volume] ratio. It is like a heat sink. It is great when you are hot and you want to lose heat into the environment, but when the environment is hotter than you, you will get fried very quickly. They have 200,000 soldiers, but their perimeter is much, much longer than Scotland's coastline. They can't defend it. The Ukrainians can attack the Russian forces from any of 100,000 places, and have excellent intel and reconnaissance while doing so. Sun Tzu (pardon my bad Chinese) said "he who defends everywhere defends nowhere." The Russian deployment, once they switched to defending, has a perimeter which is a reasonable approximation of "everywhere" and hence is also a reason approximation of indefensible. In the history of warfare, Russia's might be the all-time worst deployment to defend against what Ukraine is doing to them. Machiavelli would be proud of Putin; Sun Tzu, not so much.
Putin's army in Ukraine has been losing about 4% of its men and equipment per week. I saw an assessment that Putin sent 75% of his entire combat-deployable forces to Ukraine, meaning 3% of Russia's entire ground forces are being lost per week. At this rate, within 10 weeks of February 24 the invasion force will have 40% losses (dead, wounded, captured, deserted, destroyed, damaged), and the Russian military will have lost 30% of its entire ground forces. There is nothing the Russians can do to stop this. This loss rate is an inherent property of their invasion plan. The rate of loss is likely to accelerate as the Russians weaken faster than digging in will help.
The strength of invaders on hostile territory is not linear. An invader is most effective before losing 10%, and the last 50% is hopeless. An invader (especially modern) on hostile territory relies on many complex organizations to fight. If a Ukrainian battalion runs out of ammo for a day, they can high-tail it to friendly ground. If a Russian battalion runs out of ammo for a day, they are toast. That unit failing will allow Ukraine to wreak havoc on the units around it. The entire sector falls apart. Then the entire invasion. The invading army depends on many complex chains besides ammo, and not all of them are supplies. As a crude generalization, a typical attacking army loses with a ratio of 1:2:3:4 dead:wounded:captured:runaway. Once 30% are dead or wounded, the entire thing falls apart. I would not be surprised if Putin's army has lower morale than a typical army and falls apart sooner.
Also, the Russian plan gives them zero tactical flexibility, while giving the Ukrainians enormous tactical flexibility. Putin's army launched attacks from a dozen or more locations, none of which had enough strength to accomplish their objective, and none of which interacted with the other attacks, with the exception of Mariupol. The problem is that once he had invested 100% of his force, he lost the ability to redirect them to his advantage. The force sent to Odessa obviously was not strong enough for this objective, and would have been better sent to Kyiv. However once deployed to attack Odessa it would take weeks for it to disengage, retreat, embark, travel, and reengage, disorganized and missing most equipment, which makes it pointless to even try. Every Russian unit, once committed to an attack, will take days to be withdrawn and redirected even a short distance away. They also are not strong enough to fight their way over to assist another force. They are stuck.
On the other hand, a Ukrainian unit in the center of the country (say between Dnipro and Poltava) can arrive at any front within a day. Western military supplies from Poland can similarly be diverted at the last hour to any part of the front, based on the most recent assessment of needs. This allows the under-gunned Ukrainian army to gain brief strategic superiority over nearly any point on short notice, while the Russians are stuck in the area that they attacked with the equipment that they came with. This also answers a question I saw a self-declared-twitter-expert asking: Russia shoots missiles at civilians from Russian airspace but a no fly zone couldn't stop this, so why is Ukraine set on a no fly zone? The reason is, the Russian air force can badly interrupt Ukrainian attempts to organize their units. Bombs and helicopters will force Ukraine to remain scattered and disorganized. Drones will let the Russians know where they are going. With a no fly zone, Ukraine can mount a large and well organized surprise attacks anywhere in the country within a few hours achieving overwhelming local superiority, and repeat this again and again very rapidly. But with the threat of Russian air, they must resort to small and disorganized formations, and move cautiously.
Conclusion: unless this is going totally over my head (which it probably is), Putin's offensive will collapse spectacularly in the near term. Like next few weeks. Like 100,000 soldiers lost (mostly captured) with all equipment. If pushed to keep attacking, Russia's entire military may collapse before summer. If Putin is good at keeping power and presses the attack he will be reduced to terror bombings from the perimeter. If he is not good at keeping power, every part of Russian government and economy may collapse before summer. This is one of those big world moments you usually only find in books. I hope the world lives.
OK, so that is a bold hypothesis I have had for a while. It is testable over the next two months.
(https://i.imgur.com/7zRYzJF.jpg)
-
Other thoughts:
The strategy of Putin's army was to get drunk on Putin's Power Vodka, hop in a bunch of canoes, and start paddling as fast as possible up Shit Creek. Then farmers started to steal their paddles. Now they are getting tired. The sun is getting lower. There's a sound of cicadas and frogs. They are starting to sober up. Alligators are dozing on the banks, watching with half an eye. Where are all the paddles anyhow? A tractor engine sounds in the distance. They are starting to think "maybe this wasn't such a good idea". But once you are Deep Up Shit Creek Without a Paddle, that is where you are, and it is already too late! <-- That's what I thought last week. Now, there are starting to be splashes and screams.
Whoever planned the Russian invasion had a very poor grasp of military history, with a special emphasis on being totally ignorant of Russian military history in particular since 1800, and most especially since 1900.
Moldova, Moldavia, Maldives, is that a place in Africa, right? Oh, it used to be called Bessarabia. I've heard of that. Definitely Africa.
-
Off topic thoughts:
The decisive victory of Russia over Sweden 300 years ago was in the Battle of Poltava in 1709. That sort of put a real end to "Grand Sweden" and we started losing territory. A hundred years later, Sweden had lost all of it's overseas possessions - including Finland (1809) and soon thereafter small parts what is now northern Germany ... back to our current borders, basically.
For me, it would be kind of poetic if such a decisive battle in Poltava would be the end of the current Russian empire in a similar fashion.
-
Speaking from Sweden here:
One thing is for sure, this has changed a lot of politics in Europe. More unity, re-arming militaries that has been dormant since the fall of soviet / communist block, definitely some changes in upcoming elections (we have one in Sweden this fall). Not all of this may be good.
The 30 year effects of this is huge. Like Zelenskyy said recently, this is our 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
Yes, this is definitely a game changer in Europe.
One thing is clear for me: the European Union as a political entity is controversial, and we definitely should continue to be critical of it. It's definitely not perfect.
But being European, that sense of identity, that's absolutely real. Everyone feels it.
For years, the far right in many European countries has been very close to Putin. They see Putin as the keeper of true, conservative European values and christianity, in contrast to the "liberals" who have ruined the rest of the continent. We had local elections this week and it was very clear that their pro-Putin stance has cost the far right many votes. If they don't distance themselves from Putin asap they might feel this for a long time to come. Or maybe it's already too late now financial links with Putin's regime have been uncovered. It really feels like everyone has decided they're on the "wrong side of history.
I do hope this will not result in hatred against Russians. There's quite a big Russian community in my city. I've heard stories of people being attacked when they spoke Russian on the street.
In the long term, I'm also wondering if people will continue to be so friendly to refugees. It seems like it's Putin's tactic to overflow countries with refugees, in the hopes that it will cause tensions. From April 1st Ukrainians will gain the right to work in my country, they already had the right to stay here. Right now our labour market really needs extra workers, but we have an extreme shortage of afforable housing. People will want to offer Ukrainians temporary emergency housing, but what if they can't go home in 3 months like everyone expects them to? Or what if it's safe enough for them to go home but they don't want to because Ukraine is bombed to pieces? It's not unusual for low income folks in my country to spend 15 years or more on the waitlist for affordable housing. If the influx of Ukrainians makes that 20 or 25 years, are people going to accept that in the long run?
-
More Near Total BS:
This war has had me dig out my Western Civilization history book from college. Once the mildew smell fades, I'll reread it. As I remember, the Russians have lucked out with some big wars due to the enormous amount of land and Winter has helped them. It seems like the score is finally evening. They are against a country of big flat farmland and their tanks are stuck in Winter mud. The pictures of the country look like Illinois. The season is quickly changing here in the American Midwest. I'd guess it's true over there too. How will this affect the battles? Will it help or hurt the Russians?
Seems like Canada is doing their part to help refugees.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8690277/ukrainian-refugees-canada-three-years/ (https://globalnews.ca/news/8690277/ukrainian-refugees-canada-three-years/)
Maybe the US will once again follow the Canadian example.
From Imma:
For years, the far right in many European countries has been very close to Putin. They see Putin as the keeper of true, conservative European values and christianity, in contrast to the "liberals" who have ruined the rest of the continent. We had local elections this week and it was very clear that their pro-Putin stance has cost the far right many votes. If they don't distance themselves from Putin asap they might feel this for a long time to come. Or maybe it's already too late now financial links with Putin's regime have been uncovered. It really feels like everyone has decided they're on the "wrong side of history.
I've never figured how Conservatives have this lock on Christianity. This Jesus guy cured the sick, fed the hungry talked about being a good Samaritan and stuff. It always seemed ass backwards of what Conservatives spout from their mouths. Apparently, it's like that all over the world, weird.
-
More Near Total BS:
This war has had me dig out my Western Civilization history book from college. Once the mildew smell fades, I'll reread it. As I remember, the Russians have lucked out with some big wars due to the enormous amount of land and Winter has helped them. It seems like the score is finally evening. They are against a country of big flat farmland and their tanks are stuck in Winter mud. The pictures of the country look like Illinois. The season is quickly changing here in the American Midwest. I'd guess it's true over there too. How will this affect the battles? Will it help or hurt the Russians?
Right now it's hurting them. Ukrainian soil is several feet deep and right now the winter snow is melting. The mud is deep enough that in some cases all that is visible of a tank is the turret. I saw a video of a tank being dug out of the mud with an excavator and a tractor. These conditions will last another month or so. In this next month you're going to see a lot of different variables at play. The Russian economy will be close to collapse if the sanctions perform as advertised. Ammo, spare parts, and replacement vehicles will be in short supply. Their army will be looking to induct its next iteration of conscripts and get the current crop to contract for longer terms. Ukrainian reserves will have gone through a lot of training and hopefully have taken some ground.
You're correct that Russian success in many of their wars has been due to letting the geography and weather do most of the work for them. They've always been under equipped and under trained.
-
Regardless of how the military side fares, both Russian and Ukrainian peoples are screwed.
Russian: the sanctions are destroying their economy, they're going to be struggling to find basic supplies and food. Lots of comments about the demographics, well, killing or severely injuring thousands of your young men is going to have a negative impact on potential population growth.
Ukraine: they've had millions flee the country due to the fighting. Russia is destroying housing, schools, hospitals, basic infrastructure. There's going to be no where for these people live, no health care, no education for their children. Many of the refugees who have fled will likely not return, because they functionally won't be able to. Why would a parent pull their children out of safe housing and schooling to return to a country where there's no bed, no school? You can't justify it.
There will be entire towns and cities just wiped off the map after this. When a town is pounded to rubble, it really doesn't make much sense to rebuild it from completely scratch. It's far too difficult to remove all the rubble, then build. Much easier to just go somewhere else and build. For major cities, sure. Small ones though? Unlikely. And that's before we talk about the overall economy.
The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to take decades. Russia as well, but they may face additional challenges in terms of the rest of the world shunning them.
-
I've never figured how Conservatives have this lock on Christianity. This Jesus guy cured the sick, fed the hungry talked about being a good Samaritan and stuff. It always seemed ass backwards of what Conservatives spout from their mouths. Apparently, it's like that all over the world, weird.
My take:
Religion in general is more that just a belief in the words of a specific book. It's an explanation of why things are as they are. It's a community where you are with likeminded people. It's a clear signal of who is a follower and who is an outsider - who is acting right and who is a sinner. And that later definition of right and wrong is often not coming directly from the literal text but from the persons appointed to interpret them.
The church is much much more than just a literal interpretation of the story of Jesus. It's tradition and continuity. Since it was adopted as state religion of Rome more than 1500 years ago it has also been tightly integrated with state power, and everyone from the King of Germany who needed the pope to be appointed Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire to our current leaders of the big western countries often have church leaders present at important moments. Heck, the roman heritage is present in this situation as well as the separation of the Russian and Ukraine orthodox churches was part of the stated reasons for the war (and Russia considers itself the inheritor of the eastern half of the Roman empire through the orthodox church).
One aspect of "conservatism" in the original sense of the word is of course that "don't change what don't work" - and the church as well as other things that many consider outdated follow in this track. The church has for many centuries and in many forms been important to worldly power - it is basically something that has been here for a long time. I'm sure it's not easier in the US where a broad spectrum of political opinions must be squeezed into one of two political parties...
-
The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to take decades. Russia as well, but they may face additional challenges in terms of the rest of the world shunning them.
I'm trying to stay optimistic about Ukraine's future. They'll have the rest of the world donating to help them rebuild. I imagine there will be substantial economic perks to becoming an EU member should it go through. Russia will be mostly on its own, especially if Putin stays in power.
-
Regardless of how the military side fares, both Russian and Ukrainian peoples are screwed.
Russian: the sanctions are destroying their economy, they're going to be struggling to find basic supplies and food. Lots of comments about the demographics, well, killing or severely injuring thousands of your young men is going to have a negative impact on potential population growth.
Russia is a net food exporter. Definitely shortages of lots of other things and it sure seems like their economy is falling apart but starvation is not going to be a serious worry for them even under the current sanctions regime.
Russia's population today is about as big as the USA's was back during World War II. In that war, the USA lost 400,000 people, predominantly but not exclusively young men, and after the war we saw an enormous baby boom. I'm not predicting the same for Russia after the war ends, just that the number of Russian war dead isn't the biggest issue Russian demographics face. For a sense of the bigger drivers of Russia's current demographic challenges: At various points during Putin's regime, more than 55,000 Russians were killing themselves each year.
Ukraine: they've had millions flee the country due to the fighting. Russia is destroying housing, schools, hospitals, basic infrastructure. There's going to be no where for these people live, no health care, no education for their children. Many of the refugees who have fled will likely not return, because they functionally won't be able to. Why would a parent pull their children out of safe housing and schooling to return to a country where there's no bed, no school? You can't justify it.
I don't disagree with you about the destruction of houses and schools and infrastructure. But in answer to your bolded question, I think you are overlooking how few of the Ukrainian refugees are complete families and how strong the urge to reunite family (and have two parents to help with kids instead of just one) is.
Was talking to my coworker in Poland on Thursday. He's in a city where the number of Ukrainian refugees now exceeds 10% of the city's entire population. Mostly women with children, and the elderly. He said that as far as he's seeing they are mostly staying as close as they can to the train stations and are eager to return home as soon as they can.
Which is not to minimize the barriers that destroyed homes and schools and roads will create to that return. Just that there is a reason and there is a motivation. And if Russia can be defeated, I think, and hope, you may be surprised what can be accomplished after the war, although it may take a decade and with a vast amount of suffering and sacrifice still to come.
Consider the cases of the Wirtschaftswunder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder) in Germany after World War II. Obviously not a direct analogy for a lot of reasons (people would be thrilled to support Ukrainian businesses after the war, buying west german goods after world war II had a very different connotation), but it was a country that had experiences about as large a destruction of infrastructure as any European country in modern history; 2/3rds of its industrial capacity was gone, at least 20% of all the housing in the country had been destroyed.
-
The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to take decades. Russia as well, but they may face additional challenges in terms of the rest of the world shunning them.
I'm trying to stay optimistic about Ukraine's future. They'll have the rest of the world donating to help them rebuild. I imagine there will be substantial economic perks to becoming an EU member should it go through. Russia will be mostly on its own, especially if Putin stays in power.
Agreed, Ukraine is going to have a lot going for them, and it will help. But those challenges are still going to be there. They're going to have a rough decade.
-
I've never figured how Conservatives have this lock on Christianity. This Jesus guy cured the sick, fed the hungry talked about being a good Samaritan and stuff. It always seemed ass backwards of what Conservatives spout from their mouths. Apparently, it's like that all over the world, weird.
My take:
Religion in general is more that just a belief in the words of a specific book. It's an explanation of why things are as they are. It's a community where you are with likeminded people. It's a clear signal of who is a follower and who is an outsider - who is acting right and who is a sinner. And that later definition of right and wrong is often not coming directly from the literal text but from the persons appointed to interpret them.
The church is much much more than just a literal interpretation of the story of Jesus. It's tradition and continuity. Since it was adopted as state religion of Rome more than 1500 years ago it has also been tightly integrated with state power, and everyone from the King of Germany who needed the pope to be appointed Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire to our current leaders of the big western countries often have church leaders present at important moments. Heck, the roman heritage is present in this situation as well as the separation of the Russian and Ukraine orthodox churches was part of the stated reasons for the war (and Russia considers itself the inheritor of the eastern half of the Roman empire through the orthodox church).
One aspect of "conservatism" in the original sense of the word is of course that "don't change what don't work" - and the church as well as other things that many consider outdated follow in this track. The church has for many centuries and in many forms been important to worldly power - it is basically something that has been here for a long time. I'm sure it's not easier in the US where a broad spectrum of political opinions must be squeezed into one of two political parties...
Good answers - To sum it up, like a lot of things people do, it doesn't have to make sense. I saw pictures of the leader of the Russian Orthodox church with Putin. I heard Putin was really religious. It just didn't match with the baby killing thing.
This war will end. I hope all these governments and people who are so willing to support giving weapons will also give to rebuild.
-
Regardless of how the military side fares, both Russian and Ukrainian peoples are screwed.
Russian: the sanctions are destroying their economy, they're going to be struggling to find basic supplies and food. Lots of comments about the demographics, well, killing or severely injuring thousands of your young men is going to have a negative impact on potential population growth.
Russia is a net food exporter. Definitely shortages of lots of other things and it sure seems like their economy is falling apart but starvation is not going to be a serious worry for them even under the current sanctions regime.
Russia's population today is about as big as the USA's was back during World War II. In that war, the USA lost 400,000 people, predominantly but not exclusively young men, and after the war we saw an enormous baby boom. I'm not predicting the same for Russia after the war ends, just that the number of Russian war dead isn't the biggest issue Russian demographics face. For a sense of the bigger drivers of Russia's current demographic challenges: At various points during Putin's regime, more than 55,000 Russians were killing themselves each year.
Ukraine: they've had millions flee the country due to the fighting. Russia is destroying housing, schools, hospitals, basic infrastructure. There's going to be no where for these people live, no health care, no education for their children. Many of the refugees who have fled will likely not return, because they functionally won't be able to. Why would a parent pull their children out of safe housing and schooling to return to a country where there's no bed, no school? You can't justify it.
I don't disagree with you about the destruction of houses and schools and infrastructure. But in answer to your bolded question, I think you are overlooking how few of the Ukrainian refugees are complete families and how strong the urge to reunite family (and have two parents to help with kids instead of just one) is.
Was talking to my coworker in Poland on Thursday. He's in a city where the number of Ukrainian refugees now exceeds 10% of the city's entire population. Mostly women with children, and the elderly. He said that as far as he's seeing they are mostly staying as close as they can to the train stations and are eager to return home as soon as they can.
Which is not to minimize the barriers that destroyed homes and schools and roads will create to that return. Just that there is a reason and there is a motivation. And if Russia can be defeated, I think, and hope, you may be surprised what can be accomplished after the war, although it may take a decade and with a vast amount of suffering and sacrifice still to come.
Consider the cases of the Wirtschaftswunder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder) in Germany after World War II. Obviously not a direct analogy for a lot of reasons (people would be thrilled to support Ukrainian businesses after the war, buying west german goods after world war II had a very different connotation), but it was a country that had experiences about as large a destruction of infrastructure as any European country in modern history; 2/3rds of its industrial capacity was gone, at least 20% of all the housing in the country had been destroyed.
Agreed with you, but I still think limitations are going to be in place. You can have plenty of food and not get it to the right places. Look what happened with toilet paper in 2020 - there wasn't a shortage overall, there was a mismatch between the residential and commercial supply.
As for the refugees wanting to return home, absolutely some, probably many, will return within a year once the war stops. But not all. There are two ways to reunite families after all - either party can move.
It's going to be fluid, and there will probably be many surprises as things play out. I'm rooting for Ukraine - but Ukraine as it existed will not be the Ukraine that exists in a year.
-
I've never figured how Conservatives have this lock on Christianity. This Jesus guy cured the sick, fed the hungry talked about being a good Samaritan and stuff. It always seemed ass backwards of what Conservatives spout from their mouths. Apparently, it's like that all over the world, weird.
As a conservative Christian, perhaps I can explain some nuance here. What I aspire to is a charitable attitude as an individual and in my social circles. What I personally have reservations about is government-run and legally-mandated programs. There are a host of reasons, which are outside of the scope of this topic. All that said, there *are* conservatives whose rhetoric is decidedly un-Christlike. They also happen to be the most vocal, and because they are inflammatory, they get amplified by their opponents. The same goes for people on the opposite end of the political spectrum. The vast majority have values that they quietly try to live by, but only the most strident voices seem to make their way into the headlines and Instagram posts.
-
I've never figured how Conservatives have this lock on Christianity. This Jesus guy cured the sick, fed the hungry talked about being a good Samaritan and stuff. It always seemed ass backwards of what Conservatives spout from their mouths. Apparently, it's like that all over the world, weird.
As a conservative Christian, perhaps I can explain some nuance here. What I aspire to is a charitable attitude as an individual and in my social circles. What I personally have reservations about is government-run and legally-mandated programs. There are a host of reasons, which are outside of the scope of this topic. All that said, there *are* conservatives whose rhetoric is decidedly un-Christlike. They also happen to be the most vocal, and because they are inflammatory, they get amplified by their opponents. The same goes for people on the opposite end of the political spectrum. The vast majority have values that they quietly try to live by, but only the most strident voices seem to make their way into the headlines and Instagram posts.
I would add that I know some very liberal Christians. But like zolotiyeruki they aren't starting mega-churches and screaming from the pulpit.
-
Good answers - To sum it up, like a lot of things people do, it doesn't have to make sense. I saw pictures of the leader of the Russian Orthodox church with Putin. I heard Putin was really religious. It just didn't match with the baby killing thing.
In the US, there are a few nation-building catchphrases like "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Russian equivalent is apparently "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality")", where the last word in my understanding can be translated also more towards "people" in the same way as "Black folks" or "Ein Volk" in other languages... something other than "nation state" and more towards a cultural group. Perhaps including "russians" even in other nation states. However, the focus on the orthodox church is very clear, and that is why e.g. the Pussy Riot action (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot#Arrest_for_hooliganism") in a church a few years ago was such a big deal.
My guess is that Putin is as religious as Trump. Even if Trump was seen with a bible on the front entrance of a church, not all people would believe him to be a man of God - but the faithful Trumpists would like it anyway. But that's just my guess (both regarding Putin and Trump - and I'm an atheist myself).
Patriarch Kirill himselfs got in the news a while back when a photo of this pious man was first seen on a photo with a $30,000 watch on his wrist - and later it was photoshopped out of the same photo but they forgot to photoshop the reflection in the table.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian_patriarch_watch_disappearing_act/24539007.html
-
Machiavelli would be proud of Putin; Sun Tzu, not so much.
Sun Tsu would have had Putin beheaded the moment before he gives the attack order.
btw. Since ancient times the saying was that to get a fortified city you need at least 3 times the soldiers. Now, Ukrainian cities aren't walled, but that's because weapons made big round walls more or less useless.
You still need at least 3 times the soldiers to besiege a city. And Russia is besieging a lot fo cities. And, as we see, they generally don't dare to go in there for good reasons. Also an indication of overstretched forces.
I'm trying to stay optimistic about Ukraine's future. They'll have the rest of the world donating to help them rebuild. I imagine there will be substantial economic perks to becoming an EU member should it go through. Russia will be mostly on its own, especially if Putin stays in power.
Maybe rebuild the destroyed parts as super-eco-friendly, MMM style neighborhoods? Bike paths, solar power....
-
I've never figured how Conservatives have this lock on Christianity. This Jesus guy cured the sick, fed the hungry talked about being a good Samaritan and stuff. It always seemed ass backwards of what Conservatives spout from their mouths. Apparently, it's like that all over the world, weird.
As a conservative Christian, perhaps I can explain some nuance here. What I aspire to is a charitable attitude as an individual and in my social circles. What I personally have reservations about is government-run and legally-mandated programs. There are a host of reasons, which are outside of the scope of this topic. All that said, there *are* conservatives whose rhetoric is decidedly un-Christlike. They also happen to be the most vocal, and because they are inflammatory, they get amplified by their opponents. The same goes for people on the opposite end of the political spectrum. The vast majority have values that they quietly try to live by, but only the most strident voices seem to make their way into the headlines and Instagram posts.
I would add that I know some very liberal Christians. But like zolotiyeruki they aren't starting mega-churches and screaming from the pulpit.
I think in many European countries, it's not really that much about the belief in a literal God. I know believing in a literal God is still very much the done thing in the US and other parts of the world, but Europe is a pretty secular continent. Even the far right. The leader of the biggest far right party in the Netherlands calls himself a "cultural Christian" and is a fan of Putin as the leader of the Christian European culture, works closely together with conservative Catholic groups with strong ties to the Vatican.... but he still calls himself a "cultural" Christian, not a "Bible-believing" Christian like an American would say.
What cultural Christian basically means it that you do believe in one "volk", "blood and soil", and that you don't like people from other nations to come here, especially not those whose nations traditionally worship another God, and that you don't like gay people or women in short skirts, not because God or the Bible tells you so but just because that's not the natural culture of our people.
Of course there are many true Christians in Europe just as there are in other countries, but the ratio "cultural" Christians vs. "Bible-believing" Christians, especially in politics, is very different. Especially / even on the far right. Many parties on the far right have historical ties to völkisch movements and many of them have mixed feelings about organized religion and religions from the Middle East in particular.
I don't think Putin believes in a literal God either, or at least, he's never openly admitted that he does. Growing up in the Soviet Union, apparantly his father was an atheist while his mother secretly believed. I think he's only been nominally Christian since he's been in office. Could be true, could be for political gain, who knows?
I'm sure many people who have fled to other countries will not return to Ukraine. But many will. And the rebuilding of the Ukraine might go faster than some people think. Remember most of Europe looked like Ukraine in 1945. Ukraine will receive just as much support during rebuilding as Europe received in the post-war years. Of course, the country will look very differently after the war, in the same way that all countries change enormously after a war, but people have always rebuilt after wars and they will also do that this time.
-
Just out.
"Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war. That campaign aimed to conduct airborne and mechanized operations to seize Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, and other major Ukrainian cities to force a change of government in Ukraine. That campaign has culminated. Russian forces continue to make limited advances in some parts of the theater but are very unlikely to be able to seize their objectives in this way. The doctrinally sound Russian response to this situation would be to end this campaign, accept a possibly lengthy operational pause, develop the plan for a new campaign, build up resources for that new campaign, and launch it when the resources and other conditions are ready. The Russian military has not yet adopted this approach. It is instead continuing to feed small collections of reinforcements into an ongoing effort to keep the current campaign alive. We assess that that effort will fail."
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19
-
Just out.
"Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war. That campaign aimed to conduct airborne and mechanized operations to seize Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, and other major Ukrainian cities to force a change of government in Ukraine. That campaign has culminated. Russian forces continue to make limited advances in some parts of the theater but are very unlikely to be able to seize their objectives in this way. The doctrinally sound Russian response to this situation would be to end this campaign, accept a possibly lengthy operational pause, develop the plan for a new campaign, build up resources for that new campaign, and launch it when the resources and other conditions are ready. The Russian military has not yet adopted this approach. It is instead continuing to feed small collections of reinforcements into an ongoing effort to keep the current campaign alive. We assess that that effort will fail."
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19
If you keep reading though, they think the next phase is stalemate. And stalemate is ugly - a lot of death and destruction.
-
Just out.
"Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war. That campaign aimed to conduct airborne and mechanized operations to seize Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, and other major Ukrainian cities to force a change of government in Ukraine. That campaign has culminated. Russian forces continue to make limited advances in some parts of the theater but are very unlikely to be able to seize their objectives in this way. The doctrinally sound Russian response to this situation would be to end this campaign, accept a possibly lengthy operational pause, develop the plan for a new campaign, build up resources for that new campaign, and launch it when the resources and other conditions are ready. The Russian military has not yet adopted this approach. It is instead continuing to feed small collections of reinforcements into an ongoing effort to keep the current campaign alive. We assess that that effort will fail."
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19
If you keep reading though, they think the next phase is stalemate. And stalemate is ugly - a lot of death and destruction.
Yes, a stalemate is what the Russian leadership is now preparing for; and, in the event, it would be a relatively comfortable position to be in for a military that does not care too much about losses.
But, it takes two to come to a stalemate and there is no indication yet that Ukraine is interested in cooperating with the Russian effort to create a stalemate.
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
I started reading "Bloodlands" last night, which is a historical book about the truly massive killings in the Slavic states in the 1930s and 1940s. It provides a sobering reminder of how bad things can get. Stalin systematically killed millions of Ukranians through intentional starvation of the civilian population. Putin isn't Stalin, but he is clearly completely okay with indiscriminate shelling of civilians to break the will of the people and aggressive repression domestically. Refusing to feed the citizens of Mauripol and carting people off to what I can only assume are some sort of camp in Russia seems in line with that. It is fucking terrible.
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505370275273183239.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505370275273183239.html)
Another logistics lesson of the week to dive into.
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
I started reading "Bloodlands" last night, which is a historical book about the truly massive killings in the Slavic states in the 1930s and 1940s. It provides a sobering reminder of how bad things can get. Stalin systematically killed millions of Ukranians through intentional starvation of the civilian population. Putin isn't Stalin, but he is clearly completely okay with indiscriminate shelling of civilians to break the will of the people and aggressive repression domestically. Refusing to feed the citizens of Mauripol and carting people off to what I can only assume are some sort of camp in Russia seems in line with that. It is fucking terrible.
Yes, the Holodomor. I've seen 3+ million as the number who died of starvation, and it was completely and totally caused by humans. Zero excuse. Hopefully, Russia will be facing real consequences for their actions this time.
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
I started reading "Bloodlands" last night, which is a historical book about the truly massive killings in the Slavic states in the 1930s and 1940s. It provides a sobering reminder of how bad things can get. Stalin systematically killed millions of Ukranians through intentional starvation of the civilian population. Putin isn't Stalin, but he is clearly completely okay with indiscriminate shelling of civilians to break the will of the people and aggressive repression domestically. Refusing to feed the citizens of Mauripol and carting people off to what I can only assume are some sort of camp in Russia seems in line with that. It is fucking terrible.
I am not so sure that Putin isn't the next Stalin. Every war criminal had to start mass killings somewhere...
These reports are very concerning. It is becoming increasingly clear that Putin does not follow any norms of war. He will grind Russia and Ukraine into the ground in a best-case scenario. I do think it's clear he lacks the conventional force to take on NATO, and will stay out of other countries under their cover. He may, however, spread his brutal insanity into other non-NATO areas. It is unclear why he is doing this other than pure ideology/hatred. That is what is so scary. If it was some grab for more oil reserves or some such nonsense, at least there is logic behind it. He, more than any despot since Hitler, has the ability to rally brainwashed masses and the psychopathy to use them to cause devastation beyond current generations' understanding.
I will be surprised if there does not end up being a third World War as this spirals out of control.
-
I'm also seeing reports that the Belarusian railway workers have completely cut off all rail connections between Belarus and Ukraine. I'm uncertain of exactly when, there's articles from earlier this month saying the same thing, so it's possible that now there's official confirmation that there's no rail links. Or maybe the sabotage is ongoing.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3434519-kamyshyn-rail-services-between-ukraine-and-belarus-suspended.html
Maybe we'll end up seeing some government turnover in Belarus. The people don't seem all that pleased with their current leader.
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
I started reading "Bloodlands" last night, which is a historical book about the truly massive killings in the Slavic states in the 1930s and 1940s. It provides a sobering reminder of how bad things can get. Stalin systematically killed millions of Ukranians through intentional starvation of the civilian population. Putin isn't Stalin, but he is clearly completely okay with indiscriminate shelling of civilians to break the will of the people and aggressive repression domestically. Refusing to feed the citizens of Mauripol and carting people off to what I can only assume are some sort of camp in Russia seems in line with that. It is fucking terrible.
I am not so sure that Putin isn't the next Stalin. Every war criminal had to start mass killings somewhere...
These reports are very concerning. It is becoming increasingly clear that Putin does not follow any norms of war. He will grind Russia and Ukraine into the ground in a best-case scenario. I do think it's clear he lacks the conventional force to take on NATO, and will stay out of other countries under their cover. He may, however, spread his brutal insanity into other non-NATO areas. It is unclear why he is doing this other than pure ideology/hatred. That is what is so scary. If it was some grab for more oil reserves or some such nonsense, at least there is logic behind it. He, more than any despot since Hitler, has the ability to rally brainwashed masses and the psychopathy to use them to cause devastation beyond current generations' understanding.
I will be surprised if there does not end up being a third World War as this spirals out of control.
Then I very much hope that the US and NATO are working on figuring out how to secure all of Russia's nukes, before Putin can use them. (Yes, it's probably impossible. Let me dream.)
-
Off the wall thought:
There have been people fleeing Russia. The young smart people are getting out of St Petersburg via the train to Finland. I wondered where these people could go.
If this war goes the way our media tells us then the government of Ukraine will survive and the country will be rebuilt. It will be a land of opportunity as rebuilding is a lot more work than blowing sh*t up.
So, I figured this will be an ideal opportunity for those young people who left Russia. They won't even have language problems.
-
Off the wall thought:
There have been people fleeing Russia. The young smart people are getting out of St Petersburg via the train to Finland. I wondered where these people could go.
If this war goes the way our media tells us then the government of Ukraine will survive and the country will be rebuilt. It will be a land of opportunity as rebuilding is a lot more work than blowing sh*t up.
So, I figured this will be an ideal opportunity for those young people who left Russia. They won't even have language problems.
That's an interesting idea. It's not just the young, it's the more wealthy and the more educated. It's a very real brain drain that'll have a decades-long impact.
-
There is a brain drain going on in Russia right now. The best thing that the west could do is to welcome them with open arms.
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
I started reading "Bloodlands" last night, which is a historical book about the truly massive killings in the Slavic states in the 1930s and 1940s. It provides a sobering reminder of how bad things can get. Stalin systematically killed millions of Ukranians through intentional starvation of the civilian population. Putin isn't Stalin, but he is clearly completely okay with indiscriminate shelling of civilians to break the will of the people and aggressive repression domestically. Refusing to feed the citizens of Mauripol and carting people off to what I can only assume are some sort of camp in Russia seems in line with that. It is fucking terrible.
Yes, the Holodomor. I've seen 3+ million as the number who died of starvation, and it was completely and totally caused by humans. Zero excuse. Hopefully, Russia will be facing real consequences for their actions this time.
This twitter user says that to build his military power Stalin relied on technological import from the USA, and to pay for it he took food from Ukraine to sell abroad. So the Holodomor helped build American industrial wealth.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani
-
There is a brain drain going on in Russia right now. The best thing that the west could do is to welcome them with open arms.
Not only now, and that is half of the reason that the Russian economy has more or less stagnated for a long time.
The other is of course the oil based kleptocracy. (Again, I recommend the book in my signature :D)
-
The phrase "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" seems to apply here. Russia isn't doing that though. There are reports that not only is Russia refusing to provide food or water to Mariupol citizens, they're also forcibly relocating some to an unknown location in Russia.
Really, are there any rules of war that Russia hasn't broken yet?
I started reading "Bloodlands" last night, which is a historical book about the truly massive killings in the Slavic states in the 1930s and 1940s. It provides a sobering reminder of how bad things can get. Stalin systematically killed millions of Ukranians through intentional starvation of the civilian population. Putin isn't Stalin, but he is clearly completely okay with indiscriminate shelling of civilians to break the will of the people and aggressive repression domestically. Refusing to feed the citizens of Mauripol and carting people off to what I can only assume are some sort of camp in Russia seems in line with that. It is fucking terrible.
Yes, the Holodomor. I've seen 3+ million as the number who died of starvation, and it was completely and totally caused by humans. Zero excuse. Hopefully, Russia will be facing real consequences for their actions this time.
This twitter user says that to build his military power Stalin relied on technological import from the USA, and to pay for it he took food from Ukraine to sell abroad. So the Holodomor helped build American industrial wealth.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani
And hired a US reporter to go on a tour of Ukraine and report back that there was nothing shady going on.
-
There is a brain drain going on in Russia right now. The best thing that the west could do is to welcome them with open arms.
Not only now, and that is half of the reason that the Russian economy has more or less stagnated for a long time.
The other is of course the oil based kleptocracy. (Again, I recommend the book in my signature :D)
I can't find the link right now, but a story hit my feed a few minutes ago about a schoolteacher in Russia who was given a modified lesson plan to teach his students about Ukraine. He called bullshit on it and was fired, arrested, beaten by the police (on school grounds), and threatened with prison. He's now on the run somewhere in Europe.
-
Perspective of an American journalist in Ukraine:
What Racism Taught an American Journalist About Covering the War
Seeing persecution, a Black reporter in Ukraine refuses to keep his distance.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/19/person-of-interest-terrell-jermaine-starr-00018630
-
There is a brain drain going on in Russia right now. The best thing that the west could do is to welcome them with open arms.
Not only now, and that is half of the reason that the Russian economy has more or less stagnated for a long time.
The other is of course the oil based kleptocracy. (Again, I recommend the book in my signature :D)
Good article in the NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/world/middleeast/ukraine-russia-armenia.html) about Russians fleeing to Armenia. With no way to access dollars left inside Russia*, and with Visa and Mastercard no longer supporting international transactions, Armenia has the advantage of supporting Russia's home-grown credit card payment network (Mir) so people considering fleeing still have access to their -- rapidly shrinking as the exchange rate collapses -- savings. Plus visa-free travel for Russian citizens and a fair number of Russian speakers.
The folks they interview mention being scared as they look for options to move farther into the west because they fear the rest of the world will see all Russians as a monolithic block of people supporting and complicit with Putin.
We could, and honestly should, be doing more to encourage talented Russians who want to leave and find ways to make them feel welcome in the USA (or other parts of the world). Both on the logistical end (I hadn't thought about how hard it is to flee a country when you cannot get physical currency and your cards stop working outside the country) and the emotional end (find a bunch of the half million ethnic expats on NYC about what life is like here and how they don't approve of Putin and run those interviews across international media to make sure Russian know they'd be welcomed here and remind americians than speaking with a Russian accent and supporting Putin aren't synonymous).
*"Mira, 26, who works at an aid agency, said the night before she and her boyfriend left Moscow, they went from A.T.M. to A.T.M. for three hours, unsuccessfully trying to withdraw dollars. At every cash machine, people with bodyguards would push to the front of the line and withdraw $5,000 at a time until the machines were empty, she recalled."
-
The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to take decades. Russia as well, but they may face additional challenges in terms of the rest of the world shunning them.
I'm trying to stay optimistic about Ukraine's future. They'll have the rest of the world donating to help them rebuild. I imagine there will be substantial economic perks to becoming an EU member should it go through. Russia will be mostly on its own, especially if Putin stays in power.
Agreed, Ukraine is going to have a lot going for them, and it will help. But those challenges are still going to be there. They're going to have a rough decade.
I'm happy to see there are already plans for a Marshall plan 2.0. The many years of peace and prosperity in Europe is built on the Marshall aid, and we can help rebuilt Ukraine the same way. Unlike many other war ridden countries, they have a well educated population who are used to democracy. Corruption is an issue that will have to be adressed during the rebuilding phase, but I'm optimistic.
Norway was not only heavily bombed during WW2, as is evident in the lack of prewar buildings in many of the towns in western Norway. The entire northern part of the country was burned and the inhabitants displaced as Naxi Germany were chased out by the Russians in 1944. The rebuilding phase relied heavily on help from the neighbours and the Marshall aid, but also helped built the welfare state and egalitarian society that is the foundation of the wealth we have today. If the oil had been found in the 1930s instead of the 1960s, I'm quite sure there wouldn't have been a national oil fund based on nationalization and a 78 % tax on oil companies.
My tiny village in western Norway are receiving 90 refugees as we speak. That means come Monday 1/5 of the inhabitants will be Ukrainian, and since many are children, it could double the number of kids in the kindergarten and school. This is an area where businesses are struggling to find employees, and houses are empty. (30 % of the businesses in the region reported problems with finding enough employees, 25 % of the workforce is closing in on or already above the retirement age). I think many are hoping that some of the Ukrainians will choose to stay.
-
In 1973-74 my father had a posting to Oslo and we all moved there for 2 years. I was pretty young at the time, but I remember how Oslo was still rebuilding from WW2. It was startling to discover that it took Norway 30+ years to recover from the Nazis.
-
In 1973-74 my father had a posting to Oslo and we all moved there for 2 years. I was pretty young at the time, but I remember how Oslo was still rebuilding from WW2. It was startling to discover that it took Norway 30+ years to recover from the Nazis.
Well, some parts of the country were more important than others. It is only the last 10 years or so that Oslo has become a priority, and that is already starting to backfire.
-
https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/20/tech-talent-flees-russia-as-western-sanctions-bite/ Tech talent flees Russia as Western sanctions bite
-
In 1973-74 my father had a posting to Oslo and we all moved there for 2 years. I was pretty young at the time, but I remember how Oslo was still rebuilding from WW2. It was startling to discover that it took Norway 30+ years to recover from the Nazis.
Well, some parts of the country were more important than others. It is only the last 10 years or so that Oslo has become a priority, and that is already starting to backfire.
Off topic, but I'm curious. Can you elaborate? Why was Oslo not a priority? It's the capital, so that doesn't make a ton of sense. Why is it now backfiring? Feel free to pm me if you wish instead.
-
graphic content of Russian casualties https://t.me/s/rf200_now
-
Off topic, sorry.
In 1973-74 my father had a posting to Oslo and we all moved there for 2 years. I was pretty young at the time, but I remember how Oslo was still rebuilding from WW2. It was startling to discover that it took Norway 30+ years to recover from the Nazis.
Well, some parts of the country were more important than others. It is only the last 10 years or so that Oslo has become a priority, and that is already starting to backfire.
Off topic, but I'm curious. Can you elaborate? Why was Oslo not a priority? It's the capital, so that doesn't make a ton of sense. Why is it now backfiring? Feel free to pm me if you wish instead.
The logical part: The priority was to rebuild the industry and the parts of the country that were important for producing food, building materials, and goods for export. Our wealth is from the water; fish, oil, and electricity. None of these things are based in Oslo. Oslo only had to be good enough to function as a seat for the parliament, and those structures were already in place.
The illogical part: Norwegian identity is based on rural values, not urban. Urban, and particularly Oslo, where were the foreign (Swedish and Danish) elites stayed to rule over us. During the 1800s, we built a rural cultural elite, and most of our music, art, and literature from the times we "built" the nation and got our independence is based on rural landscapes, people, and values. Take a look around you on 17th of May in Oslo, when we celebrate the national holidays. There are almost no national costumes from Oslo to be seen, even those who have lived in the capitol for several generations would rather identify with their rural past.
During the last decade or so, a lot of funding for fancy cultural houses, public transport, and large environmental projects have been directed towards Oslo. At the same time, the agricultural sector is dying, and the important export businesses in rural areas have to deal with horrible infrastructure in the form of roads, energy, and internet. During the last election, the farmers' party became one of the largest, and are currently in government together with the labour party. All the other parties had to show they had a good rural policy to be able to compete for the votes.
And then it is the part we don't speak about, but everyone knows: We have to keep people living in the far north and west, because otherwise it will be very difficult to avoid the eastern bear from calmly walking across the border, or suddenly popping up out of the water.
-
<snip, interesting stuff about Finland>
Very interesting, thank you.
Edit: Norway, not Finland. I'm dumb.
-
Norway, Sibley, not Finland. :)
-
Norway, Sibley, not Finland. :)
Thank you. Had me worried I was falling into the american stereotype of not knowing anything about countries outside of NA and misremembering which scandinavian country Oslo was the capital of.
gaja, thank you from me too. Fascinating to understand more about the dynamics and motivations of Norway. I didn't realize you folks had the same underlying worry of invasion from the east as I've heard about from folks in Finland (especially) and Sweden. And now I'm wishing I lived also in a country that had an electoral system which would enable a farmers party to emerge as a national political force.
-
Norway, Sibley, not Finland. :)
Oh damn. That's on me. Regardless, interesting. Hopefully Norway is able to thread a path so that both urban and rural are prosperous.
-
Speaking of Finland, my boss was in Europe a couple weeks ago for a conference, and spoke to a few Finns. One of them said (I'm paraphrasing what my boss recounted): "We're not worried about the Russians invading. We already have half a million of them here. They're just inside the border, six feet down."
-
Norway, Sibley, not Finland. :)
Thank you. Had me worried I was falling into the american stereotype of not knowing anything about countries outside of NA and misremembering which scandinavian country Oslo was the capital of.
gaja, thank you from me too. Fascinating to understand more about the dynamics and motivations of Norway. I didn't realize you folks had the same underlying worry of invasion from the east as I've heard about from folks in Finland (especially) and Sweden. And now I'm wishing I lived also in a country that had an electoral system which would enable a farmers party to emerge as a national political force.
OT, but that happened here in Canada - the CCF was the forerunner to the NDP.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/co-operative-commonwealth-federation (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/co-operative-commonwealth-federation)
-
I'm beginning to think that if you want to find people who can destroy with words, and words alone, your first stop should be Russia's neighbors. I'm seeing a LOT of very sharp one liners from Ukrainians.
I haven't been reading the Institute for the Study of War stuff regularly, but I just read today's post. Am I correct in thinking that Russia's military is starting to unravel?
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20
"Russian military commissariats of the Kuban, Primorsky Krai, Yaroslavl Oblast, and Ural Federal Districts are conducting covert mobilization measures [within Russia] but are facing widespread resistance."
"The [Ukrainian] General Staff reported universities in the DNR and LNR are conscripting students above the age of 18 and that most units in the DNR’s 1st Army Corps are comprised of the “mobilized population,” rather than trained soldiers, and face low morale and equipment shortages."
"The General Staff reported the Russian Black Sea Fleet is replacing 130 insubordinate soldiers in the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade with paratroopers from the 7th Airborne Assault Division – a measure highly likely to cause greater unit cohesion problems."
The General Staff additionally reported that Russian forces are increasingly using ”outdated and partially defective equipment” to replace combat losses."
"The Ukrainian MoD reported that forced mobilization in the DNR has demoralized Russian proxy forces, with many refusing to fight and accusing Russian leadership of forcing them into combat to find Ukrainian troop positions."
"The Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported the number of insubordinate Russian personnel who are refusing combat orders is “sharply increasing” in the Kherson and Mykolayiv oblasts on March 20."
"The Ukrainian General Staff reported the Russian military commandant office in Belgorod City is investigating 10 Russian servicemen of 138th Motor Rifle Brigade who refused to continue fighting in Kharkiv and agitated for other Russian servicemen to abandon their posts."
That's 4 separate mentions of mutiny/insubordination. That seems like a lot.
-
"4 weeks ago Russia was considered to have the 2nd best army in the world. Now it is clear that they are the 2nd best army in Ukraine".
-
Speaking of Finland, my boss was in Europe a couple weeks ago for a conference, and spoke to a few Finns. One of them said (I'm paraphrasing what my boss recounted): "We're not worried about the Russians invading. We already have half a million of them here. They're just inside the border, six feet down."
SISU
-
Speaking of Finland, my boss was in Europe a couple weeks ago for a conference, and spoke to a few Finns. One of them said (I'm paraphrasing what my boss recounted): "We're not worried about the Russians invading. We already have half a million of them here. They're just inside the border, six feet down."
SISU
Per Wikipedia: Sisu is a Finnish concept described as stoic determination, tenacity of purpose, grit, bravery, resilience, and hardiness and is held by Finns themselves to express their national character.
Yep, checks out.
-
That's 4 separate mentions of mutiny/insubordination. That seems like a lot.
Keep in mind the source. Obviously, Ukraine has an incentive to portray poor morale among Russian Soldiers in the hopes that others may follow their lead. Not that it isn't true, but it's not exactly unbiased.
A few more weeks of Russia failing at logistics and their morale problem is going to be much worse.
-
That's 4 separate mentions of mutiny/insubordination. That seems like a lot.
Keep in mind the source. Obviously, Ukraine has an incentive to portray poor morale among Russian Soldiers in the hopes that others may follow their lead. Not that it isn't true, but it's not exactly unbiased.
A few more weeks of Russia failing at logistics and their morale problem is going to be much worse.
Other than the Syrians, what are the Russians doing to augment their forces? They are supposed to have 2 million reservists. Putin seems rather committed to this fight. This holding pattern thing where they have dug in with little advancement seems like they are just waiting. History is full of stories of armies losing until other forces come in and save the day.
-
That's 4 separate mentions of mutiny/insubordination. That seems like a lot.
Keep in mind the source. Obviously, Ukraine has an incentive to portray poor morale among Russian Soldiers in the hopes that others may follow their lead. Not that it isn't true, but it's not exactly unbiased.
A few more weeks of Russia failing at logistics and their morale problem is going to be much worse.
Other than the Syrians, what are the Russians doing to augment their forces? They are supposed to have 2 million reservists. Putin seems rather committed to this fight. This holding pattern thing where they have dug in with little advancement seems like they are just waiting. History is full of stories of armies losing until other forces come in and save the day.
Not surprising that there are morale problems in Kherson. The Russians pulled out of that airfield after it was hit with artillery for the 3rd time in 10 days. The last attack killed a 3-star general and destroyed a dozen helicopters.
The Russian Army has several tiers of manpower management and readiness. Twice a year they induct about 130,000 conscripts for a one-year tour of duty (the next iteration is April). Those conscripts get very little training and equipment. At the end of the year they're asked/encouraged/pressured to contract for an enlistment term of several years or they're sent home. Those "contractors" as the Russians call them form the core of the professional force. Equipment and training is resourced to the "military districts" which serve as the peacetime geographic commands Western, Southern, Northern, Central, and Eastern in roughly that order. The Southern district is the one fighting this war. The Russian airborne corps (VDV) is supposed to be their best equipped and motivated and is a separate command from the districts getting top tier of everything. By law the conscripts are not supposed to be an expeditionary force, but rather used for territorial defense. When Russia sent forces to Syria it was mostly VDV with units shuffled around to keep the conscripts home. That didn't happen with Ukraine. Thousands of conscripts ended up being sent in.
This is the first time the Russian mobilization system has been tested in decades. With the exception of 1980s Afghanistan and Ukraine in 2015, every conflict since WW2 has been against rebellious provinces or small neighboring countries. Whereas the US Army has National Guard and Reserve forces in organized units and trains regularly with modern equipment, the Russian system is entirely individual replacements like our Individual Ready Reserve which was tapped into briefly during the Iraq war. Russian reservists get individual equipment out of stockpiles and require extensive retraining. While Russian reservists are being called up, the easy button appears to be finding proxies in Chechnya, Georgia, and Syria, though very few of those have made it to the front. There are Georgians fighting on the Ukrainian side too. The Donbas region has a sizeable force recruited from the local population. Despite their appearances with top of the line equipment, the Chechens are a police force mostly accustomed to murdering unarmed civilians than fighting a modern war. So far the only time we've seen them in action it has been dying in ambushes or shooting up empty buildings on TikTok. They're pretty much sitting back until Mariupol falls so they can slaughter the survivors. The Russians have also been stripping manpower and equipment from the Eastern district to replace losses. The Russian Marine Corps is also being tapped to fill in for decimated army units. In theory they could keep stripping other commands of their manpower for several months, but doing so commits their veteran cadres who will be needed to train and integrate the next batch of conscripts. Russia's ability to convince the current conscript class to stick around will be an interesting thing to monitor in the next few weeks. Putin has convinced his people that the war is going just fine. If he forces them to stay against their wishes and that gets out, then the lie may begin to reveal itself.
One variable I am not tracking well is the Ukrainian reserves. On paper they have in excess of half a million available, but they're being tightlipped about their availability. I've heard that they've had 200,000 preparing in the rear, but I had no idea how they're being committed to the fight.
-
That's 4 separate mentions of mutiny/insubordination. That seems like a lot.
Keep in mind the source. Obviously, Ukraine has an incentive to portray poor morale among Russian Soldiers in the hopes that others may follow their lead. Not that it isn't true, but it's not exactly unbiased.
A few more weeks of Russia failing at logistics and their morale problem is going to be much worse.
Their continuous loss of field commanders has to hurt. The VDV regiment closest to Kyiv has lost its regimental commander, XO, and two battalion commanders in the last week along with probably half its personnel. They've lost five Generals and a handful of O6 equivalents since this started. They're a top-down organization that doesn't give much initiative to their subordinates, and they've endured photographed or videotaped equipment losses equal to at least a company a day. The Red Cross counted 500 Russian POWs in Ukrainian custody. Russia has admitted to 500 KIA. US estimates no less than 4000. Ukraine claims 14000+. Belorussian hospital employees say they've had 2500 bodies come through Gomel, which is just one of three places casualties would pass through on their way home. Now add traditional WIA multipliers.
-
Norway, Sibley, not Finland. :)
Thank you. Had me worried I was falling into the american stereotype of not knowing anything about countries outside of NA and misremembering which scandinavian country Oslo was the capital of.
gaja, thank you from me too. Fascinating to understand more about the dynamics and motivations of Norway. I didn't realize you folks had the same underlying worry of invasion from the east as I've heard about from folks in Finland (especially) and Sweden. And now I'm wishing I lived also in a country that had an electoral system which would enable a farmers party to emerge as a national political force.
There's actually a series on Netflix about a Russian invasion in Norway, called Okkupert. It's extremely realistic and at times spine-chilling. It portrays the type of occupation that Putin probably had in mind for Ukraine, except those pesky Ukrainians decided to fight for their country instead. Unlike Sweden, Norway actually shares a border with Russia. I think everyone in Europe has the feeling that the Russians are coming for us one day, but especially in the northern countries and the former Eastern Bloc. I don't remember anything other than people talking about "when" the Russians come instead of "if" , and I was born around the time the Wall came down.
-
I don't remember anything other than people talking about "when" the Russians come instead of "if" , and I was born around the time the Wall came down.
I'm a bit older, I was in 11:th grade or so when the Berlin Wall fell - we suddenly got East German visitors to my school. The stories they told really punctured the picture our teachers had told is just a few years earlier - that the communist east was really as moral and free as the west if you thought about it. A couple of years later, at my first year of university, the Soviet Union fell apart. Soon thereafter Yugoslavia fell apart in a violent way. Lot's of refugees came, many are now well established here of course.
About five years ago I asked the cleaner in my old office where he was originally from. The answer was confusing... "Serbia, Montenegro... it's all the same! Yugoslavia!!!".
In my group of friends, the fear of war is more of a political divide than an age difference in opinion. Those on the more far left (supporters of the leftist party, green party and some more fringe) don't fear the Russian Bear but many others do. More of a when than if, yes.
There are so many stories. Like the time in 1981 when a soviet submarine run aground just outside of a Swedish naval base. All soviet ships in the vicinity was on it's way to liberate it and the Swedish prime minister ordered the Swedish defense to "Hold the border!". It was very VERY close to an exchange of explosives there. I've since spoken to one of the military commanders who sent up some of the fighter jets that tried to get the Russian warships and fighter jets to stay away... it was closer than I'd like to think about.
As the Soviet recovery fleet appeared off the coast on the first day, a fixed coastal artillery battery locked onto the ships, indicating to the Soviets that there were active coastal batteries on the islands. The fleet did not turn immediately and as they came closer to the 12-mile (19 km) territorial limit the battery was ordered to go into war mode on its targeting radar, turning it from a single frequency mode to a frequency-hopping mode. The Soviet fleet reacted almost immediately and all vessels except a heavy tugboat turned and stayed in international waters. Swedish torpedo boats confronted the tugboat, which left as well.
From https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363 ...
The military activity in the Baltic sea is since about a year as active as during the height of the cold war. Russian air force often tests the limits of the Swedish (and others) border protection... one difference is that since about a month, at least the Swedish jets that go up and meet them are fully armed, ready to take them down... The latest widely publicized incident was on March 2nd but not everything is reported I assume. Pictures of the Russians here:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2022/03/ryska-stridsflygplan-krankte-svenskt-luftrum/
-
The military activity in the Baltic sea is since about a year as active as during the height of the cold war. Russian air force often tests the limits of the Swedish (and others) border protection... one difference is that since about a month, at least the Swedish jets that go up and meet them are fully armed, ready to take them down... The latest widely publicized incident was on March 2nd but not everything is reported I assume. Pictures of the Russians here:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2022/03/ryska-stridsflygplan-krankte-svenskt-luftrum/
The Russians for the last year or so have been sending over the occasional warplane round Norway and down to the UK too, testing defences. And the Russian navy recently planned an exercise in the Irish economic zone which would have coincided with the start of the Irish shrimp fishing season; the Irish fishermen said they would go and fish regardless and the Russians ended up moving their exercises further away.
-
The military activity in the Baltic sea is since about a year as active as during the height of the cold war. Russian air force often tests the limits of the Swedish (and others) border protection... one difference is that since about a month, at least the Swedish jets that go up and meet them are fully armed, ready to take them down... The latest widely publicized incident was on March 2nd but not everything is reported I assume. Pictures of the Russians here:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2022/03/ryska-stridsflygplan-krankte-svenskt-luftrum/
The Russians for the last year or so have been sending over the occasional warplane round Norway and down to the UK too, testing defences. And the Russian navy recently planned an exercise in the Irish economic zone which would have coincided with the start of the Irish shrimp fishing season; the Irish fishermen said they would go and fish regardless and the Russians ended up moving their exercises further away.
Funny, now you guys mention it, I've lived near a military airbase nearly all of my life (in the Netherlands). Those occasional warplanes have been happening for as long as I remember - usually they fly over the North Sea but the F16's sent to meet them would depart from here. F16's are loud so usually an article would appear in the local newspaper saying "sorry for the noise, it was the Russians again, don't worry about it'. I now realize I haven't seen any of those articles in some time. I'm sure Russians haven't stopped annoying us, I suppose the Ministry of Defence is no longer comfortable publishing the incidents. Air activity is similar to the activity around the time we were fighting in Iraq.
@lemanfan my teacher had a family member who ended up in the DDR after WWII and only came back to NL after the reunification of Germany. I don't remember the details, but as a Dutch citizen he had had the option to return to NL but chose not to and had not been in contact with family. When he finally came here in the early 1990s he was stunned to find out the "evil West" was not like what they had told him in propaganda videos at all.
-
That's 4 separate mentions of mutiny/insubordination. That seems like a lot.
Keep in mind the source. Obviously, Ukraine has an incentive to portray poor morale among Russian Soldiers in the hopes that others may follow their lead. Not that it isn't true, but it's not exactly unbiased.
A few more weeks of Russia failing at logistics and their morale problem is going to be much worse.
Oh agreed, definite possibility for exaggeration. But 4 separate mentions? Where there's smoke there's fire.
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505370275273183239.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505370275273183239.html)
Another logistics lesson of the week to dive into.
"Between the end of April and Mid-May 2022, the Ukrainian Army will be able to counter-attack EVERYWHERE.
Because there will be NOWHERE more than 20 miles/30 km inside Ukraine where Russian troops won't be out of food and low on ammunition."
I don't think that running out of food will hurt the Russians much. They seem to be just looting food from the civilians.
I was hoping that rebels in Chechnya or Belarus would take the opportunity to open up another front, but it seems like they are already in Ukraine fighting for the Ukrainians.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chechen-and-belarusian-rebels-join-war-2rw0r9qxk
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
"Talk of stalemate obscures the dynamic quality of war. The more you succeed, the more likely you are to succeed; the more you fail, the more likely you are to continue to fail. There is no publicly available evidence of the Russians being able to regroup and resupply on a large scale; there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. If the Ukrainians continue to win, we might see more visible collapses of Russian units and perhaps mass surrenders and desertions. Unfortunately, the Russian military will also frantically double down on the one thing it does well—bombarding towns and killing civilians."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/ukraine-is-winning-war-russia/627121/
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
Maybe because it depends on your metric of "winning?" They lost territory in 2014 and now it looks like they might lose more (in the south east). That doesn't exactly sound like winning.
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
Maybe because it depends on your metric of "winning?" They lost territory in 2014 and now it looks like they might lose more (in the south east). That doesn't exactly sound like winning.
I'm glad that the Ukranian military is doing well in battles . . . but it is kinda hard to see the massive destruction of cities and towns coupled with 10 million people fleeing (and who knows how many civilians have been killed at this point) as a serious win.
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
Maybe because it depends on your metric of "winning?" They lost territory in 2014 and now it looks like they might lose more (in the south east). That doesn't exactly sound like winning.
I'm glad that the Ukranian military is doing well in battles . . . but it is kinda hard to see the massive destruction of cities and towns coupled with 10 million people fleeing (and who knows how many civilians have been killed at this point) as a serious win.
Plus, its not over. Russia could get their act together. Is it likely? No idea. But it's possible. Or Russia could just decide the heck it with and nuke every major city in Ukraine. If you're dead, you've lost.
On the flip side, regardless what happens with this war, Russia loses long term. They're losing a lot of the educated, younger population, they've lost a lot in reputation and trustworthiness, they were already facing demographic challenges and now they're getting a bunch of their young men killed. Yeah, it may not be enough to be a massive problem, but it will still hurt some.
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
Maybe because it depends on your metric of "winning?" They lost territory in 2014 and now it looks like they might lose more (in the south east). That doesn't exactly sound like winning.
I'm glad that the Ukranian military is doing well in battles . . . but it is kinda hard to see the massive destruction of cities and towns coupled with 10 million people fleeing (and who knows how many civilians have been killed at this point) as a serious win.
Indeed, it is the Ukrainian, not the Russian, UNESCO world heritage sites that are getting bombed to rubble.
EDITed to add - Kharkiv was on my short list of places to visit on the planet. It still is, but it will never be the Kharkiv that I could have visited pre-war. I found this extremely upsetting in the first few days of the war. I can't imagine what it is like for refugees to think about their home never being the same again for a really dumb reason.
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
Maybe because it depends on your metric of "winning?" They lost territory in 2014 and now it looks like they might lose more (in the south east). That doesn't exactly sound like winning.
I'm glad that the Ukranian military is doing well in battles . . . but it is kinda hard to see the massive destruction of cities and towns coupled with 10 million people fleeing (and who knows how many civilians have been killed at this point) as a serious win.
I am very heartened to see that Ukraine is holding the line, and the military analysis that advancement on so many fronts is not sustainable. But it ain't over till it's over. It's possible Putin might regroup and attack and capture kyiv, or kill the president, etc. Right now the situation reminds me of the proverb the fox (Russia) running for his dinner while the rabbit (Ukraine) is running for his life (to survive).
-
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
Maybe because it depends on your metric of "winning?" They lost territory in 2014 and now it looks like they might lose more (in the south east). That doesn't exactly sound like winning.
I'm glad that the Ukranian military is doing well in battles . . . but it is kinda hard to see the massive destruction of cities and towns coupled with 10 million people fleeing (and who knows how many civilians have been killed at this point) as a serious win.
Indeed, it is the Ukrainian, not the Russian, UNESCO world heritage sites that are getting bombed to rubble.
EDITed to add - Kharkiv was on my short list of places to visit on the planet. It still is, but it will never be the Kharkiv that I could have visited pre-war. I found this extremely upsetting in the first few days of the war. I can't imagine what it is like for refugees to think about their home never being the same again for a really dumb reason.
Yes. Hiroshima was rebuilt after 1945, and it's now a beautiful, modern city (or it was 10 years ago; I imagine that it still must be), but tens of thousands of lives, its long architectural history, and countless cultural treasures were obliterated in seconds.
Even if Ukraine ultimately wins, the human and cultural losses due to Russia's aggression and violence may be so great as to be immeasurable. War sucks all around.
-
Cops as the true revolutionary class
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505922839785861120.html
-
Cops as the true revolutionary class
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505922839785861120.html
Good pictures! Those folks certainly do have a different culture. It almost seems like some alien culture that you would read in a science fiction book. I am beginning to understand why you see a very limited number of new products / technologies developed in Russia. On the surface, one would think the opposite would be the case. If the country was run differently, their vast land would be teaming with opportunities to extract the natural resources and to produce refined products for the world. If the country was run differently there would be entrepreneurs making advances in oil and gas extraction. They wouldn't need Schlumberger and Haliburton.
-
Sharing this here because I saw it, but haven't had a chance to read it in detail. https://jamestown.org/program/why-the-ukrainian-defense-system-fails-to-reform-why-us-support-is-less-than-optimal-and-what-can-we-do-better/
It was posted along side pictures of the Ukrainian army in 2014 and current (pre war). https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/tjn5vx/ukrainian_soldiers_in_2014_vs_2022_gives_quite/
My skimming of it indicates that I don't have the background to really understand it, but my impression is the military leadership has some issues. If someone who does have the background to understand can help, I'd appreciate it.
-----
Also, apparently there's some rationing of sugar and other staples happening in Russia. Given the irrational panic buying people are capable of (toilet paper anyone?), this may or may not be a bigger thing, but I found it interesting. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60802572?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=623870614f71af55b461536d%26How%20widespread%20is%20rationing%20in%20Russia%3F%262022-03-21T12%3A53%3A50.237Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:72e8b8e2-4e30-46a9-b1d8-0331db3a4a6b&pinned_post_asset_id=623870614f71af55b461536d&pinned_post_type=share
-
Sharing this here because I saw it, but haven't had a chance to read it in detail. https://jamestown.org/program/why-the-ukrainian-defense-system-fails-to-reform-why-us-support-is-less-than-optimal-and-what-can-we-do-better/
It was posted along side pictures of the Ukrainian army in 2014 and current (pre war). https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/tjn5vx/ukrainian_soldiers_in_2014_vs_2022_gives_quite/
My skimming of it indicates that I don't have the background to really understand it, but my impression is the military leadership has some issues. If someone who does have the background to understand can help, I'd appreciate it.
-----
Also, apparently there's some rationing of sugar and other staples happening in Russia. Given the irrational panic buying people are capable of (toilet paper anyone?), this may or may not be a bigger thing, but I found it interesting. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60802572?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=623870614f71af55b461536d%26How%20widespread%20is%20rationing%20in%20Russia%3F%262022-03-21T12%3A53%3A50.237Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:72e8b8e2-4e30-46a9-b1d8-0331db3a4a6b&pinned_post_asset_id=623870614f71af55b461536d&pinned_post_type=share
Certainly looks irrational. The country exports sugar beets.
https://www.tridge.com/stories/sugar-beet-production-remains-sweet-in-russia (https://www.tridge.com/stories/sugar-beet-production-remains-sweet-in-russia)
Or,.....at least they did.
-
Sharing this here because I saw it, but haven't had a chance to read it in detail. https://jamestown.org/program/why-the-ukrainian-defense-system-fails-to-reform-why-us-support-is-less-than-optimal-and-what-can-we-do-better/
It was posted along side pictures of the Ukrainian army in 2014 and current (pre war). https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/tjn5vx/ukrainian_soldiers_in_2014_vs_2022_gives_quite/
My skimming of it indicates that I don't have the background to really understand it, but my impression is the military leadership has some issues. If someone who does have the background to understand can help, I'd appreciate it.
I can't read reddit from the office, but that other article was written a year ago. I'm going to say many of their concerns are obsolete.
-
Sharing this here because I saw it, but haven't had a chance to read it in detail. https://jamestown.org/program/why-the-ukrainian-defense-system-fails-to-reform-why-us-support-is-less-than-optimal-and-what-can-we-do-better/
It was posted along side pictures of the Ukrainian army in 2014 and current (pre war). https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/tjn5vx/ukrainian_soldiers_in_2014_vs_2022_gives_quite/
My skimming of it indicates that I don't have the background to really understand it, but my impression is the military leadership has some issues. If someone who does have the background to understand can help, I'd appreciate it.
I can't read reddit from the office, but that other article was written a year ago. I'm going to say many of their concerns are obsolete.
Yes, it is old. But it's also talking about the history, so even if its not true today, knowing where they've been has value. And the reddit is fluff unless you want to see the pictures.
-
Certainly looks irrational. The country exports sugar beets.
https://www.tridge.com/stories/sugar-beet-production-remains-sweet-in-russia (https://www.tridge.com/stories/sugar-beet-production-remains-sweet-in-russia)
Or,.....at least they did.
Yup. Reminds me how long long it took to be able to find dry beans in the USA after the pandemic started. In a typical year we grow almost 2x as many beans as we consume in the USA with the rest going to the export market. Still wasn't enough to prevent the effects of panic hoarding of dry beans and rice.
-
Ok, one more before I really must go to bed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60802572?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6238da031fea84616a6cc55d%26Did%20Russia%20just%20admit%20to%2010%2C000%20deaths%3F%262022-03-21T20%3A17%3A03.074Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:0f6974bc-751e-4814-9549-d797d614cd8e&pinned_post_asset_id=6238da031fea84616a6cc55d&pinned_post_type=share
A Russian newspaper (pro-Kremlin) published an article listing 9,861 killed and 16,153 wounded, then that section was removed shortly afterwards. The newspaper is saying they were hacked.
So, were they hacked? If so, were those figures accurate? Did someone internal get the numbers and deliberately post them as an act of resistance? Are they fake? Something else? The numbers are higher than the independent estimates that I've seen - not Ukraine's, not Russia's official line. Ukraine's report of Russians killed I believe is just over 17k. Last I heard the independent estimates were more like 7k but I could be outdated/misremembering.
-
The last figures I saw had:
Russia: 500 (no official update since 3 Mar)
Ukraine: 15,000
US/NATO: 6000+
No idea if the new site was hacked, but I'd lean towards not. Russian media has been caught one or two times before publishing something they shouldn't have. The first was a press release announcing total victory for the campaign the first week of March which was taken down a couple hours later. On the other hand, they may very well have been hacked, but with accurate information. Their communications security from the field has been terrible so far. Russian media is going to remain in reaction mode subject to attempts to get information broadcast inside the country, so everything not put out by the state is going to be "terrorists and hackers."
-
I would be inclined to believe it, except that wouldn't we expect more wounded? I thought that it was normal to have something like three wounded troops for every one troop killed?
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/10/27/wounded-to-killed-ratios/
-
I would be inclined to believe it, except that wouldn't we expect more wounded? I thought that it was normal to have something like three wounded troops for every one troop killed?
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/10/27/wounded-to-killed-ratios/
Traditionally, killed to wounded is a 1:3 ratio, but I also grew up in an army where everybody has body armor and the ability to whisk away casualties within minutes of being injured. US casualties for the last 20 years have been 1:5 or better. With Russia' problems with their lines of communications it's possible they aren't recovering wounded or getting them to safety in time. Or nobody knows the real numbers and we won't know for a very long time.
-
The last figures I saw had:
Russia: 500 (no official update since 3 Mar)
Ukraine: 15,000
US/NATO: 6000+
No idea if the new site was hacked, but I'd lean towards not. Russian media has been caught one or two times before publishing something they shouldn't have. The first was a press release announcing total victory for the campaign the first week of March which was taken down a couple hours later. On the other hand, they may very well have been hacked, but with accurate information. Their communications security from the field has been terrible so far. Russian media is going to remain in reaction mode subject to attempts to get information broadcast inside the country, so everything not put out by the state is going to be "terrorists and hackers."
This US DOD briefing more or less lets the cat out of the bag on what's been happening to Russian communications security in the field -
"We're seeing them use a lot more unclassified communications because their classified communications capability is -- is being -- is -- well, for one reason or another, is not as strong as it should be."
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2973395/senior-defense-official-holds-a-background-briefing/
-
Sharing this here because I saw it, but haven't had a chance to read it in detail. https://jamestown.org/program/why-the-ukrainian-defense-system-fails-to-reform-why-us-support-is-less-than-optimal-and-what-can-we-do-better/
It was posted along side pictures of the Ukrainian army in 2014 and current (pre war). https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/tjn5vx/ukrainian_soldiers_in_2014_vs_2022_gives_quite/
My skimming of it indicates that I don't have the background to really understand it, but my impression is the military leadership has some issues. If someone who does have the background to understand can help, I'd appreciate it.
UK armed forces have trained 22,000 Ukraine military personnel since 2015, continuing until February this year. I've read that it's UK convoy ambush techniques which are being used to good effect against Russian supply convoys.
-
The last figures I saw had:
Russia: 500 (no official update since 3 Mar)
Ukraine: 15,000
US/NATO: 6000+
No idea if the new site was hacked, but I'd lean towards not. Russian media has been caught one or two times before publishing something they shouldn't have. The first was a press release announcing total victory for the campaign the first week of March which was taken down a couple hours later. On the other hand, they may very well have been hacked, but with accurate information. Their communications security from the field has been terrible so far. Russian media is going to remain in reaction mode subject to attempts to get information broadcast inside the country, so everything not put out by the state is going to be "terrorists and hackers."
This US DOD briefing more or less lets the cat out of the bag on what's been happening to Russian communications security in the field -
"We're seeing them use a lot more unclassified communications because their classified communications capability is -- is being -- is -- well, for one reason or another, is not as strong as it should be."
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2973395/senior-defense-official-holds-a-background-briefing/
IT and tactical communications is what I do for the US Army. Watching this play out has been enlightening.
-
IT and tactical communications is what I do for the US Army. Watching this play out has been enlightening.
From friends in the military on this side of the Atlantic, I've heard that it's also enlightening to see e.g. what effects that modern defense weapons have on Russian tanks. And how many (or few) of the vehicles that have Arena (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(countermeasure)") or other systems installed.
It's not that often we get to test that in real life situations. Russia is forced to show their cards here.
-
I would be inclined to believe it, except that wouldn't we expect more wounded? I thought that it was normal to have something like three wounded troops for every one troop killed?
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/10/27/wounded-to-killed-ratios/
Yeah, the US has very well-developed doctrine for evacuating and treating wounded. Given Russia's trouble supplying their own troops with food and fuel, it's entirely possible that they don't have much in the way of field medical logistics.
-
I don't have a source, but I know I've seen things (don't remember if verified or not) saying that the Russians were killing their wounded. If that's true, then that would skew their killed vs wounded numbers.
-
I don't have a source, but I know I've seen things (don't remember if verified or not) saying that the Russians were killing their wounded. If that's true, then that would skew their killed vs wounded numbers.
This doesn't pass a smell test for me.
What possible reason would would Russia have to kill it's own wounded troops? And how would this be carried out? I'd figure that it's going to be pretty hard to convince people who have been fighting together to put bullets in each other's heads. Are there special murder troops who go around and execute wounded?
-
I don't have a source, but I know I've seen things (don't remember if verified or not) saying that the Russians were killing their wounded. If that's true, then that would skew their killed vs wounded numbers.
Unless it's through sheer neglect or extremely rare circumstances ("mercy killing" of fatally wounded, etc.) that just doesn't pass the smell test.
It's not like the Russians are worried that if they get captured, they're going to be tortured and executed - ala what would likely happen to any Soldier caught by ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. Although some of the comments I've seen from Russian trolls claim that people are being crucified. Which is of course total BS. In this day and age where literally every single person on the battlefield has a camera in their pocket it comes down to "pics or it didn't happen".
-
I don't have a source, but I know I've seen things (don't remember if verified or not) saying that the Russians were killing their wounded. If that's true, then that would skew their killed vs wounded numbers.
This doesn't pass a smell test for me.
What possible reason would would Russia have to kill it's own wounded troops? And how would this be carried out? I'd figure that it's going to be pretty hard to convince people who have been fighting together to put bullets in each other's heads. Are there special murder troops who go around and execute wounded?
I don't know, and like I said, I don't have a source. It very easily could be propaganda. I also saw things that said the Russians were killing Ukrainian POWs which is at least slightly more believable.
With all the equipment that the Russians have lost and there's pictures of online, I haven't seen any that are medical related. So they may not have much.
-
I don't have a source, but I know I've seen things (don't remember if verified or not) saying that the Russians were killing their wounded. If that's true, then that would skew their killed vs wounded numbers.
Unless it's through sheer neglect or extremely rare circumstances ("mercy killing" of fatally wounded, etc.) that just doesn't pass the smell test.
It's not like the Russians are worried that if they get captured, they're going to be tortured and executed - ala what would likely happen to any Soldier caught by ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. Although some of the comments I've seen from Russian trolls claim that people are being crucified. Which is of course total BS. In this day and age where literally every single person on the battlefield has a camera in their pocket it comes down to "pics or it didn't happen".
You are right about the thing about people being crucified. It is labor intensive, time intensive and resource intensive. Bullets will be used.
I do kind of wonder what Putin is doing with the people he is hauling out of Ukraine. He wants to destroy that country. He has basically said so. In the past Stalin used to haul entire populations of people to other parts of that big country. History repeats itself. Is Siberia getting new residents?
I also wonder if all those new drones that Congress approved are arriving to help the Ukrainians. Could they be a game changer?
-
IT and tactical communications is what I do for the US Army. Watching this play out has been enlightening.
From friends in the military on this side of the Atlantic, I've heard that it's also enlightening to see e.g. what effects that modern defense weapons have on Russian tanks. And how many (or few) of the vehicles that have Arena (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(countermeasure)") or other systems installed.
It's not that often we get to test that in real life situations. Russia is forced to show their cards here.
Every aspect of the military profession will be studying this war for the next 10 years. Infantry and Armor branches will be studying how Ukrainian infantry picked apart a division's worth of vehicles in three weeks of skirmishes both in order to learn how, and to learn how to avoid it themselves. Field artillery will be studying how effective $50 quadcopters have been in spotting and adjusting fire. Air defense is reinvesting in short range missiles for drones. My peers will continue to harp on the goodness of secure communications, and supply planners and mechanics get to say "I told you so" until they run out of breath. Even the public relations and psychological operations folks have something to study.
With all the equipment that the Russians have lost and there's pictures of online, I haven't seen any that are medical related. So they may not have much.
I've seen three captured military ambulances. All had crates of ammo in the passenger compartment. They're definitely getting casualties out somehow. Belorussian doctors are reporting that their ERs are overflowing with Russian troops.
-
IT and tactical communications is what I do for the US Army. Watching this play out has been enlightening.
From friends in the military on this side of the Atlantic, I've heard that it's also enlightening to see e.g. what effects that modern defense weapons have on Russian tanks. And how many (or few) of the vehicles that have Arena (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(countermeasure)") or other systems installed.
It's not that often we get to test that in real life situations. Russia is forced to show their cards here.
Every aspect of the military profession will be studying this war for the next 10 years. Infantry and Armor branches will be studying how Ukrainian infantry picked apart a division's worth of vehicles in three weeks of skirmishes both in order to learn how, and to learn how to avoid it themselves. Field artillery will be studying how effective $50 quadcopters have been in spotting and adjusting fire. Air defense is reinvesting in short range missiles for drones. My peers will continue to harp on the goodness of secure communications, and supply planners and mechanics get to say "I told you so" until they run out of breath. Even the public relations and psychological operations folks have something to study.
With all the equipment that the Russians have lost and there's pictures of online, I haven't seen any that are medical related. So they may not have much.
I've seen three captured military ambulances. All had crates of ammo in the passenger compartment. They're definitely getting casualties out somehow. Belorussian doctors are reporting that their ERs are overflowing with Russian troops.
I wish this also extended to leaders seeing and learning that war is awful and maybe don't start them. There will be lessons learned on the political side as well, but I suspect not the ones I would wish for. China is certainly watching this closely as a potential lesson for Taiwan.
-
I wish this also extended to leaders seeing and learning that war is awful and maybe don't start them. There will be lessons learned on the political side as well, but I suspect not the ones I would wish for. China is certainly watching this closely as a potential lesson for Taiwan.
Well, Taiwan has been building, preparing and training their 'porcupine' strategy forever, the whole idea being that an invasion would be so incredibly costly it wouldn't be worth even attempting. I gather that Ukraine has been preparing for this invasion since the 2014 invasion of Crimea, with similar intentions. The concept of 'protracted war', which makes the cost to a more powerful force so high they eventually give up, is more or less how Mao won in China after all.
-
I wish this also extended to leaders seeing and learning that war is awful and maybe don't start them. There will be lessons learned on the political side as well, but I suspect not the ones I would wish for. China is certainly watching this closely as a potential lesson for Taiwan.
Well, Taiwan has been building, preparing and training their 'porcupine' strategy forever, the whole idea being that an invasion would be so incredibly costly it wouldn't be worth even attempting. I gather that Ukraine has been preparing for this invasion since the 2014 invasion of Crimea, with similar intentions. The concept of 'protracted war', which makes the cost to a more powerful force so high they eventually give up, is more or less how Mao won in China after all.
This could also be a lesson for Taiwan:
Reuters: U.S. says Taiwan military budget boost insufficient for 'resilient defense' (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taiwan-china/u-s-says-taiwan-military-budget-boost-insufficient-for-resilient-defense-idUSKBN26R3SH)
War On The Rocks: Taiwan’s Defense Plans Are Going Off The Rails (https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/taiwans-defense-plans-are-going-off-the-rails/)
WSJ: Does Taiwan’s Military Stand a Chance Against China? Few Think So (https://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwan-military-readiness-china-threat-us-defense-11635174187)
-
I wish this also extended to leaders seeing and learning that war is awful and maybe don't start them. There will be lessons learned on the political side as well, but I suspect not the ones I would wish for. China is certainly watching this closely as a potential lesson for Taiwan.
Well, Taiwan has been building, preparing and training their 'porcupine' strategy forever, the whole idea being that an invasion would be so incredibly costly it wouldn't be worth even attempting. I gather that Ukraine has been preparing for this invasion since the 2014 invasion of Crimea, with similar intentions. The concept of 'protracted war', which makes the cost to a more powerful force so high they eventually give up, is more or less how Mao won in China after all.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Chinese strategists just started looking at Taiwan with a clean sheet of paper. They had to be as surprised at Ukraine and Russia's performance as we've been.
This could also be a lesson for Taiwan:
Reuters: U.S. says Taiwan military budget boost insufficient for 'resilient defense' (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taiwan-china/u-s-says-taiwan-military-budget-boost-insufficient-for-resilient-defense-idUSKBN26R3SH)
War On The Rocks: Taiwan’s Defense Plans Are Going Off The Rails (https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/taiwans-defense-plans-are-going-off-the-rails/)
WSJ: Does Taiwan’s Military Stand a Chance Against China? Few Think So (https://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwan-military-readiness-china-threat-us-defense-11635174187)
And Taiwan is probably making an early Christmas list to send us.
-
...
I don't know, and like I said, I don't have a source. It very easily could be propaganda. I also saw things that said the Russians were killing Ukrainian POWs which is at least slightly more believable.
...
Sibley, I believe this was stated in several tweets in one (or more) of Kamil Galeev's threads, that Chechen troops are there to prevent desertions, in a manner similar to a group assigned this task under Stalin? I don't know which thread any more (he posts so many long threads). Also that Chechens are not used for regular army maneuvers but going into already held territory and killing remaining citizens. If I have time to track those down, I will post a link.
-
In the past Stalin used to haul entire populations of people to other parts of that big country. History repeats itself. Is Siberia getting new residents?
Not just Stalin, Tsar Nicholas II did that too. I guess that you could say it is a Russian tradition.
-
...
I don't know, and like I said, I don't have a source. It very easily could be propaganda. I also saw things that said the Russians were killing Ukrainian POWs which is at least slightly more believable.
...
Sibley, I believe this was stated in several tweets in one (or more) of Kamil Galeev's threads, that Chechen troops are there to prevent desertions, in a manner similar to a group assigned this task under Stalin? I don't know which thread any more (he posts so many long threads). Also that Chechens are not used for regular army maneuvers but going into already held territory and killing remaining citizens. If I have time to track those down, I will post a link.
I've read of bunch of his threads, not necessarily all. I'm not that good at Twitter. I think I've seen that though.
But I thought I saw somewhere that the Chechens were leaving? (Or someone else, I am not familiar enough with the different groups to keep them straight!)
-
Cops as the true revolutionary class
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505922839785861120.html
Good pictures! Those folks certainly do have a different culture. It almost seems like some alien culture that you would read in a science fiction book. I am beginning to understand why you see a very limited number of new products / technologies developed in Russia. On the surface, one would think the opposite would be the case. If the country was run differently, their vast land would be teaming with opportunities to extract the natural resources and to produce refined products for the world. If the country was run differently there would be entrepreneurs making advances in oil and gas extraction. They wouldn't need Schlumberger and Haliburton.
You got that the wrong way around. Because there is oil and gas, it can be extracted through ousiders. That gives the dactator the chance to have a hig income without being reliable on inside people. Also no need to do anything to foster entrepreneurs - who would just be people with increasing power.
Someone mentioned police earlier - they are corrupt to the arses. That is a feature, not a bug. They are incouraged to supplement their pay with corruption. That makes them loo favorably on the leader who gives them this opportunity, while on the same time makes it very easy to get them out of the way if needed.
Ever wondered why autocracies like Russia or China are so fond of "anticorruption"? Because everyone in any position of power is corrupt (again, a feature). Anti-corruption in autocratic states is simply getting rid of people the leader does not like. It has nothing to do with getting more honest people in power.
(again, read book in my sig)
-
Someone mentioned police earlier - they are corrupt to the arses. That is a feature, not a bug. They are incouraged to supplement their pay with corruption. That makes them loo favorably on the leader who gives them this opportunity, while on the same time makes it very easy to get them out of the way if needed.
Ever wondered why autocracies like Russia or China are so fond of "anticorruption"? Because everyone in any position of power is corrupt (again, a feature). Anti-corruption in autocratic states is simply getting rid of people the leader does not like. It has nothing to do with getting more honest people in power.
(again, read book in my sig)
Being corruptible is a job requirement. Being a straight shooter means you can't be trusted (ironic). If you can lie, cheat, and steal then you can do those things on behalf of the big boss when called upon. Like you said, it also creates instant leverage against that person if/when the boss wants to get rid of them. Putin has allegedly sacked or arrested several senior army and intelligence officers on charges of theft and corruption. Those charges have the virtue of probably being accurate to some degree.
-
Ok, you know when there's a new "toy" that is suddenly within reach? The newest gadget, tool, actual toy, whatever? And the person who wants that "toy" knows its within reach and there's that look they get of excitement, maybe a bit of subtle or not so subtle jumping? Applicable to all ages and genders. Yeah, that's the feel I'm getting from this thread:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1506310039363112961
I'm vaguely aware of what the box thing is, yet it is apparently, the hot new "toy".
-
Ok, you know when there's a new "toy" that is suddenly within reach? The newest gadget, tool, actual toy, whatever? And the person who wants that "toy" knows its within reach and there's that look they get of excitement, maybe a bit of subtle or not so subtle jumping? Applicable to all ages and genders. Yeah, that's the feel I'm getting from this thread:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1506310039363112961
I'm vaguely aware of what the box thing is, yet it is apparently, the hot new "toy".
Russia is supposed to have a well-developed electronic warfare capability which includes blocking our radars from functioning properly. This is the operations shelter for one such system. If there's a computer inside with system specifications, settings, frequencies, and cryptological data, then we could create a way to mitigate or bypass its capabilities somewhere down the road. This is like finding an Enigma machine.
-
Looks like the Ukrainians are starting to out-flank the Russian positions around Kyiv. Seems the Russians dug in too early and supplies are getting cut off. This may explain why they haven't tried to level the city yet.
-
Looks like the Ukrainians are starting to out-flank the Russian positions around Kyiv. Seems the Russians dug in too early and supplies are getting cut off. This may explain why they haven't tried to level the city yet.
This was inevitable as soon as the convoys started getting stuck and supply vehicles targeted. They've been strung out along a narrow axis being supplied from basically one road with a flooded river on one side. If the reports of Belorussian railroad sabotage are correct, then those troops have been isolated for days without food or ammo resupply. If Ukraine can encircle them, it could mean several thousands Russians trapped.
-
Looks like the Ukrainians are starting to out-flank the Russian positions around Kyiv. Seems the Russians dug in too early and supplies are getting cut off. This may explain why they haven't tried to level the city yet.
This was inevitable as soon as the convoys started getting stuck and supply vehicles targeted. They've been strung out along a narrow axis being supplied from basically one road with a flooded river on one side. If the reports of Belorussian railroad sabotage are correct, then those troops have been isolated for days without food or ammo resupply. If Ukraine can encircle them, it could mean several thousands Russians trapped.
And those several thousand are likely to be mostly actual fighting personnel, rather than support/logistics. I'm hoping the reports are true, but am staying skeptical for now--as much as I'm rooting for Ukraine, I have to remember that their government isn't exactly a bunch of boy scouts, either.
-
Are you saying that Belorussia is on Ukraine's side? I thought they were getting ready to help out the Russians.
-
Are you saying that Belorussia is on Ukraine's side? I thought they were getting ready to help out the Russians.
Dissidents/opposition in Belarus doing the sabotage. Dissent in Belarus is dangerous but probably not quite at current Russia levels.
-
Ok, you know when there's a new "toy" that is suddenly within reach? The newest gadget, tool, actual toy, whatever? And the person who wants that "toy" knows its within reach and there's that look they get of excitement, maybe a bit of subtle or not so subtle jumping? Applicable to all ages and genders. Yeah, that's the feel I'm getting from this thread:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1506310039363112961
I'm vaguely aware of what the box thing is, yet it is apparently, the hot new "toy".
Rumor or fact (no idea which) is that the new toy is going to the US.
https://twitter.com/space_osint/status/1506688082657091584?t=UpxmO0Bbeqh1pcvF7wrVDA&s=09
-
There's actually a series on Netflix about a Russian invasion in Norway, called Okkupert. It's extremely realistic and at times spine-chilling. It portrays the type of occupation that Putin probably had in mind for Ukraine, except those pesky Ukrainians decided to fight for their country instead. Unlike Sweden, Norway actually shares a border with Russia. I think everyone in Europe has the feeling that the Russians are coming for us one day, but especially in the northern countries and the former Eastern Bloc. I don't remember anything other than people talking about "when" the Russians come instead of "if" , and I was born around the time the Wall came down.
I watched the first couple of seasons of the show (Occupied in English) pretty interesting. I thought the presume was more plausible than most of the speculative fiction shows. Norway, goes super green and shuts down it is oil wells, triggering an invasion by the Russia, and the West is too dependent on the energy to fight Russia. (sounds similar to real life) How was the show received in Norway.
-
There's actually a series on Netflix about a Russian invasion in Norway, called Okkupert. It's extremely realistic and at times spine-chilling. It portrays the type of occupation that Putin probably had in mind for Ukraine, except those pesky Ukrainians decided to fight for their country instead. Unlike Sweden, Norway actually shares a border with Russia. I think everyone in Europe has the feeling that the Russians are coming for us one day, but especially in the northern countries and the former Eastern Bloc. I don't remember anything other than people talking about "when" the Russians come instead of "if" , and I was born around the time the Wall came down.
I caught an even more interesting show on Netflix. Apparently this Zelenskyy was a big TV star prior to his appearance as the president of Ukraine. He made a TV show about him being a teacher elected to the presidency of Ukraine. I caught the first episode of it last night before I went to sleep. It was subtitled in English. I thought it was kind of funny, but t doesn't always take much to amuse me. "Servant of the People" is the title.
I watched the first couple of seasons of the show (Occupied in English) pretty interesting. I thought the presume was more plausible than most of the speculative fiction shows. Norway, goes super green and shuts down it is oil wells, triggering an invasion by the Russia, and the West is too dependent on the energy to fight Russia. (sounds similar to real life) How was the show received in Norway.
-
Three days ago Russia was very proud to show one of its cargo ships unloading reinforcements at the Crimean port of Berdyansk.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1505772419906211840 (https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1505772419906211840)
Same port, and probably the same ship a few hours ago.
https://twitter.com/32Burner/status/1506887834648645634 (https://twitter.com/32Burner/status/1506887834648645634)
https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1506889755388223488 (https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1506889755388223488)
No word yet on whether it was a Ukrainian missile, safety mishap, or sabotage, but a ship is sunk, two others damaged, and unknown damage to the pier and whatever vehicles, weapons, and supplies were there.
-
Today a Swedish podcaster posted an interview with the (now) British comedian and talking head Konstantin Kisin who has a background in and deep knowledge of many things Russian and Ukrainian for family reasons not the least. On top of being interesting as he often is, KK put some historical facts in order for me regarding the talk of the far right / nazi-claims. Worth a look or listen for the interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWCNkCZdYuU
The "denazification" and historical explanations starts around minute 28 and goes on for ten minutes or so but I thought the whole thing was worth listening to.
-
On the next installment of Russian logistics:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716 (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716)
Russians don't palletize or make much use of vehicular cranes during ground resupply, requiring more time and people to get the job done.
-
On the next installment of Russian logistics:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716 (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716)
Russians don't palletize or make much use of vehicular cranes during ground resupply, requiring more time and people to get the job done.
I'd also guess Russia doesn't have much of an equivalent of OSHA. Soldiers are tough, but I bet they would still get back injuries. However, they do seem to have the macho thing down.
-
On the next installment of Russian logistics:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716 (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716)
Russians don't palletize or make much use of vehicular cranes during ground resupply, requiring more time and people to get the job done.
Just unloading enough ammunition for an infantry company at the range for a day or two sucks (crates of ammunition are very heavy). And that's moving maybe 10-20 crates of ammo that weigh 50-70lbs each. Trying to load and unload an entire truck would really suck. Artillery/mortar ammunition would be even worse. That's why the US Army has the Palletized Load System (PLS) and flatracks. As you can see in the picture below you can basically unload the bed of the truck right onto the ground - and load it back up just as easily. So instead of parking a truck somewhere for a few hours while a team of Soldiers unloads it, you can drop off a flatrack of ammo in 5 minutes - with the two Soldiers in the truck. Then later on you can bring in a new flatrack and pickup the old empty one. This also allows each load to be built ahead of time so it can be customized for that unit. So you can prep multiple flatracks while the trucks are out moving stuff instead of have the truck stuck in one place being loaded up. Also, forklifts are great when it comes to moving pallets.
(https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/PLS-unloading-side-view.jpg)
It just goes to show the old saying is very apt: "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics". The best Soldiers in the world are useless without ammo, food, water, fuel, batteries, spare parts, etc.
-
On the next installment of Russian logistics:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716 (https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716)
Russians don't palletize or make much use of vehicular cranes during ground resupply, requiring more time and people to get the job done.
Just unloading enough ammunition for an infantry company at the range for a day or two sucks (crates of ammunition are very heavy). And that's moving maybe 10-20 crates of ammo that weigh 50-70lbs each. Trying to load and unload an entire truck would really suck. Artillery/mortar ammunition would be even worse. That's why the US Army has the Palletized Load System (PLS) and flatracks. As you can see in the picture below you can basically unload the bed of the truck right onto the ground - and load it back up just as easily. So instead of parking a truck somewhere for a few hours while a team of Soldiers unloads it, you can drop off a flatrack of ammo in 5 minutes - with the two Soldiers in the truck. Then later on you can bring in a new flatrack and pickup the old empty one. This also allows each load to be built ahead of time so it can be customized for that unit. So you can prep multiple flatracks while the trucks are out moving stuff instead of have the truck stuck in one place being loaded up. Also, forklifts are great when it comes to moving pallets.
(https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/PLS-unloading-side-view.jpg)
It just goes to show the old saying is very apt: "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics". The best Soldiers in the world are useless without ammo, food, water, fuel, batteries, spare parts, etc.
I bet those trucks are exciting targets to drive.
-
I made the mistake of learning more about The Wagner Group and their behavior. Sickening. Some things can't be unseen.
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
-
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
I'm not sure where they would find the fighter jets. I can't just hop down to the local arms dealer and order up an F-16 with all the trimmings.
With that said Elon Musk offered to fight Putin. I wonder how much R&D it would take for him to start dropping kinetic kill vehicles onto Russian armor and aircraft. He is kind of a nutter.
-
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
I'm not sure where they would find the fighter jets. I can't just hop down to the local arms dealer and order up an F-16 with all the trimmings.
With that said Elon Musk offered to fight Putin. I wonder how much R&D it would take for him to start dropping kinetic kill vehicles onto Russian armor and aircraft. He is kind of a nutter.
What if they bought the fighter jets from a nearby country that was upgrading? I was in fact thinking of Elon Musk.
-
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
I'm not sure where they would find the fighter jets. I can't just hop down to the local arms dealer and order up an F-16 with all the trimmings.
With that said Elon Musk offered to fight Putin. I wonder how much R&D it would take for him to start dropping kinetic kill vehicles onto Russian armor and aircraft. He is kind of a nutter.
What if they bought the fighter jets from a nearby country that was upgrading? I was in fact thinking of Elon Musk.
You do see Mig-29s for sale every once and a while. In fact Paul Allen purchased one from Ukraine. But they are always "demilitarized" and sold without ordinance AFAIK. So you would need to find a country willing to sell you one in good working order with all the targeting systems intact, and presumably some munitions. I think that spare parts supply can be a problem too. Oh, and then you would need to figure out how to get it there.
-
Starting with the reputable source: Sergei Shoigu, the defense chief Russia hasn't been seen for a while. He turned up.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putins-defence-chief-resurfaces-after-disappearing-view-2022-03-24/
The rumor: he had a heart attack.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putins-defence-minister-vanishes-26536281
-
France, Turkey and Greece are planning to go pull people out of Mariupol. Hope it works.
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-france-spearhead-exceptional-operation-evacuate-mariupol/
Edit:
Interview with a high level Ukrainian intelligence chief, no paywall.
https://justpaste.it/4yxrk
The internal politics of Ukraine, and their history, seem to be quite challenging in general. A strongwilled populace has its pros and cons.
-
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
If every nut with a billion dollars adds weapons to the world's conflicts, we get more destruction with fewer checks and balances. Governments and laws aren't just concentrations of power, they on average and by design are capable of more restraint than the outliers of human impulse.
-
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
If every nut with a billion dollars adds weapons to the world's conflicts, we get more destruction with fewer checks and balances. Governments and laws aren't just concentrations of power, they on average and by design are capable of more restraint than the outliers of human impulse.
Ugh. I suppose you're right. I'm surprised it hasn't happened before, though.
Oh, I guess it is happening. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/
But creating warlords doesn't seem a good thing.
-
Ugh. I suppose you're right. I'm surprised it hasn't happened before, though.
Oh, I guess it is happening. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/
But creating warlords doesn't seem a good thing.
The thing is that people who have soldiers see problems as something to be solved by soldiers. It's so much faster and saves so much trouble!
Just imagine some f**** NIMBYs want to prevent you building a solar panel field or some wind generators. You only need to send over the nice guys in green and the people will happily help you buildig it after a thourough explanation.
-
Ugh. I suppose you're right. I'm surprised it hasn't happened before, though.
Oh, I guess it is happening. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/
But creating warlords doesn't seem a good thing.
The thing is that people who have soldiers see problems as something to be solved by soldiers. It's so much faster and saves so much trouble!
Just imagine some f**** NIMBYs want to prevent you building a solar panel field or some wind generators. You only need to send over the nice guys in green and the people will happily help you buildig it after a thourough explanation.
January 6, 2021 - yeh.
-
This would explain a great deal of the very early days of the war - the riot gear, etc.
"According to @bellingcat the Russian FSB paid billions of $ to ensure that some shadowy political class in Ukraine supported this war & created an internal coup d'état immediately after the invasion. But Ukrainian agents who took the money ditched them. They just screwed them over"
https://twitter.com/IuliiaMendel/status/1508092951997595650
-
Joe Biden has said the US and its allies are prepared to respond with proportionate severity if Russia uses chemical weapons during its invasion of Ukraine as he urged the west to sustain pressure on Vladimir Putin and remain unified in its response to the war. - FT: Biden warns Russia of ‘response’ if it uses chemical weapons (https://www.ft.com/content/ddaf60ed-e271-495b-b083-f00fbc276018)
"I think that it is necessary to have a peace mission - NATO, possibly some wider international structure - but a mission that will be able to defend itself, which will operate on Ukrainian territory," Kaczynski told a news conference. - Reuters: Top Polish politician calls for peacekeeping mission in Ukraine (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/three-eu-country-leaders-take-train-kyiv-show-support-ukraine-2022-03-15/)
-
"I think that it is necessary to have a peace mission - NATO, possibly some wider international structure - but a mission that will be able to defend itself, which will operate on Ukrainian territory," Kaczynski told a news conference. - Reuters: Top Polish politician calls for peacekeeping mission in Ukraine (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/three-eu-country-leaders-take-train-kyiv-show-support-ukraine-2022-03-15/)
Seems like Poland has been poking the bear for a couple weeks now.
Ukraine has retaken several villages between Kharkiv and Sumy, but it also looks like Russia is pulling back forces in that region and northwest of Kyiv. Don't know yet if its a temporary reorganization or if they're going to abandon those fronts.
-
Fair weather friends?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html)
Does Putin remind you of the second grade? Wasn't there a time when all the kids shunned you? I hope you weren't bald like him.
-
Fair weather friends?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html)
Does Putin remind you of the second grade? Wasn't there a time when all the kids shunned you? I hope you weren't bald like him.
China I think only cares about themselves. They have friends of convenience.
-
Fair weather friends?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html)
Does Putin remind you of the second grade? Wasn't there a time when all the kids shunned you? I hope you weren't bald like him.
China I think only cares about themselves. They have friends of convenience.
Wouldn't surprise me if they were complying with sanctions in one hand and violating them in the other.
-
Fair weather friends?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html)
Does Putin remind you of the second grade? Wasn't there a time when all the kids shunned you? I hope you weren't bald like him.
China I think only cares about themselves. They have friends of convenience.
Wouldn't surprise me if they were complying with sanctions in one hand and violating them in the other.
No bet at all, I'm sure they are.
I'm also not surprised that Poland is proposing a peacekeeping mission. Poland hates Russia, they've been in Ukraine's position before. Biden's comments were unexpectedly strong. Not sure that we'll do anything overtly besides ship weapons to Ukraine, but who knows.
-
Regardless of how the military side fares, both Russian and Ukrainian peoples are screwed.
Russian: the sanctions are destroying their economy, they're going to be struggling to find basic supplies and food. Lots of comments about the demographics, well, killing or severely injuring thousands of your young men is going to have a negative impact on potential population growth.
Ukraine: they've had millions flee the country due to the fighting. Russia is destroying housing, schools, hospitals, basic infrastructure. There's going to be no where for these people live, no health care, no education for their children. Many of the refugees who have fled will likely not return, because they functionally won't be able to. Why would a parent pull their children out of safe housing and schooling to return to a country where there's no bed, no school? You can't justify it.
There will be entire towns and cities just wiped off the map after this. When a town is pounded to rubble, it really doesn't make much sense to rebuild it from completely scratch. It's far too difficult to remove all the rubble, then build. Much easier to just go somewhere else and build. For major cities, sure. Small ones though? Unlikely. And that's before we talk about the overall economy.
The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to take decades. Russia as well, but they may face additional challenges in terms of the rest of the world shunning them.
It might not be as long as you think for the nation as a whole. I recalled Bernstein's graph for Germany and Japan after WW2:
from http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/404/CH1.HTM
[couldn't link image, see attachments]
Both nations had basically fully recovered after 20 years, but I bet Ukraine can do even better, provided they can stay together and shake off corruption. The biggest reason is poverty. Japan was probably the wealthiest country in Asia at the time, and Germany was a contender for wealthiest Europe. However, Ukraine was the second poorest, not even in the ballpark of wealthier European nations. With grants, loans, investments, and general business and tourism I bet they could economically recover to a much higher point very quickly.
Though I think that Russia will try to protract the war for as long as possible, because Ukraine will become integrated tightly with Europe the moment the war ends.
I think Russia will have a harder time recovering. Putin and his ilk neglected the nation and economy very badly for a very long time. I traveled through Russia in 2010 and most of it was very poor, and it seemed like there had been little investment in anything since Soviet times.
-
Fair weather friends?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656963/Chinese-energy-firm-Sinopec-Group-cancels-380m-investment-Russia-Ukraine-sanction-fears.html)
Does Putin remind you of the second grade? Wasn't there a time when all the kids shunned you? I hope you weren't bald like him.
China I think only cares about themselves. They have friends of convenience.
Wouldn't surprise me if they were complying with sanctions in one hand and violating them in the other.
Chinese people love a winner. They firmly believe that 2nd place is "first loser." See how their athletes usually get gold, or don't medal at all in the Olympics. There will be little respect from China for a nation that won the trophy for "Second Best Army in Ukraine."
-
I think Americans overestimate the Chinese appetite for aggression. This is a country of only children. They are not going to send their darlings to war, even if they talk big.
-
Though I think that Russia will try to protract the war for as long as possible, because Ukraine will become integrated tightly with Europe the moment the war ends.
I don't think Russia wil do that. Russia had every reason to protract the war waged by the Russian-backed separatists in the Donbass because the benefits (keeping Ukraine out of the EU and NATO) far outweighed the costs (financial, reputational etc.). The cost/benefit ratio skewed the other way the moment regular Russian forces entered Ukraine with the stated goals of 'denazifying and demilitarising' Ukraine. The costs of the invasion in terms of Russia's international diplomatic and military reputation, manpower and equipment losses, Putin's domestic political capital and so on are immense for a wide range of reasons from dogged Ukrainian resistance, international sanctions and domestic opposition to the war to Russian military ineptness. Russia has every incentive to end this war as quickly as possible. If and when there is a peace deal it might once more be in Russia's interests to stoke a low-intensity armed conflict in Ukraine to keep the EU and NATO out but for now I can only see them wanting to end the war quickly. I expect they will pursue that goal through military means for now. They will probably become amenable to diplomacy only if and when they feel they have won or can no longer win.
-
I think the turning point for Russia will be if they can take Mariupol, partly because it gives them a contiguous area between Crimea and the Donbas and partly because it is defended by the Azov Brigrade who would become Putin's "Nazi cleansing".
But the Azov Brigrade will fight to the death because surrendering means humiliation, torture and death at the hands of Putin's secret police and Kadyrov's Chechen butchers.
-
Ukraine has retaken several villages between Kharkiv and Sumy, but it also looks like Russia is pulling back forces in that region and northwest of Kyiv. Don't know yet if its a temporary reorganization or if they're going to abandon those fronts.
I think the turning point for Russia will be if they can take Mariupol, partly because it gives them a contiguous area between Crimea and the Donbas and partly because it is defended by the Azov Brigrade who would become Putin's "Nazi cleansing".
But the Azov Brigrade will fight to the death because surrendering means humiliation, torture and death at the hands of Putin's secret police and Kadyrov's Chechen butchers.
The current thoughts are that Putin has finally accepted that he can't get his initia goals. Instead he is going for more or less a devided country. For this he of course needs Mariupol. That would mean a direct land corridor (instead of a single bridge to Crimea) and total encirclement of the sea by Russia.
This is what the Russian army is pressing now (hence the bomnbardmend) and they need troops from the other regions for that.
Basically dividing the country either on the Dnjepr if the attacks turns out to be on the better side in the future, or a Donbass - Crimea corridor of Russian territory. Donbass has already announced a referendum on getting absorbed into Russia (or what amounts to it).
Someone earlier has mentioned that Russia has every reason to want this war ended as fast as possible. That is true. It is less true of Putin. But most importantly, if Putin goes out of the country without a win, it will likely be the end of his grip on power (even if it might take a year or two) and the end of his ambition to rectify the "biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" even if not.
Russia might want to end this war (it certainly didn't wanted to start it from all we know), but not Putin.
Also for similar reasons China will not shy away from losing a few tens of thousands of soldiers to get Taiwan, just saying. That's a speck in the statistic and btw. there is a huge surplus of young man (compared to girls) because of the one child policy. Losing a few of them might actually make the country more peaceful.
Don't think dictators care about people. They cannot afford it even if they wanted, that's why dictatorships always end up being "evil". Being evil gives you a competitive advantage in a dictatorship. (points to signature again)
-
I think Americans overestimate the Chinese appetite for aggression. This is a country of only children. They are not going to send their darlings to war, even if they talk big.
And LennStar posted (I don't know how to double quote):
"Also for similar reasons China will not shy away from losing a few tens of thousands of soldiers to get Taiwan, just saying. That's a speck in the statistic and btw. there is a huge surplus of young man (compared to girls) because of the one child policy. Losing a few of them might actually make the country more peaceful.
Don't think dictators care about people. They cannot afford it even if they wanted, that's why dictatorships always end up being "evil". Being evil gives you a competitive advantage in a dictatorship. (points to signature again)"
Agreed. China doesn't care about individuals. If they did, they wouldn't have such severe human rights problems. I also wouldn't put it past them to deal with the problem of too many elderly by mass euthanasia, or worse.
-
I think Americans overestimate the Chinese appetite for aggression. This is a country of only children. They are not going to send their darlings to war, even if they talk big.
And LennStar posted (I don't know how to double quote):
"Also for similar reasons China will not shy away from losing a few tens of thousands of soldiers to get Taiwan, just saying. That's a speck in the statistic and btw. there is a huge surplus of young man (compared to girls) because of the one child policy. Losing a few of them might actually make the country more peaceful.
Don't think dictators care about people. They cannot afford it even if they wanted, that's why dictatorships always end up being "evil". Being evil gives you a competitive advantage in a dictatorship. (points to signature again)"
Agreed. China doesn't care about individuals. If they did, they wouldn't have such severe human rights problems. I also wouldn't put it past them to deal with the problem of too many elderly by mass euthanasia, or worse.
I think the Chinese do care about money. Sure, they have their ideology, but that's already been severely tainted by money. Taiwan has what? It has 24 million. It has semiconductor manufacturing. Is this manufacturing worth more to China that taking Taiwan? Chinese are smart. I think some have it figured that they have the best of both worlds right now. They trade with Taiwan. If they blew it to hell, they would piss off the US and their neighbors. It would be bad for business. Gangsters understand that as well as smart dictatorial systems.
They've got time. The US grows weaker and they grow stronger.
It is the converse of Russia. Since the fall of communism, Russia has been growing weaker. They sell oil and gas, but are not an economic powerhouse like China. Russia attacks a big country. If China were to attack Taiwan, it would attack a small country.
China does a lot of things because they make sense. The Russian attack on Ukraine does not make sense. Russia would have been better off selling gas and oil to the world and growing stronger. It appears to have been done for emotional reasons rather than economic.
Opinions will, of course, differ.
-
I don't know how to double quote
Start a reply. Scroll down to the post(s) you want to quote. Click the "Insert Quote" button. It will insert the quote at the current position of your text cursor.
Alternatively, open the same thread in another tab, click on "Quote" on a post you want to quote. Copy/paste the generated text to your actual reply where desired. This can be useful if one (or more) of the posts you want to quote doesn't show up just by scrolling (only a limited amount of history is displayed while replying).
-
Huh? my post with the two tabs tip has disappeared? :(
Anyway...
I also wouldn't put it past them to deal with the problem of too many elderly by mass euthanasia, or worse.
I disagree with that. China is still surprisingly confuzian. Honor the elders, that stuff. It is one of the very few countries where, when AI car researches questioned the people, if the car has to decide between killing a child and an elder, the people voted for the elder.
Well, we will know in aobut 20-30 years when only 1-child children are in the workforce.
-
Huh? my post with the two tabs tip has disappeared? :(
Anyway...
I also wouldn't put it past them to deal with the problem of too many elderly by mass euthanasia, or worse.
I disagree with that. China is still surprisingly confuzian. Honor the elders, that stuff. It is one of the very few countries where, when AI car researches questioned the people, if the car has to decide between killing a child and an elder, the people voted for the elder.
Well, we will know in aobut 20-30 years when only 1-child children are in the workforce.
If you're referring to me butchering how to do double quotes, sorry. RWD is trying to teach me, we'll see if I'm smart enough to learn. :)
Re the Chinese elderly, its one thing to round them up in cattle cars and take them to be gassed. But building a very large nursing home then having a carbon monoxide leak that isn't found until most of the residents are dead is a very different thing. Or you just need a nurse to accidently administer the wrong medication. It's not all that hard to kill people.
-------
Back on topic - apparently Russia is suspected of positioning one of the oligarchs and various Ukrainians, in Kyiv. Putin, everyone knows that you like to poison people. Therefore, we know its you.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/
-
Re the Chinese elderly, its one thing to round them up in cattle cars and take them to be gassed. But building a very large nursing home then having a carbon monoxide leak that isn't found until most of the residents are dead is a very different thing. Or you just need a nurse to accidently administer the wrong medication. It's not all that hard to kill people.
I agree with LennStar, that doesn't sound like Chinese culture at all.
-
Re the Chinese elderly, its one thing to round them up in cattle cars and take them to be gassed. But building a very large nursing home then having a carbon monoxide leak that isn't found until most of the residents are dead is a very different thing. Or you just need a nurse to accidently administer the wrong medication. It's not all that hard to kill people.
I agree with LennStar, that doesn't sound like Chinese culture at all.
Does sound like anti-asian racism, doesn´t it?
-
The people I know who have spent more time in China than myself tell me that there is an unspoken social contract between the citizens and the CCP. No one is super thrilled with the government but as long as things are progressively getting better they aren't going to do anything about it. Obviously there are some ethnic minorities that this doesn't apply to, but the average Chinese citizen living in China lives better today than 10, 20, 30 years ago. I'm not sure that would still be true in a war with Taiwan, and I think that the CCP knows it.
-
Re the Chinese elderly, its one thing to round them up in cattle cars and take them to be gassed. But building a very large nursing home then having a carbon monoxide leak that isn't found until most of the residents are dead is a very different thing. Or you just need a nurse to accidently administer the wrong medication. It's not all that hard to kill people.
I agree with LennStar, that doesn't sound like Chinese culture at all.
Does sound like anti-asian racism, doesn´t it?
or maybe it's someone who's primary knowledge of the Chinese culture and history is pretty evenly split between the really good things and the really bad things, and who is also really pragmatic and blunt and not all that optimistic? Sure, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am. And yes, I'm sure that I harbor prejudices despite my best efforts. But I have also seen, over and over again that China's record on human rights is not great, and yes, I'm going to include China's ethnic minorities in the mix here. If they do show great respect and veneration of the elderly for a portion of the population but not for other segments, then that's a problem.
The jury's still out on how they're going to handle an extreme demographic crisis. It's also still out on the US for that matter.
-
The current government of mainland China has done enough actual bad things, there is no need to make up hypothetical terrible things they haven't done. And it is good to be cautious about that extremely slippery slope from "the government to China" to "China" (as some sort of monolithic entity) to "Chinese people".
In this thread I figured I'd be more likely to have to make this point about Putin vs Russia vs Russian people but it works the same way. Most people in China are good and caring people, just like most other countries. Love their parents and their children.
Some people in China thinks we're mostly monsters here in the USA. Always makes me feel bad when I run into one of those folks. No need to make anyone from China reading this thread feel the same way reading Americans talk about them.
-
-------
Back on topic - apparently Russia is suspected of positioning one of the oligarchs and various Ukrainians, in Kyiv. Putin, everyone knows that you like to poison people. Therefore, we know its you.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/
And not just "any" oligarch, but Ramon Abramovich, arguably the most prominent oligarch in the west, the owner of Chelsea. Abramovich is Russian of Ukrainian Jewish descent and a long-term ally of Putin. I'm sure if they had wanted him dead they'd have succeeded, but this was a very clear warning. It explains why Abramovich suddenly disappeared as a negotiator.
-
-------
Back on topic - apparently Russia is suspected of positioning one of the oligarchs and various Ukrainians, in Kyiv. Putin, everyone knows that you like to poison people. Therefore, we know its you.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/
And not just "any" oligarch, but Ramon Abramovich, arguably the most prominent oligarch in the west, the owner of Chelsea. Abramovich is Russian of Ukrainian Jewish descent and a long-term ally of Putin. I'm sure if they had wanted him dead they'd have succeeded, but this was a very clear warning. It explains why Abramovich suddenly disappeared as a negotiator.
I used to give them credit for nasty stuff like that. I mean they could get it done. However there is Alexei Anatolievich Navalny. (Yes I cut and pasted it) They tried to poison him. Then lookin' at history I remember the tale of Rasputin. They could have just screwed up. I mean many aspects of this war have been a screw up.
At least Russia sounds like they are getting more serious about talks.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace)
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-spokesman-russia-would-use-nuclear-weapons-only-case-threat-existence-2022-03-28/
Russia says they won't use nukes. They also said they weren't going to invade Ukraine and here we are. Nukes are quite a bit different, so we'll see what happens.
Hope peace talks work. I'm not holding my breath though.
Pecunia - I copy and paste a lot when I'm using actual names of people or places. No shame in trying to spell it right.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-spokesman-russia-would-use-nuclear-weapons-only-case-threat-existence-2022-03-28/
Russia says they won't use nukes. They also said they weren't going to invade Ukraine and here we are. Nukes are quite a bit different, so we'll see what happens.
I seriously doubt the Russians will use nukes since they can achieve similar results with more conventional weapons. Firebombing Kiev could level the city without nearly the level of international outrage as using a nuke.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-spokesman-russia-would-use-nuclear-weapons-only-case-threat-existence-2022-03-28/
Russia says they won't use nukes. They also said they weren't going to invade Ukraine and here we are. Nukes are quite a bit different, so we'll see what happens.
I seriously doubt the Russians will use nukes since they can achieve similar results with more conventional weapons. Firebombing Kiev could level the city without nearly the level of international outrage as using a nuke.
Agreed. Assuming that Putin is playing by the same set of rules and using the same set of assumptions. I don't know if he is.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-spokesman-russia-would-use-nuclear-weapons-only-case-threat-existence-2022-03-28/
Russia says they won't use nukes. They also said they weren't going to invade Ukraine and here we are. Nukes are quite a bit different, so we'll see what happens.
Hope peace talks work. I'm not holding my breath though.
Pecunia - I copy and paste a lot when I'm using actual names of people or places. No shame in trying to spell it right.
Isn't it a strange coincidence that this came hours after EU states said that they wouldn't pay their gas in Rubles?
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-spokesman-russia-would-use-nuclear-weapons-only-case-threat-existence-2022-03-28/
Russia says they won't use nukes. They also said they weren't going to invade Ukraine and here we are. Nukes are quite a bit different, so we'll see what happens.
Hope peace talks work. I'm not holding my breath though.
Pecunia - I copy and paste a lot when I'm using actual names of people or places. No shame in trying to spell it right.
Isn't it a strange coincidence that this came hours after EU states said that they wouldn't pay their gas in Rubles?
Did they? I'm sure it's just a coincidence. /s
-
If this is true, then wow. Reports that hackers (Anonymous) erased 65 terabytes of data from the Russian FAA's servers - and there is no backup.
https://www.aviation24.be/miscellaneous/russo-ukrainian-war/powerful-cyber-attack-on-russias-civil-aviation-authority-servers-no-more-data-nor-back-up/
-
-------
Back on topic - apparently Russia is suspected of positioning one of the oligarchs and various Ukrainians, in Kyiv. Putin, everyone knows that you like to poison people. Therefore, we know its you.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/
And not just "any" oligarch, but Ramon Abramovich, arguably the most prominent oligarch in the west, the owner of Chelsea. Abramovich is Russian of Ukrainian Jewish descent and a long-term ally of Putin. I'm sure if they had wanted him dead they'd have succeeded, but this was a very clear warning. It explains why Abramovich suddenly disappeared as a negotiator.
I used to give them credit for nasty stuff like that. I mean they could get it done. However there is Alexei Anatolievich Navalny. (Yes I cut and pasted it) They tried to poison him. Then lookin' at history I remember the tale of Rasputin. They could have just screwed up. I mean many aspects of this war have been a screw up.
At least Russia sounds like they are getting more serious about talks.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace)
This is a phrase I will never attribute to Vladimir Putin. His negotiation team said they were not putting Kyiv at risk because that's where the leaders live and that they were pulling out of Kyiv and Chernihiv (while bombing them) in order to "increase mutual trust in negotiations." The same people who said they weren't going to invade Ukraine, that they're not bombing cities, and that they're not kidnapping tens of thousands of people.
They're not done with this war while it looks like they have a chance of winning the best possible outcome for themselves.
They "sound" serious. That's all.
-
I used to give them credit for nasty stuff like that. I mean they could get it done. However there is Alexei Anatolievich Navalny. (Yes I cut and pasted it) They tried to poison him. Then lookin' at history I remember the tale of Rasputin. They could have just screwed up. I mean many aspects of this war have been a screw up.
At least Russia sounds like they are getting more serious about talks.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace)
[/quote]
Good liars can sound serious. These folks have been good liars for many many years. They are so good that some of them actually believe their own BS.
This is a phrase I will never attribute to Vladimir Putin. His negotiation team said they were not putting Kyiv at risk because that's where the leaders live and that they were pulling out of Kyiv and Chernihiv (while bombing them) in order to "increase mutual trust in negotiations." The same people who said they weren't going to invade Ukraine, that they're not bombing cities, and that they're not kidnapping tens of thousands of people.
They're not done with this war while it looks like they have a chance of winning the best possible outcome for themselves.
They "sound" serious. That's all.
[/quote]
-
Navanlny said he wasn't poisened. I also find that highly dubious. There is nothing in it for Putin than even more troubles if he poisens delegates of a peace talk. That is not "underestimating Ukraine army" level of dumb, that is "throwing all atomic bombs at NATO without taking out the safety" level of dumb.
Anyway....
Our German Minister today announced that he has started the catastrophy plan level 1 (meaning "serious risk of not getting any gas"), which officially sets in motion planning of who to cut off and who not etc.
And at the same time Russia announced that "pay in Rubles" will not start from April 1, that was a misunderstanding. It's something for the future that will happen step by step.
So many coincidences!
-
Man points gun at may head. He asks. "Do I point gun at your head? I expect right answer."
I look in the mans eyes and see what the right answer is. "No gun," I say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexei_Navalny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexei_Navalny)
I think if I was in Russian prison, I would say, "No poison."
And at the same time Russia announced that "pay in Rubles" will not start from April 1, that was a misunderstanding.
Maybe, they will say "April Fools," on April 2nd.
Can't Germany start up some of the old nukes? Could this save burning some Russian gas? I would think even the Green Party in Germany would understand these are special circumstances.
-
Can't Germany start up some of the old nukes? Could this save burning some Russian gas? I would think even the Green Party in Germany would understand these are special circumstances.
Eventually maybe? But even with political support and financial resources bringing a decommissioned nuclear reactor back online is not a small or short term undertaking.
It sounds like Germany's plan if Russia cuts off gas is to shut down natural gas using industries to prioritize heating people's homes. I believe a lot of older German homes were originally coal heated (much simpler system to manufacture and deploy than nuclear power plants) and if they can make it to spring a crash course could probably convert a lot of those older buildings back to be coal heated before next winter.
Would suck for air quality (and global warning targets) but better than people dying in the cold and Germany definitely has plenty of coal.
-
Can't Germany start up some of the old nukes? Could this save burning some Russian gas? I would think even the Green Party in Germany would understand these are special circumstances.
Eventually maybe? But even with political support and financial resources bringing a decommissioned nuclear reactor back online is not a small or short term undertaking.
It sounds like Germany's plan if Russia cuts off gas is to shut down natural gas using industries to prioritize heating people's homes. I believe a lot of older German homes were originally coal heated (much simpler system to manufacture and deploy than nuclear power plants) and if they can make it to spring a crash course could probably convert a lot of those older buildings back to be coal heated before next winter.
Would suck for air quality (and global warning targets) but better than people dying in the cold and Germany definitely has plenty of coal.
Coal-fired boilers in the home require significant work on the part of the occupier: ordering coal, having somewhere (coal bunker) to keep it, physical ability to shovel coal into hod and carry it indoors and presence in the home to do that on a regular basis to keep it going. Compared to turning on a gas tap it's a lot of trouble, there's a significant delay in producing heat/hot water from a standing start, and the frail elderly and disabled can't do it at all - I remember when I was very young my father having to walk down the road before school to fire up the coal-fired boiler of an elderly neighbour and it took time and effort out of his day to do it. Plus, you have to manufacture and install the boilers which is not easy at scale.
Much more feasible at short notice to put in electric heaters and electric water heaters - as long as you can increase the electricity supply to match the new demand.
-
Can't Germany start up some of the old nukes? Could this save burning some Russian gas? I would think even the Green Party in Germany would understand these are special circumstances.
Eventually maybe? But even with political support and financial resources bringing a decommissioned nuclear reactor back online is not a small or short term undertaking.
It sounds like Germany's plan if Russia cuts off gas is to shut down natural gas using industries to prioritize heating people's homes. I believe a lot of older German homes were originally coal heated (much simpler system to manufacture and deploy than nuclear power plants) and if they can make it to spring a crash course could probably convert a lot of those older buildings back to be coal heated before next winter.
Would suck for air quality (and global warning targets) but better than people dying in the cold and Germany definitely has plenty of coal.
Coal-fired boilers in the home require significant work on the part of the occupier: ordering coal, having somewhere (coal bunker) to keep it, physical ability to shovel coal into hod and carry it indoors and presence in the home to do that on a regular basis to keep it going. Compared to turning on a gas tap it's a lot of trouble, there's a significant delay in producing heat/hot water from a standing start, and the frail elderly and disabled can't do it at all - I remember when I was very young my father having to walk down the road before school to fire up the coal-fired boiler of an elderly neighbour and it took time and effort out of his day to do it. Plus, you have to manufacture and install the boilers which is not easy at scale.
Much more feasible at short notice to put in electric heaters and electric water heaters - as long as you can increase the electricity supply to match the new demand.
If you have the electricity to burn I completely agree. But does Germany have surplus electricity (particularly if they lose the 10-12% of their electricity generation that comes from natural gas)?
Otherwise converting to electric heat would mean trying to recommission nuclear power plants or come up with a way to bring brand new power plants (whether coal, renewable, or something else) from the drawing board to generating power between now and next winter.
Or maybe Germany has a bunch of old decommissioned or standby coal plants? If so, I could see those being easier to reactivate than nuclear plants and a lot cleaner than direct coal heat (although they would probably require burning more coal for the same amount of heat given conversion and transmission losses). In the polar vortex here a couple of years ago we got a crash course in how many old an inefficient coal and fuel oil power plants some US electrical utilities hold on to for true emergencies even though they're generally not economically viable to operate anymore.
-
Our German Minister today announced that he has started the catastrophy plan level 1 (meaning "serious risk of not getting any gas"), which officially sets in motion planning of who to cut off and who not etc.
And at the same time Russia announced that "pay in Rubles" will not start from April 1, that was a misunderstanding. It's something for the future that will happen step by step.
So many coincidences!
Lol.
-
The electricity grid in Europe is connected. So Germany doesn't have to come up with all that energy on their own. Instead, we will be looking at very high electricity costs all over Europe, including in countries that have decided to not rely on Russian gas. It could cause some tension.
IEA's plan to reduce the dependence on Russina gas is conservative and doable, if we act now. I believe the potential for energy efficiency measures is even larger: https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-reduce-the-european-unions-reliance-on-russian-natural-gas
-
Every time I feel like the Russian government can't disappoint me more something like this happens:
“We believe that Putin is being misinformed by his advisers about how badly the Russian military is performing and how the Russian economy is being crippled by sanctions because his senior advisors are too afraid to tell him the truth,” she said. - Reuters: Putin misled by 'yes men' in military afraid to tell him the truth, White House and EU officials say (https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-advisers-too-afraid-tell-him-truth-ukraine-us-official-2022-03-30/)
-
People keep wishing horrible deaths on Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and they keep on delivering.
A couple hundred reportedly suffered acute radiation poisoning after literally digging into the most contaminated area around Chernobyl.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1509287796065845250?cxt=HHwWhICyxaDQiPIpAAAA
With commanders like this, who needs enemies?
-
People keep wishing horrible deaths on Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and they keep on delivering.
A couple hundred reportedly suffered acute radiation poisoning after literally digging into the most contaminated area around Chernobyl.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1509287796065845250?cxt=HHwWhICyxaDQiPIpAAAA
With commanders like this, who needs enemies?
I saw that. Radiation poisoning isn't pretty, and I haven't heard that we have effective treatments. Those men are likely going to suffer horrible deaths.
-
People keep wishing horrible deaths on Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and they keep on delivering.
A couple hundred reportedly suffered acute radiation poisoning after literally digging into the most contaminated area around Chernobyl.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1509287796065845250?cxt=HHwWhICyxaDQiPIpAAAA
With commanders like this, who needs enemies?
I saw that. Radiation poisoning isn't pretty, and I haven't heard that we have effective treatments. Those men are likely going to suffer horrible deaths.
It depends on the dose. Are they internally contaminated as well as their exposure to radiation? I was taught the three things important to avoid radiation exposure are time, distance and shielding. The only thing these soldiers may have going for them is time. Their exposures may have been brief.
These guys are truly cannon fodder.
-
Let us not forget that Ukraine has several hundred thousand (400k?) veteran reservists with relatively recent combat experience and I understand that 100k have just been called up.
Together with dramatically increased weapons imports from the EU, this translates to a rapidly growing threat for Putin´s military.
This guy seems very knowledgable and confirms that Ukraine had 400k reservists specifically trained unddr combat conditions for operations against a Russian invading force. (minute 10:45)
One of the most puzzling things about this war is the fact that evidence for the weakness of the Russian military, in comparison to the Ukrainian forces, for the scenario of an invasion was pretty obvious and easily available from online sources.
And one did not even need to be an expert to see that the Russian plan was a very long shot and based on the delusion that Ukraine was militarily weak.
Day 35: War in Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfRRF7JfJQ
-
People keep wishing horrible deaths on Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and they keep on delivering.
A couple hundred reportedly suffered acute radiation poisoning after literally digging into the most contaminated area around Chernobyl.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1509287796065845250?cxt=HHwWhICyxaDQiPIpAAAA
With commanders like this, who needs enemies?
I saw that. Radiation poisoning isn't pretty, and I haven't heard that we have effective treatments. Those men are likely going to suffer horrible deaths.
It depends on the dose. Are they internally contaminated as well as their exposure to radiation? I was taught the three things important to avoid radiation exposure are time, distance and shielding. The only thing these soldiers may have going for them is time. Their exposures may have been brief.
These guys are truly cannon fodder.
Found a bit more information. It doesn't appear that we really know how much radiation they were exposed to. Driving through a cloud of radioactive dust doesn't sound good though.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/unprotected-russian-soldiers-disturbed-radioactive-dust-chernobyls-red-forest-2022-03-28/
Also saw in another article that some of the Russian soldiers had never heard of Chernobyl and thus had no idea about the radiation danger. That particular source isn't known to be awesome, but given all the reports of Russians being amazed at such things as paved roads, seems plausible.
-
People keep wishing horrible deaths on Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and they keep on delivering.
A couple hundred reportedly suffered acute radiation poisoning after literally digging into the most contaminated area around Chernobyl.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1509287796065845250?cxt=HHwWhICyxaDQiPIpAAAA
With commanders like this, who needs enemies?
I saw that. Radiation poisoning isn't pretty, and I haven't heard that we have effective treatments. Those men are likely going to suffer horrible deaths.
It depends on the dose. Are they internally contaminated as well as their exposure to radiation? I was taught the three things important to avoid radiation exposure are time, distance and shielding. The only thing these soldiers may have going for them is time. Their exposures may have been brief.
These guys are truly cannon fodder.
Found a bit more information. It doesn't appear that we really know how much radiation they were exposed to. Driving through a cloud of radioactive dust doesn't sound good though.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/unprotected-russian-soldiers-disturbed-radioactive-dust-chernobyls-red-forest-2022-03-28/
Also saw in another article that some of the Russian soldiers had never heard of Chernobyl and thus had no idea about the radiation danger. That particular source isn't known to be awesome, but given all the reports of Russians being amazed at such things as paved roads, seems plausible.
The soviets didn't care at all about the people in the area when the plant blew under their control, this is not surprising news.
-
The Chernobyl plant blew up in 1986, 36 years ago. Most of the Russian troops will be late teens/early twenties, and there is no reason why Russian media, in thrall to Putin and his revisionist ideas of Russian history, would make much mention of a failure of the USSR years.
-
More meat for the grinder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdRN7RBWDII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdRN7RBWDII)
Will they send the kids or more experienced soldiers?
-
Not to mention that, if the Russians still follow standard preocedure, the soldiers are mostly those NOT from the region. Makes sense from moral POV. You don't want to have order your soldiers to kill their uncle. They might decide that instead of Uncle Wolja, they kill officer shithead.
Still, never heard of the biggest nuclear catatrophe? Even today Germans are warned to not eat much wild boar because they still (can) have a high radiation. (water holes where radioactive stuff was washed in -> mushrooms -> boar meat)
Let us not forget that Ukraine has several hundred thousand (400k?) veteran reservists with relatively recent combat experience and I understand that 100k have just been called up.
Together with dramatically increased weapons imports from the EU, this translates to a rapidly growing threat for Putin´s military.
This guy seems very knowledgable and confirms that Ukraine had 400k reservists specifically trained unddr combat conditions for operations against a Russian invading force. (minute 10:45)
One of the most puzzling things about this war is the fact that the weakness of the Russian military in comparison to the Ukrainian forces for the scenario of an invasion was pretty obvious and easily available from online sources.
And one did not even need to be an expert to see that the Russian plan was a very long shot and based on the delusion that Ukraine was militarily weak.
Day 35: War in Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfRRF7JfJQ
To be more precise, the Ukrainians have not been "trained", there are 400K once-recruits that have been rotated to the Donbass region where there was a more or less constant low-key war.
You are a lot more veteran (and eager when training) if you have at least seen real shooting or know you are likely to be in one. And some of them have actually killed in their duty.
Compared to akne-faces that have mostly been abused by their seniors that is a whole other level of battle readiness.
-
Russia is flip flopping on the gas payments in rubles (again). I'm starting to wonder if there's infighting or something happening, because they don't make sense.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-sets-deadline-rouble-gas-payments-europe-calls-it-blackmail-2022-03-31/
The Russian stock market is moving more towards normal operations, though if I read it right, foreigners can't sell and they're severely limiting some types of activity. I'm sure that's really improving confidence in their market stability. /s
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/russia-to-lift-short-selling-ban-on-stocks-expand-trading-hours
And re Chernobyl, given the state of education in the US and how much about US history people don't know, poor peasants from far away not knowing about Chernobyl really isn't a stretch. It is absolutely evidence of lack of compassion or caring from the military leadership to put the soldiers in harm's way and not tell them.
-
I don't understand why people still keep reporting and believing what the kremlin says. They lie so consistently it's completely transparent.
"Russia is scaling back the operation and pulling troops out of Kyiv and Kharkiv" - This means they are most certainly NOT doing that, or the reasons for doing so are to ramp up shelling.
"Russia is serious about peace talks and agrees to a cease fire" - This means they are going to break the cease fire and kill civilians. I mean seriously, how many cease fires need to be broken before people stop trusting Russia? Have they ever honored a cease fire?
"Russia drafts 134,500 conscripts, but they are not going to Ukraine" - This means they absolutely are going to Ukraine.
-
I don't understand why people still keep reporting and believing what the kremlin says. They lie so consistently it's completely transparent.
"Russia is scaling back the operation and pulling troops out of Kyiv and Kharkiv" - This means they are most certainly NOT doing that, or the reasons for doing so are to ramp up shelling.
"Russia is serious about peace talks and agrees to a cease fire" - This means they are going to break the cease fire and kill civilians. I mean seriously, how many cease fires need to be broken before people stop trusting Russia? Have they ever honored a cease fire?
"Russia drafts 134,500 conscripts, but they are not going to Ukraine" - This means they absolutely are going to Ukraine.
This.
Russian leadership under Putin has long implemented a policy of disinformation and contradictory information. There is generally little benefit to them to speaking truth, so they don't. Having others spend energy guessing is advantageous. This is what is done domestically. This is what was (is) done during the 2016 US presidential election. This is SOP.
-
Can't Germany start up some of the old nukes? Could this save burning some Russian gas? I would think even the Green Party in Germany would understand these are special circumstances.
Eventually maybe? But even with political support and financial resources bringing a decommissioned nuclear reactor back online is not a small or short term undertaking.
It sounds like Germany's plan if Russia cuts off gas is to shut down natural gas using industries to prioritize heating people's homes. I believe a lot of older German homes were originally coal heated (much simpler system to manufacture and deploy than nuclear power plants) and if they can make it to spring a crash course could probably convert a lot of those older buildings back to be coal heated before next winter.
Would suck for air quality (and global warning targets) but better than people dying in the cold and Germany definitely has plenty of coal.
Coal-fired boilers in the home require significant work on the part of the occupier: ordering coal, having somewhere (coal bunker) to keep it, physical ability to shovel coal into hod and carry it indoors and presence in the home to do that on a regular basis to keep it going. Compared to turning on a gas tap it's a lot of trouble, there's a significant delay in producing heat/hot water from a standing start, and the frail elderly and disabled can't do it at all - I remember when I was very young my father having to walk down the road before school to fire up the coal-fired boiler of an elderly neighbour and it took time and effort out of his day to do it. Plus, you have to manufacture and install the boilers which is not easy at scale.
Much more feasible at short notice to put in electric heaters and electric water heaters - as long as you can increase the electricity supply to match the new demand.
Plus if Germans are anything like the Dutch (and they generally are) then back when the transition from coal to gas was made, all traces of the coal infrastructure were taken out of the homes immediately. My own house was built in the 40s and the coal heating was replaced by natural gas probably in the 60s or 70s. They didn't just replace the heater. They took out the whole chimney instead. When digging in the garden a while back I found the foundations to the coal bunker. They immediately demolished that as well.
The energy supply in Europe is interconnected everywhere. So it's not just Germany, it's the entire of Europe that could get in trouble. The best case scenario in the short term is for countries to start up old coal and nuclear facilities again. The other option is electric heating. It's not ideal, but millions of homes have solar panels here. And many of them still heat using natural gas because gas is cheap and convenient and always available. If all those people could try and heat electrically as much as possible, that would reduce the consumption of gas.
We have a natural gas emergency plan but reducing gas use of ordinary people is pretty low on the list. It would be easy though. Let's say we all put our heating at 17 or 18C, and turn it off at night. I know people who keep their homes at 22 or 24C! That's insane. A small number of industries are large users of natural gas. We should just shut them off immediately. Growing flowers in a greenhouse is totally unnecessary.
-
I don't understand why people still keep reporting and believing what the kremlin says. They lie so consistently it's completely transparent.
"Russia is scaling back the operation and pulling troops out of Kyiv and Kharkiv" - This means they are most certainly NOT doing that, or the reasons for doing so are to ramp up shelling.
"Russia is serious about peace talks and agrees to a cease fire" - This means they are going to break the cease fire and kill civilians. I mean seriously, how many cease fires need to be broken before people stop trusting Russia? Have they ever honored a cease fire?
"Russia drafts 134,500 conscripts, but they are not going to Ukraine" - This means they absolutely are going to Ukraine.
I don't believe the Kremlin. In fact, I generally believe the opposite. Both of the articles I linked were about things that are easily verifiable. If Russia really doesn't accept non-ruble gas payments tomorrow, then we'll know pretty quickly. And on the stock market, again, will be verifiable. I also included "/s", which means sarcasm. If anyone doesn't know what "/s" means, well, now they have been informed.
I find paying slight attention to what the Kremlin says to be interesting, amusing, and an indicator of what they might do in future (ie, not what they said).
Russia said they won't use nukes a few days ago. That tells me that nukes are absolutely on the table. They said they will cut back on the bombing. That tells me they'll most likely keep bombing.
-
It sure seems like Europe should be a ready market for small modular nuclear reactors if they can ever start manufacturing them.
So - These Russian people lie about things like troop pullbacks. They blow blow up hospitals, schools, and apartments. They kidnap people for transit to maybe Siberia to help their demographics. They roll in with converted Toyota trucks with machine guns welded on the back. (Of course tanks, rocket launchers, and other conventional war machines.) They surround, cut off water and food to cities and then shell and kill the folks. They kill and probably rape civilians. They use these phosphorous bombs on civilian targets. They fabricate fake news for the consumption of their own population and the world. They poison those that don't get with the program or they just disappear. Good thing they are not one of these terrorist organizations, eh?
I haven't heard about the torture thing or cutting people's heads off. I strongly suspect they do the torture thing.
Imagine what they would be like had they not been a civilized people.
-
In Sweden we have an expression saying "Han ljuger som en häst skenar" ... I guess it can be loosely translated into "He's lying like a horse running away in panic". That seems appropriate for the Kremlin right now.
In more positive news: Yesterday I saw news also internationally about that the recent Russian intrusions on Swedish airspace with military jets was carrying nukes. This has been debunked from sources I deem reliable, the planes used cannot carry the kind of bombs that was claimed to be present.
-
It sure seems like Europe should be a ready market for small modular nuclear reactors if they can ever start manufacturing them.
So - These Russian people lie about things like troop pullbacks. They blow blow up hospitals, schools, and apartments. They kidnap people for transit to maybe Siberia to help their demographics. They roll in with converted Toyota trucks with machine guns welded on the back. (Of course tanks, rocket launchers, and other conventional war machines.) They surround, cut off water and food to cities and then shell and kill the folks. They kill and probably rape civilians. They use these phosphorous bombs on civilian targets. They fabricate fake news for the consumption of their own population and the world. They poison those that don't get with the program or they just disappear. Good thing they are not one of these terrorist organizations, eh?
I haven't heard about the torture thing or cutting people's heads off. I strongly suspect they do the torture thing.
Imagine what they would be like had they not been a civilized people.
I haven't seen anything confirming phosphorus bombs, they have been using phosphorus shells for illumination.
The rapes are confirmed, as is looting.
-
Plus if Germans are anything like the Dutch (and they generally are) then back when the transition from coal to gas was made, all traces of the coal infrastructure were taken out of the homes immediately. My own house was built in the 40s and the coal heating was replaced by natural gas probably in the 60s or 70s. They didn't just replace the heater. They took out the whole chimney instead.
Certainly in the 2 apartments where I lived before. This one not, but that is likely only because hot water is still made in the rooms with gas burner instead of a combined hot water / electricity plant a km away.
I know people who keep their homes at 22 or 24C!
I am always waay under the average for heating costs, even though I am at home the whole day.
But I only heat the living room (switch off evening) and bath if needed. The rest can go down until 14° C
The rapes are confirmed, as is looting.
Well, it's a war. You don't need confirmation for that. It's like saying there was shooting.
-
I'm not convinced that rape is a necessary part of war. War *crimes*, yes.
-
I'm not convinced that rape is a necessary part of war. War *crimes*, yes.
Theoretically maybe, but name one armed conflict in the whole history of mankind where rape was not used as a weapon? I really *want* it not to happen but realistically, yes it probably is going on literally right now.
-
Here's an article about the white phosphorous bombs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/25/ukraine-russia-white-phosphorus/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/25/ukraine-russia-white-phosphorus/)
It could be fake news, but the Russians have done so much other bad stuff, I don't see any reason to make up more.
I kind of wonder. This Putin guy never smiles. They say there is bad juju about him. He has access to all kinds of news. He must see what his soldiers are doing. In my opinion a normal person would be greatly disturbed when they see these things. He is not a stupid man so he knows these actions do not stop with the deeds. There is a ripple effect that can go on for generations. He is supposed to be a guy that reads history. Sometimes, I think it would be great to have no conscience, but then I think that's what makes you human.
-
I'm not convinced that rape is a necessary part of war. War *crimes*, yes.
Theoretically maybe, but name one armed conflict in the whole history of mankind where rape was not used as a weapon? I really *want* it not to happen but realistically, yes it probably is going on literally right now.
Oh, I know it happens, but I also think it should be completely unacceptable vs a “boys will be boys, war will be war” type of attitude.
-
Here's an article about the white phosphorous bombs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/25/ukraine-russia-white-phosphorus/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/25/ukraine-russia-white-phosphorus/)
It could be fake news, but the Russians have done so much other bad stuff, I don't see any reason to make up more.
White phosphorus is widely used for smoke rounds. I'm in the Army and for our 60mm mortars, the only smoke round available is a white phosphorus round. There are different smoke rounds available for larger mortars and artillery. Normally smoke is used to screen or obscure something - i.e. you shoot the smoke to be between the enemy position and an objective you're trying to seize so they can't see to shoot you. But that same smoke can also be fired directly on to the enemy. One tactic is to fire high explosive and white phosphorus - "shake and bake" as it's called. WP is also the preferred round if you're targeting something like a fuel dump or refueling operation.
Frankly dead is dead. Whether you're burned from white phosphorus, blown up by conventional munitions, shot with a machine gun, or burned due to incendiary rounds you're still dead. Anything other than a precision guided weapon in an area with civilians is going to cause collateral damage. Since Russia not only doesn't care about collateral damage but is actively targeting the civilian population that doesn't really matter. Some weapons like cluster munitions or WP might be considered worse - but it's all bad if you're the one being targeted.
-
Thank goodness we have the UN and the Geneva Convention. It's really helped to prevent war and war crimes.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-denies-claims-putin-fed-bad-info-ukraine-war-2022-3
I started laughing while reading this.
Edit:
I do not have the historical background to fully comprehend the impact, but Japan has changed their wording regarding the Kuril Islands. They're now illegally occupied by Russia. Russia might be facing more problems then they'd expected.
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1509577019754958859
https://english.pravda.ru/news/world/150932-japan_russia_kurils/
-
It sure seems like Europe should be a ready market for small modular nuclear reactors if they can ever start manufacturing them.
So - These Russian people lie about things like troop pullbacks. They blow blow up hospitals, schools, and apartments. They kidnap people for transit to maybe Siberia to help their demographics. They roll in with converted Toyota trucks with machine guns welded on the back. (Of course tanks, rocket launchers, and other conventional war machines.) They surround, cut off water and food to cities and then shell and kill the folks. They kill and probably rape civilians. They use these phosphorous bombs on civilian targets. They fabricate fake news for the consumption of their own population and the world. They poison those that don't get with the program or they just disappear. Good thing they are not one of these terrorist organizations, eh?
I haven't heard about the torture thing or cutting people's heads off. I strongly suspect they do the torture thing.
Imagine what they would be like had they not been a civilized people.
Look into the "Wagner Group" of RU mercenaries. Don't look too close, it's disturbing.
Also what Kadyrov has been doing in Chechnya. Sick.
-
I do not have the historical background to fully comprehend the impact, but Japan has changed their wording regarding the Kuril Islands. They're now illegally occupied by Russia. Russia might be facing more problems then they'd expected.
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1509577019754958859
https://english.pravda.ru/news/world/150932-japan_russia_kurils/
In short: 300 years of both sides screaming "It's mine!". No peace treaty from WWII. Southern Kurils in sight of Hokkaido. Fishing rights and so on too.
One of the best stories I ever read is the one of 2 Russian sailors (yes, sail age, I think late 18th century) that had been left on one of those Islands because they left the ship completely drunk in the night and when they woke up the ship was gone.
That so perfectly fits the prejudice checkboxes about Russia!
-
So, It is April 1st? Did Russia shut off the natural gas? Did Europe give in and prop up the ruble? I don't have cable TV. I don't see what happened on the news sites. It is like this story disappeared.
Yeh - I think there will be investment in the next few years for local independent energy and not just in Europe. It's a major supply chain disruption when you can't get energy. I look out the window this morning and see snow. I no longer heat with wood. I would not like the gas cut off.
-
Well, Russia made a bond payment yesterday https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-avoids-default-once-again-180147322.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIQlM-QCxwLmtnUJW3emrI9Ss_N3M6yRTa1bZFXgJ5f_lHIUJZnLGydeEoDRuz1UKhyPyXf8Cna8KzMDG92fEXs61BztACN9jsMXi2E00jPvKv-3ucek9x11nqUw1eRkP5hP8uegbuZVyDbFzB5eNnRYYE_gIN-caDBc_FPKU5Km (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-avoids-default-once-again-180147322.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIQlM-QCxwLmtnUJW3emrI9Ss_N3M6yRTa1bZFXgJ5f_lHIUJZnLGydeEoDRuz1UKhyPyXf8Cna8KzMDG92fEXs61BztACN9jsMXi2E00jPvKv-3ucek9x11nqUw1eRkP5hP8uegbuZVyDbFzB5eNnRYYE_gIN-caDBc_FPKU5Km)
And it looks like Russia didn't turn off the gas. I guess Europe called their bluff. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/business/russia-gas-ruble-ultimatum-explainer/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/business/russia-gas-ruble-ultimatum-explainer/index.html)
-
I know people who keep their homes at 22 or 24C!
I am always waay under the average for heating costs, even though I am at home the whole day.
But I only heat the living room (switch off evening) and bath if needed. The rest can go down until 14° C
I tend to keep our home temperatures at similar levels, but it might have to depend upon your local laws if you're renting. Here in Canada we have legislation that sets the minimum legal temperature for a rental unit at 21 degrees C.
-
I know people who keep their homes at 22 or 24C!
I am always waay under the average for heating costs, even though I am at home the whole day.
But I only heat the living room (switch off evening) and bath if needed. The rest can go down until 14° C
I tend to keep our home temperatures at similar levels, but it might have to depend upon your local laws if you're renting. Here in Canada we have legislation that sets the minimum legal temperature for a rental unit at 21 degrees C.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the landlord has to guarantee that temperature to the renter!?
I also have in my contract to keep a minimum temperature of I think 12 degrees (quite standard) to prevent freezing of water etc.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
A fuel depot got hit inside Russia. Ukraine says it wasn't them. Fog of war and all that, so who knows. Eventually the historians will figure it out.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
A fuel depot got hit inside Russia. Ukraine says it wasn't them. Fog of war and all that, so who knows. Eventually the historians will figure it out.
Everything I've seen says that Ukraine is neither confirming or denying anything, since it happened on Russian soil.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
A fuel depot got hit inside Russia. Ukraine says it wasn't them. Fog of war and all that, so who knows. Eventually the historians will figure it out.
Everything I've seen says that Ukraine is neither confirming or denying anything, since it happened on Russian soil.
That was the initial at least, Reuters has an update.
Also, re the radiation poisioning discussed the other day - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/01/russian-soldier-dies-radiation-poisoning-chernobyl/
Sorry for the paywall, but there's been at least one Russian death from radiation poisoning reported. I didn't see another (English) source, the original source I saw was Polish but I can't copy and paste between phone and computer.
-
I know people who keep their homes at 22 or 24C!
I am always waay under the average for heating costs, even though I am at home the whole day.
But I only heat the living room (switch off evening) and bath if needed. The rest can go down until 14° C
I tend to keep our home temperatures at similar levels, but it might have to depend upon your local laws if you're renting. Here in Canada we have legislation that sets the minimum legal temperature for a rental unit at 21 degrees C.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the landlord has to guarantee that temperature to the renter!?
I also have in my contract to keep a minimum temperature of I think 12 degrees (quite standard) to prevent freezing of water etc.
Yes in NL 12 degrees is standard too. Anything lower is considered neglect and the renter is liable for the costs. Energy is so expensive here that I have low income friends who struggle to afford that. Of course the cheap rentals still have single glazing and no insulation and heaters from the 80s.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Putin's retreat of his ground forces simply will allow him to bomb Ukrainian cities from the air without restraint, now that he's assured that nobody will give Ukraine air assistance.
Russia’s sieges of Mariupol and Kharkiv — two heavily Russian-speaking cities that Putin claims to be “liberating” from Ukrainian oppression — resemble what the Nazis did to Warsaw, and what Putin himself did to Grozny.
Several analysts have compared Putin to a cornered rat, more dangerous now that he’s no longer in control of events. They want to give him a safe way out of the predicament he allegedly created for himself. Hence the almost universal scorn poured on Joe Biden for saying in Poland, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
The conventional wisdom is entirely plausible. It has the benefit of vindicating the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine defensively. And it tends toward the conclusion that the best outcome is one in which Putin finds some face-saving exit: additional Ukrainian territory, a Ukrainian pledge of neutrality, a lifting of some of the sanctions.
But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?
The possibility is suggested in a powerful reminiscence from The Times’s Carlotta Gall of her experience covering Russia’s siege of Grozny, during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. In the early phases of the war, motivated Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian armored brigade, stunning Moscow. The Russians regrouped and wiped out Grozny from afar, using artillery and air power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html
Suppose for a moment that Putin never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s).
Combine that with Russia’s previous territorial seizures in Crimea (which has huge offshore energy fields) and the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk (which contain part of an enormous shale-gas field), as well as Putin’s bid to control most or all of Ukraine’s coastline, and the shape of Putin’s ambitions become clear. He’s less interested in reuniting the Russian-speaking world than he is in securing Russia’s energy dominance.
“Under the guise of an invasion, Putin is executing an enormous heist,” said Canadian energy expert David Knight Legg. As for what’s left of a mostly landlocked Ukraine, it will likely become a welfare case for the West, which will help pick up the tab for resettling Ukraine’s refugees to new homes outside of Russian control. In time, a Viktor Orban-like figure could take Ukraine’s presidency, imitating the strongman-style of politics that Putin prefers in his neighbors.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Putin's retreat of his ground forces simply will allow him to bomb Ukrainian cities from the air without restraint, now that he's assured that nobody will give Ukraine air assistance.
Aerial bombardment is far less effective than artillery and rockets. There's no risk of losing a plane to Ukraine's air defenses when you're just shelling a city with artillery. Also, it's a lot cheaper.
The retreat from Kyiv is because they couldn't capture the city and decapitate the government as they originally planned. Even if they could capture Kyiv and replace Zelensky with a puppet the Ukranian people would never allow it. Had it happened on day two or three of the invasion before millions were displaced and tens of thousands killed the Russians probably would have been successful.
-
I'm not convinced that rape is a necessary part of war. War *crimes*, yes.
Rape is just a part of human culture. People get raped all the time even with no war. It doesn't need to be an official policy or anything, if it involves humans it's going to include some amount of rape.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
A fuel depot got hit inside Russia. Ukraine says it wasn't them. Fog of war and all that, so who knows. Eventually the historians will figure it out.
Everything I've seen says that Ukraine is neither confirming or denying anything, since it happened on Russian soil.
Putin used a "false flag" operation years ago to justify the war in Chechnya. At the present time, it would be rather unpopular to increase the destructive scope of the way by Putin. However, if he could spin this up that the "Nazis" in Ukraine are now attacking Russian soil, he may get adequate public support. The easiest way to do this would be to have his own people do the job. I heard that only a portion of the oil depot was blown and that only several missiles were fired. You would think the Ukrainians would have blown the entirety of the installation.
-
So, It is April 1st? Did Russia shut off the natural gas? Did Europe give in and prop up the ruble? I don't have cable TV. I don't see what happened on the news sites. It is like this story disappeared.
Some more information from the financial side regarding gas and currency here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCILdCUM7k
One thing that Patrick says in this video is that payment for gas delivered today is not due until mid May meaning that delivery shortages will probably not happen quite yet even if it comes to that. He also points out that for technical reasons this is more of a change in WHO converts Dollars and Euros into Rubles - the buyer or the importer. It will still be done at the same bank - Gazprombank - which is not yet sanctioned.
-
I'm not going to share all the links, you can find them if you want. Here's the first article I'm aware of though (translate works pretty well in Chrome, otherwise use your translator of choice): https://news.obozrevatel.com/ukr/show/people/vse-zaminovano-na-vulitsyah-bagato-til-komarov-pokazav-pershi-kadri-zi-zvilnenoi-buchi.htm
In Bucha, northwest of Kyiv, it's reported that the Russians executed all males between 18 and 60. Images and videos show men with their hands tied, dead on the streets. The mayor reported they have buried at least 280 people in mass graves, their bodies were found after retaking the city, many civilians, some with their hands bound.
They also mined the city. Ukrainian forces are having to search and clear them.
I'm aware that this is SOP for Russian forces, they did the same in the past. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
-
I made the mistake of learning more about The Wagner Group and their behavior. Sickening. Some things can't be unseen.
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
Back to this, The Guardian: Sean Penn calls for billionaire to step up and buy aircraft for Ukraine (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/apr/01/sean-penn-calls-for-billionaire-to-step-up-and-buy-aircraft-for-ukraine). But they note:
However, a more serious obstacle to a billionaire buying F-15s and F-16s and flying them to Ukraine would be US export controls – major arms sales have to be approved by the US Congress before being allowed to proceed. “Typically fighter aircraft are sold by one government to another,” Netherwood added.
-
I'm not going to share all the links, you can find them if you want. Here's the first article I'm aware of though (translate works pretty well in Chrome, otherwise use your translator of choice): https://news.obozrevatel.com/ukr/show/people/vse-zaminovano-na-vulitsyah-bagato-til-komarov-pokazav-pershi-kadri-zi-zvilnenoi-buchi.htm
In Bucha, northwest of Kyiv, it's reported that the Russians executed all males between 18 and 60. Images and videos show men with their hands tied, dead on the streets. The mayor reported they have buried at least 280 people in mass graves, their bodies were found after retaking the city, many civilians, some with their hands bound.
They also mined the city. Ukrainian forces are having to search and clear them.
I'm aware that this is SOP for Russian forces, they did the same in the past. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
Wow! They called the Ukrainians Nazis and they are coming in and doing Nazi stuff themselves. Hitler's people used to be into the mass grave thing for a while. The story goes that some efficiency expert figured those gas chambers were more economical. So they burned a bunch of Jewish people, Polish people and gypsies. The Russians did bring those portable crematoria trucks. I think it is very wrong too, but there will be at least one person out there that says my moral code does not apply.
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
I have previously read that USA has been, to some extent, a reliable "ally" when it sells weapons, providing fairly consistent supply and service (with some exceptions) - and that China, in its modest forays into weapons sales, has gotten few takers because it's viewed as less reliable. Turkey is said to have developed its Bayraktar attack drone (was it this thread that posted the Bayraktar song?) because it didn't like the strings required from US and Russia, which had each conditionally offered to sell drones. In any case, because of the ongoing relationship that often comes with complex weapons, sellers can be jealous sellers.
You can't just buy fighters like lollipops. (So far, at least. I think.)
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
I have previously read that USA has been, to some extent, a reliable "ally" when it sells weapons, providing fairly consistent supply and service (with some exceptions) - and that China, in its modest forays into weapons sales, has gotten few takers because it's viewed as less reliable. Turkey is said to have developed its Bayraktar attack drone (was it this thread that posted the Bayraktar song?) because it didn't like the strings required from US and Russia, which had each conditionally offered to sell drones. In any case, because of the ongoing relationship that often comes with complex weapons, sellers can be jealous sellers.
You can't just buy fighters like lollipops. (So far, at least. I think.)
That makes sense. Proprietary parts and all.
And yes, the song is fun. I went down the rabbit hole (or at least attempted to) regarding music in Ukraine during the war. Lots of new stuff coming out, or old songs being modified. Remember London Calling by The Clash? The band gave permission for a Kyiv Calling cover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLCiA38No3Y
-
I have previously read that USA has been, to some extent, a reliable "ally" when it sells weapons, providing fairly consistent supply and service (with some exceptions) - and that China, in its modest forays into weapons sales, has gotten few takers because it's viewed as less reliable. Turkey is said to have developed its Bayraktar attack drone (was it this thread that posted the Bayraktar song?) because it didn't like the strings required from US and Russia, which had each conditionally offered to sell drones. In any case, because of the ongoing relationship that often comes with complex weapons, sellers can be jealous sellers.
This checks out. Turkey is the only country in NATO that likes to buy both western and Russian arms. But when they bought S-400 anti-aircraft batteries (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/26/erdogan-turkey-could-buy-more-russian-s-400s-despite-us-warnings) the other NATO members got upset.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Putin's retreat of his ground forces simply will allow him to bomb Ukrainian cities from the air without restraint, now that he's assured that nobody will give Ukraine air assistance.
Putin didn't need an excuse to unleash his air force on Ukrainian cities. He's been doing that the whole time in the east, and launching cruise missiles at the western cities since Day 1.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
A fuel depot got hit inside Russia. Ukraine says it wasn't them. Fog of war and all that, so who knows. Eventually the historians will figure it out.
Everything I've seen says that Ukraine is neither confirming or denying anything, since it happened on Russian soil.
Putin used a "false flag" operation years ago to justify the war in Chechnya. At the present time, it would be rather unpopular to increase the destructive scope of the way by Putin. However, if he could spin this up that the "Nazis" in Ukraine are now attacking Russian soil, he may get adequate public support. The easiest way to do this would be to have his own people do the job. I heard that only a portion of the oil depot was blown and that only several missiles were fired. You would think the Ukrainians would have blown the entirety of the installation.
This fuel depot strike is an interesting case. Whenever Russia needed a false flag incident, it bombed apartments. Destroying their own fuel supply genuinely hurts them, and embarrasses them for not protecting it. Belgorod citizens lit up the mayor on Telegram asking where their air force was at. Ukraine not admitting to it could be a massive trolling operation, but also tempering the impact by not inviting a bigger counterstrike. It also gets the conspiracy theorists out there pondering if Russian pilots did it.
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
I have previously read that USA has been, to some extent, a reliable "ally" when it sells weapons, providing fairly consistent supply and service (with some exceptions) - and that China, in its modest forays into weapons sales, has gotten few takers because it's viewed as less reliable. Turkey is said to have developed its Bayraktar attack drone (was it this thread that posted the Bayraktar song?) because it didn't like the strings required from US and Russia, which had each conditionally offered to sell drones. In any case, because of the ongoing relationship that often comes with complex weapons, sellers can be jealous sellers.
You can't just buy fighters like lollipops. (So far, at least. I think.)
Yep, my last deployment was basically focused on giving away US weapons and equipment to draw another country into the US sphere of influence as opposed to the Chinese or Russian. My mission was to train them on how to use the American weapons and equipment they had just been provided. There was a big PR focus anytime we delivered new equipment with lots of photo ops.
But without ongoing support, spare parts, and ammunition most of it would be worthless in a matter of years.
-
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1510341553520361472 (https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1510341553520361472)
Long series of Tweets from GEN Hertling on what providing advanced NATO weapons to Ukraine would actually look like, and why finding them older stuff they're more familiar with is better.
-
Well, if this is accurate, the world is now in a real no-win situation with Russia. How do you deprogram an entire country? We can't even figure out how to deprogram the Qanon people. And if Russia decides to throw itself into attacking other countries, then eventually someone who has the power to actually defeat them (NATO, etc) is going to have to do so. With all the attendant complications of Russia's nukes.
https://faridaily.substack.com/p/now-were-going-to-fck-them-all-whats?s=r
-
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1510341553520361472 (https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1510341553520361472)
Long series of Tweets from GEN Hertling on what providing advanced NATO weapons to Ukraine would actually look like, and why finding them older stuff they're more familiar with is better.
Makes perfect sense. They're under stress, give them the equipment that is going to help and won't increase their stress too badly. If that means we find all the old Soviet equipment that's still out there and trade things around so Ukraine can get it, great!
I wish that NATO/US/others could take a more direct approach, but I also don't want to add another world war to the history books.
-
At this point, I have to wonder whether Russia would even be capable of saying "hey, NATO just bombed us!" if they came under attack. They can't even tell if it was Ukraine that attacked their fuel tanks. How would they know if a few F-35s slipped in and wiped out a disional headquarters or three?
-
Wow! They called the Ukrainians Nazis and they are coming in and doing Nazi stuff themselves.
Russia calling someone a "nazi" has nothing to do with the politics of Hitler and his party. This is just a word for "enemy". It's just a word they use for political means. They may share our vocabulary but not our dictionary making discussion harder than it could be. I guess you could compare it to when Antifa calls something or someone "fascist", and I'm sure there are many other examples out there.
That Russia uses what the rest of the world calls war crimes as a playbook for their actions is also not news - we saw that in Syria too.
Better news: the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) is now reported in media to have stopped Russian gas imports since yesterday:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/world/europe/lithuania-russia-gas.html
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
A fuel depot got hit inside Russia. Ukraine says it wasn't them. Fog of war and all that, so who knows. Eventually the historians will figure it out.
Everything I've seen says that Ukraine is neither confirming or denying anything, since it happened on Russian soil.
Putin used a "false flag" operation years ago to justify the war in Chechnya. At the present time, it would be rather unpopular to increase the destructive scope of the way by Putin. However, if he could spin this up that the "Nazis" in Ukraine are now attacking Russian soil, he may get adequate public support. The easiest way to do this would be to have his own people do the job. I heard that only a portion of the oil depot was blown and that only several missiles were fired. You would think the Ukrainians would have blown the entirety of the installation.
This fuel depot strike is an interesting case. Whenever Russia needed a false flag incident, it bombed apartments. Destroying their own fuel supply genuinely hurts them, and embarrasses them for not protecting it. Belgorod citizens lit up the mayor on Telegram asking where their air force was at. Ukraine not admitting to it could be a massive trolling operation, but also tempering the impact by not inviting a bigger counterstrike. It also gets the conspiracy theorists out there pondering if Russian pilots did it.
Another incident in Belgorod!
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-russias-belgorod-regional-official-says-2022-04-01/
Wonder if it could be sabotage by anti-Putin elements within Russia? If so, Ukraine's refusal to confirm or deny could give them cover.
[update] ... wait, that was not the link I meant to post. I thought I saw there had been another episode in Belgorod, I'm looking for it now.
Found it! https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/blasts-heard-russian-city-belgorod-near-border-with-ukraine-witnesses-2022-04-03/
-
I just saw an interesting opinion: given the destruction, pillaging, and human tragedy left in the wake of the Russian withdrawal in the north, it is now clear that there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede any territory to Russia in the hopes of limiting future suffering for the people in that territory. In other words, Russia can't say "give us this land or we'll do X to the people," because they've already burned, raped, killed, and looted them.
Russia has no cards left to play in terms of negotiation, short of WMD.
-
I just saw an interesting opinion: given the destruction, pillaging, and human tragedy left in the wake of the Russian withdrawal in the north, it is now clear that there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede any territory to Russia in the hopes of limiting future suffering for the people in that territory. In other words, Russia can't say "give us this land or we'll do X to the people," because they've already burned, raped, killed, and looted them.
Russia has no cards left to play in terms of negotiation, short of WMD.
The sweetest, gentlest, most docile animal will turn deadly the instant that you back them into a corner, threaten them, and give them no way out. That is essentially what has happened, on both sides I think. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have a way out. Russia can't back down because it will destroy them, internally. Ukraine can't back down because they will die.
This war, unless someone intervenes in some highly effective way, will only end when one side is destroyed sufficiently that they can not continue to fight.
-
I just saw an interesting opinion: given the destruction, pillaging, and human tragedy left in the wake of the Russian withdrawal in the north, it is now clear that there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede any territory to Russia in the hopes of limiting future suffering for the people in that territory. In other words, Russia can't say "give us this land or we'll do X to the people," because they've already burned, raped, killed, and looted them.
Russia has no cards left to play in terms of negotiation, short of WMD.
The sweetest, gentlest, most docile animal will turn deadly the instant that you back them into a corner, threaten them, and give them no way out. That is essentially what has happened, on both sides I think. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have a way out. Russia can't back down because it will destroy them, internally. Ukraine can't back down because they will die.
This war, unless someone intervenes in some highly effective way, will only end when one side is destroyed sufficiently that they can not continue to fight.
Makes sense when you put it that way. So, what kind of bone should be thrown to Russia? This bone will take away the attention from the fight. It will be something Putin can tell the people to make this mess sound like a partial success.
The more I learn about the countries in that part of the world, the more I see how intertwined they are by individual relationships, culture and history It's a little like a civil war or a family feud. In an odd sort of way, I think part of the fight is because Russia doesn't like Ukraine doing their own thing.
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
However the Ukrainian air force has been begging for MiG-29 fighter jets, which they feel they can handle. No government wants to risk war by giving them to Ukraine. But maybe they would sell to a third party.
On another topic: the massacre uncovered in Bucha is beyond horrible, sickening. And probably just the tip of the iceberg.
-
I just saw an interesting opinion: given the destruction, pillaging, and human tragedy left in the wake of the Russian withdrawal in the north, it is now clear that there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede any territory to Russia in the hopes of limiting future suffering for the people in that territory. In other words, Russia can't say "give us this land or we'll do X to the people," because they've already burned, raped, killed, and looted them.
Russia has no cards left to play in terms of negotiation, short of WMD.
The sweetest, gentlest, most docile animal will turn deadly the instant that you back them into a corner, threaten them, and give them no way out. That is essentially what has happened, on both sides I think. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have a way out. Russia can't back down because it will destroy them, internally. Ukraine can't back down because they will die.
This war, unless someone intervenes in some highly effective way, will only end when one side is destroyed sufficiently that they can not continue to fight.
Makes sense when you put it that way. So, what kind of bone should be thrown to Russia? This bone will take away the attention from the fight. It will be something Putin can tell the people to make this mess sound like a partial success.
The more I learn about the countries in that part of the world, the more I see how intertwined they are by individual relationships, culture and history It's a little like a civil war or a family feud. In an odd sort of way, I think part of the fight is because Russia doesn't like Ukraine doing their own thing.
They've had bones thrown to them. Putin hasn't taken them. In order for Putin to take a bone, first he has to decide that he wants to take a bone. Then there has to be a bone that he can take. But if what I've been reading about Russian culture and how they work is right (and if I'm understanding it at all), then there really may not be any way out for Putin. He may have gone too far to turn back.
Sources: I'm reading through all the threads that Kamil Galeev on Twitter has done. He's been linked on here before I believe.
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
You can't just buy fighters like lollipops. (So far, at least. I think.)
I think the "these fighters are really complicated the Ukrainian couldn't maintain them", is basically an excuse to not send them fighters because some in the government fear this would be an escalation.
A couple of examples. In the mid-1970s, the Shah of Iran bought 80 F14 (the plane of Top Gun fame), at the time it was the most sophisticated fighter in the world. In 1979, the Iranian revolution happened, the US embassy was stormed hostage were taken. The US imposed unprecedented, crippling sanction on Iran. At the top of the list was any type of arm sales, especially spare parts for the F-14, they have remained embargoed ever since. Between 1980 and 1988 Iran and Iraq fought war similar in size and scope to the current war in Ukraine.
According to Wiki, 23 year later of the original 79 F14 sent to Iran 40 remain flying and in service with the Iranian. The US Navy retired the F14 more than a decade ago.
Simlar to the large number of 1950's cars that still remain in service in Cuba, despite being embargoed for over 50 years.
Likewise, I am pretty sure that Russia cut off part supplies for MIGs and other Russian equipment after the 2014 invasion, and in fact it is always been hard for former Warsaw pact countries to get parts for their Russian equipment since the 2000s.
How can Iran keep their planes flying for 40+ years without access to spare parts? Air forces, and airlines, have always made use of hanger queens, planes that have lots of maintenance issues, that eventually become sources of spare parts. It is also the reason that, despite Boeing, and Airbus cutting off services to their planes in Russia, Aeroflot is still flying within Russia and limited number of international flights. I predict will still be doing so years in the future.
So while you are right the seller has lots of power in these deals in war time or hardship people are innovative in finding solutions.
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
You can't just buy fighters like lollipops. (So far, at least. I think.)
I think the "these fighters are really complicated the Ukrainian couldn't maintain them", is basically an excuse to not send them fighters because some in the government fear this would be an escalation.
A couple of examples. In the mid-1970s, the Shah of Iran bought 80 F14 (the plane of Top Gun fame), at the time it was the most sophisticated fighter in the world. In 1979, the Iranian revolution happened, the US embassy was stormed hostage were taken. The US imposed unprecedented, crippling sanction on Iran. At the top of the list was any type of arm sales, especially spare parts for the F-14, they have remained embargoed ever since. Between 1980 and 1988 Iran and Iraq fought war similar in size and scope to the current war in Ukraine.
According to Wiki, 23 year later of the original 79 F14 sent to Iran 40 remain flying and in service with the Iranian. The US Navy retired the F14 more than a decade ago.
Simlar to the large number of 1950's cars that still remain in service in Cuba, despite being embargoed for over 50 years.
Likewise, I am pretty sure that Russia cut off part supplies for MIGs and other Russian equipment after the 2014 invasion, and in fact it is always been hard for former Warsaw pact countries to get parts for their Russian equipment since the 2000s.
How can Iran keep their planes flying for 40+ years without access to spare parts? Air forces, and airlines, have always made use of hanger queens, planes that have lots of maintenance issues, that eventually become sources of spare parts. It is also the reason that, despite Boeing, and Airbus cutting off services to their planes in Russia, Aeroflot is still flying within Russia and limited number of international flights. I predict will still be doing so years in the future.
So while you are right the seller has lots of power in these deals in war time or hardship people are innovative in finding solutions.
It's probably an excuse, but one with some data behind it. When the war is over we will undoubtedly be competing with European suppliers to replace the UAF. If we sell them more and better equipment, we'll include training and maintenance packages. We won't want to half-ass it and we'll sell them a quality product. Rushing this now and causing an air accident and incurring an escalation penalty with Russia just isn't worth the trouble.
Regarding the F-14s, they simply don't put as many miles on them as we might. We fly double the number of hours each year compared to the Russian air force, and pay through the nose to do so. I don't know Iran's numbers, but I expect those F-14s don't leave the ground very often. They've had them for decades to figure out how to keep them flying on a shoestring.
Ukrainian pilots are bold and creative, and they deserve to fly something reliable. Part of that reliability is ensuring the ground crews are trained and equipped, and that doesn't happen with new planes overnight.
-
- SNIP -
They've had bones thrown to them. Putin hasn't taken them. In order for Putin to take a bone, first he has to decide that he wants to take a bone. Then there has to be a bone that he can take. But if what I've been reading about Russian culture and how they work is right (and if I'm understanding it at all), then there really may not be any way out for Putin. He may have gone too far to turn back.
Sources: I'm reading through all the threads that Kamil Galeev on Twitter has done. He's been linked on here before I believe.
Yeh - The Putin dog has to be hungry before he will take some bones. Apparently, chewing on Ukrainian people keeps him satisfied for now. How many Russian children have to die before he looks for another bone?
As far as keeping modern military equipment going, the example given was Jet fighters sold to Iraq. Does the fact that so much stuff is microprocessor controlled change things? I'm thinking of the hassle John Deere has given the farmers. I would guess the software would need to be reverse engineered to fix some of the stuff or they would need to write new software with new modules as chips go bad. I do think modern manufacturers want you reliant on them for service of much equipment and perhaps military hardware is no different.
-
Perhaps there will be open-source solutions for the John Deere problem. Jailbreak the tractor systems. I can't imagine that jet fighters would be easy to reverse engineer but on the other hand, with enough time and expertise...
-
Perhaps there will be open-source solutions for the John Deere problem. Jailbreak the tractor systems. I can't imagine that jet fighters would be easy to reverse engineer but on the other hand, with enough time and expertise...
Farmers have been doing just that with their John Deeres--ironically, with hacked firmware that came from Ukraine.
-
Yes, I have nothign to do with airplanes, but 1970 gear is extremely easier to repair. All you need, after all, is 1970 machines.
That's when half of the ransport still happened with coal engines and a car mechanic with a file could fix whatever problem you had on your car.
Today, for many machine parts there is only one producer in the whole world.
-
"This is the article that was published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti (Russian: РИА Новости). This media through the years was one of the main voices of Russian propaganda and fake news.
⠀
RIA Novosti is known for its systematic support of the Kremlin, violation of journalistic standards and works according to so-called “temnik” (directives and agendas from the government). The position in this article corresponds to the position of Russia."
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
-
Zelensky went to Bucha, there's a lot of pictures on Twitter, but this one really stands out to me.
https://twitter.com/Kateryna_Kruk/status/1510975889588293639
-
Trent Telenko
@TrentTelenko
This is a really nice history snapshot thread on the Battle of Kyiv that has been making the rounds.
I have a few minor objections to it based on what is missing.
Ukrainian leadership & Russian corruption thread🧵
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1510745458477572098
-
Zelensky went to Bucha, there's a lot of pictures on Twitter, but this one really stands out to me.
https://twitter.com/Kateryna_Kruk/status/1510975889588293639
God.
-
No matter what happens, one must ridicule the tyrant.
In retrospect, the Kyiev operation obviously was a stretch.
-
"This is the article that was published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti (Russian: РИА Новости). This media through the years was one of the main voices of Russian propaganda and fake news.
⠀
RIA Novosti is known for its systematic support of the Kremlin, violation of journalistic standards and works according to so-called “temnik” (directives and agendas from the government). The position in this article corresponds to the position of Russia."
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Quite the article. I sometimes see things and figure, "You just can't make this shi* up." They can and did. The phrase "alternate reality," quickly comes to mind.
-
It's agonizing to watch the news. I wish it would just end. I'm going to take a break. In addition to refugees, big thing affecting Poland (and probably other countries) s increase in prices (fuel, common goods, food).
-
"This is the article that was published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti (Russian: РИА Новости). This media through the years was one of the main voices of Russian propaganda and fake news.
⠀
RIA Novosti is known for its systematic support of the Kremlin, violation of journalistic standards and works according to so-called “temnik” (directives and agendas from the government). The position in this article corresponds to the position of Russia."
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Quite the article. I sometimes see things and figure, "You just can't make this shi* up." They can and did. The phrase "alternate reality," quickly comes to mind.
Crazy pills. Lots and lots of crazy pills.
I've been seeing this kind of mindset reflect in comments on other sites for a while. Some are obviously from straight up paid Russian trolls but there's a substantial number of non-Russians buying into this as well. That article used the word Nazi 89 times in less than 2,500 words. Literally about every other sentence.
I'm surprised they didn't mention that the US is running dozens of biowarfare labs in Ukraine - because you would obviously want to pay for dozens of duplicate facilities. And we all know COVID started in Ukraine, right?
The main problem with conspiracy theories is that governments and other large groups just aren't that competent. Any large organization is subject to bureaucracy and is filled with people who care more about their budget than whatever their mission is. I've has access to classified information and it's always way more underwhelming than what is portrayed in popular culture. Giant underground bunkers? Sorry the construction cost estimates were too high. Maybe it will be approved next fiscal year. Brand new super weapons? Yeah, the technology isn't quite there yet, just another 20 years of R&D and we'll have lasers shooting planes out of the sky - we just need a bigger budget.
-
I just saw an interesting opinion: given the destruction, pillaging, and human tragedy left in the wake of the Russian withdrawal in the north, it is now clear that there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede any territory to Russia in the hopes of limiting future suffering for the people in that territory. In other words, Russia can't say "give us this land or we'll do X to the people," because they've already burned, raped, killed, and looted them.
Russia has no cards left to play in terms of negotiation, short of WMD.
The sweetest, gentlest, most docile animal will turn deadly the instant that you back them into a corner, threaten them, and give them no way out. That is essentially what has happened, on both sides I think. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have a way out. Russia can't back down because it will destroy them, internally. Ukraine can't back down because they will die.
This war, unless someone intervenes in some highly effective way, will only end when one side is destroyed sufficiently that they can not continue to fight.
I have seen this argument made ever since Ukraine showed that they might succeed. For a full month now, Ukraine (and the rest of the world) have been backing Putin into a corner, economically and militarily. Most recently in the Kiev region, where they reportedly were working to cut off and encircle the Russian army in a few places. They backed Russia into a corner there. Did Putin nuke? Cause a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl? Deploy chemical or biological weapons? No, no, and no. What *did* Putin do? He backed down, turned tail, and ran, leaving massive destruction in his wake.
I am growing tired and skeptical of the argument that somehow Ukraine or The West should avoid backing Putin into some ill-define "corner," in the hopes of avoiding some hypothetical greater tragedy. A cornered animal has no way to escape. Putin has several. They may not be his preferred outcome, but they are a far cry from the desperate right for survival invoked by the phrase "backed into a corner." And Putin has shown little inclination to do anything more than talk and indiscriminately bombard civilians.
-
My understanding from past readings (not an expert!!!) is that fighter jets, like high end battle radars and to some extent many other weapons, are "stickier" (my word) than ordinary goods because their geopolitical implications - but also issues of supply and training.
Specifically, because they do require complex supplies and maintenance to function, and they function better when operators and maintenance staff are well trained, "buying" such an item tends to lock you into the selling country's geopolitical sphere if you want to keep using the weapon. Something like, if you want to buck the wishes of the seller, you have a few months or a year to use the weapon before you run low on parts. As a practical matter, you end up partly under the thumb of the seller.
You can't just buy fighters like lollipops. (So far, at least. I think.)
I think the "these fighters are really complicated the Ukrainian couldn't maintain them", is basically an excuse to not send them fighters because some in the government fear this would be an escalation.
With due respect, your "quote" was not what I meant. My meaning was that SELLERS of high end military equipment can be jealous, not that buyers lack skill. I certainly meant nothing disrespectful toward Ukrainians.
A previous commenter had wished a billionaire would just buy Ukraine some jets. My comment was only meant to explain the idea that private citizens can't just buy fighter jets no questions asked at the grocery store like a routine consumer product. I apologize for the confusing middle paragraph, but usually the seller makes a decision whether to sell to you or not. Some of the people (governments) with jets to sell consider their decisions carefully.
Which may look like, and sometimes be visible as, making excuses!
-
Zelensky went to Bucha, there's a lot of pictures on Twitter, but this one really stands out to me.
https://twitter.com/Kateryna_Kruk/status/1510975889588293639
Imagine the carnage that will be uncovered in Mariupol if the evidence isn't covered up.
I wonder if Russian leadership will face any long term consequences for this. It seems that as long as they have nukes it would be impossible to impose anything harsh.
-
I wonder if Russian leadership will face any long term consequences for this. It seems that as long as they have nukes it would be impossible to impose anything harsh.
Well, Israel is famous for their style of "Extraordinary Rendition (https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2008/07/rendition_ordinary/)."
Also, those leaders will presumably be banned from any ICC signatory for the rest of their lives.
-
I just saw an interesting opinion: given the destruction, pillaging, and human tragedy left in the wake of the Russian withdrawal in the north, it is now clear that there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede any territory to Russia in the hopes of limiting future suffering for the people in that territory. In other words, Russia can't say "give us this land or we'll do X to the people," because they've already burned, raped, killed, and looted them.
Russia has no cards left to play in terms of negotiation, short of WMD.
The sweetest, gentlest, most docile animal will turn deadly the instant that you back them into a corner, threaten them, and give them no way out. That is essentially what has happened, on both sides I think. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have a way out. Russia can't back down because it will destroy them, internally. Ukraine can't back down because they will die.
This war, unless someone intervenes in some highly effective way, will only end when one side is destroyed sufficiently that they can not continue to fight.
I have seen this argument made ever since Ukraine showed that they might succeed. For a full month now, Ukraine (and the rest of the world) have been backing Putin into a corner, economically and militarily. Most recently in the Kiev region, where they reportedly were working to cut off and encircle the Russian army in a few places. They backed Russia into a corner there. Did Putin nuke? Cause a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl? Deploy chemical or biological weapons? No, no, and no. What *did* Putin do? He backed down, turned tail, and ran, leaving massive destruction in his wake.
I am growing tired and skeptical of the argument that somehow Ukraine or The West should avoid backing Putin into some ill-define "corner," in the hopes of avoiding some hypothetical greater tragedy. A cornered animal has no way to escape. Putin has several. They may not be his preferred outcome, but they are a far cry from the desperate right for survival invoked by the phrase "backed into a corner." And Putin has shown little inclination to do anything more than talk and indiscriminately bombard civilians.
I'm not making the argument that we shouldn't put Putin in a corner. I think that both Putin and Ukraine are already in the corner - and Putin put both there. Therefore, other countries should proceed without concern for putting Putin in a corner, but instead in consideration that he is in the corner. Part of that means that the people who spend lots of time trying to figure out how Putin thinks need to try to guess what he'll do when pushed.
To continue the animal analogy, I'm specifically thinking of my 2 cats, Sibley and Arwen. If you put Sibley in a corner then the only way out was to either remove the perceived threat and let her calm down, or for me (specifically me, it didn't work for anyone else to try) to pick her up and carry her away to a safe spot. Anything else resulted in injury - and Sibley was the sweetest, gentlest, most docile cat. Arwen however responds very differently. If she's cornered and threatened, she'll try to bluff her way out, and can cause damage in the process, but if pushed further she shuts down. If you have this knowledge, then you can use it to determine the best way to proceed.
Putin's been in power for a long time. We have some hints at least of how he might respond. Use that knowledge and act appropriately.
-
Zelensky went to Bucha, there's a lot of pictures on Twitter, but this one really stands out to me.
https://twitter.com/Kateryna_Kruk/status/1510975889588293639
God.
I've only joined Twitter today. Wow - that place is a shit show. A few pictures and then gobs of Russian apologists and propagandists sowing doubt.
-
On twitter, for Ukraine, I follow
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop?t=6dOtR9Cb-ghD3DsQwGwURQ&s=09
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent?t=5LAQFjCOY7KcVqXSqQZMZg&s=09
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical?t=QxMIn0e4s6z4XKwynSZebQ&s=09
https://twitter.com/ELINTNews?t=AyLcGWO3VbAhGvhJO8zq_A&s=09
https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar?t=QIkXR9HSNtCnVPXKTpf0rw&s=09
And others
Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
-
I have seen this argument made ever since Ukraine showed that they might succeed. For a full month now, Ukraine (and the rest of the world) have been backing Putin into a corner, economically and militarily. Most recently in the Kiev region, where they reportedly were working to cut off and encircle the Russian army in a few places. They backed Russia into a corner there. Did Putin nuke? Cause a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl? Deploy chemical or biological weapons? No, no, and no. What *did* Putin do? He backed down, turned tail, and ran, leaving massive destruction in his wake.
I am growing tired and skeptical of the argument that somehow Ukraine or The West should avoid backing Putin into some ill-define "corner," in the hopes of avoiding some hypothetical greater tragedy. A cornered animal has no way to escape. Putin has several. They may not be his preferred outcome, but they are a far cry from the desperate right for survival invoked by the phrase "backed into a corner." And Putin has shown little inclination to do anything more than talk and indiscriminately bombard civilians.
I'm not making the argument that we shouldn't put Putin in a corner. I think that both Putin and Ukraine are already in the corner - and Putin put both there. Therefore, other countries should proceed without concern for putting Putin in a corner, but instead in consideration that he is in the corner. Part of that means that the people who spend lots of time trying to figure out how Putin thinks need to try to guess what he'll do when pushed.
...
Putin's been in power for a long time. We have some hints at least of how he might respond. Use that knowledge and act appropriately.
Ukraine's certainly in a corner--Russia has clearly shown what they will do to Ukraine if/when they win. I have trouble buying the argument that Putin is in a corner. He still has plenty of ways to escape. Sure, he'll take some bruises, but he has options.
I'm not one whose job it is to inspect and analyze every image, video, and word of Putin, but from what I've seen, when challenged, he'll throw a conventional-warfare fit, and if he continues to lose, he'll back down. He'll also push to see how far he can go before he gets his hand slapped. See the Wagner group in the Battle of Khasham, for example.
-
The best way to kill an animal is to corner it. Give it too much space and it runs away on you. Then you've lost control.
-
Zelensky went to Bucha, there's a lot of pictures on Twitter, but this one really stands out to me.
https://twitter.com/Kateryna_Kruk/status/1510975889588293639
God.
I've only joined Twitter today. Wow - that place is a shit show. A few pictures and then gobs of Russian apologists and propagandists sowing doubt.
Of course its a shit show, it's social media. I don't really read the comments, that helps. I stick to some specific people. It's entirely possible to curate Twitter carefully. Same as Facebook actually.
-
I have trouble buying the argument that Putin is in a corner. He still has plenty of ways to escape. Sure, he'll take some bruises, but he has options.
But does he know he has taken some bruises? RE: yes-men advisors.
-
Twitter: I was trying to read it like a thread. I see your point.
-
A telling side by side of Zelensky: https://twitter.com/kgorchinskaya/status/1511008603964071937
And its not just him. The tall man standing behind Zelensky in this photo (2nd photo of the tweet): https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1510974076105498630/photo/2
I think he's the chief of staff. Look at him in this video (about 28 seconds in), I believe that was 3/1: https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1499007215872655362
And here's what he looked like before the war, I think taken in December 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Yermak
Those are just 2 men. Think of the rest of the country.
-
You people are kind. You talk about putting Putin in a corner. Other sites talk about putting him in a box.
-
You people are kind. You talk about putting Putin in a corner. Other sites talk about putting him in a box.
He doesn't deserve a box, or a shroud. But I am civilized, even if he is not. So yes, I will agree to go as far as is necessary, but no farther. I will not commit war crimes, nor encourage them. But when Putin dies, I would like him to have whatever burial would be considered to be most disgraceful by him.
---------
You'll need to use a translator, but: https://tsn.ua/ato/naybilshe-zhertv-u-borodyanci-venediktova-pro-masovi-vbivstva-rosiyan-na-kiyivschini-2028586.html
Reports that the situation in Borodyanka is far worse than the other previously occupied cities.
-
You people are kind. You talk about putting Putin in a corner. Other sites talk about putting him in a box.
He doesn't deserve a box, or a shroud. But I am civilized, even if he is not. So yes, I will agree to go as far as is necessary, but no farther. I will not commit war crimes, nor encourage them. But when Putin dies, I would like him to have whatever burial would be considered to be most disgraceful by him.
---------
You'll need to use a translator, but: https://tsn.ua/ato/naybilshe-zhertv-u-borodyanci-venediktova-pro-masovi-vbivstva-rosiyan-na-kiyivschini-2028586.html
Reports that the situation in Borodyanka is far worse than the other previously occupied cities.
I just want Putin to know that he will be immortalized in history books as a failure and one who brought ruin to his country through his corruption, greed, and narcissism.
-
Trent Telenko
@TrentTelenko
This is a really nice history snapshot thread on the Battle of Kyiv that has been making the rounds.
I have a few minor objections to it based on what is missing.
Ukrainian leadership & Russian corruption thread🧵
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1510745458477572098
Russian fighter shot down yesterday with its jamming pod intact after crashing. I can't imagine Russia will have any secrets left when this is over.
-
You people are kind. You talk about putting Putin in a corner. Other sites talk about putting him in a box.
He doesn't deserve a box, or a shroud. But I am civilized, even if he is not. So yes, I will agree to go as far as is necessary, but no farther. I will not commit war crimes, nor encourage them. But when Putin dies, I would like him to have whatever burial would be considered to be most disgraceful by him.
---------
You'll need to use a translator, but: https://tsn.ua/ato/naybilshe-zhertv-u-borodyanci-venediktova-pro-masovi-vbivstva-rosiyan-na-kiyivschini-2028586.html
Reports that the situation in Borodyanka is far worse than the other previously occupied cities.
Throw his body into the local landfill.
-
I wonder if Russian leadership will face any long term consequences for this. It seems that as long as they have nukes it would be impossible to impose anything harsh.
Well, Israel is famous for their style of "Extraordinary Rendition (https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2008/07/rendition_ordinary/)."
Also, those leaders will presumably be banned from any ICC signatory for the rest of their lives.
Anonymous found a roster of about 2/3s of the Russian troops fighting in Ukraine along with phone numbers and email addresses. Some of the folks on Twitter have been working hard to identify where individual units have been fighting to the point that Russian battalion commanders are already being doxxed as probable participants in these massacres. These guys can't ever leave Russia, and even then it wouldn't surprise me if in a couple years a few suddenly disappear or have an "accident" on a street corner late at night.
-
I wonder if Russian leadership will face any long term consequences for this. It seems that as long as they have nukes it would be impossible to impose anything harsh.
Well, Israel is famous for their style of "Extraordinary Rendition (https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2008/07/rendition_ordinary/)."
Also, those leaders will presumably be banned from any ICC signatory for the rest of their lives.
Anonymous found a roster of about 2/3s of the Russian troops fighting in Ukraine along with phone numbers and email addresses. Some of the folks on Twitter have been working hard to identify where individual units have been fighting to the point that Russian battalion commanders are already being doxxed as probable participants in these massacres. These guys can't ever leave Russia, and even then it wouldn't surprise me if in a couple years a few suddenly disappear or have an "accident" on a street corner late at night.
I've got to wonder if Ukraine doesn't have some sort of spy network in Russia. These folks have a lot of relatives who live there. About a third of the Ukrainians speak Russia. They are very familiar with Russian culture as they share a lot of it. A lot of those tanks being blasted at were from Ukraine. I suspect that there are quite a few Russians that really think this war is stupid. (Which it is) I guess there is enough other news that I haven't seen any of these news reporters or the talking heads even mention that.
-
I wonder if Russian leadership will face any long term consequences for this. It seems that as long as they have nukes it would be impossible to impose anything harsh.
Well, Israel is famous for their style of "Extraordinary Rendition (https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2008/07/rendition_ordinary/)."
Also, those leaders will presumably be banned from any ICC signatory for the rest of their lives.
Anonymous found a roster of about 2/3s of the Russian troops fighting in Ukraine along with phone numbers and email addresses. Some of the folks on Twitter have been working hard to identify where individual units have been fighting to the point that Russian battalion commanders are already being doxxed as probable participants in these massacres. These guys can't ever leave Russia, and even then it wouldn't surprise me if in a couple years a few suddenly disappear or have an "accident" on a street corner late at night.
I've got to wonder if Ukraine doesn't have some sort of spy network in Russia. These folks have a lot of relatives who live there. About a third of the Ukrainians speak Russia. They are very familiar with Russian culture as they share a lot of it. A lot of those tanks being blasted at were from Ukraine. I suspect that there are quite a few Russians that really think this war is stupid. (Which it is) I guess there is enough other news that I haven't seen any of these news reporters or the talking heads even mention that.
I've seen a number of things (social media posts, news articles, etc) that indicate that many of the Russian side relatives don't believe their Ukrainian side relatives that Russia is attacking. It's destroying a lot of families. Similar to what happened in the US with Trump supporters and their non-Trump supporting relatives, though the circumstances are much more serious of course.
-
As someone with parents who are still firm Qanon believers, I can see this. Before the Qanon thing I woulda said no way.
Unfortunately I see now how incredibly easy it is to misinform the masses. Fucking frighteningly easy.
-
I wonder if Russian leadership will face any long term consequences for this. It seems that as long as they have nukes it would be impossible to impose anything harsh.
Well, Israel is famous for their style of "Extraordinary Rendition (https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2008/07/rendition_ordinary/)."
Also, those leaders will presumably be banned from any ICC signatory for the rest of their lives.
Anonymous found a roster of about 2/3s of the Russian troops fighting in Ukraine along with phone numbers and email addresses. Some of the folks on Twitter have been working hard to identify where individual units have been fighting to the point that Russian battalion commanders are already being doxxed as probable participants in these massacres. These guys can't ever leave Russia, and even then it wouldn't surprise me if in a couple years a few suddenly disappear or have an "accident" on a street corner late at night.
I've got to wonder if Ukraine doesn't have some sort of spy network in Russia. These folks have a lot of relatives who live there. About a third of the Ukrainians speak Russia. They are very familiar with Russian culture as they share a lot of it. A lot of those tanks being blasted at were from Ukraine. I suspect that there are quite a few Russians that really think this war is stupid. (Which it is) I guess there is enough other news that I haven't seen any of these news reporters or the talking heads even mention that.
According to SBU (Ukrainian CIA), they have people everywhere. They share a common language, have deep-seated hatred for Russia, a motivation to succeed, and a corrupt and technically falling-behind adversary, they're likely very good at their jobs.
-
No matter what happens, one must ridicule the tyrant.
In retrospect, the Kyiev operation obviously was a stretch.
The decisions were far removed from reality, you mean?
-
No matter what happens, one must ridicule the tyrant.
In retrospect, the Kyiev operation obviously was a stretch.
The decisions were far removed from reality, you mean?
Putin was taking the long view. Unfortunately, he tabled the wrong ideas.
-
WSJ: Ukraine’s Zelensky Calls for Removing Russia From U.N. Security Council After Alleged War Crimes (https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-zelensky-to-address-u-n-with-claims-of-alleged-russian-war-crimes-11649155565). I'm hugely in support of this if for no other reason than the fact that nowhere in the UN charter does it say that the Russian Federation is on the security council. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/putin-facing-efforts-isolate-diplomatically-ukraine)
-
WSJ: Ukraine’s Zelensky Calls for Removing Russia From U.N. Security Council After Alleged War Crimes (https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-zelensky-to-address-u-n-with-claims-of-alleged-russian-war-crimes-11649155565). I'm hugely in support of this if for no other reason than the fact that nowhere in the UN charter does it say that the Russian Federation is on the security council. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/putin-facing-efforts-isolate-diplomatically-ukraine)
It's one of those inofficial things. Every official nuclear power is there and has a veto and so on.
-
WSJ: Ukraine’s Zelensky Calls for Removing Russia From U.N. Security Council After Alleged War Crimes (https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-zelensky-to-address-u-n-with-claims-of-alleged-russian-war-crimes-11649155565). I'm hugely in support of this if for no other reason than the fact that nowhere in the UN charter does it say that the Russian Federation is on the security council. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/putin-facing-efforts-isolate-diplomatically-ukraine)
It's one of those inofficial things. Every official nuclear power is there and has a veto and so on.
That's not entirely correct. Pakistan isn't even on the council right now, India is a rotating member at the moment but doesn't have a veto. And of course there is North Korea.
The easier way to understand the five countries with veto power on the UN security council is these were the five major allies that triumphed at the end of World War II.
-
I think Red China was added later.
-
I think Red China was added later.
No, China is a founding and permanent member of the Security Council, along with the US, France, UK, and USSR (now represented by Russia, although as noted elsewhere, this may be in violation of the charter, given that there are 14 other former SSRs now without permanent Council representation).
-
I think Red China was added later.
No, China is a founding and permanent member of the Security Council, along with the US, France, UK, and USSR (now represented by Russia, although as noted elsewhere, this may be in violation of the charter, given that there are 14 other former SSRs now without permanent Council representation).
I think that you are both right. The ROC was the original member. The PROC wasn't given the seat until 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
-
Here's a story that strongly infers that Putin is worried about being poisoned and let go of a bunch of staff. This video does somehow make me doubt whether it is credible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD4i-A80GIU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD4i-A80GIU)
He may wind up in one of those boxes himself before this "special operation" is over.
-
I think Red China was added later.
No, China is a founding and permanent member of the Security Council, along with the US, France, UK, and USSR (now represented by Russia, although as noted elsewhere, this may be in violation of the charter, given that there are 14 other former SSRs now without permanent Council representation).
I think that you are both right. The ROC was the original member. The PROC wasn't given the seat until 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
Yup. And that's probably the most relevant precedent for Russia's current permanent seat+veto power. China was one of the victors in WWII and has a permanent seat on the council, but the population and territory of the China that won World War II is now three countries: Mongolia, China (PRC/Mainland) and China (ROC/Taiwan). ROC has continuity of government with the Chinese government that won World War II, PRC has the vast majority of the territory and population that belonged to the China that won World War II. In '71 the UN switched which of those three it considered to have the best claim to the "China" seat on the council but nothing officially changed in the rules of the security council.
Similarly, the USSR was one of the victors in WWII and has a permanent seat on the council. But the population and territory of the USSR that won World War II is now fifteen different countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. In China's case two of the three successors officially call themselves China. In the USSR's case zero of the 15 call themselves the USSR. Initially Russia probably got the seat by being the biggest of the 15 and being the one with the old soviet capital. Now we can add "and the only one with nuclear weapons" to that, but originally four of the fifteen were nuclear powers: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.
-
Yup. And that's probably the most relevant precedent for Russia's current permanent seat+veto power. China was one of the victors in WWII and has a permanent seat on the council, but the population and territory of the China that won World War II is now three countries: Mongolia, China (PRC/Mainland) and China (ROC/Taiwan). ROC has continuity of government with the Chinese government that won World War II, PRC has the vast majority of the territory and population that belonged to the China that won World War II. In '71 the UN switched which of those three it considered to have the best claim to the "China" seat on the council but nothing officially changed in the rules of the security council.
Similarly, the USSR was one of the victors in WWII and has a permanent seat on the council. But the population and territory of the USSR that won World War II is now fifteen different countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. In China's case two of the three successors officially call themselves China. In the USSR's case zero of the 15 call themselves the USSR. Initially Russia probably got the seat by being the biggest of the 15 and being the one with the old soviet capital. Now we can add "and the only one with nuclear weapons" to that, but originally four of the fifteen were nuclear powers: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.
I feel compelled to point out that when the League of Nations didn't work out it was dissolved and the UN was created. We could do that again. This whole permanent veto thing generally seems like a bad idea to the democrat in me.
-
Yup. And that's probably the most relevant precedent for Russia's current permanent seat+veto power. China was one of the victors in WWII and has a permanent seat on the council, but the population and territory of the China that won World War II is now three countries: Mongolia, China (PRC/Mainland) and China (ROC/Taiwan). ROC has continuity of government with the Chinese government that won World War II, PRC has the vast majority of the territory and population that belonged to the China that won World War II. In '71 the UN switched which of those three it considered to have the best claim to the "China" seat on the council but nothing officially changed in the rules of the security council.
Similarly, the USSR was one of the victors in WWII and has a permanent seat on the council. But the population and territory of the USSR that won World War II is now fifteen different countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. In China's case two of the three successors officially call themselves China. In the USSR's case zero of the 15 call themselves the USSR. Initially Russia probably got the seat by being the biggest of the 15 and being the one with the old soviet capital. Now we can add "and the only one with nuclear weapons" to that, but originally four of the fifteen were nuclear powers: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.
I feel compelled to point out that when the League of Nations didn't work out it was dissolved and the UN was created. We could do that again. This whole permanent veto thing generally seems like a bad idea to the democrat in me.
The only reason Korea got a UN troop commitment was because the USSR left the room. The whole thing could've been shelved at that point if in its first major test nothing happened because one member said "no."
-
I feel compelled to point out that when the League of Nations didn't work out it was dissolved and the UN was created. We could do that again. This whole permanent veto thing generally seems like a bad idea to the democrat in me.
I can certainly see where you are coming from.
But if we went down that road, from a democratic point of view giving every nation one vote in the general assembly seems a much more questionable choice from a democratic perspective. If we don't think equal votes for states in the US senate is fair, why should San Marino (population 34,000) get the same say in world affairs as India (population 1,380,000,000)? In the USA the ratio between the population of the smallest state with two senators and the largest is 68x. That's pretty bad from a one person one vote stand point but in the UN the ratio between the populations of the smallest state with one vote and the largest is 140,000x.
If I was trying to design an equitable system of world government the UN is far too broken to do the job and removing the veto would do very little to move it in the direction of a democratic world government (7 countries have half the world's population but less than 4% of votes in the GA while 2/3rds of the votes in the GA are controlled by countries representing less than 9% of the world's population).
At the same time getting rid of the veto would substantially reduce our power of self-determination here in the USA (which really is a reasonable approximation of a democracy, warts and all) in favor of vesting more power in a very undemocratic institution.
-
I feel compelled to point out that when the League of Nations didn't work out it was dissolved and the UN was created. We could do that again. This whole permanent veto thing generally seems like a bad idea to the democrat in me.
I can certainly see where you are coming from.
But if we went down that road, from a democratic point of view giving every nation one vote in the general assembly seems a much more questionable choice from a democratic perspective. If we don't think equal votes for states in the US senate is fair, why should San Marino (population 34,000) get the same say in world affairs as India (population 1,380,000,000)? In the USA the ratio between the population of the smallest state with two senators and the largest is 68x. That's pretty bad from a one person one vote stand point but in the UN the ratio between the populations of the smallest state with one vote and the largest is 140,000x.
If I was trying to design an equitable system of world government the UN is far too broken to do the job and removing the veto would do very little to move it in the direction of a democratic world government (7 countries have half the world's population but less than 4% of votes in the GA while 2/3rds of the votes in the GA are controlled by countries representing less than 9% of the world's population).
At the same time getting rid of the veto would substantially reduce our power of self-determination here in the USA (which really is a reasonable approximation of a democracy, warts and all) in favor of vesting more power in a very undemocratic institution.
You are correct that every member having an equal vote seems wrong. I'm still not sure that permanent veto power for the original five is the way to go. Right now the USA looks pretty good compared to Russia. I'm not convinced that will always be the case.
-
The UN is a pointless waste of resources, except for humanitarian purposes. There is no political will to do anything to help one another. The security council part should be dissolved and those resources given to the UNHCR. We should just admit as a species we don’t care enough about other countries and stop pretending. It’s frankly embarrassing.
The atrocities revealed now will make Russia’s goal of occupying the eastern part of Ukraine impossible. They will have to not only harshly subjugate a guerrilla force within the region, but do so while fighting an advanced regular force, and dealing with increasingly crippling sanctions that will destabilize Russia itself. It is possible that civilian Russians will be brainwashed into joining this fight and being ground into cannon fodder, much like Germans were under Hitler, and the country will turn into a cult like North Korea. It is a obvious that Putin and the Russian soldiers have no strategy except inflicting suffering for the sake of it. They are nihilistic anarcho-fascists, which is especially worrying since they have weapons of mass destruction, and there’s no clear plan other than killing as many people as possible to claim the ground they stood on. This seems to be the beginnings of an ethnic cleansing strategy. However I doubt they will use nuclear weapons at this point, because they would have done so by now. The plan seems to shell Ukraine out of existence conventionally.
I do not see any political scenario where Russian sanctions will be lifted with Putin in power. Additional Russian banks have now been cut off from swift, and Europe is doing the politically tenable calculus of stopping coal, but not gas, imports.
Also this has turned the Cold War (which didn’t really end, just has a brief intermission) into a Hot War. There is no scenario where Russia gets anything out of this other than pointless suffering, the question is how much damage they will cause as they thrash about pointlessly. Unfortunately there is no scenario short of engaging Russia on the battlefield where NATO or the UN keeps any moral standing. The security council remains as pointless as usual, and now more than ever, seems to be just a tool of the US and Russia to justify whatever idiotic invasions they carry out. In the US, we appear weak and mealy-mouthed, singing about freedom whole twanging guitars but not willing to burden any amount of suffering. The rest of the world already saw our society composed of hypocritical arrogant weaklings who pick on weaker dictators and cower from pseudo-strong ones, and this is mostly proving their point. We are even too weak to profit off other countries’ wars, like we normally do! The boards of Lockheed and Boeing must be losing their minds! Given Russia’s reluctance to nuke Ukraine, we don’t have much excuse anymore. Our lack of action at this point is shameful, and any future flag-waving is doubly so.
The only relative victor politically in this conflict will be China, which will seem shrewd and maybe siphon off some of Russia’s mineral/oil wealth.
-
Abe, agreed. The UN has never seemed to have a point to me. Yes, it's great to try to keep everyone talking rather than shooting at each other, but that doesn't seem to be working very well.
For a slightly lighter note - Russian air support accidently bombed the Russian brigade. Then this: "After the air bombardment of their own positions, the commander of the 38th Motorized Rifle Brigade, Colonel Kurbanov Andrey Borisovich, asked the commander of the Eastern Military District, Colonel General Chaiko Alexander Yurevich, to no longer provide him with such air support"
Oops?
https://www.dialog.ua/war/249349_1649152568 (in Russian)
-
I wonder how this will affect countries neighboring Ukraine. In particular there is the country of Moldova. It is a Romanian speaking country. On the border with Ukraine there is an area called Transnistria. Some people who live there want to break away from Moldova and do their own thing. It is semi autonomous region that has Russian troops helping to act as peace keepers. I guess the area has a lot of Russian speakers. Russia seems to encourage this "breakaway" Republic thing to effectively gobble up territory. I read they give the people in Transnistra free gas.
On 17 September 2006, a referendum was held in Transnistria asking voters to choose between renouncing independence and becoming part of Moldova or claiming independence and possibly becoming part of the Russian Federation in the future. The referendum favored Russian to Moldovan integration, 98.07 to 96.61 percent.
As Ukraine borders this Transnistria region, the people have to be aware of the actions of the Russians. If there was a referendum taken now, I just wonder if the people would say, "Hell no! Russia keep away!" I would also think Moldova would be clamoring to get into NATO. All those refugees do not give Russia a good name.
The news doesn't seem to cover this country. Sorry, if I strayed too far from the main topic.
-
The only relative victor politically in this conflict will be China, which will seem shrewd and maybe siphon off some of Russia’s mineral/oil wealth.
I think your observations of the United Nations are correct. One thing that I think about a bit is the "joint statements" that Russia and China issued a while back. It seems to me like they have a plan for how to use global institutions like the UN to their benefit in order to create that "multi-polar" world they like to talk about. They also use all the right words (promoting democracy, sustainability and stability, fighting terrorism) even if I think they mean something else with them. It simply seems to me like China knows how to play the game, better and better, and use Russia in this work.
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1510276474175115281.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1510276474175115281.html)
Summary of Battle for Kyiv. It's missing a lot that will get filled in during the coming months, but it's a good breakdown of what happened.
-
I would also think Moldova would be clamoring to get into NATO....The news doesn't seem to cover this country.
Moldova's constitution creates some barriers to NATO membership. But just since Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova put in an application to join the EU:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldovan-president-says-moldova-applies-eu-membership-2022-03-03/
-
I would also think Moldova would be clamoring to get into NATO....The news doesn't seem to cover this country.
Moldova's constitution creates some barriers to NATO membership. But just since Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova put in an application to join the EU:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldovan-president-says-moldova-applies-eu-membership-2022-03-03/
I think they were next on Putin's list after Ukraine. Of course, they probably still are as Russians are still pounding Ukrainian cities.
-
I would also think Moldova would be clamoring to get into NATO....The news doesn't seem to cover this country.
Moldova's constitution creates some barriers to NATO membership. But just since Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova put in an application to join the EU:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldovan-president-says-moldova-applies-eu-membership-2022-03-03/
I think they were next on Putin's list after Ukraine. Of course, they probably still are as Russians are still pounding Ukrainian cities.
One of Russias goals must be to connect land under it's control between Transnistria and Crimea. People in Transnistria often have Russian passports already, but the one I actually know have a Romanian passport. Since a EU passport is very handy for travel and working within the EU, he's happy for that.
-
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22961286/bbc-news-blocked-in-russia-ukraine-invasion-shortwave-radio
Will shortwave radio be a useful tool to for the West to reach people inside Russia if the Internet gets cut? Will people be so set in their beliefs that they reject everything that conflicts with the Kremlin message? Or will they publicly support the Kremlin and privately soak up the western news and hope for better times?
I find the news of Russians rejecting their Ukranian relative's news of the invasion to be most disturbing. Or perhaps the Russians fear their phones are being monitored.
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
-
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
There's no need to limit the application to only one end of the political spectrum. Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble.
-
I feel compelled to point out that when the League of Nations didn't work out it was dissolved and the UN was created. We could do that again. This whole permanent veto thing generally seems like a bad idea to the democrat in me.
Yes, but that is also why those big powers are in there. If they would not have gotten the veto, they would not be in, and the whole party would have bee meaningless.
It's the core problem of the UN.
Ah, btw. that with the atomic powers was of course meant back when it was founded. Since the bomb was basically a veto.
-
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
There's no need to limit the application to only one end of the political spectrum. Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble.
Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble - absolutely. But the level of problem is not comparable between both sides. With the political right in the US, these people seem pretty mainsteam . . . and have led to the elections of multiple insane representatives - Marjorie Greene, Madison Cawthorne, Paul Gosar, etc.
-
I feel compelled to point out that when the League of Nations didn't work out it was dissolved and the UN was created. We could do that again. This whole permanent veto thing generally seems like a bad idea to the democrat in me.
Yes, but that is also why those big powers are in there. If they would not have gotten the veto, they would not be in, and the whole party would have bee meaningless.
It's the core problem of the UN.
Ah, btw. that with the atomic powers was of course meant back when it was founded. Since the bomb was basically a veto.
But the intent to form the UN goes back at least to the Inter-Allied Council in London on September 24th 1941 when there were no atomic powers. The UN charter was drafted on June 26th 1945 with the original five security council vetos. On June 26th 1945 there was only one were zero nuclear powers: the USA. But by the time in came into effect on October 24th 1945 the US was a nuclear power.
EDIT: our first successful test was the next month.
-
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
There's no need to limit the application to only one end of the political spectrum. Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble.
Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble - absolutely. But the level of problem is not comparable between both sides. With the political right in the US, these people seem pretty mainsteam . . . and have led to the elections of multiple insane representatives - Marjorie Greene, Madison Cawthorne, Paul Gosar, etc.
Some of you guys across the border are better informed about the US than most of us that live here.
Another couple ideas that are off track.
You guys are into money. I just saw a video about Ukrainian money. Since these guys are in this nasty war, their money is no good. Vladimir Putin is doing something that should raise your hackles. He is essentially nullifying the 4 percent rule for Ukrainians. If the mass murder, the baby killings, the shelling of homes and hospitals, the starvation of his own troops and the massive lies don't get to you this should. It's a mega sanction against Ukraine.
I saw another video. This one was about Poland. Apparently, a lot of people cross the border and get jobs in Poland. Many of these people have gone home to fight. So, in addition to the millions of migrants that are flooding into Poland, they are losing a valuable part of their labor force. Putin is essentially sanctioning Poland.
You may now return to your normal discussion. I will return to my bubble in the dead center.
-
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
There's no need to limit the application to only one end of the political spectrum. Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble.
Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble - absolutely. But the level of problem is not comparable between both sides. With the political right in the US, these people seem pretty mainsteam . . . and have led to the elections of multiple insane representatives - Marjorie Greene, Madison Cawthorne, Paul Gosar, etc.
Which party has the crazier politicians would certainly make for an interesting debate, but that's probably out of place in this thread, so I will forebear :)
-
I think we don't have a good sense of what the average Russian thinks. It's not like anyone is able to run actual opinion polls. And even 5-10% of Russians completely buying into Putin's lies would be enough to generate an awful lot of those gut wrenching stories about people being shelled and seeing their neighbors dead in the street while having their parents or relatives in Russia assuring them that what they're seeing isn't real.
Now it may very well be that most Russians do buy in. My point isn't that we know that they don't just that we really don't know at all. In the absence of hard data there's no harm (and a lot of good) in extending grace to individuals who didn't choose the country they were born into or live in, and at this point lack any power to change their governments' actions or who is in charge.
I saw another video. This one was about Poland. Apparently, a lot of people cross the border and get jobs in Poland. Many of these people have gone home to fight. So, in addition to the millions of migrants that are flooding into Poland, they are losing a valuable part of their labor force. Putin is essentially sanctioning Poland.
I had another call with my colleague in Poland this morning. A lot has been made about how different the reception for Ukrainian refugees has been than other refugee crises. I don't think we on the other side of the Atlantic appreciate just how universally the refugees streaming out of Ukraine are small children and their mothers, while Ukrainian men are, if anything, going the other way.
He said Polish schools are struggling with how to handle and help huge numbers of Ukrainian children who don't speak polish but they're doing everything they can. That all through Warsaw everything from road signs to ATMs are being translated into Ukrainian (Cyrillic alphabet everywhere). It's really moving how much Poland (and other countries in eastern europe) are reworking their entire societies to welcome these folks.
There's still something powerful buried very deep in the human subconscious that responds to the need to help children and their mothers quite differently from other refugees.
-
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
There's no need to limit the application to only one end of the political spectrum. Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble.
Probably true but where I live, I get a big dose of the right end of spectrum. The crazy end at times. Very few left-leaning voices heard and when they do speak up they are pretty mild. Guarded perhaps?
-
I've watched a number of these videos. Most people seem quite guarded about the war and Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl4R4M9YVfYjjPmILU2Ie1A
-
Looks like they found another of those mass graves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv6fbUIelEs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv6fbUIelEs)
More information to follow.
-
We have that same hive mind here in the USA with the far-right messaging. Either those people repeat the message b/c they want the promised far-right outcome to take root or they simply believe the message to in the face of facts.
There's no need to limit the application to only one end of the political spectrum. Both sides have extremes that live in their own bubble.
Probably true but where I live, I get a big dose of the right end of spectrum. The crazy end at times. Very few left-leaning voices heard and when they do speak up they are pretty mild. Guarded perhaps?
I think if you go far left enough you start to complete the circle with respect to authoritarianism and bending of facts (i.e. Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, the "wellness" crowd).
-
There's reporting that until recently, Ukraine forces had an air route into Mariupol, bringing supplies in and taking wounded out. Here's one thread I saw about it:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1511529463867092998
Also, there's satellite confirmation that Russian forces were digging in the Red Forest. https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1511649305089695745
I'm seeing threads from nuclear scientists, etc that indicate it isn't lethal levels of radiation, but their risk of cancer in future is definitely increased. I doubt Russia is going to tell the world the truth.
https://twitter.com/jrmygrdn/status/1509379039898841095
https://twitter.com/CherylRofer/status/1509328182331248649
And wasn't this type of vehicle used in the MASH tv show? https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1511722119125733382
-
There's reporting that until recently, Ukraine forces had an air route into Mariupol, bringing supplies in and taking wounded out. Here's one thread I saw about it:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1511529463867092998
No direct evidence of the resupply runs, but it's good analysis to ponder "we now know Ukrainian helicopter pilots are ballsy (Belgorod raid), so what if they've been doing it the whole time in Mariupol and nobody noticed." It's a hypothesis worth considering. The two birds shot down last week had been making ammo/CASEVAC runs from the beginning and simply ran out of luck. If it turns out to be true, it's another dig at Russian tactics that they got away with it for so long.
Also, there's satellite confirmation that Russian forces were digging in the Red Forest. https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1511649305089695745
I'm seeing threads from nuclear scientists, etc that indicate it isn't lethal levels of radiation, but their risk of cancer in future is definitely increased. I doubt Russia is going to tell the world the truth.
There's quite a bit of debate about the Chernobyl situation. That they were digging, burning, and living in the forest literally down the street from the reactors sounds monumentally stupid, but on paper it shouldn't have been enough exposure to kill somebody in less than a month (assuming all they did was breath it). If somehow they were eating and drinking the isotopes as well - who knows. One of the benefits (for us) of the northern front is that we got a Belorussian account of a lot of Russian activities and now those sources will dry up soon.
-
There's reporting that until recently, Ukraine forces had an air route into Mariupol, bringing supplies in and taking wounded out. Here's one thread I saw about it:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1511529463867092998
No direct evidence of the resupply runs, but it's good analysis to ponder "we now know Ukrainian helicopter pilots are ballsy (Belgorod raid), so what if they've been doing it the whole time in Mariupol and nobody noticed." It's a hypothesis worth considering. The two birds shot down last week had been making ammo/CASEVAC runs from the beginning and simply ran out of luck. If it turns out to be true, it's another dig at Russian tactics that they got away with it for so long.
There are also reports that the Russians got lucky and spotted one of the helicopters going to/coming from Mariupol and shot it down. The only source I can immediately find is obviously full of Russian propaganda, but I saw it elsewhere last night. Obviously, we don't know for sure - but how have they managed to keep fighting if they weren't getting ammo somehow? It's been a month. It makes sense that somehow they've been getting supplies in.
-
There's reporting that until recently, Ukraine forces had an air route into Mariupol, bringing supplies in and taking wounded out. Here's one thread I saw about it:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1511529463867092998
No direct evidence of the resupply runs, but it's good analysis to ponder "we now know Ukrainian helicopter pilots are ballsy (Belgorod raid), so what if they've been doing it the whole time in Mariupol and nobody noticed." It's a hypothesis worth considering. The two birds shot down last week had been making ammo/CASEVAC runs from the beginning and simply ran out of luck. If it turns out to be true, it's another dig at Russian tactics that they got away with it for so long.
There are also reports that the Russians got lucky and spotted one of the helicopters going to/coming from Mariupol and shot it down. The only source I can immediately find is obviously full of Russian propaganda, but I saw it elsewhere last night. Obviously, we don't know for sure - but how have they managed to keep fighting if they weren't getting ammo somehow? It's been a month. It makes sense that somehow they've been getting supplies in.
We know now. Ukrainian government admitting they've been sending flights in and out of Mariupol for some time. And sending SOF teams behind the lines to break the trains.
https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1511970054631473161 (https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1511970054631473161)
-
That is probably close to how it really went down. Ultimately, it is the consequence of having an arrogant and cognitively limited leader in charge:
IS RUSSIA’S INVASION A CASE OF COERCIVE DIPLOMACY GONE WRONG?
"In effect, when Ukraine and NATO held firm, it forced Putin to either make good on the threat of force or publicly back down once the scheduled exercises concluded. In this case, Putin sought to preserve his coercion “credibility” over his humanity. This disastrous war is the result of Putin’s coercive diplomacy gone wrong."
https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/is-russias-invasion-a-case-of-coercive-diplomacy-gone-wrong/
-
Video of a visit to Chernobyl: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512194930491510787
Info about the dogs: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210422-the-guards-caring-for-chernobyls-abandoned-dogs
Some additional info about the radiation readings: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512230103278837763
I'm not a nuclear expert, but its possible that the previous speculation was not necessarily factoring in things such as digging in radioactive dirt, sleeping on radioactive dirt, breathing in radioactive dust, possibly ingesting radioactive particles, etc. For a month.
I don't want to be those Russian soldiers.
-
Just remember to duck and cover. It is 100 seconds to midnite.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/
-
Video of a visit to Chernobyl: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512194930491510787
Info about the dogs: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210422-the-guards-caring-for-chernobyls-abandoned-dogs
Some additional info about the radiation readings: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512230103278837763
I'm not a nuclear expert, but its possible that the previous speculation was not necessarily factoring in things such as digging in radioactive dirt, sleeping on radioactive dirt, breathing in radioactive dust, possibly ingesting radioactive particles, etc. For a month.
I don't want to be those Russian soldiers.
If you just walk through the forest then it is not that bad. Don't eat anything from there, especially not mushrooms, don't burn stuff and avoid water holes. That's where the peaks are. (In Germany is still advised to not eat wild boar often because of that concentration effect)
However the soldiers digged trenches - and that meant they digged up the most radioactive dust that had been digged under the surface before.
And they breathed it in.
It's unlikely they will all die tomorrow, but a lot of them will get cancer in the future as the minimum result. But the Russian army never cared about losses.
-
Just remember to duck and cover. It is 100 seconds to midnite.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/
It was 100 seconds as of January 20, 2022. How much does the threat of WWIII adjust the clock?
-
Video of a visit to Chernobyl: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512194930491510787
Info about the dogs: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210422-the-guards-caring-for-chernobyls-abandoned-dogs
Some additional info about the radiation readings: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512230103278837763
I'm not a nuclear expert, but its possible that the previous speculation was not necessarily factoring in things such as digging in radioactive dirt, sleeping on radioactive dirt, breathing in radioactive dust, possibly ingesting radioactive particles, etc. For a month.
I don't want to be those Russian soldiers.
If you just walk through the forest then it is not that bad. Don't eat anything from there, especially not mushrooms, don't burn stuff and avoid water holes. That's where the peaks are. (In Germany is still advised to not eat wild boar often because of that concentration effect)
However the soldiers digged trenches - and that meant they digged up the most radioactive dust that had been digged under the surface before.
And they breathed it in.
It's unlikely they will all die tomorrow, but a lot of them will get cancer in the future as the minimum result. But the Russian army never cared about losses.
As a quick aside, the HBO dramatization "Chernobyl" that came out a couple of years ago is quite good and worth watching.
Second note: I wonder how many of those young soldiers played the video game Call of Duty, which featured a shockingly detailed recreation of Pripyat and radiation was a known danger in the environment.
-
Video of a visit to Chernobyl: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512194930491510787
Info about the dogs: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210422-the-guards-caring-for-chernobyls-abandoned-dogs
Some additional info about the radiation readings: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1512230103278837763
I'm not a nuclear expert, but its possible that the previous speculation was not necessarily factoring in things such as digging in radioactive dirt, sleeping on radioactive dirt, breathing in radioactive dust, possibly ingesting radioactive particles, etc. For a month.
I don't want to be those Russian soldiers.
If you just walk through the forest then it is not that bad. Don't eat anything from there, especially not mushrooms, don't burn stuff and avoid water holes. That's where the peaks are. (In Germany is still advised to not eat wild boar often because of that concentration effect)
However the soldiers digged trenches - and that meant they digged up the most radioactive dust that had been digged under the surface before.
And they breathed it in.
It's unlikely they will all die tomorrow, but a lot of them will get cancer in the future as the minimum result. But the Russian army never cared about losses.
As a quick aside, the HBO dramatization "Chernobyl" that came out a couple of years ago is quite good and worth watching.
Second note: I wonder how many of those young soldiers played the video game Call of Duty, which featured a shockingly detailed recreation of Pripyat and radiation was a known danger in the environment.
Given that what I'm seeing indicates that the young men getting conscripted are coming from very poor areas/families and are amazed at the evidence of paved roads, indoor plumbing, etc, my guess would be none.
-
Everything in this article was known well before the Russian attack:
"If a single person can be credited with Ukraine’s surprising military successes so far — protecting Kyiv, the capital, and holding most other major cities amid an onslaught — it is Zaluzhnyy, a round-faced 48-year-old general who was born into a military family, and appointed as his country’s top uniformed commander by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in July 2021. Zaluzhnny and other Ukrainian commanders had been preparing for a full-on war with Russia since 2014."
Ukraine’s 'iron general' is a hero, but he's no star
Meet Valeriy Zaluzhnyy, the commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who's quietly leading the fight against Russia's invaders.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/08/ukraines-iron-general-zaluzhnyy-00023901
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Yep. Look at Bucha.
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Yep. Look at Bucha.
Wouldn't that just make a new Afghanistan for the soviets Russians though? One right on their doorstep?
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Yep. Look at Bucha.
Wouldn't that just make a new Afghanistan for the soviets Russians though? One right on their doorstep?
They're not planning to control Ukraine by installing a puppet government over the existing population. They are planning to exterminate it.
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Yep. Look at Bucha.
Wouldn't that just make a new Afghanistan for the soviets Russians though? One right on their doorstep?
They're not planning to control Ukraine by installing a puppet government over the existing population. They are planning to exterminate it.
That was the plan in Afghanistan too though, wasn't it? 9% of the Afghan population died under Soviet control, and 1/3rd of Afghanis fled the country. Soviet officials in Kabul said "if only 1 million people were left in the country, they would be more than enough to start a new society".
-
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
Yep. Look at Bucha.
Wouldn't that just make a new Afghanistan for the soviets Russians though? One right on their doorstep?
They're not planning to control Ukraine by installing a puppet government over the existing population. They are planning to exterminate it.
Right, this seems to be something that Russia excels at. Kill or move the existing population of an area, then move Russians or pro-Russian peoples in. That's what happened to the Crimean Tatars.
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
It is a quote from the article which was written by this guy:
Scott Sweetow is a former U.S. Army cavalry scout and retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives senior executive with expertise in explosives, intelligence, and counterterrorism. He is president of S3 Global Consulting.
I´m not qualified to even guess any of this.
But what I do know is that IED´s are already being used, so it is kind of a moot point by now as asymmetric fighting has already begun.
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
It is a quote from the article which was written by this guy:
Scott Sweetow is a former U.S. Army cavalry scout and retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives senior executive with expertise in explosives, intelligence, and counterterrorism. He is president of S3 Global Consulting.
I´m not qualified to even guess any of this.
But what I do know is that IED´s are already being used, so it is kind of a moot point by now as asymmetric fighting has already begun.
I'm sure Mr Sweetow knows of what he talks, but he is not talking of an insurgency (despite using the word). "Insurgency" to me implies a fight against an authority in control, and if insurgencies work it is because they are willing to use worse methods than that authority is willing to use to maintain power. I think that where the Russians are in control they will (and already are) using the most extreme methods possible to maintain control, to the extent of the complete obliteration of both population and infrastructure. No real insurgency is possible in those circumstances. So the fight by the Ukrainians will be carried out from areas not currently under Russian control, using methods such as the drones Mr Sweetow mentions. But that is less an insurgency and more a new (and very effective) way of fighting a war against conventional forces.
-
"It remains to be seen how Moscow will readjust its military strategy in light of the serious setbacks it has sustained over the past month. But unless Putin decides to admit defeat and completely withdraw Russian forces, Ukrainian fighters will have every incentive to use insurgent tactics to push them out of any territory they seek to capture or simply hold. Because unconventional and asymmetric tactics tend to favor the militarily weaker side, they should remain a powerful tool for Ukraine to employ, augmenting their conventional combat power and the influx of Western supplied arms."
The Next Few Weeks of Hell
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/of-roadside-bombs-and-drones-putins-looming-insurgency-problem/
You have not grasped the full intent of Russia. It will not need to worry about an insurgency because it is planning the genocide of Ukrainians in any part of Ukraine it controls. There can be no insurgency if there are no people.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?r=177tk&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation-of-a-propaganda-article-by-a-russian-journalist-a3e92e3cb64
It is a quote from the article which was written by this guy:
Scott Sweetow is a former U.S. Army cavalry scout and retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives senior executive with expertise in explosives, intelligence, and counterterrorism. He is president of S3 Global Consulting.
I´m not qualified to even guess any of this.
But what I do know is that IED´s are already being used, so it is kind of a moot point by now as asymmetric fighting has already begun.
I'm sure Mr Sweetow knows of what he talks, but he is not talking of an insurgency (despite using the word).
Absolutely. I didn´t even think of thinking of it as a traditional insurgency, so that would be pure semantics.
"Insurgency" to me implies a fight against an authority in control, and if insurgencies work it is because they are willing to use worse methods than that authority is willing to use to maintain power. I think that where the Russians are in control they will (and already are) using the most extreme methods possible to maintain control, to the extent of the complete obliteration of both population and infrastructure. No real insurgency is possible in those circumstances.
No, absolutely not.
On the other hand, Russia has not been able to control very much in this war, propaganda notwithstanding, so the idea that Russia is under full control of when and where an insurrection were to appear does not appear plausible.
Of course, accepting the Russian delusion and assuming that the wannabe occupier has established control to a degree that an insurrection is impossible, an insurrection would indeed be impossible. But that is a tautology.
In the real world, the capability of Russia to prevent or suppress an insurgency with their too small, poorly organized and shrinking military power in the vast country of Ukraine is seriously in question; with some evidence that insurgent activity has already emerged, meaning that prevention has already failed.
So the fight by the Ukrainians will be carried out from areas not currently under Russian control, using methods such as the drones Mr Sweetow mentions. But that is less an insurgency and more a new (and very effective) way of fighting a war against conventional forces.
But that is the subtext of the article: the Russo-Ukrainian war is being turned, as we speak, into a real world laboratory.
-
I'm sure Mr Sweetow knows of what he talks, but he is not talking of an insurgency (despite using the word). "Insurgency" to me implies a fight against an authority in control, and if insurgencies work it is because they are willing to use worse methods than that authority is willing to use to maintain power. I think that where the Russians are in control they will (and already are) using the most extreme methods possible to maintain control, to the extent of the complete obliteration of both population and infrastructure. No real insurgency is possible in those circumstances. So the fight by the Ukrainians will be carried out from areas not currently under Russian control, using methods such as the drones Mr Sweetow mentions. But that is less an insurgency and more a new (and very effective) way of fighting a war against conventional forces.
I agree with your first sentence but not the rest of it. In particular the war so far is mostly national military fighting national military for control of territory. They are mostly wearing uniforms and mostly using legal weapons (at least on the Ukrainian side?). But if Russia were in control of the country and there was an insurgency the insurgents would not be wearing uniforms. They would not particularly care if any given weapon was legal. They probably wouldn't be taking prisoners or providing medical care to the enemy. They could even use tactics like those of Hannie Schaft and Freddie Oversteegen who would pick up German soldiers at the bar before luring them away to be murdered over and over again because they could blend into the civilian population.
-
Ukraine shares a land border with Russia (unlike Afganistan). Will Ukrainians who have lost everything eventually take the war into Russia itself? I know this isn't the same as the Ukrainian military entering Russia...
-
I'm sure Mr Sweetow knows of what he talks, but he is not talking of an insurgency (despite using the word). "Insurgency" to me implies a fight against an authority in control, and if insurgencies work it is because they are willing to use worse methods than that authority is willing to use to maintain power. I think that where the Russians are in control they will (and already are) using the most extreme methods possible to maintain control, to the extent of the complete obliteration of both population and infrastructure. No real insurgency is possible in those circumstances. So the fight by the Ukrainians will be carried out from areas not currently under Russian control, using methods such as the drones Mr Sweetow mentions. But that is less an insurgency and more a new (and very effective) way of fighting a war against conventional forces.
I agree with your first sentence but not the rest of it. In particular the war so far is mostly national military fighting national military for control of territory. They are mostly wearing uniforms and mostly using legal weapons (at least on the Ukrainian side?). But if Russia were in control of the country and there was an insurgency the insurgents would not be wearing uniforms. They would not particularly care if any given weapon was legal. They probably wouldn't be taking prisoners or providing medical care to the enemy. They could even use tactics like those of Hannie Schaft and Freddie Oversteegen who would pick up German soldiers at the bar before luring them away to be murdered over and over again because they could blend into the civilian population.
There are multiple instances of Russian soldiers being fed poisoned food by Ukrainian women. Some have died. That is very much in line with Hannie Schaft and Freddie Oversteegen tactics. The locations of the instances I've seen online were not in towns being held by Russia, but who knows?
When your home country is attacked, I'm not necessarily going to hold the defenders to all the rules of war. Granny wants to poison half an invader battalion? Go for it, I'm not going to protest.
-
When your home country is attacked, I'm not necessarily going to hold the defenders to all the rules of war. Granny wants to poison half an invader battalion? Go for it, I'm not going to protest.
I agree entirely. Or perhaps I should say that if I woke up in occupied Ukraine tomorrow with a bunch of hollow point ammo the Hague convention wouldn't stop me from using it.
-
Ukraine shares a land border with Russia (unlike Afganistan). Will Ukrainians who have lost everything eventually take the war into Russia itself? I know this isn't the same as the Ukrainian military entering Russia...
At the time, Afghanistan shared a land border with the USSR.
A big part of the long term strategic calculus for the Soviet invasion was to start pushing their southern border down towards Pakistan and ultimately to the Indian ocean where they would have access to the warm water ports the USSR otherwise largely lacked.
-
Taking a step back, it's increasingly clear this is a proxy war for the future of the international system: Bretton Woods post-WW2 US-led global order versus multi-polar Eurasianism. Some (e.g. Zvi Mowshowitz (https://thezvi.wordpress.com/)) have been emphatically making this point, while it is also an obvious corollary to some of Peter Zeihan's theses. The basic idea is defeat of Ukraine on Europe's doorstep would be a refutation of the Pax Americana and a signal to various countries to take more seriously their regional geopolitical intentions through violent means, most notably, China. Notwithstanding Europe's--and in particular, Germany's--terrible energy geopolitics (anti-nuclear power, anti-fracking), the coordination of the West against Russia appears to more closely falsify Zeihan's predictions than signal the collapse of the prevalent global order, but perhaps the true test has not yet come.
-
Ukraine shares a land border with Russia (unlike Afganistan). Will Ukrainians who have lost everything eventually take the war into Russia itself? I know this isn't the same as the Ukrainian military entering Russia...
What would be the result? Would it wake up the Russian populace and make it take more interest in this war? Would it put some fear into the Russian government and make them honestly discuss peace? Would they use it as an excuse to blow even more of Ukraine away?
Since they want a genocide anyway, I guess it would justify it in their eyes to target the cities.
-
..Bretton Woods post-WW2 US-led global order versus multi-polar Eurasianism. .. true test has not yet come.
well, if so, maybe Russia should be waging this invasion a little bit better. Maybe the true test is if Russia can hold together, and not break up into even smaller pieces
-
..Bretton Woods post-WW2 US-led global order versus multi-polar Eurasianism. .. true test has not yet come.
well, if so, maybe Russia should be waging this invasion a little bit better. Maybe the true test is if Russia can hold together, and not break up into even smaller pieces
Of course, it's two-sided: can the western alliance see past its myopic abandonment of fossil fuels (i.e. Germany; France has done quite well with nuclear power), versus: can Russia survive the prestige-hit due to its incoherent military (but don't forget Russia could be much more destructive if it wanted to be; if Putin feels truly cornered, we will see what's actually possible). That is what I mean by "true tests". What we've seen so far may be a prelude to more commital decisions.
-
It's looking really, really, really bad for Mariupol. For a while some helicopters were secretly getting in supplies, but it looks like the Russians are onto them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61035565
..Bretton Woods post-WW2 US-led global order versus multi-polar Eurasianism. .. true test has not yet come.
well, if so, maybe Russia should be waging this invasion a little bit better. Maybe the true test is if Russia can hold together, and not break up into even smaller pieces
Of course, it's two-sided: can the western alliance see past its myopic abandonment of fossil fuels (i.e. Germany; France has done quite well with nuclear power), versus: can Russia survive the prestige-hit due to its incoherent military (but don't forget Russia could be much more destructive if it wanted to be; if Putin feels truly cornered, we will see what's actually possible). That is what I mean by "true tests". What we've seen so far may be a prelude to more commital decisions.
Of course, the West could be much more destructive if we wanted to be.
-
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/07/ukraine-escape-from-mariupol-man-swam-eussian-terror
-
It's looking really, really, really bad for Mariupol. For a while some helicopters were secretly getting in supplies, but it looks like the Russians are onto them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61035565
..Bretton Woods post-WW2 US-led global order versus multi-polar Eurasianism. .. true test has not yet come.
well, if so, maybe Russia should be waging this invasion a little bit better. Maybe the true test is if Russia can hold together, and not break up into even smaller pieces
Of course, it's two-sided: can the western alliance see past its myopic abandonment of fossil fuels (i.e. Germany; France has done quite well with nuclear power), versus: can Russia survive the prestige-hit due to its incoherent military (but don't forget Russia could be much more destructive if it wanted to be; if Putin feels truly cornered, we will see what's actually possible). That is what I mean by "true tests". What we've seen so far may be a prelude to more commital decisions.
Of course, the West could be much more destructive if we wanted to be.
Of course, but if you take Russia at all seriously, we are talking about flavors of nuclear war at this point.
-
I ran across this today: Niki Proshin explaining from St Petersburg that every babushka in Russia now knows how to use a VPN (https://youtu.be/4DzyYFTTjLc?t=386). EDITed to add: that's a joke. Not every babushka has internet access which he gets into in the end of the video.
-
(i.e. Germany; France has done quite well with nuclear power)
I don't know where this fairy tale comes out from again and again. France has higher electricity prices and has to import energy. Mostly from Germany (admittedly from our coal power plants, partly fired by Russian coal).
Also 30% of Uranium used in EU comes from Russia. See a problem here? That stuff is even harder to get from somewhere else than coal, gas or oil.
Not to mention that renewable energies are cheaper than nuclear power by a factor of 2 or 3, and that does not include the cost of the nuclear waste or any insurance, since nobody insure an atomic power plant. The premium would be so high that even after doubling current subventions it would never have a chance to recoup the costs.
What the last conservative government did do wrong was murdering the green energy increase because it threatened the oligopol of the 4 big energy companies, who ignored renewables until about 2010.
----
I think you all underestimated the how far Russia is from controlling any bigger area. They have what, 1 soldier per km˛? And that is counting all the logistic staff etc.
Either you control a few points and let the enemy run around wherever they want in wide stretches of land, or you spread them so thin that any 2-month-ago-civilist with his granddad's Kalashnikow can kill all occupation forces in a village with a bit of luck and patience.
Russia doesn't intend to occupy. They also can't. And now they know they also can't control Ukraine politically. So it will be obliterated, the same as when Putin poisens journalists.
-
Let's see if I didn't mangle the editing. If I did, it won't be the last time.
(i.e. Germany; France has done quite well with nuclear power)
I don't know where this fairy tale comes out from again and again. France has higher electricity prices and has to import energy. Mostly from Germany (admittedly from our coal power plants, partly fired by Russian coal).
I believe France had some temporary issues with some reactors and some maintenance outages. Otherwise, I've heard the opposite. I don't live in Germany, but I have the idea that there are some folks there who have excellent PR selling preferred their preferred energy sources to the people which sometimes are not the most pragmatic. Nuclear power produces power 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. (unless there are maintenance and repair outages)
https://www.enappsys.com/interconnectorreview/ (https://www.enappsys.com/interconnectorreview/)
Also 30% of Uranium used in EU comes from Russia. See a problem here? That stuff is even harder to get from somewhere else than coal, gas or oil.
Not to mention that renewable energies are cheaper than nuclear power by a factor of 2 or 3, and that does not include the cost of the nuclear waste or any insurance, since nobody insure an atomic power plant. The premium would be so high that even after doubling current subventions it would never have a chance to recoup the costs.
I think the cheapness is caused by the experience in building nuke plants being lost over the years. In addition, there are tremendous bureaucratic obstacles. If nuclear were allowed to flower like other forms of energy, the cost would come down. The economy of scale seems to work for everything else. Technological innovation seems to work for everything else. Look at electronics. Look at food production. Look at the history of manufacturing automobiles. Automobiles were a toy for the rich at one time.
The thing I see many times is that the cost of intermittent wind and solar energy is compared to the cost of the huge "dinosaur" plants. Even the cost of those should be less after the first few are built. There are many types of nuclear plants that are touted as being cheaper and smaller. However, unfortunately, these are only on the drawing boards. I fear that there are just too many people out there that wish to stifle these new options and never give them a chance. It's a little like the luddites of years past smashing textile machinery. They just don't want it to exist.
Australia mines a lot of Uranium. I read a short article that they recently found some ore deposits in Wyoming. Canada mines Uranium. It has the world's largest deposits. Spent fuel can be reprocessed for reactors. Newer reactors on the drawing board can use Thorium and there is 3 to 4X as much of that in the world as Uranium. There's plenty of uranium in the world. Unlike fossil fuels,it is an extremely dense form of energy production. You don't need a whole lot.
What the last conservative government did do wrong was murdering the green energy increase because it threatened the oligopoly of the 4 big energy companies, who ignored renewables until about 2010.
----
This is probably true. There is some evidence out there that at least the big oil companies are not too keen on having their industry displaced by newer cleaner forms of energy. The exception is the natural gas industry because they back up wind and solar energy at the times when they do not produce due to the inconsistency of Mother Nature.
I think you all underestimated the how far Russia is from controlling any bigger area. They have what, 1 soldier per km˛? And that is counting all the logistic staff etc.
Either you control a few points and let the enemy run around wherever they want in wide stretches of land, or you spread them so thin that any 2-month-ago-civilist with his granddad's Kalashnikov can kill all occupation forces in a village with a bit of luck and patience.
Russia doesn't intend to occupy. They also can't. And now they know they also can't control Ukraine politically. So it will be obliterated, the same as when Putin poisons journalists.
One of the previous posts has said that Russia wants genocide. Russia won't have to worry about the population if they greatly thin the herd. They have also exported people. Russia has a long history of slave prison camps. Their country is not very productive. To produce you need land, labor and capital. They've got the land and may have productive Ukraine back. Exporting people gives them labor in Siberia where they may need it. The sales of gas to help when intermittent solar and wind are unavailable is an excellent source of capital for them. I've read for a "Conventional" invasion, the soldier to civilian ratio is one to 50.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/05/09/a-proven-formula-for-how-many-troops-we-need/5c6dbfc9-33f8-4648-bd07-40d244a1daa4/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/05/09/a-proven-formula-for-how-many-troops-we-need/5c6dbfc9-33f8-4648-bd07-40d244a1daa4/)
40 million in Ukraine / 50 = 800,000 Basically, all of Russia's army.
-
It's looking really, really, really bad for Mariupol. For a while some helicopters were secretly getting in supplies, but it looks like the Russians are onto them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61035565
..Bretton Woods post-WW2 US-led global order versus multi-polar Eurasianism. .. true test has not yet come.
well, if so, maybe Russia should be waging this invasion a little bit better. Maybe the true test is if Russia can hold together, and not break up into even smaller pieces
Of course, it's two-sided: can the western alliance see past its myopic abandonment of fossil fuels (i.e. Germany; France has done quite well with nuclear power), versus: can Russia survive the prestige-hit due to its incoherent military (but don't forget Russia could be much more destructive if it wanted to be; if Putin feels truly cornered, we will see what's actually possible). That is what I mean by "true tests". What we've seen so far may be a prelude to more commital decisions.
Of course, the West could be much more destructive if we wanted to be.
Of course, but if you take Russia at all seriously, we are talking about flavors of nuclear war at this point.
Well, our having nukes ought to work as an equally strong deterrent to the Russians if (as in the words of Sting) "the Russians love their children, too." Of course they do, but I guess what everybody fears is that Putin doesn't love the Russian children, and would easily expend them as long as he felt he was personally safe.
I wonder what we would do if Russia decided to use nukes on Ukraine?
-
Well, our having nukes ought to work as an equally strong deterrent to the Russians if (as in the words of Sting) "the Russians love their children, too." Of course they do, but I guess what everybody fears is that Putin doesn't love the Russian children, and would easily expend them as long as he felt he was personally safe.
I wonder what we would do if Russia decided to use nukes on Ukraine?
Ironically enough, this could also be an argument against the fear that Putin will use nukes. As long as he personally is in no danger, he is free to feed the Ukrainian meat grinder with conventional forces, with no need for nukes.
-
Well, our having nukes ought to work as an equally strong deterrent to the Russians if (as in the words of Sting) "the Russians love their children, too." Of course they do, but I guess what everybody fears is that Putin doesn't love the Russian children, and would easily expend them as long as he felt he was personally safe.
I wonder what we would do if Russia decided to use nukes on Ukraine?
Ironically enough, this could also be an argument against the fear that Putin will use nukes. As long as he personally is in no danger, he is free to feed the Ukrainian meat grinder with conventional forces, with no need for nukes.
Nuking Ukraine is the same thing as nuking Belarus and the more populated parts of Russia. Irradiated dirt likes to fly.
-
Nuking Ukraine is the same thing as nuking Belarus and the more populated parts of Russia. Irradiated dirt likes to fly.
I'm certainly no expert, but in my understanding, a single small tactical nuke (1 kiloton?) detonated at a suitable altitude so that the fireball does not reach the ground (air burst)q, does not actually create a severe Chernobyl-like radioactive cloud. Yes, still a massive amount of destruction, some radioactivity, and definitely over the magic line of actually using a nuke... but in practical destructive power, such a nuke would not be much worse than what the Russians do with traditional bombings of some cities already today even if it takes days or weeks (including thermobaric bombs).
On the other hand, one nuke might be the line that creates escalation .... And I might be wrong.
-
This is a quote from the referenced article by Phillips O´Brien:
"So much had been written about the Russian armed forces’ modernisation and improvement over the last decade that that it was widely believed that the Russians possessed one of the largest and most powerful armies in the world until a few weeks ago. The army might not be on par with the US or China, but it was certainly capable of conquering a military minnow like Ukraine – or so the logic went.
The six weeks of war in Ukraine – which have seen Russian forces fail to take Kyiv and fall back elsewhere – has dented the army’s reputation. And now it seems that the Russian military may be running out of options in the rest of the country too."
The Russian army is running out of options
9 April 2022, 4:00am (UTC)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-russian-army-is-running-out-of-options
-
No point in nuking Ukraine as the Russians want to occupy it after the war. Nukes would make that occupation less pleasant.
-
"Vladimir Putin is a bad strategist. He does not understand the relationship between force and politics, and he is incapable of predicting international reactions to his ham-fisted military campaigns. Putin’s blunders began in 2014, with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in East Ukraine — actions that provoked widespread condemnation and suspicion about his real ambitions. With few friends left, Putin was reduced to propping up murderous authoritarian regimes in Syria and Belarus. Today, his misuse of Russian power is leading Russia towards impoverishment and isolation. His ill-considered invasion of Ukraine has galvanized international opposition, crippled the Russian economy, and overstretched the Russian military. Putin is making Russia a pariah state."
...
"Political and military leaders often worry about brilliant rivals, but the problem today is different. Instead of the danger of being outwitted, the danger is the fallout from Putin’s mistakes.
Bad strategists aggravate three strategic dilemmas. The first has to do with misperception. Wartime signaling is always a fraught business because misinformation abounds, because leaders operate under stress, and because adversaries have reason to deceive one another. This is more complicated today because Putin appears increasingly isolated, and Kremlin decision-making has become grotesque."
PUTIN’S FOLLY: A CASE STUDY OF AN INEPT STRATEGIST
JOSHUA ROVNERMARCH 16, 2022
https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/putins-folly-a-case-study-of-an-inept-strategist/
-
No point in nuking Ukraine as the Russians want to occupy it after the war. Nukes would make that occupation less pleasant.
The Russians want to destroy Ukraine more than they want to occupy it.
(Plus, they could nuke Kyiv, abandon it and set up in Kharkiv.)
ETA: I don't think Putin will unleash the nukes, though. He's reportedly a health nut that travels with a cancer specialist, he's not going to risk a possible increase in radiation in his part of the world.
-
China is not going to help Putin now, it has very significant issues of its own. 25 million people in Shanghai are under covid lockdown and food distribution has broken down with insufficient supplies getting through and chaos at distribution centres. People are going hungry while the authorities are flying drones around apartment blocks telling people not to go onto their balconies to protest.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1512734595485106179.html
The US government is advising its citizens to reconsider travel to China -
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/china-travel-advisory.html
-
It is fascinating to see glimpses of the effects of the sanctions on Russia. I'm not spending tons of time following it, but a few things I've seen.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-09/russia-s-first-default-in-a-century-looks-all-but-inevitable-now?srnd=premium-europe&sref=P9fitWWO - A couple of sovereign debt payments were made in rubles, which is technically a violation of the contracts. They do have 30 day grace periods, but Russia may not be able to talk their way out. Various businesses are now in default because they've struggled to navigate the new restrictions. The US Treasury has blocked access to bank accounts (in response to reports of events in Bucha). More extreme impacts are a matter of time.
Russian shipyards are shutting down due to lack of foreign parts (translator needed). https://armyinform.com.ua/2022/04/09/rosijski-verfi-zupynyayut-vyrobnycztvo-korabliv-cherez-brak-inozemnogo-komplektovannya/
Cayman Islands froze billions in Russian assets. Seriously, since when does the Cayman Islands, that haven for tax evasion, freeze assets?!? https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/04/9/7338305/
Auto sales are collapsing, and a variety of automakers (nonRussian) are not shipping spare parts. China is happy to enter the market though. Oh, and a Russian automaker is making/planning on making vehicles that will not include foreign parts, such as airbags and anti-lock breaks. https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/russian-car-sales-collapse-ukraine-war-leads-supply-price-shocks
Report on twitter that due to inflation, basic foodstuffs in Russia have anti-theft devices. https://mobile.twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1512666586829754370
Youtube blocked the Russian Parliament channel. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/youtube-blocks-russian-parliament-channel-drawing-ire-officials-2022-04-09/?utm_source=reddit.com
Vehicles registered in Russia or Belarus are not necessarily being allowed to cross into the EU. https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1512773130397310984?s=20&t=IHhsbkQ-gzM1Ik6u3Unw_Q
Slightly different topic, but Boris Johnson went to Kyiv and took a walk with Zelensky. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgDnOIGPzTk
I know Boris Johnson is problematic in other ways, but respect to him for that trip.
-
Saw this, about Russia using the "denazification" language on Lativa, don't really see other sources (but also not looking everywhere).
https://mobile.twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1512491275630559244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1512491275630559244%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-20706380201974456138.ampproject.net%2F2203172113000%2Fframe.html
Lativa is part of NATO. And besides, Russia still has that war they started in Ukraine, did Putin forget about that? Maybe he's trying to get whatever mountain he's hiding in demolished.
-
He's going with his normal MO: Accuse your opponent of the very crimes you are committing.
There are some truly evil people in the world.
-
China is not going to help Putin now, it has very significant issues of its own.
They don't appear to be helping with materiel, but they're still on Russia's side diplomatically and socially. They've been a consistent dissent with all the UN actions against Russia and the official line from Beijing being forced into all their schools and media spaces is that the massacres are fake.
-
Nuking Ukraine is the same thing as nuking Belarus and the more populated parts of Russia. Irradiated dirt likes to fly.
I'm certainly no expert, but in my understanding, a single small tactical nuke (1 kiloton?) detonated at a suitable altitude so that the fireball does not reach the ground (air burst)q, does not actually create a severe Chernobyl-like radioactive cloud. Yes, still a massive amount of destruction, some radioactivity, and definitely over the magic line of actually using a nuke... but in practical destructive power, such a nuke would not be much worse than what the Russians do with traditional bombings of some cities already today even if it takes days or weeks (including thermobaric bombs).
On the other hand, one nuke might be the line that creates escalation .... And I might be wrong.
I'm not the nuclear engineer in the family so I don't know all the nuances, but a nuke of any size crosses every line. As a planner in Moscow I wouldn't want to bank on my nuke not creating fallout since the winds go straight from Kyiv to Moscow. That said, the troops on the ground appear to have had no idea what Chernobyl was. The dug up the ground, burned wood, ate, drank, and slept in a hot zone. One of the plant workers said they looted everything they could walk away with, including items that were definitely radioactive. A Russian soldier handled a piece of cobalt with his bare hands.
-
Saw this, about Russia using the "denazification" language on Lativa, don't really see other sources (but also not looking everywhere).
https://mobile.twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1512491275630559244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1512491275630559244%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-20706380201974456138.ampproject.net%2F2203172113000%2Fframe.html
Lativa is part of NATO. And besides, Russia still has that war they started in Ukraine, did Putin forget about that? Maybe he's trying to get whatever mountain he's hiding in demolished.
I saw a notation someplace where they called the Estonians Nazis as well. Wow Putin has Nazis to the South. Putin has Nazis to the West. Putin sits at all these big tables where he isn't too close to anyone. I think he thinks people are out to get him. He is not paranoid, they are out to get him.
-
That said, the troops on the ground appear to have had no idea what Chernobyl was. The dug up the ground, burned wood, ate, drank, and slept in a hot zone. One of the plant workers said they looted everything they could walk away with, including items that were definitely radioactive. A Russian soldier handled a piece of cobalt with his bare hands.
I find it kind of hard to believe that they didn't know about Chernobyl, but maybe. I honestly don't know how bad that is. But they certainly aren't the only ones eating and digging in the exclusion zone. But, fun fact, there isn't just one exclusion zone. There are three.
The 30-kilometre zone is estimated to be home to 197 samosely living in 11 villages as well as the town of Chernobyl. This number is in decline, down from previous estimates of 314 in 2007 and 1,200 in 1986. These residents are senior citizens, with an average age of 63. After repeated attempts at expulsion, the authorities have accepted their presence and allowed them to stay with limited supporting services. Residence is now informally permitted by the Ukrainian government.
...
Chernobyl town, located outside of the 10 kilometre Exclusion Zone, was evacuated following the accident, but now serves as a base to support the workers within the Exclusion Zone. Its amenities include administrative buildings, general stores, a canteen, a hotel, and a bus station. Unlike other areas within the Exclusion Zone, Chernobyl town is actively maintained by workers, such as lawn areas being mowed and autumn leaves being collected. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone
But it sounds like these soldiers were mostly in the most contaminated area right by the reactors digging trenches? I wouldn't want to be them. But honestly, I might rather dig a trench in the exclusion zone than shell a Ukrainian city.
EDITed to add: I believe that the most contaminated part of the exclusion zone outside of the sarcophagus is considered to be the basement of Pripyat City Hospital #126 because that's where all the clothes from the first responders on the night of the explosion were discarded.
-
But it sounds like these soldiers were mostly in the most contaminated area right by the reactors digging trenches? I wouldn't want to be them. But honestly, I might rather dig a trench in the exclusion zone than shell a Ukrainian city.
This video shows the main "camp site" being examined. You can take a guess from the drone how close they were to the reactors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frIe7gk7jRI&ab_channel=TheSun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frIe7gk7jRI&ab_channel=TheSun)
-
"The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments."
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9
Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW
Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird
April 9, 4:30 pm ET
Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9
-
"The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments."
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9
Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW
Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird
April 9, 4:30 pm ET
Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9
A lot of discussion was given on the state of the Russian forces and the difficulty in retaining and obtaining new troops in the document. However, information on available Ukrainian resources was scant. Do you think this was intentional?
The Russians have held some the disputed territory since 2014. If the Ukrainians attempt to take it back will this "turn the tables" on them and make them an invading force? Russians claim a majority of the people in these regions desire to break away from Ukraine. Will these people be able to use the same guerrilla tactics then against the Ukrainians?
I cannot understand why any one would want to become part of Russia after learning of their war crimes.
-
"The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments."
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9
Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW
Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird
April 9, 4:30 pm ET
Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9
A lot of discussion was given on the state of the Russian forces and the difficulty in retaining and obtaining new troops in the document. However, information on available Ukrainian resources was scant. Do you think this was intentional?
The Russians have held some the disputed territory since 2014. If the Ukrainians attempt to take it back will this "turn the tables" on them and make them an invading force? Russians claim a majority of the people in these regions desire to break away from Ukraine. Will these people be able to use the same guerrilla tactics then against the Ukrainians?
I cannot understand why any one would want to become part of Russia after learning of their war crimes.
Of course Russia says a majority of the people want to break away. Do you believe anything the Russians say without external evidence? Because I don't.
I'm not so sure that those people are going to be all that welcoming to Russian troops. Time will tell of course, but Russia has held the disputed territory since 2014 so plenty of people have gotten a good look at what that means.
This was quite illuminating to me:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504103672019513345
-
"The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments."
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9
Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW
Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird
April 9, 4:30 pm ET
Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9
A lot of discussion was given on the state of the Russian forces and the difficulty in retaining and obtaining new troops in the document. However, information on available Ukrainian resources was scant. Do you think this was intentional?
The Russians have held some the disputed territory since 2014. If the Ukrainians attempt to take it back will this "turn the tables" on them and make them an invading force? Russians claim a majority of the people in these regions desire to break away from Ukraine. Will these people be able to use the same guerrilla tactics then against the Ukrainians?
I cannot understand why any one would want to become part of Russia after learning of their war crimes.
Of course Russia says a majority of the people want to break away. Do you believe anything the Russians say without external evidence? Because I don't.
I'm not so sure that those people are going to be all that welcoming to Russian troops. Time will tell of course, but Russia has held the disputed territory since 2014 so plenty of people have gotten a good look at what that means.
This was quite illuminating to me:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504103672019513345
As the link showed, Putin certainly knows how to use gangster tactics. Unlike the old Soviet Union, he is not even espousing an ideology. He and the oligarchs run Russia as a gangster fiefdom and uses gangster tactics to gobble the territory of others. Sometimes, I think all these "Western" statesmen are confused by that. This trickles down hill. Certainly, many of the invading soldiers have acted like gangsters. Russia is an old European country, but I think the honor thing they had years ago is no longer a part of their makeup. Good link.
-
"The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments."
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9
Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW
Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird
April 9, 4:30 pm ET
Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9
A lot of discussion was given on the state of the Russian forces and the difficulty in retaining and obtaining new troops in the document. However, information on available Ukrainian resources was scant. Do you think this was intentional?
Not intentional on the part of the authors, but certainly intentional on the part of Ukraine. Ukraine is running a professional battlefield intelligence/counterintelligence operation and Russia doesn't.
The Russians have held some the disputed territory since 2014. If the Ukrainians attempt to take it back will this "turn the tables" on them and make them an invading force? Russians claim a majority of the people in these regions desire to break away from Ukraine. Will these people be able to use the same guerrilla tactics then against the Ukrainians?
Russia is lying, there will not be an insurgency to suppress in these regions.
I cannot understand why any one would want to become part of Russia after learning of their war crimes.
-
I am continually amazed that everything Putin didn't want to happen is happening because of his attack on Ukraine. He really miscalculated.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-deploy-military-force-defend-borders-against-russia-stoltenberg-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds&utm_source=reddit.comworse.
-
Saw this, about Russia using the "denazification" language on Lativa, don't really see other sources (but also not looking everywhere).
https://mobile.twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1512491275630559244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1512491275630559244%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-20706380201974456138.ampproject.net%2F2203172113000%2Fframe.html
Lativa is part of NATO. And besides, Russia still has that war they started in Ukraine, did Putin forget about that? Maybe he's trying to get whatever mountain he's hiding in demolished.
I saw a notation someplace where they called the Estonians Nazis as well. Wow Putin has Nazis to the South. Putin has Nazis to the West. Putin sits at all these big tables where he isn't too close to anyone. I think he thinks people are out to get him. He is not paranoid, they are out to get him.
"Nazis" is a term applied to the entire Western liberal order, and in that spirit, Dmitri Medvedev recently said the goal is to "...build an open Eurasia – from Lisbon to Vladivostok"
Then there is this Russian official (i.e. state-endorsed) article (https://ria-ru.translate.goog/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp) on what "denazification" entails (parts of this are so extreme and deranged, it made me think maybe someone on Twitter with a blue checkmark was writing it):
"However, in addition to the top, a significant part of the masses, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, are also guilty. They supported and indulged Nazi power. The just punishment of this part of the population is possible only as bearing the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system, carried out with the utmost care and discretion in relation to civilians. Further denazification of this mass of the population consists in re-education, which is achieved by ideological repression (suppression) of Nazi attitudes and strict censorship: not only in the political sphere, but also necessarily in the sphere of culture and education."
Note that is via google translate which I could tell was not doing a great job everywhere but I can't read Russian well enough to get through such a long article.
-
@lost_in_the_endless_aisle , it looks like the original article was taken down. But I did find these discussions which confirm what you gathered from the Google translation.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kremlin-editorial-ukraine-identity-1.6407921
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_should_do_with_Ukraine
Going back to the subject of what kind of arms aid would be effective, here's a good discussion from March 24. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/a-call-for-arms-weapons-that-ukraine.html
"Conversely, to protect Ukrainian assets on the ground and make sure Russia does not attain aerial superiority, it is in dire need of more potent air defence assets. Although MANPADS (both foreign-delivered and Ukrainian) have been devastatingly effective in the conflict, longer ranged systems would allow defenders more freedom on friendly territory, in effect enabling more effective defence and counter attack. At the present, the only publically known assets Ukraine has received in this area were abandoned by Russia, whose soldiers to date left some twenty air defence systems behind in various battles and retreats. [1] The problem with most foreign additions of air defences is that they would require a Ukrainian crew to train for a long time before attaining proper operating skills, whereas the equipment is needed now. Some have even suggested Turkey should deliver its S-400 SAM system, which aside from this same issue also begs the question why only they are considered responsible for delivering strategic SAMs. [4] Pragmatically, Ukraine would likely benefit most from mobile medium-to-long ranged air defences with which it is already acquainted, such as the 9K33 Osa that could be supplied by Bulgaria, Greece or Poland, the Buk-M1 by Finland, the Tor-M1 from Greece and the S-300PMU(-1) from Bulgaria, Slovakia and Greece. These could be a big help in continuing to deny Russia full control of Ukraine's air space, with both politically and financially low impact for the delivering nations. "
-
@lost_in_the_endless_aisle , it looks like the original article was taken down. But I did find these discussions which confirm what you gathered from the Google translation.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kremlin-editorial-ukraine-identity-1.6407921
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_should_do_with_Ukraine
Going back to the subject of what kind of arms aid would be effective, here's a good discussion from March 24. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/a-call-for-arms-weapons-that-ukraine.html
Conversely, to protect Ukrainian assets on the ground and make sure Russia does not attain aerial superiority, it is in dire need of more potent air defence assets. Although MANPADS (both foreign-delivered and Ukrainian) have been devastatingly effective in the conflict, longer ranged systems would allow defenders more freedom on friendly territory, in effect enabling more effective defence and counter attack. At the present, the only publically known assets Ukraine has received in this area were abandoned by Russia, whose soldiers to date left some twenty air defence systems behind in various battles and retreats. [1] The problem with most foreign additions of air defences is that they would require a Ukrainian crew to train for a long time before attaining proper operating skills, whereas the equipment is needed now. Some have even suggested Turkey should deliver its S-400 SAM system, which aside from this same issue also begs the question why only they are considered responsible for delivering strategic SAMs. [4] Pragmatically, Ukraine would likely benefit most from mobile medium-to-long ranged air defences with which it is already acquainted, such as the 9K33 Osa that could be supplied by Bulgaria, Greece or Poland, the Buk-M1 by Finland, the Tor-M1 from Greece and the S-300PMU(-1) from Bulgaria, Slovakia and Greece. These could be a big help in continuing to deny Russia full control of Ukraine's air space, with both politically and financially low impact for the delivering nations. "
-
Which party has the crazier politicians would certainly make for an interesting debate, but that's probably out of place in this thread, so I will forebear :)
Not objectively. One party used unprecedented tactics to stuff the Supreme Court. One party has been consistently undermining the democracy in favor of autocracy for years, possibly decades. One party* literally attempted to overthrow the US Government and invaded the Capitol with the objective of overthrowing the newly elected President - acts directly and repeatedly instigated and supported by the party leader.
More on topic for this thread: That party leader has repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin, even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The false "bothsides" argument here is disgusting. https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/False%20Equivalency.html
Of course, I note you are in a self-proclaimed state of denial.
*For the small percentage of people who haven't been paying attention "One party" in this context refers to the Grand Old Party (GOP) commonly referred to as Republicans.
-
Lebanon is in trouble as regards to wheat. If you'll recall, they had that huge explosion a couple years ago which took out their grain storage. Apparently they haven't been able to replace the silos, so what they can store in country is limited.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2022/03/01/lebanon-seeks-us-help-to-import-wheat-in-move-away-from-ukraine-market/
Well, the last shipment of wheat they got from Ukraine was ruined. And they're low. They got the vast majority of their wheat from Ukraine, and that's not available anymore.
https://twitter.com/LebUpdate/status/1513152429122109452
-
Lebanon is in trouble as regards to wheat. If you'll recall, they had that huge explosion a couple years ago which took out their grain storage. Apparently they haven't been able to replace the silos, so what they can store in country is limited.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2022/03/01/lebanon-seeks-us-help-to-import-wheat-in-move-away-from-ukraine-market/
Well, the last shipment of wheat they got from Ukraine was ruined. And they're low. They got the vast majority of their wheat from Ukraine, and that's not available anymore.
https://twitter.com/LebUpdate/status/1513152429122109452
Pretty much all of the aid agency get their wheat from Ukraine, it is cheaper and easier to ship from Ukraine to Africa than Canada, or US ports. So in addition to Lebanon, the folks in Yemen, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eiteria, Syria, Congo, Chad, Sierra Leone are all in serious trouble. If Ukraine can hold Odesa and something can be done to let grain shipping continue through the summer there is some hope. But it is not only their own lives Ukraine is fighting for, poor people all of the world benefit.
-
The 60 minute interview with Zelensky is the best I've heard. He is an extremely effective communicator.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-russia-military-aid-60-minutes-2022-04-10/
-
Lebanon is in trouble as regards to wheat. If you'll recall, they had that huge explosion a couple years ago which took out their grain storage. Apparently they haven't been able to replace the silos, so what they can store in country is limited.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2022/03/01/lebanon-seeks-us-help-to-import-wheat-in-move-away-from-ukraine-market/
Well, the last shipment of wheat they got from Ukraine was ruined. And they're low. They got the vast majority of their wheat from Ukraine, and that's not available anymore.
https://twitter.com/LebUpdate/status/1513152429122109452
Pretty much all of the aid agency get their wheat from Ukraine, it is cheaper and easier to ship from Ukraine to Africa than Canada, or US ports. So in addition to Lebanon, the folks in Yemen, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eiteria, Syria, Congo, Chad, Sierra Leone are all in serious trouble. If Ukraine can hold Odesa and something can be done to let grain shipping continue through the summer there is some hope. But it is not only their own lives Ukraine is fighting for, poor people all of the world benefit.
There's hundreds of tones of it on ships stuck in the Black Sea because the Russian navy won't let them out.
-
"The Russian military is attempting to generate sufficient combat power to seize and hold the portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that it does not currently control after it completes the seizure of Mariupol. There are good reasons to question the Russian armed forces’ ability to do so and their ability to use regenerated combat power effectively despite a reported simplification of the Russian command structure. This update, which we offer on a day without significant military operations on which to report, attempts to explain and unpack some of the complexities involved in making these assessments."
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 9
Apr 9, 2022 - Press ISW
Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Karolina Hird
April 9, 4:30 pm ET
Special Edition: Russian Military Capabilities Assessments
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9
A lot of discussion was given on the state of the Russian forces and the difficulty in retaining and obtaining new troops in the document. However, information on available Ukrainian resources was scant. Do you think this was intentional?
The Russians have held some the disputed territory since 2014. If the Ukrainians attempt to take it back will this "turn the tables" on them and make them an invading force? Russians claim a majority of the people in these regions desire to break away from Ukraine. Will these people be able to use the same guerrilla tactics then against the Ukrainians?
I cannot understand why any one would want to become part of Russia after learning of their war crimes.
Of course Russia says a majority of the people want to break away. Do you believe anything the Russians say without external evidence? Because I don't.
I'm not so sure that those people are going to be all that welcoming to Russian troops. Time will tell of course, but Russia has held the disputed territory since 2014 so plenty of people have gotten a good look at what that means.
This was quite illuminating to me:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504103672019513345
The troops from the "breakaway" regions in Donetsk are not only conscripts, but many are basically kidnapped into service. Right off the street.
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1513402516628996097.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1513402516628996097.html)
Breakdown of Russian tank losses to date.
TLDR: Russia has probably lost a third of all the tanks it brought to the war, and a quarter of the tanks in its active duty force. The variable now is how many of the tanks in storage are better than rust buckets? And where will they find the people to crew them?
-
Lebanon is in trouble as regards to wheat. If you'll recall, they had that huge explosion a couple years ago which took out their grain storage. Apparently they haven't been able to replace the silos, so what they can store in country is limited.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2022/03/01/lebanon-seeks-us-help-to-import-wheat-in-move-away-from-ukraine-market/
Well, the last shipment of wheat they got from Ukraine was ruined. And they're low. They got the vast majority of their wheat from Ukraine, and that's not available anymore.
https://twitter.com/LebUpdate/status/1513152429122109452
Pretty much all of the aid agency get their wheat from Ukraine, it is cheaper and easier to ship from Ukraine to Africa than Canada, or US ports. So in addition to Lebanon, the folks in Yemen, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eiteria, Syria, Congo, Chad, Sierra Leone are all in serious trouble. If Ukraine can hold Odesa and something can be done to let grain shipping continue through the summer there is some hope. But it is not only their own lives Ukraine is fighting for, poor people all of the world benefit.
There's hundreds of tones of it on ships stuck in the Black Sea because the Russian navy won't let them out.
They, apparently, aren't just at war with Ukraine, but the entire world. Good thing the world is supporting them. It's the right thing to do.
-
"Putin is a former KGB officer who came of age during the Cold War. Intelligence officers, particularly those running operations in the foreign field, are risk-takers but not gamblers. Rarely is there a Hail Mary pass in espionage.
Seeking to make this conflict an existential clash of civilizations was neither emotional nor hardly out of character for Putin, given his background, one that includes a predisposition to employ terrorism as a tool.
Catherine Belton, author of "Putin's People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West," wrote that during his KGB assignment in Dresden -- then East Germany -- Putin worked in support of members of the Red Army Faction, the far-left terrorist group responsible for bombings, kidnappings and assassinations across West Germany in the '70s and '80s."
Opinion: Seeing the world through Putin's eyes
Opinion by Douglas London
Updated 6:32 AM ET, Mon April 11, 2022
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/11/opinions/understanding-putin-worldview-london/index.html
-
Trent Telenko
@TrentTelenko
This is an important 20 tweet 🧵thread in understanding the terminal decline of Russian Army combat vehicle firepower in Ukraine.
Read it all the way through a couple of times to fully absorb the implications👇👇:
"Thread. Open Source effort from @oryxspioenkop has tallied a total of 467 Russian tanks have been visual confirmed lost since 2/24. So how bad is it? (1/n)"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1513402516628996097.html
-
This is an important 20 tweet 🧵thread in understanding the terminal decline of Russian Army combat vehicle firepower in Ukraine.
Read it all the way through a couple of times to fully absorb the implications👇👇:
tl;dr: Russia is going to be short on tanks in the near future, which will hinder their offensive capabilities.
That may be true, but I wouldn't get too excited about that yet. I suspect Putin will be happy to settle for his land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians are close to securing that. After that, they can settle into a defensive posture, where tanks are less of an asset. At that point, Ukraine has to retake that land, which I suppose makes things harder for them and easier for Russia. That said, that's a long, skinny (backed up against the sea) front that the Russians would have to defend.
-
This is an important 20 tweet 🧵thread in understanding the terminal decline of Russian Army combat vehicle firepower in Ukraine.
Read it all the way through a couple of times to fully absorb the implications👇👇:
tl;dr: Russia is going to be short on tanks in the near future, which will hinder their offensive capabilities.
That may be true, but I wouldn't get too excited about that yet. I suspect Putin will be happy to settle for his land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians are close to securing that. After that, they can settle into a defensive posture, where tanks are less of an asset. At that point, Ukraine has to retake that land, which I suppose makes things harder for them and easier for Russia. That said, that's a long, skinny (backed up against the sea) front that the Russians would have to defend.
Would the fact that they would be backed against the sea with limited retreat options be an asset or a hindrance? Their navy could back them up, but it seems the Ukrainians have had a rather good track record sinking Russian ships.
-
Short answer it's not good for Ukraine (or world) to lose access to black sea
-
This is an important 20 tweet 🧵thread in understanding the terminal decline of Russian Army combat vehicle firepower in Ukraine.
Read it all the way through a couple of times to fully absorb the implications👇👇:
tl;dr: Russia is going to be short on tanks in the near future, which will hinder their offensive capabilities.
That may be true, but I wouldn't get too excited about that yet. I suspect Putin will be happy to settle for his land bridge to Crimea, and the Russians are close to securing that. After that, they can settle into a defensive posture, where tanks are less of an asset. At that point, Ukraine has to retake that land, which I suppose makes things harder for them and easier for Russia. That said, that's a long, skinny (backed up against the sea) front that the Russians would have to defend.
Would the fact that they would be backed against the sea with limited retreat options be an asset or a hindrance? Their navy could back them up, but it seems the Ukrainians have had a rather good track record sinking Russian ships.
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
-
Seriously, Putin? you do not have to check off all the evil villain boxes.
Chemical attack on Mariupol being reported.
https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-southern-port-city-is-under-chemical-attack/
-
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
They've captured a wide swath, sure, but it's a nearly-250-mile-wide front, so it can't be densely defended. Sure, they can concentrate on the highways, but still. I also have to wonder about Russia's ability to defend such a long front, from a recon/intel point of view, while the Ukrainians have all sorts of NATO-provided reconnaissance.
-
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
They've captured a wide swath, sure, but it's a nearly-250-mile-wide front, so it can't be densely defended. Sure, they can concentrate on the highways, but still. I also have to wonder about Russia's ability to defend such a long front, from a recon/intel point of view, while the Ukrainians have all sorts of NATO-provided reconnaissance.
So, they want the land to avoid the expense of building a decent highway on land they already own. Why build a highway when you can steal someone else's?
It seems like a highway would be ripe for booby traps and ambushes.
Wow! Chemical weapons. All those Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons I saw as a kid appear to have a strong basis in fact.
-
I would think that Ukraine would want to hold onto as much of it’s grain as it can. It won’t be a certainty that they can plant crops this year, so why sell a valuable commodity? The countries that depend on their wheat might find themselves short sooner than expected.
-
Seriously, Putin? you do not have to check off all the evil villain boxes.
Chemical attack on Mariupol being reported.
https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-southern-port-city-is-under-chemical-attack/
The report is from a far-right group, I’d wait on more legitimate Ukrainian or external sources before assuming it is true. Would not be surprising, however.
-
Seriously, Putin? you do not have to check off all the evil villain boxes.
Chemical attack on Mariupol being reported.
https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-southern-port-city-is-under-chemical-attack/
The report is from a far-right group, I’d wait on more legitimate Ukrainian or external sources before assuming it is true. Would not be surprising, however.
Oh of course. But still, even with that report unconfirmed the broader possibility is something that has been discussed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-says-russian-forces-could-use-chemical-weapons-2022-04-11/
-
Seriously, Putin? you do not have to check off all the evil villain boxes.
Chemical attack on Mariupol being reported.
https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-southern-port-city-is-under-chemical-attack/
The report is from a far-right group, I’d wait on more legitimate Ukrainian or external sources before assuming it is true. Would not be surprising, however.
Oh of course. But still, even with that report unconfirmed the broader possibility is something that has been discussed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-says-russian-forces-could-use-chemical-weapons-2022-04-11/
I am pessimistic that even this would get Ukrainians more weapons support, though we are slowly exhausting our slow-walking of the conflict. I think the same scenario will persist of sadistic brutality for shock value, trying to get Ukraine to surrender to avoid further civilian deaths and the Russian government will face little long-term consequence once the West moves on to the next crisis.
-
It is impressive how Putin has suddenly become the embodiment of every book and movie villain, down to the last evil tendency. And we had thought those were mere fiction.
Here's some Tolkien descriptions of Sauron/Putin that I keep thinking of:
"He was unable ever again to assume a form that appeared fair to men, but became hideous, and his power thereafter was through terror alone."
"'Hobbits as miserable slaves would please him far more than hobbits happy and free. There is such a thing as malice and revenge.' 'Revenge?' said Frodo. 'Revenge for what?'"
“It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.”
Aesop describes Putin:
There was once a Groom who used to spend long hours clipping and combing the Horse of which he had charge, but who daily stole a portion of his allowance of oats, and sold it for his own profit. The Horse gradually got into worse and worse condition, and at last cried to the Groom, “If you really want me to look sleek and well, you must comb me less and feed me more.”
A hungry Wolf one day saw a Lamb drinking at a stream, and wished to frame some plausible excuse for making him his prey. “What do you mean by muddling the water I am going to drink?” fiercely said he to the Lamb. “Pray forgive me,” meekly answered the Lamb; “I should be sorry in any way to displease you, but as the stream runs from you towards me, you will see that such cannot be the case.” “That’s all very well,” said the Wolf; “but you know you spoke ill of me behind my back a year ago.” “Nay, believe me,” replied the Lamb, “I was not then born.” “It must have been your brother then,” growled the Wolf. “It cannot have been, for I never had any,” answered the Lamb. “I know it was one of your lot,” rejoined the Wolf, “so make no more such idle excuses.” He then seized the poor Lamb, carried him off to the woods, and ate him.
Aesop really nailed it with that last one. There are lots of translations and various morals and applications of The Wolf and the Lamb, and all of them are right on target.
https://fablesofaesop.com/the-wolf-and-the-lamb.html
-
"Russian government will face little long-term consequence once the West moves on to the next crisis."
cynically, on the other hand, don't underestimate the ability of the Western military-industrial complex to turn crisis into opportunity. With the wane of Muslim extremism, it needs the next threat- Russia, and China, are it.
-
Seriously, Putin? you do not have to check off all the evil villain boxes.
Chemical attack on Mariupol being reported.
https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-southern-port-city-is-under-chemical-attack/
The report is from a far-right group, I’d wait on more legitimate Ukrainian or external sources before assuming it is true. Would not be surprising, however.
Oh of course. But still, even with that report unconfirmed the broader possibility is something that has been discussed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-says-russian-forces-could-use-chemical-weapons-2022-04-11/
I am pessimistic that even this would get Ukrainians more weapons support, though we are slowly exhausting our slow-walking of the conflict. I think the same scenario will persist of sadistic brutality for shock value, trying to get Ukraine to surrender to avoid further civilian deaths and the Russian government will face little long-term consequence once the West moves on to the next crisis.
Ukraine can't surrender to avoid civilian deaths because it is quite clear that the people in any land surrendered will be killed, very likely in extremely unpleasant ways.
-
I would think that Ukraine would want to hold onto as much of it’s grain as it can. It won’t be a certainty that they can plant crops this year, so why sell a valuable commodity? The countries that depend on their wheat might find themselves short sooner than expected.
Lebanon ran out yesterday.
-
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
They've captured a wide swath, sure, but it's a nearly-250-mile-wide front, so it can't be densely defended. Sure, they can concentrate on the highways, but still. I also have to wonder about Russia's ability to defend such a long front, from a recon/intel point of view, while the Ukrainians have all sorts of NATO-provided reconnaissance.
If Ukraine can get back across the river and drop artillery anywhere on the highway between Crimea and Rostov, the whole front gets put at risk. Crimea isn't worth keeping for Russia if it can't protect that road, especially if it loses control of Kherson. That happens, and Crimea goes thirsty. The river had a canal going to the area that Ukraine dammed after the region was taken from them back in 2012. The first thing Russia did after seizing the river was to reopen the canal. Prior to that, Russia was shipping fresh water into the area at enormous expense and watching the farmland dry out.
-
I would think that Ukraine would want to hold onto as much of it’s grain as it can. It won’t be a certainty that they can plant crops this year, so why sell a valuable commodity? The countries that depend on their wheat might find themselves short sooner than expected.
Lebanon ran out yesterday.
Yikes, and during Ramadan too. I'd heard it was a possibility, but there's nothing about it on Al-Jazeera. I haven't checked the Arab-American News yet.
-
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
They've captured a wide swath, sure, but it's a nearly-250-mile-wide front, so it can't be densely defended. Sure, they can concentrate on the highways, but still. I also have to wonder about Russia's ability to defend such a long front, from a recon/intel point of view, while the Ukrainians have all sorts of NATO-provided reconnaissance.
If Ukraine can get back across the river and drop artillery anywhere on the highway between Crimea and Rostov, the whole front gets put at risk. Crimea isn't worth keeping for Russia if it can't protect that road, especially if it loses control of Kherson. That happens, and Crimea goes thirsty. The river had a canal going to the area that Ukraine dammed after the region was taken from them back in 2012. The first thing Russia did after seizing the river was to reopen the canal. Prior to that, Russia was shipping fresh water into the area at enormous expense and watching the farmland dry out.
Putting a problem like that on Russia and making them expend resources to bring water to the people is a bit like opening another front but one where Ukraine expends no lives. It's kind of like a sanction too. Could explosives block a canal?
-
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
They've captured a wide swath, sure, but it's a nearly-250-mile-wide front, so it can't be densely defended. Sure, they can concentrate on the highways, but still. I also have to wonder about Russia's ability to defend such a long front, from a recon/intel point of view, while the Ukrainians have all sorts of NATO-provided reconnaissance.
If Ukraine can get back across the river and drop artillery anywhere on the highway between Crimea and Rostov, the whole front gets put at risk. Crimea isn't worth keeping for Russia if it can't protect that road, especially if it loses control of Kherson. That happens, and Crimea goes thirsty. The river had a canal going to the area that Ukraine dammed after the region was taken from them back in 2012. The first thing Russia did after seizing the river was to reopen the canal. Prior to that, Russia was shipping fresh water into the area at enormous expense and watching the farmland dry out.
Putting a problem like that on Russia and making them expend resources to bring water to the people is a bit like opening another front but one where Ukraine expends no lives. It's kind of like a sanction too. Could explosives block a canal?
They had previously blocked the canal, I had read that they poured concrete. Blowing up the canal would disrupt the water flow I'm sure.
-
Somewhat irrelevant unless the front was only a mile or two from the sea. Russia has captured a swath of land about 20-60 miles wide from the Sea of Azov (Black Sea) running from Crimea up to the Donbas (except the holdouts in Mariupol). Really all that matters is the main highway that connects them (E105 north to Melitopol then the E58 east to Mariupol and on to Rostov-on-Don in Russia). As long as Russia has a decent buffer along that so Ukrainian troops can't directly observe and fire on that road they're fine.
Ukraine still has access to the Black Sea from Odessa - but Mariupol was their second largest port. Russia already had access to the Black Sea from Sochi and other ports but Russian interior infrastructure (roads, rail, rivers, canals) has never been great so getting a port closer to agricultural/mineral/industrial production areas would be beneficial.
They've captured a wide swath, sure, but it's a nearly-250-mile-wide front, so it can't be densely defended. Sure, they can concentrate on the highways, but still. I also have to wonder about Russia's ability to defend such a long front, from a recon/intel point of view, while the Ukrainians have all sorts of NATO-provided reconnaissance.
If Ukraine can get back across the river and drop artillery anywhere on the highway between Crimea and Rostov, the whole front gets put at risk. Crimea isn't worth keeping for Russia if it can't protect that road, especially if it loses control of Kherson. That happens, and Crimea goes thirsty. The river had a canal going to the area that Ukraine dammed after the region was taken from them back in 2012. The first thing Russia did after seizing the river was to reopen the canal. Prior to that, Russia was shipping fresh water into the area at enormous expense and watching the farmland dry out.
Putting a problem like that on Russia and making them expend resources to bring water to the people is a bit like opening another front but one where Ukraine expends no lives. It's kind of like a sanction too. Could explosives block a canal?
They had previously blocked the canal, I had read that they poured concrete. Blowing up the canal would disrupt the water flow I'm sure.
Russia "reopened" the canal with explosives. It'll have to be dammed again. Ukraine has to seize both sides of the river first.
-
Blocking a canal with explosives would be very hard, unless it crosses over a bridge, or under a large steep mountain you could bring down on top. Otherwise you just make a hole, and the water will pond up and fill the hole soon and keep flowing like normal. Same for damming it up, it would be easy to remove any dam.
-
It is impressive how Putin has suddenly become the embodiment of every book and movie villain, down to the last evil tendency. And we had thought those were mere fiction.
Suddenly?
https://www.ted.com/talks/garry_kasparov_stand_with_ukraine_in_the_fight_against_evil/transcript
-
It is impressive how Putin has suddenly become the embodiment of every book and movie villain, down to the last evil tendency. And we had thought those were mere fiction.
Suddenly?
https://www.ted.com/talks/garry_kasparov_stand_with_ukraine_in_the_fight_against_evil/transcript
The US war on Iraq introduced a large amount of moral relativism into the "Western" world view. Saddam Hussein was evil, but the US invasion was bad. The US may have had better intentions than Saddam, but if the results were similar, who was really the bad guy? Even a few years ago many Americans would agree the Putin was a person they wouldn't want as their own president, but there was still a general respect and "bad boy" admiration for him such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wga5A6R9BJg (I was introduced to that video in 2017 I think). He really had to go over the top to finally reveal himself as truly Evil.
It is also crazy how dictators are simply unable to understand democracies. As an example, Japan in WWII expected the US to insist on a peace treaty after Pearl Harbor. Democracies are as unpredictable from a dictator's perspective as dictators are from a democracy's. I think the underlying issue is a lack of information flow out of the democracies. A free market democracy will shrug off pretty much anything, until a sudden breaking point is crossed and then it is all out war. Dictators communicate with other dictators by constant mutual aggression, so that they generally have a pretty good idea what the boundaries are. As an example, Erdogan shot down Russian jets that crossed Turkish airspace, so now Putin doesn't mess with him any more. Putin would never, ever mess with China. So far, no democracy has shot down Russian jets which skim their airspace, so Putin still doesn't know their limits. Possibly, "Western" nations should be taking more aggressive action to deliberately kill Russian military members through direct attacks when they cross lines, which is the only way of conveying to Putin where the boundaries are. Instead, we are all demur until he crosses an unknowable line, and then suddenly we throw everything we have at him.
-
Blocking a canal with explosives would be very hard, unless it crosses over a bridge, or under a large steep mountain you could bring down on top. Otherwise you just make a hole, and the water will pond up and fill the hole soon and keep flowing like normal. Same for damming it up, it would be easy to remove any dam.
I was thinking you could form explosions on each side of the canal. These would be shape charges and force the mass in the direction of the canal. This mass from each side of the canal would block the flow.
-
Blocking a canal with explosives would be very hard, unless it crosses over a bridge, or under a large steep mountain you could bring down on top. Otherwise you just make a hole, and the water will pond up and fill the hole soon and keep flowing like normal. Same for damming it up, it would be easy to remove any dam.
I was thinking you could form explosions on each side of the canal. These would be shape charges and force the mass in the direction of the canal. This mass from each side of the canal would block the flow.
You could, but honestly it would be hard to accomplish anything that could not be undone in a day with common construction equipment. A couple medium sized bulldozers could clear pretty much anything in a few hours.
-
Blocking a canal with explosives would be very hard, unless it crosses over a bridge, or under a large steep mountain you could bring down on top. Otherwise you just make a hole, and the water will pond up and fill the hole soon and keep flowing like normal. Same for damming it up, it would be easy to remove any dam.
I was thinking you could form explosions on each side of the canal. These would be shape charges and force the mass in the direction of the canal. This mass from each side of the canal would block the flow.
Water is remarkably persistent stuff and canals typically have to follow the grade of the earth. If it runs through a tunnel under a mountain and/or is being mechanically pumped up an incline (as many of the water supplies for California cities do) you could probably block it for a long time with explosives.
But short of that, the water is just going to go around any blockage you create, particularly since the explosion to push water into the main channel of the canal is going to create convenient new holes on either side of the canals current course.
-
I say electrolyze the water . . . and then use the hydrogen and oxygen that it gives you to blow itself up.
-
I thought "how hard could it be to find a giant canal on Google Earth anyhow?" Not very hard. The easiest way to cut off water would be to just blow the dam across the Dnipro river. Which would then drain a large reservoir all the way back to Zaporizhzhia and flood Kherson. Very easy to accomplish, and probably there is a good reason nobody has done it yet.
Also I thought "wait Crimea is nearly cut off from the mainland by the sea, how could they keep the elevation all the way across? maybe there is a bridge for the canal." But no, it just flows across the ground. Actually the best way would be to try and remove the canal banks at several points where it is very close to the sea or sea level lakes to divert the flow into those. It would still take a huge effort and just a matter of hours for common construction equipment to patch it up though. Targeting rail bridges would be a better use of resources without doubt.
Since apparently I don't feel like working today...
-
It might only be a few hours' of work....once the water stops flowing. But large quantities of flowing water are not to be trifled with. Check out the videos of the Oroville Dam spillway failure.
-
Depends on elevation head and flow rate. Oroville dam "At 770 feet (235 m) high, it is the tallest dam in the U.S." This canal is just a few feet deep, and not more than 40 feet above sea level at the top of the bank (less where I'm looking). Not too hard to stop a leak, I guess.
-
I thought "how hard could it be to find a giant canal on Google Earth anyhow?" Not very hard. The easiest way to cut off water would be to just blow the dam across the Dnipro river. Which would then drain a large reservoir all the way back to Zaporizhzhia and flood Kherson. Very easy to accomplish, and probably there is a good reason nobody has done it yet.
Also I thought "wait Crimea is nearly cut off from the mainland by the sea, how could they keep the elevation all the way across? maybe there is a bridge for the canal." But no, it just flows across the ground. Actually the best way would be to try and remove the canal banks at several points where it is very close to the sea or sea level lakes to divert the flow into those. It would still take a huge effort and just a matter of hours for common construction equipment to patch it up though. Targeting rail bridges would be a better use of resources without doubt.
Since apparently I don't feel like working today...
Yeah, this canal is basically a river. Looks like it's about 250 feet across. The elevation at the beginning of the canal at the Dnieper River is about 70 feet and it drops to about 15-20 feet when it crosses into Crimea. It looks like the area the blocked it was about 10 miles from the border where another canal goes south and provides water to a bunch of fields.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.2822971,33.273422,3a,75y,335.93h,82.34t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPlOwnMh8Zy2wEafdjImyB5ZgSVo7vp2nXOZIoR!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPlOwnMh8Zy2wEafdjImyB5ZgSVo7vp2nXOZIoR%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya112.00001-ro-0-fo100!7i4000!8i2000
Here's an example of some trenches between the ocean and canal, just west of the border with Crimea.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1585891,33.6015999,778m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4
-
Found the spot :). The canal has a drain, along with a road bridge. Taking that out could cause a few days inconvenience.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D0%9C17,+Khersons'ka+oblast,+Ukraine/@46.1490992,33.625699,1120m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x40c180abc46b5ef5:0xf0236780cc10526f!8m2!3d46.1490854!4d33.6278732
Looking around more, there could be a number of places where it could be interrupted. There are a number of elevation control structures where flow is diverted to surrounding areas at lower elevations. I even found a place where the canal is bridged across a river!
But enough on that hypothetical topic from me I think.
-
Found the spot :). The canal has a drain, along with a road bridge. Taking that out could cause a few days inconvenience.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D0%9C17,+Khersons'ka+oblast,+Ukraine/@46.1490992,33.625699,1120m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x40c180abc46b5ef5:0xf0236780cc10526f!8m2!3d46.1490854!4d33.6278732
Looking around more, there could be a number of places where it could be interrupted. There are a number of elevation control structures where flow is diverted to surrounding areas at lower elevations. I even found a place where the canal is bridged across a river!
But enough on that hypothetical topic from me I think.
Great - They can reroute the water with a little thought. Water is life.
Has it been confirmed whether Putin is using chemical weapons? Is it possible to confirm it? Seems like the Russians have the place surrounded and can simply burn all the corpses. Without solid evidence, it's hearsay.
-
Found the spot :). The canal has a drain, along with a road bridge. Taking that out could cause a few days inconvenience.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D0%9C17,+Khersons'ka+oblast,+Ukraine/@46.1490992,33.625699,1120m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x40c180abc46b5ef5:0xf0236780cc10526f!8m2!3d46.1490854!4d33.6278732
Looking around more, there could be a number of places where it could be interrupted. There are a number of elevation control structures where flow is diverted to surrounding areas at lower elevations. I even found a place where the canal is bridged across a river!
But enough on that hypothetical topic from me I think.
Great - They can reroute the water with a little thought. Water is life.
Has it been confirmed whether Putin is using chemical weapons? Is it possible to confirm it? Seems like the Russians have the place surrounded and can simply burn all the corpses. Without solid evidence, it's hearsay.
From what I can see - not confirmed, but definite concern that Russia could use chemical weapons.
-
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1513926555336065026 I don't consider this guy to be a really good source, but he's copying and pasting from this article:
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/20220411.aspx
And I really don't know how reliable that author/source is, but here's a bit of info on him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dunnigan
However. If he's right about the recruitment timeline and numbers, then the Russian army is going to get a lot smaller in a few months when a bunch of current contracts are up and they're not renewed. And the equipment claims do make sense to me, given what has been witnessed, etc. If anyone has better luck checking sources on this, please share.
-
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1513926555336065026 I don't consider this guy to be a really good source, but he's copying and pasting from this article:
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/20220411.aspx
And I really don't know how reliable that author/source is, but here's a bit of info on him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dunnigan
However. If he's right about the recruitment timeline and numbers, then the Russian army is going to get a lot smaller in a few months when a bunch of current contracts are up and they're not renewed. And the equipment claims do make sense to me, given what has been witnessed, etc. If anyone has better luck checking sources on this, please share.
Trent is a great source for technical information. He's been educating the masses on Russian logistical failures since Day 1. He becomes difficult to read when he steps outside of his lane, particularly when he gets political. He likes to take shots at Biden and the intelligence community whenever he can, and he's been spectacularly wrong on a few things. Don't take him at his word if it's not about supply operations.*
Dunnigan isn't a bad source for general military information, but if you're looking for a primary source I wouldn't use him. What he's describing as far as demographics is spot on. The Russian army likes to conscript and recruit from the poorest and most run-down parts of the empire. You can buy your way out of conscription, which means the only people from western Russia who serve in the military end up in the navy, air force, or officer corps where life is better. If this next offensive in Donbass fails, the Russian army will start to fall apart quickly and could take a generation to rebuild.
* This has happened with a number of analysts and commentators in the last month. They get a following talking about what they know well, then try to branch out and fall on their faces.
-
Water is life.
The spice must flow.
I read that Germany admitted it's friendship with Russia was a mistake... which is an odd way to lump years of partnership over NordStream 2, when it was conscious decisions all the way - and all of those decisions made after Russia annexed Crimea.
And now Ukraine is giving Germany the cold shoulder, and Germany wants to protest? Really? Because right now, Germany is buying Russian oil & gas. And a lot of that money goes to support Russia's military... including artilary and missles that kill thousands of civilians. If Germany wants to feel outrage, I would suggest looking in the mirror.
(In this quote, "President" refers to German President Steinmeier)
On a visit to Poland, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier admitted he had offered to visit Ukraine with other EU leaders, but Kyiv had told him he was not welcome right now.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220412-not-wanted-in-kyiv-pressure-mounts-on-germany-after-ukraine-snub
-
So Putin put the Russian general that was responsible for the worst stuff in Syria at the top commander for Ukraine. You know, like bombarding of hospitals, waiting lines and such.
There won't be much left of East Ukraine when Putin declares his victory over the Nazis in 4 weeks.
-
So Putin put the Russian general that was responsible for the worst stuff in Syria at the top commander for Ukraine. You know, like bombarding of hospitals, waiting lines and such.
There won't be much left of East Ukraine when Putin declares his victory over the Nazis in 4 weeks.
Looks like those people in Mariupol finally fell. They sure did fight hard.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-1026-ukrainian-marines-surrendered-mariupol-2022-04-13/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-1026-ukrainian-marines-surrendered-mariupol-2022-04-13/)
I'll bet the Russians kill every one that survived. This is the bunch they called Nazis.
-
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1513926555336065026 I don't consider this guy to be a really good source, but he's copying and pasting from this article:
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/20220411.aspx
And I really don't know how reliable that author/source is, but here's a bit of info on him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dunnigan
However. If he's right about the recruitment timeline and numbers, then the Russian army is going to get a lot smaller in a few months when a bunch of current contracts are up and they're not renewed. And the equipment claims do make sense to me, given what has been witnessed, etc. If anyone has better luck checking sources on this, please share.
Trent is a great source for technical information. He's been educating the masses on Russian logistical failures since Day 1. He becomes difficult to read when he steps outside of his lane, particularly when he gets political. He likes to take shots at Biden and the intelligence community whenever he can, and he's been spectacularly wrong on a few things. Don't take him at his word if it's not about supply operations.*
Dunnigan isn't a bad source for general military information, but if you're looking for a primary source I wouldn't use him. What he's describing as far as demographics is spot on. The Russian army likes to conscript and recruit from the poorest and most run-down parts of the empire. You can buy your way out of conscription, which means the only people from western Russia who serve in the military end up in the navy, air force, or officer corps where life is better. If this next offensive in Donbass fails, the Russian army will start to fall apart quickly and could take a generation to rebuild.
* This has happened with a number of analysts and commentators in the last month. They get a following talking about what they know well, then try to branch out and fall on their faces.
Most of what I've seen from Trent is the logistical stuff. And the demographics aren't hard to get right - there's all sorts of data out there. As usual, I'll apply some salt but hope for the best. It would be lovely if Russia manages to self destruct their military in the next month.
-
Water is life.
The spice must flow.
I read that Germany admitted it's friendship with Russia was a mistake... which is an odd way to lump years of partnership over NordStream 2, when it was conscious decisions all the way - and all of those decisions made after Russia annexed Crimea.
And now Ukraine is giving Germany the cold shoulder, and Germany wants to protest? Really? Because right now, Germany is buying Russian oil & gas. And a lot of that money goes to support Russia's military... including artilary and missles that kill thousands of civilians. If Germany wants to feel outrage, I would suggest looking in the mirror.
(In this quote, "President" refers to German President Steinmeier)
On a visit to Poland, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier admitted he had offered to visit Ukraine with other EU leaders, but Kyiv had told him he was not welcome right now.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220412-not-wanted-in-kyiv-pressure-mounts-on-germany-after-ukraine-snub
What's the phrase, lie down with dogs get up with fleas?
Of course Germany is getting the cold shoulder. Yeah, it's great that they've sent weapons to Ukraine but buying the gas/oil is far worse.
-
So Putin put the Russian general that was responsible for the worst stuff in Syria at the top commander for Ukraine. You know, like bombarding of hospitals, waiting lines and such.
There won't be much left of East Ukraine when Putin declares his victory over the Nazis in 4 weeks.
Looks like those people in Mariupol finally fell. They sure did fight hard.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-1026-ukrainian-marines-surrendered-mariupol-2022-04-13/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-1026-ukrainian-marines-surrendered-mariupol-2022-04-13/)
I'll bet the Russians kill every one that survived. This is the bunch they called Nazis.
Mariupol has not fallen. The 36th Marine Brigade and the Azov Battalion are still fighting.
-
So Putin put the Russian general that was responsible for the worst stuff in Syria at the top commander for Ukraine. You know, like bombarding of hospitals, waiting lines and such.
There won't be much left of East Ukraine when Putin declares his victory over the Nazis in 4 weeks.
Looks like those people in Mariupol finally fell. They sure did fight hard.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-1026-ukrainian-marines-surrendered-mariupol-2022-04-13/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-1026-ukrainian-marines-surrendered-mariupol-2022-04-13/)
I'll bet the Russians kill every one that survived. This is the bunch they called Nazis.
Mariupol has not fallen. The 36th Marine Brigade and the Azov Battalion are still fighting.
I don't think they can surrender, and if I am aware of it I'm sure they know it. Russia will kill them, one way or another. So, if you're going to get killed anyway, why not keep fighting?
"Reuters could not independently confirm the surrender. Ukrainian defence ministry spokesperson Oleksandr Motuzyanyk said he had no information about it, and there was no immediate comment from the Ukrainian president's office or the Ukrainian general staff."
Russia is probably saying it more for their populace than anything else.
-
Yeah, I think we can pretty safely discount anything that starts with "Russia says. . . " as complete and utter BS.
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
-
"Moskva" is what Russians call their capital city :D
(I wouldn't have known that had I not traveled through Russia)
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
Russia's saying it was ammo detonation as a result of a fire, but no word what caused the fire.
https://ria.ru/20220414/kreyser-1783435471.html
Whoo! Go Ukraine!
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
Russia's saying it was ammo detonation as a result of a fire, but no word what caused the fire.
https://ria.ru/20220414/kreyser-1783435471.html
Whoo! Go Ukraine!
Russia is silent, and Ukraine is claiming they used missiles known to be in their possession. That's as close as agreement on the facts this will get, I suspect.
"Ukrainian officials claimed that shore-based anti-ship guided missiles hit Moskva which had been operating from the Black Sea Fleet’s headquarters in Sevastopol, Crimea."
https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship
-
Just because I thought this was hilarious.... (hope this works)
-
Writing their headlines for them!
"ammo detonation as the result of the fire" reads like "*shrug* he died because he fell out window" to me.
-
Zelensky has changed tactics. He's not asking for NATO to intervene directly - he's just demanding the weapons so that Ukraine can do it themselves.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1514242356949704709
And it's apparently working.
https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/1514289547751960586 --- the US is sending what seems like more "heavy duty" weapons and equipment.
https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/1514022570957365251 --- drones ready to be sent, pending US approval
Also, because I like this picture, you can look at the picture too :)
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/leaders-poland-baltic-states-head-kyiv-2022-04-13/ -- scroll down to the pictures, it's #2, the one with all 5 in front of the flags. Striking picture. I suspect Putin isn't a fan.
-
Writing their headlines for them!
"ammo detonation as the result of the fire" reads like "*shrug* he died because he fell out window" to me.
It's not wrong, there was an ammo fire. Ukrainian and Russian ammo. Ship is reported capsized. Sunrise isn't for a couple more hours and there's a really shitty storm right on top of it, so confirmation of damage and casualties won't come for a little while.
Russia also reported "all survivors evacuated" or something like that which could mean there were deaths. There's no way you detonate munitions on board and nobody dies. And you don't abandon ship unless you've given up on recovery efforts.
-
Seriously, Russia should just give up. They are causing death and destruction, famine and poverty, and all they are getting is humiliated.
-
Seriously, Russia should just give up. They are causing death and destruction, famine and poverty, and all they are getting is humiliated.
That ship is irreplaceable. The Russian navy has never been a priority for funding (and shouldn't be), so losing a ship like this is catastrophic. Even if it stays afloat and they can tow it home, it would cost as much to repair as build another one.
-
Writing their headlines for them!
"ammo detonation as the result of the fire" reads like "*shrug* he died because he fell out window" to me.
It's not wrong, there was an ammo fire. Ukrainian and Russian ammo. Ship is reported capsized.
Oh wow, that is a very costly blow. And even if it wasn't an Ukrainian missile, it was a Russian one that detonated at start, which also means it's an Ukrainian caused hit.
I wonder how Putins propaganda will spin this?
-
Writing their headlines for them!
"ammo detonation as the result of the fire" reads like "*shrug* he died because he fell out window" to me.
It's not wrong, there was an ammo fire. Ukrainian and Russian ammo. Ship is reported capsized.
Oh wow, that is a very costly blow. And even if it wasn't an Ukrainian missile, it was a Russian one that detonated at start, which also means it's an Ukrainian caused hit.
I wonder how Putins propaganda will spin this?
Sibley's original post is how it's being sold at the moment. They're only saying "there was a fire."
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
Oh, the Pentagon spokesman said they believe it's still afloat but it does show damage.
All the same, removing it from combat seems to be a significant gain for the Ukrainians.
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
Oh, the Pentagon spokesman said they believe it's still afloat but it does show damage.
All the same, removing it from combat seems to be a significant gain for the Ukrainians.
Are there underwater drones that could be used to take out Russian ships or damage them? The antenna may need to be on the surface, but certainly most of such a vehicle could be hidden. The Ukrainians have had great success against tanks with aerial drones. Would the ships sonar detect such an underwater drone or would it too have the element of stealth like the aerial drones? Taking out or damaging Russian ships gives a lot of buck for the bang.
-
I guess that russky korabl finaly did go nakhuy itself.
This war has really increased my understanding of the Cyrillic alphabet. And I'm learning new Russian and Ukrainian words.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/
Russia is saying they'll have to station nukes in the Baltic if Sweden/Finland join NATO.
I saw this on reddit, and some of the comments indicated that there were already nukes at Kaliningrad. Now, my knowledge of geography in that area is vague, but I'm pretty sure that Kaliningrad is in fact on the Baltic Sea, or at least very ne. Conclusion: Russia is blustering.
I'm fairly sure that Sweden and Finland aren't going to take what Russia thinks into consideration in the decision if they want to join NATO or not. So, great job Russia for just reinforcing the arguments FOR joining NATO.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/
Russia is saying they'll have to station nukes in the Baltic if Sweden/Finland join NATO.
I saw this on reddit, and some of the comments indicated that there were already nukes at Kaliningrad. Now, my knowledge of geography in that area is vague, but I'm pretty sure that Kaliningrad is in fact on the Baltic Sea, or at least very ne. Conclusion: Russia is blustering.
I'm fairly sure that Sweden and Finland aren't going to take what Russia thinks into consideration in the decision if they want to join NATO or not. So, great job Russia for just reinforcing the arguments FOR joining NATO.
Both are in the EU so supposedly, they already have an alliance with many European countries.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html)
I think joining NATO would provide more assurance to both countries of their safety in the event of further Russian aggression. The EU clause looks more like protection by bankers and lawyers where NATO is a military alliance.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/
Russia is saying they'll have to station nukes in the Baltic if Sweden/Finland join NATO.
I saw this on reddit, and some of the comments indicated that there were already nukes at Kaliningrad. Now, my knowledge of geography in that area is vague, but I'm pretty sure that Kaliningrad is in fact on the Baltic Sea, or at least very ne. Conclusion: Russia is blustering.
I'm fairly sure that Sweden and Finland aren't going to take what Russia thinks into consideration in the decision if they want to join NATO or not. So, great job Russia for just reinforcing the arguments FOR joining NATO.
So the missiles will hit in 5 minutes instead of 10? Kind of a distinction without a difference.
Whenever I think of how weird it is to see this part of Russia separated by other countries (the Kaliningrad Oblast) I'm reminded of Alaska and how it's in a similar situation - albeit with much friendlier relations with the intervening country.
-
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/putins-defence-chief-struck-by-mysterious-massive-heart-attack/
Stress? FSB?
-
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/putins-defence-chief-struck-by-mysterious-massive-heart-attack/
Stress? FSB?
There were rumors he'd had a heart attack last month, it was all over social media. But nothing was confirmed. It was notable enough that there were articles saying he'd made an appearance in the background of some meeting or other after not being seen for a while. Reuters had such an article I believe.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/
Russia is saying they'll have to station nukes in the Baltic if Sweden/Finland join NATO.
Russia already have nuke capabilities in Kaliningrad. This is already a reality. They have the missile capabilities since at least 2016. They renovated the bunkers for nuke storage in 2018. Their statements simply don't make sense - both I and others in Sweden, Poland and the Baltic states already live with this threat.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/russia-confirms-deployment-of-nuclear-capable-missiles-to-kaliningrad
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/18/kaliningrad-nuclear-bunker-russia-satellite-photos-report
Add the ships and submarines to that and they have even more capabilities (at least on paper).
I live within the reach of those Kaliningrad Iskander missiles right now, i.e. within the 500 km radius they have admitted to have (but some speculate they can reach further). I live 1-2 km from of one primary military targets and 2-3 km from of another so I might be early to check out permanently from the forum if they press the button.
Edit: after checking a map - they can also reach parts of Germany within that radius, including the city of Berlin, and also the Danish island of Bornholm.
I personally am tired of the Russian scare tactics. NATO might not need Sweden, but Sweden needs credible defenses and NATO might be a part of that.
-
This is a rough 500 km circle from the city of Kaliningrad, i.e. the admitted reach of the Iskander-M missiles there. Place one near St Petersburg too and you'll cover more of Estonia and Finland.
Add ships, subs and planes for further reach into Europe.
-
People are making fun of Russia right now. This is a video of the Ukrainians dis-assembling a Russian drone.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sPKSMeonxg[/url
I have seen several similar videos. I have noted that I do not see products manufactured in Russia sold on American store shelves. I think their manufacturing prowess took a big hit after the Soviet Union morphed into what they have now.
If they would have developed a true democratic government that allowed their people to innovate, I think they would have done better.
I do have an admiration for people who can take every day junk and turn it into some useful object. This may be an example.
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
Russia's saying it was ammo detonation as a result of a fire, but no word what caused the fire.
https://ria.ru/20220414/kreyser-1783435471.html
Whoo! Go Ukraine!
Russia is silent, and Ukraine is claiming they used missiles known to be in their possession. That's as close as agreement on the facts this will get, I suspect.
"Ukrainian officials claimed that shore-based anti-ship guided missiles hit Moskva which had been operating from the Black Sea Fleet’s headquarters in Sevastopol, Crimea."
https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship
Well, Moskva has now sunk. Russia was towing it to port, and there was a "storm" and it sank. I've seen some accounts that said there was no storm, but regardless, it sank.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61114843
Edit:
I'm seeing unconfirmed reports that only a fraction of the Moskva's crew was rescued. The ship apparently had a crew of around 500, and reports of 54 being rescued, that would be a huge hit to Russia if true.
-
Wow, the Ukrainians sunk 'Moskva', the Russian flagship in the Black Sea! An encounter with this battleship was recently memorialized in a Ukrainian stamp. https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/14/breaking-russian-flagship-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyed-in-ukraine/
Russia's saying it was ammo detonation as a result of a fire, but no word what caused the fire.
https://ria.ru/20220414/kreyser-1783435471.html
Whoo! Go Ukraine!
Russia is silent, and Ukraine is claiming they used missiles known to be in their possession. That's as close as agreement on the facts this will get, I suspect.
"Ukrainian officials claimed that shore-based anti-ship guided missiles hit Moskva which had been operating from the Black Sea Fleet’s headquarters in Sevastopol, Crimea."
https://news.usni.org/2022/04/13/russian-navy-confirms-severe-damage-to-black-sea-cruiser-moskva-crew-abandoned-ship
Well, Moskva has now sunk. Russia was towing it to port, and there was a "storm" and it sank. I've seen some accounts that said there was no storm, but regardless, it sank.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61114843
From your link:
"If the Ukrainian attack is confirmed, the 12,490-tonne Moskva would be the biggest warship to be sunk by enemy action since World War Two. "
-
"Ukrainian partisans have likely been active in the Melitopol region since at least mid-March. The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported that “unknown patriots” killed 70 Russian personnel in Melitopol on April 12, while the Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported that Ukrainian partisans killed 70 personnel in the area from March 20 to April 12—a more likely report.[22] ISW has previously assessed that growing Ukrainian partisan activities are likely tying down Russian forces in the region but we have not previously seen reports of specific Ukrainian partisan actions."
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-14
Looks like we might have some evidence to support what the residents of the occupied areas think of Russia.
-
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Tell me, what would of happened if we just built all our factories here in America and paid all Americans a fair wage, and the dollars circulated within our own country, would be better off?
Why are we so reluctant to hire our own people and want to build tons of factories in other countries?
-
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Tell me, what would of happened if we just built all our factories here in America and paid all Americans a fair wage, and the dollars circulated within our own country, would be better off?
Why are we so reluctant to hire our own people and want to build tons of factories in other countries?
Because its cheaper to have other countries do the manufacturing. Americans tend to demand such pesky things as time off, fair wages, health care, safe working conditions, and not dumping waste all over the environment.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/
Russia is saying they'll have to station nukes in the Baltic if Sweden/Finland join NATO.
I saw this on reddit, and some of the comments indicated that there were already nukes at Kaliningrad. Now, my knowledge of geography in that area is vague, but I'm pretty sure that Kaliningrad is in fact on the Baltic Sea, or at least very ne. Conclusion: Russia is blustering.
I'm fairly sure that Sweden and Finland aren't going to take what Russia thinks into consideration in the decision if they want to join NATO or not. So, great job Russia for just reinforcing the arguments FOR joining NATO.
So the missiles will hit in 5 minutes instead of 10? Kind of a distinction without a difference.
Whenever I think of how weird it is to see this part of Russia separated by other countries (the Kaliningrad Oblast) I'm reminded of Alaska and how it's in a similar situation - albeit with much friendlier relations with the intervening country.
Russia is relegated to threatening us with things that have already happened.
-
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Tell me, what would of happened if we just built all our factories here in America and paid all Americans a fair wage, and the dollars circulated within our own country, would be better off?
Why are we so reluctant to hire our own people and want to build tons of factories in other countries?
It would suck for both sides. Take a look back at the brief trade war that Trump started with China for a taste of what a sanction war might look like.
For your second point, our economic philosophy is built around what makes the shareholder and consumer happiest. The former wants a high return on investment, and the latter wants their product for the least cost. Both are satisfied by the product being made in cheaper labor markets.
-
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Tell me, what would of happened if we just built all our factories here in America and paid all Americans a fair wage, and the dollars circulated within our own country, would be better off?
Why are we so reluctant to hire our own people and want to build tons of factories in other countries?
It would suck for both sides. Take a look back at the brief trade war that Trump started with China for a taste of what a sanction war might look like.
For your second point, our economic philosophy is built around what makes the shareholder and consumer happiest. The former wants a high return on investment, and the former wants their product for the least cost. Both are satisfied by the product being made in cheaper labor markets.
That's what I was taught years ago in Macroeconomics. Years later I had a job where I had to travel around. I saw a lot of closed factories and run down towns. I certainly won't get anywhere arguing with the established dogma, but I've got my doubts. There are intangibles that may not be considered in classical econ. I won't elaborate further.
-
The neoliberal dogma is build on theoretical foundations that are proven to be wrong or laughably inaccurate, and from there they build their theoretical model on and on, while shouting at reality it should behave like they think instead of being different again and again.
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
China can also not afford that. The party is in power as long as it increases the wealth of the people.
-
I have seen several similar videos. I have noted that I do not see products manufactured in Russia sold on American store shelves. I think their manufacturing prowess took a big hit after the Soviet Union morphed into what they have now.
That is exactly true. In fact, a huge percentage of their more productive industry was located in....Ukraine. The Moskva is one of only three ships (now two) of its class. There was a fourth under construction in...Crimea. Antonov is based in...Ukraine. A lot of their engineering/science stuff was in Ukraine, and was lost when the USSR broke up. Also a lot of military production.
-
The neoliberal dogma is build on theoretical foundations that are proven to be wrong or laughably inaccurate, and from there they build their theoretical model on and on, while shouting at reality it should behave like they think instead of being different again and again.
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
China can also not afford that. The party is in power as long as it increases the wealth of the people.
I'm not saying the communist party is a good thing as they aren't into individual freedom and good stuff democracies have, but working to make the people's lives better is just what government is supposed to do.
Russia has all this oil money and money from selling other resources. They will have this money whether they treat their people well or treat their people poorly. They really don't have much incentive to help their people. Those oligarchs make their money either way. I guess the smart people in Russia have figured this out. A lot of them are leaving. Their talents should be welcomed in the "West." They would have continued to do well if they had stayed out of Ukraine. I'll bet a lot of those oligarch's have figured that out. It seems like a lot of them didn't even live in Russia.
When I saw the videos of soldiers stealing shoes and women's underwear from Ukraine, the thought occurred to me WTF? It all kind of makes sense.
I guess it's better when the people are in charge like the Europeans have rather than the oligarch thing.
Sorry for the interruption.
-
When I saw the videos of soldiers stealing shoes and women's underwear from Ukraine, the thought occurred to me WTF? It all kind of makes sense.
I think it's worth pointing out that there are similarities between Russian conscripts and what happened in the US in the late 60's during the Vietnam war. Those who could dodge the draft, did. Those without the resources to avoid it, got drafted. What I've heard is that the Russian conscripts are generally from very, very poor areas of the country, with very little exposure to western media or knowledge of western lifestyle. Hence we hear stories about Russian POWs being amazed at how well the Ukrainians live...and Ukraine has the second lowest GDP per capital of all of Europe, barely edging out Moldova!
It kinda reminds me of a scene in Hunt for Red October (the book, since this part isn't included in the movie), where the rescued Russian sailors are bussed from a naval port through a major city, and they are all amazed at how many people own cars, single-family homes, etc.
-
The neoliberal dogma is build on theoretical foundations that are proven to be wrong or laughably inaccurate, and from there they build their theoretical model on and on, while shouting at reality it should behave like they think instead of being different again and again.
If China were to fully support Russia, give them aid etc., what are we going to do sanction China?
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
China can also not afford that. The party is in power as long as it increases the wealth of the people.
I'm not saying the communist party is a good thing as they aren't into individual freedom and good stuff democracies have, but working to make the people's lives better is just what government is supposed to do.
Russia has all this oil money and money from selling other resources. They will have this money whether they treat their people well or treat their people poorly. They really don't have much incentive to help their people. Those oligarchs make their money either way. I guess the smart people in Russia have figured this out. A lot of them are leaving. Their talents should be welcomed in the "West." They would have continued to do well if they had stayed out of Ukraine. I'll bet a lot of those oligarch's have figured that out. It seems like a lot of them didn't even live in Russia.
When I saw the videos of soldiers stealing shoes and women's underwear from Ukraine, the thought occurred to me WTF? It all kind of makes sense.
I guess it's better when the people are in charge like the Europeans have rather than the oligarch thing.
Sorry for the interruption.
Yes, being accountable to the people pretty much always results in better outcomes.
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Using CIA World Factbook data for 2019, the U.S. losing all of China's imports would have a 2.6% GDP hit to the U.S. economy. For China, losing it's biggest export partner would cause a 2% hit (using PPP GDP, and not official exchange rates - it appears China's economy is slightly larger, but the numbers don't add up)
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#economy
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#economy
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
If unemployment spikes by 7% in China (the GDP impact), that's over 50 million unemployed people. In current lockdowns people are complaining of starvation and no access to hospitals... add unemployment and it becomes a very risky combination for the Chinese leadership. Since there's no elected leaders in China, their changes of power are all or nothing.
-
I seem to recall Russia lying about it's border exercises, and then invading Ukraine. I saw the Ukrainian movie theater with nothing else around except the word "children" written in the parking lot.. directly hit by Russia, who then lied about it being intentional. The train station missile didn't fully detonate, so Russian writing with "for the children" was still visible on it. All of this is context for me when Russia makes any kind of claim.
I've seen multiple news reports where Russia and Ukraine are treated as equally trustworthy, where statements on both sides are simply repeated. And they probably get their information from somewhere else! They don't add context about Russia's prior lying, or even assign an 80-95% chance Russia is lying. They just quote Russia, a known source for fake news.
And then, later, these same media stations are going to warn me of the dangers of fake news. They won't mean to be ironic, and they won't reflect on how they report everything Russia says word for word. Are there any news websites that provide context? Do I need to search for Ukrainian news stations?
-
I seem to recall Russia lying about it's border exercises, and then invading Ukraine. I saw the Ukrainian movie theater with nothing else around except the word "children" written in the parking lot.. directly hit by Russia, who then lied about it being intentional. The train station missile didn't fully detonate, so Russian writing with "for the children" was still visible on it. All of this is context for me when Russia makes any kind of claim.
I've seen multiple news reports where Russia and Ukraine are treated as equally trustworthy, where statements on both sides are simply repeated. And they probably get their information from somewhere else! They don't add context about Russia's prior lying, or even assign an 80-95% chance Russia is lying. They just quote Russia, a known source for fake news.
And then, later, these same media stations are going to warn me of the dangers of fake news. They won't mean to be ironic, and they won't reflect on how they report everything Russia says word for word. Are there any news websites that provide context? Do I need to search for Ukrainian news stations?
Honestly, one of the best ways I've found is to leverage social media. Yes, there's a lot of crap, but all it really takes is one person to comment with the missing context to tell me what to search for (assuming I have time, so I generally mentally assign "unconfirmed" to anything until I've checked). wikipedia is helpful.
I use twitter and reddit for this. Reddit - mostly the UkrainianConflict sub, but other things that end up on All. On twitter, there's a handful of users I've followed - they're all referenced somewhere in this thread. I do mentally assign "reliable" areas for each of them. Trent for example is reliable on logistics, crapshoot on the rest. Kamil is reliable on culture/history/demographics, but not the military. OISNT (I got that wrong probably) is good with hard numbers, they do video confirmation of destroyed units.
Anything that is a Russian source I assume they're not telling the truth, or not telling the whole truth. If they say the ship got hit then yes it got hit, but it's probably way worse than they admitted. Denial of a hit? Probably happened. Claimed a hit? Probably not what happened.
The Ukrainian sources, from what I can tell, absolutely are shading things and introducing propaganda. But they're closer to the truth than Russia, so I'll go with a soft-unconfirmed. Interestingly, I've seen multiple sources saying that the Ukrainian's numbers on Russian losses (which were much higher than anyone else's) were probably the most accurate, and even so they were conservative.
Reuters keeps things so short that the facts are there (generally), but they don't have the context to place the facts into the bigger picture. The rest of the media outlets are their usual spectrum of good to bad, or just behind the times. Washington Post is annoying the crap out of me with their format, I'm going to dump them and switch to NY Times eventually.
If you want assessment of the actual military stuff - The Institute of War, on twitter and they have a website. I've seen some good articles from various sources - Atlantic, etc, but I rely on social media to float them to me.
There are two Pravda (spelling?) websites. One is Russian, and is very much not believable. The other is Ukrainian, and much better.
Note that there are whole categories of things I am not seeking out and do not want to see, so I don't have good sources. Details on the innumerable atrocities for example.
In short: I don't have one source. I have a constellation of sources which I use to get a broad picture and then I look at specific things in more detail, and I am NOT trying to have an in depth knowledge of what's going on. I like my sanity.
-
I seem to recall Russia lying about it's border exercises, and then invading Ukraine. I saw the Ukrainian movie theater with nothing else around except the word "children" written in the parking lot.. directly hit by Russia, who then lied about it being intentional. The train station missile didn't fully detonate, so Russian writing with "for the children" was still visible on it. All of this is context for me when Russia makes any kind of claim.
I've seen multiple news reports where Russia and Ukraine are treated as equally trustworthy, where statements on both sides are simply repeated. And they probably get their information from somewhere else! They don't add context about Russia's prior lying, or even assign an 80-95% chance Russia is lying. They just quote Russia, a known source for fake news.
And then, later, these same media stations are going to warn me of the dangers of fake news. They won't mean to be ironic, and they won't reflect on how they report everything Russia says word for word. Are there any news websites that provide context? Do I need to search for Ukrainian news stations?
Try the big news agencies: AP, Reuters, Agence France Presse. Or the BBC, who are required by UK law to be accurate and unbiased.
-
CNN did an interview with Zelensky, not sure what date but very recent. Starts with asking him about Moskva, then moves on.
They asked how many people had died - civilians and military. On civilians, he said they just don't know how many have died in blockaded areas, and he didn't give a number for what they did know. He said that 2500-3000 Ukrainian military had died, and 10,000 injured. Compared to Russian military at 19-20k lost.
For their sake, I'll hope he's telling the truth about the casualties, but I suspect he's downplaying those numbers.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/tapper-zelensky-interview-cnntv/index.html
Whoever controls the official Defence of Ukraine twitter account has some trolling talent:
"The Ministry of Defence of Ukraine reminds the russian navy that the Black Sea straits are closed for entry only. The part of your fleet that remains afloat still has a way out."
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1514941186397683715
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Using CIA World Factbook data for 2019, the U.S. losing all of China's imports would have a 2.6% GDP hit to the U.S. economy. For China, losing it's biggest export partner would cause a 2% hit (using PPP GDP, and not official exchange rates - it appears China's economy is slightly larger, but the numbers don't add up)
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#economy
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#economy
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
If unemployment spikes by 7% in China (the GDP impact), that's over 50 million unemployed people. In current lockdowns people are complaining of starvation and no access to hospitals... add unemployment and it becomes a very risky combination for the Chinese leadership. Since there's no elected leaders in China, their changes of power are all or nothing.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Using CIA World Factbook data for 2019, the U.S. losing all of China's imports would have a 2.6% GDP hit to the U.S. economy. For China, losing it's biggest export partner would cause a 2% hit (using PPP GDP, and not official exchange rates - it appears China's economy is slightly larger, but the numbers don't add up)
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#economy
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#economy
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
If unemployment spikes by 7% in China (the GDP impact), that's over 50 million unemployed people. In current lockdowns people are complaining of starvation and no access to hospitals... add unemployment and it becomes a very risky combination for the Chinese leadership. Since there's no elected leaders in China, their changes of power are all or nothing.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
It's also important to look at the products we buy from China, halloween costumes, Christmas decorations, decorative objects and a lot of stuff that becomes thrift store donations or trash.
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Using CIA World Factbook data for 2019, the U.S. losing all of China's imports would have a 2.6% GDP hit to the U.S. economy. For China, losing it's biggest export partner would cause a 2% hit (using PPP GDP, and not official exchange rates - it appears China's economy is slightly larger, but the numbers don't add up)
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#economy
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#economy
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
If unemployment spikes by 7% in China (the GDP impact), that's over 50 million unemployed people. In current lockdowns people are complaining of starvation and no access to hospitals... add unemployment and it becomes a very risky combination for the Chinese leadership. Since there's no elected leaders in China, their changes of power are all or nothing.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
It's also important to look at the products we buy from China, halloween costumes, Christmas decorations, decorative objects and a lot of stuff that becomes thrift store donations or trash.
Yeah, we don't really need a good chunk of that stuff. Want? Yes. Need? No.
https://www.junglescout.com/blog/us-imports-from-china/
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Using CIA World Factbook data for 2019, the U.S. losing all of China's imports would have a 2.6% GDP hit to the U.S. economy. For China, losing it's biggest export partner would cause a 2% hit (using PPP GDP, and not official exchange rates - it appears China's economy is slightly larger, but the numbers don't add up)
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#economy
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#economy
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
If unemployment spikes by 7% in China (the GDP impact), that's over 50 million unemployed people. In current lockdowns people are complaining of starvation and no access to hospitals... add unemployment and it becomes a very risky combination for the Chinese leadership. Since there's no elected leaders in China, their changes of power are all or nothing.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
It's also important to look at the products we buy from China, halloween costumes, Christmas decorations, decorative objects and a lot of stuff that becomes thrift store donations or trash.
Apologies, because I'm sure you aren't, but I find comments like that a little bit racist. Things I bought over the last year that were made in China include my phone, laptop, the electric car we have on order, clothing, athletic shoes. I even bought a book from the US that arrived via China's post system so it must have been warehoused there? None of it is the tat you talk about, China just happens to make about everything I buy in Australia. That obviously has huge implications for sanctions, we had our own problems during the trade war with tariffs and coal ships being stopped.
-
I seem to recall Russia lying about it's border exercises, and then invading Ukraine. I saw the Ukrainian movie theater with nothing else around except the word "children" written in the parking lot.. directly hit by Russia, who then lied about it being intentional. The train station missile didn't fully detonate, so Russian writing with "for the children" was still visible on it. All of this is context for me when Russia makes any kind of claim.
I've seen multiple news reports where Russia and Ukraine are treated as equally trustworthy, where statements on both sides are simply repeated. And they probably get their information from somewhere else! They don't add context about Russia's prior lying, or even assign an 80-95% chance Russia is lying. They just quote Russia, a known source for fake news.
And then, later, these same media stations are going to warn me of the dangers of fake news. They won't mean to be ironic, and they won't reflect on how they report everything Russia says word for word. Are there any news websites that provide context? Do I need to search for Ukrainian news stations?
Try the big news agencies: AP, Reuters, Agence France Presse. Or the BBC, who are required by UK law to be accurate and unbiased.
The BBC quotes Russia without context - you can see their story earlier in this thread. I didn't quote it because my complaint has nothing to do with the poster who brought it up.
At least with AP & Reuters I expect raw "tape recorder" type reporting, but I certainly do not expect context of Russia's prior lying in their articles. I don't recall the specifics for DW & France 24, but believe they also left out context. Personally, I know the context - I'm just frustrated that for weeks Russian leadership gets quoted with no asterisk about their prior lies.
The Russian army left behind thousands of executed civilians, which were proved by satellite images to have been there when the Russians occupied Ukrainian cities. And yet when Russia dreamed up a conspiracy theory... the news media published it. And that gave China the cover to just say it needs to be investigated, instead of being forced into a corner for not blaming Russia for slaughtering civilians.
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
It's also important to look at the products we buy from China, halloween costumes, Christmas decorations, decorative objects and a lot of stuff that becomes thrift store donations or trash.
Apologies, because I'm sure you aren't, but I find comments like that a little bit racist. Things I bought over the last year that were made in China include my phone, laptop, the electric car we have on order, clothing, athletic shoes. I even bought a book from the US that arrived via China's post system so it must have been warehoused there? None of it is the tat you talk about, China just happens to make about everything I buy in Australia. That obviously has huge implications for sanctions, we had our own problems during the trade war with tariffs and coal ships being stopped.
If China supports Russia, and various countries sanction China, that strikes me as geopolitical, not racist. But if you prefer... we should buy from allies Japan, South Korea and Taiwan rather than China.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an autocrat attacking a democracy. It's a repeat of Russian attacks on Georgia and annexation of Crimea. In the background, China keeps making threats to take Taiwan by force - another autocrat threatening a democracy. China has harassed neighbors over maratime claims, and refuses to agree to the results of an international decision on where the lines are drawn. Eventually this becomes democracy vs autocrats, I don't think racism is the main consideration.
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
It's also important to look at the products we buy from China, halloween costumes, Christmas decorations, decorative objects and a lot of stuff that becomes thrift store donations or trash.
Apologies, because I'm sure you aren't, but I find comments like that a little bit racist. Things I bought over the last year that were made in China include my phone, laptop, the electric car we have on order, clothing, athletic shoes. I even bought a book from the US that arrived via China's post system so it must have been warehoused there? None of it is the tat you talk about, China just happens to make about everything I buy in Australia. That obviously has huge implications for sanctions, we had our own problems during the trade war with tariffs and coal ships being stopped.
If China supports Russia, and various countries sanction China, that strikes me as geopolitical, not racist. But if you prefer... we should buy from allies Japan, South Korea and Taiwan rather than China.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an autocrat attacking a democracy. It's a repeat of Russian attacks on Georgia and annexation of Crimea. In the background, China keeps making threats to take Taiwan by force - another autocrat threatening a democracy. China has harassed neighbors over maratime claims, and refuses to agree to the results of an international decision on where the lines are drawn. Eventually this becomes democracy vs autocrats, I don't think racism is the main consideration.
No you misunderstand me - I was saying that the implication that China only makes tat is a bit racist. They make quite a lot of high quality items.
-
Apologies, because I'm sure you aren't, but I find comments like that a little bit racist. Things I bought over the last year that were made in China include my phone, laptop, the electric car we have on order, clothing, athletic shoes. I even bought a book from the US that arrived via China's post system so it must have been warehoused there? None of it is the tat you talk about, China just happens to make about everything I buy in Australia. That obviously has huge implications for sanctions, we had our own problems during the trade war with tariffs and coal ships being stopped.
Yeah I sure buy a lot of stuff from China as well including my Apple products. My clothing etc..
Question for ya, if China and the U.S. become bitter towards each other with sanctions and what not, will Australia side with China or the USA? I saw this one video last night where this Australian architect is hired by China to help design a very large area. They are always constantly building.. it's pretty impressive looking at all these 4k walking tours of the various cities including Shangai. Shanghai makes most of America look like a third world country lol.
-
Apologies, because I'm sure you aren't, but I find comments like that a little bit racist. Things I bought over the last year that were made in China include my phone, laptop, the electric car we have on order, clothing, athletic shoes. I even bought a book from the US that arrived via China's post system so it must have been warehoused there? None of it is the tat you talk about, China just happens to make about everything I buy in Australia. That obviously has huge implications for sanctions, we had our own problems during the trade war with tariffs and coal ships being stopped.
Yeah I sure buy a lot of stuff from China as well including my Apple products. My clothing etc..
Question for ya, if China and the U.S. become bitter towards each other with sanctions and what not, will Australia side with China or the USA? I saw this one video last night where this Australian architect is hired by China to help design a very large area. They are always constantly building.. it's pretty impressive looking at all these 4k walking tours of the various cities including Shangai. Shanghai makes most of America look like a third world country lol.
The answer is the USA, but it would be very delicate. If we can't buy their goods prices will rise and they are a major buyer of our energy, metal ores & food. We have little manufacturing here. As an example, we grow cotton here but it goes overseas to be made into fabric. A lot of food gets grown here and processed there, although we do have some capability there at least. Even the toilet paper I buy (Who Gives A Crap) is made there!
We have an election coming up and I guess the outcome of that could change the exact way things are handled. China has recently made a move into the Pacific by signing a security deal with the Solomon Islands which has led to some nervous diplomatic talks.
-
CNN did an interview with Zelensky, not sure what date but very recent. Starts with asking him about Moskva, then moves on.
They asked how many people had died - civilians and military. On civilians, he said they just don't know how many have died in blockaded areas, and he didn't give a number for what they did know. He said that 2500-3000 Ukrainian military had died, and 10,000 injured. Compared to Russian military at 19-20k lost.
For their sake, I'll hope he's telling the truth about the casualties, but I suspect he's downplaying those numbers.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/tapper-zelensky-interview-cnntv/index.html
Whoever controls the official Defence of Ukraine twitter account has some trolling talent:
"The Ministry of Defence of Ukraine reminds the russian navy that the Black Sea straits are closed for entry only. The part of your fleet that remains afloat still has a way out."
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1514941186397683715
Oh yes, the Ukrainians are trolling hard. Did you hear about the postal stamp "Fuck yourself, war ship"? It started to sell 2 days before the ship had an "accident" and now there are long lines of people wanting to buy that stamp.
As a writer, this is seriously tear territory, because A) you would never dare to write such things and B) if you did, your editor would kick you out the door for writing such unbelievable crap.
In regards of the casualities, I do think the Ukrainians play down their own, but I dont' think they are increasing Russias losses (much). The defender always has a huge bonus and teh Ukrainians seem to be well trained in the type of warfare they do - why the Russians seem to be totally overwehlmed by their situation.
-
Imagine if we sanctioned China, and they sanctioned us back. We are so reliant on goods from China right? I mean there is a trade deficit between us. Wouldn't that destroy us?
Using CIA World Factbook data for 2019, the U.S. losing all of China's imports would have a 2.6% GDP hit to the U.S. economy. For China, losing it's biggest export partner would cause a 2% hit (using PPP GDP, and not official exchange rates - it appears China's economy is slightly larger, but the numbers don't add up)
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/#economy
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-states/#economy
But China's problem is actually much, much worse when you look at imports. The problem is that China's import partners (South Korea 9% Japan 8% Australia 7% Germany 7% U.S. 7% Taiwan 7%) are all allied more with the United States than China. They lose that entire list, giving a 5% impact relative to GDP.
If unemployment spikes by 7% in China (the GDP impact), that's over 50 million unemployed people. In current lockdowns people are complaining of starvation and no access to hospitals... add unemployment and it becomes a very risky combination for the Chinese leadership. Since there's no elected leaders in China, their changes of power are all or nothing.
It's also important to look at what products are in that 2%. We sell a lot of food to China.
It's also important to look at the products we buy from China, halloween costumes, Christmas decorations, decorative objects and a lot of stuff that becomes thrift store donations or trash.
Apologies, because I'm sure you aren't, but I find comments like that a little bit racist. Things I bought over the last year that were made in China include my phone, laptop, the electric car we have on order, clothing, athletic shoes. I even bought a book from the US that arrived via China's post system so it must have been warehoused there? None of it is the tat you talk about, China just happens to make about everything I buy in Australia. That obviously has huge implications for sanctions, we had our own problems during the trade war with tariffs and coal ships being stopped.
Yeh, I could be racist. However, definitely not towards the Chinese. I've seen these hoards of refugees from Ukraine and it bothered me. So, the point was made to me that the refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Central America, Africa, etc. did not bother me as much as those flooding into Poland. Sorry, it's true. However, don't worry I will not attend the Klan convention this year or any year. Nor will I be going to New Black Panther meetings.
-
Speaking of context, did anyone happen to watch the one hour Frontline documentary on Putin's rise to power? It was excellent. Described his KGB background and how he rose to succeed Brezhnev. While Brezhnev had actually started some democratic reforms, Putin quashed them and has continued to crack down harshly on any dissent. Even mild satirical criticism of him on TV comedy shows was quashed and the director was arrested.
Also I wonder if Putin's takeover of Crimea in 2014 - which was not repelled by the West, in hindsight a terrible mistake - had emboldened him to believe he could walk into Ukraine just as easily. (there's a chilling part of the documentary showing a televised session with his advisers where he sits in the front of the room and they all sit facing him like schoolchildren, and he asks them to speak one by one on whether they are for or against the invasion of Ukraine. They all look petrified and not one dared to say they were against it.)
Bottom line, this war is caused by a dangerous, paranoid and probably unhinged madman. I think this means this crisis will continue until Putin is satisfied with some concession to his ego, or he dies a natural or unnatural death.
-
I seem to recall Russia lying about it's border exercises, and then invading Ukraine. I saw the Ukrainian movie theater with nothing else around except the word "children" written in the parking lot.. directly hit by Russia, who then lied about it being intentional. The train station missile didn't fully detonate, so Russian writing with "for the children" was still visible on it. All of this is context for me when Russia makes any kind of claim.
I've seen multiple news reports where Russia and Ukraine are treated as equally trustworthy, where statements on both sides are simply repeated. And they probably get their information from somewhere else! They don't add context about Russia's prior lying, or even assign an 80-95% chance Russia is lying. They just quote Russia, a known source for fake news.
And then, later, these same media stations are going to warn me of the dangers of fake news. They won't mean to be ironic, and they won't reflect on how they report everything Russia says word for word. Are there any news websites that provide context? Do I need to search for Ukrainian news stations?
Try the big news agencies: AP, Reuters, Agence France Presse. Or the BBC, who are required by UK law to be accurate and unbiased.
The BBC quotes Russia without context - you can see their story earlier in this thread. I didn't quote it because my complaint has nothing to do with the poster who brought it up.
At least with AP & Reuters I expect raw "tape recorder" type reporting, but I certainly do not expect context of Russia's prior lying in their articles. I don't recall the specifics for DW & France 24, but believe they also left out context. Personally, I know the context - I'm just frustrated that for weeks Russian leadership gets quoted with no asterisk about their prior lies.
The Russian army left behind thousands of executed civilians, which were proved by satellite images to have been there when the Russians occupied Ukrainian cities. And yet when Russia dreamed up a conspiracy theory... the news media published it. And that gave China the cover to just say it needs to be investigated, instead of being forced into a corner for not blaming Russia for slaughtering civilians.
You've got a choice: either "purely factual" reporting - which has to include the facts of what Russia has said - or "facts plus commentary" - which may or may not report Russian statements and may or may not include commentary on whether Russia is lying. Some news sites may report a Russian statement when it is made and then do a fact-finding follow up on whether the statement is true or not. Or I suppose there may be sites which say "here is a Russian statement which is a lie" without doing the fact finding on that first. Your choice which you go for, but the options are out there for you.
-
https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1515343262143455243 (https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1515343262143455243)
Deputy Commander, Russian 8th Combined Arms Army killed in action. The Tweet is his funeral, which means he died a few days ago and the Ukrainians didn't notice they got him. 8th CAA controls the southern part of the Donbass region.
-
https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1515343262143455243 (https://twitter.com/ArmedForcesUkr/status/1515343262143455243)
Deputy Commander, Russian 8th Combined Arms Army killed in action. The Tweet is his funeral, which means he died a few days ago and the Ukrainians didn't notice they got him. 8th CAA controls the southern part of the Donbass region.
I'm seeing various things saying that the guy in charge of the navy was arrested. Also that Putin is purging from the intelligence service.
-
Speaking of context, did anyone happen to watch the one hour Frontline documentary on Putin's rise to power? It was excellent. Described his KGB background and how he rose to succeed Brezhnev. While Brezhnev had actually started some democratic reforms, Putin quashed them and has continued to crack down harshly on any dissent. Even mild satirical criticism of him on TV comedy shows was quashed and the director was arrested.
Also I wonder if Putin's takeover of Crimea in 2014 - which was not repelled by the West, in hindsight a terrible mistake - had emboldened him to believe he could walk into Ukraine just as easily. (there's a chilling part of the documentary showing a televised session with his advisers where he sits in the front of the room and they all sit facing him like schoolchildren, and he asks them to speak one by one on whether they are for or against the invasion of Ukraine. They all look petrified and not one dared to say they were against it.)
Bottom line, this war is caused by a dangerous, paranoid and probably unhinged madman. I think this means this crisis will continue until Putin is satisfied with some concession to his ego, or he dies a natural or unnatural death.
Yes, I watched that show. It made it seem like there is no way to change Putin’s mind. He is a determined man of whom everyone is afraid. He is setting the country back to Tzarist times and their statement to the effect that Brezhnev would be appalled at this war struck me as right.
Personally, I hope Putin meets an unnatural end and very soon.
-
Speaking of context, did anyone happen to watch the one hour Frontline documentary on Putin's rise to power? It was excellent. Described his KGB background and how he rose to succeed Brezhnev. While Brezhnev had actually started some democratic reforms, Putin quashed them and has continued to crack down harshly on any dissent. Even mild satirical criticism of him on TV comedy shows was quashed and the director was arrested.
Also I wonder if Putin's takeover of Crimea in 2014 - which was not repelled by the West, in hindsight a terrible mistake - had emboldened him to believe he could walk into Ukraine just as easily. (there's a chilling part of the documentary showing a televised session with his advisers where he sits in the front of the room and they all sit facing him like schoolchildren, and he asks them to speak one by one on whether they are for or against the invasion of Ukraine. They all look petrified and not one dared to say they were against it.)
Bottom line, this war is caused by a dangerous, paranoid and probably unhinged madman. I think this means this crisis will continue until Putin is satisfied with some concession to his ego, or he dies a natural or unnatural death.
Yes, I watched that show. It made it seem like there is no way to change Putin’s mind. He is a determined man of whom everyone is afraid. He is setting the country back to Tzarist times and their statement to the effect that Brezhnev would be appalled at this war struck me as right.
Personally, I hope Putin meets an unnatural end and very soon.
A natural end would be fine too.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia isn't claiming their dead, and Ukraine is picking the bodies up off the ground. 7000 of them so far.
Why don't they just bury them? It's perfectly reasonable to do a decent burial, even a mass grave, after they've repeatedly tried to transfer the bodies back to Russia. Take pictures, assign ID numbers, associate names if possible, bury all of them and record where each is buried. That's not disrespectful, it's practical in the face of the Russian government's disrespect. Ukraine doesn't need to strain their resources holding thousands of corpses indefinitely.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia isn't claiming their dead, and Ukraine is picking the bodies up off the ground. 7000 of them so far.
Why don't they just bury them? It's perfectly reasonable to do a decent burial, even a mass grave, after they've repeatedly tried to transfer the bodies back to Russia. Take pictures, assign ID numbers, associate names if possible, bury all of them and record where each is buried. That's not disrespectful, it's practical in the face of the Russian government's disrespect. Ukraine doesn't need to strain their resources holding thousands of corpses indefinitely.
Russia has claimed many less dead than their losses happen to be. Is this a way to help justify denying the additional losses?
Do they simply not care to give their loved ones the chance for a decent funeral?
Making arrangements to pick those bodies up just doesn't seem that hard. Undesirable, but not hard.
-
At least with AP & Reuters I expect raw "tape recorder" type reporting, but I certainly do not expect context of Russia's prior lying in their articles. I don't recall the specifics for DW & France 24, but believe they also left out context. Personally, I know the context - I'm just frustrated that for weeks Russian leadership gets quoted with no asterisk about their prior lies.
You've got a choice: either "purely factual" reporting - which has to include the facts of what Russia has said - or "facts plus commentary" - which may or may not report Russian statements and may or may not include commentary on whether Russia is lying. Some news sites may report a Russian statement when it is made and then do a fact-finding follow up on whether the statement is true or not. Or I suppose there may be sites which say "here is a Russian statement which is a lie" without doing the fact finding on that first. Your choice which you go for, but the options are out there for you.
Facts plus expert commentary would be my preference - but when I search for that I get a number of universities, not news sites. I'll probably take Jennifer's lead and check reddit for crowd sourced news & commentary.
-
At least with AP & Reuters I expect raw "tape recorder" type reporting, but I certainly do not expect context of Russia's prior lying in their articles. I don't recall the specifics for DW & France 24, but believe they also left out context. Personally, I know the context - I'm just frustrated that for weeks Russian leadership gets quoted with no asterisk about their prior lies.
You've got a choice: either "purely factual" reporting - which has to include the facts of what Russia has said - or "facts plus commentary" - which may or may not report Russian statements and may or may not include commentary on whether Russia is lying. Some news sites may report a Russian statement when it is made and then do a fact-finding follow up on whether the statement is true or not. Or I suppose there may be sites which say "here is a Russian statement which is a lie" without doing the fact finding on that first. Your choice which you go for, but the options are out there for you.
Facts plus expert commentary would be my preference - but when I search for that I get a number of universities, not news sites. I'll probably take Jennifer's lead and check reddit for crowd sourced news & commentary.
You mean me? And since I'm on my laptop and have all my links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/ (idiots here, but some good stuff)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/ (lot of idiots here, again some good stuff)
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/ (not exclusive of course, I just see it on r/All, also lots of idiots)
https://www.understandingwar.org/ and they have a twitter too, I just don't follow it
https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official (daily videos)
https://www.facebook.com/CinCAFU (he's the guy in charge of Ukraine's military, doesn't post much, but I check it periodically)
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko (logistics)
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical (pics of destroyed equipment, generally seem reliable - and I read what they retweet)
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani (background/history/cultural info)
https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews https://twitter.com/DeepNetAnon (I'm semi paying attention to the hackers)
https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael (military analyst or something, I don't know the lingo, seems to know what he's talking about, also read what he retweets)
And then twitter delivers other stuff to my feed, which I kinda see. Be careful with comments - lot of garbage on twitter. None of its perfect, all of it has to be taken with caution. But it is better about applying the context overall, because of the people commenting with the context. The mainstream articles which float to the top are sometimes garbage, sometimes really good.
And I found this today. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510366/state-of-ukraine I don't do podcasts normally, but NPR is good and I was doing something so listening worked out.
Edit: forgot this link. I just found it recently, haven't looked at a it a ton but the geography help is very much appreciated.
Live interactive map https://liveuamap.com/
-
Ukraine twitter list of Robert Mackey @RobertMackey https://twitter.com/i/lists/101285580
-
Ukraine twitter list of Robert Mackey @RobertMackey https://twitter.com/i/lists/101285580
Edit: Nevermind. Might be a different Mackey I'm thinking of.
-
I made the mistake of learning more about The Wagner Group and their behavior. Sickening. Some things can't be unseen.
The use of mercenaries makes me wonder, even if the US and Europe are afraid to give Ukraine air support, can't well-heeled private citizens supporting Ukraine buy fighter jets or hire mercenaries and send them to help Ukraine? I know it may sound silly but certainly there must be billionaires who are as aghast at this war as anybody else.
Well, there's now a #BuyMeAFighterJet initiative by Ukrainian pilots!
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1515648516634329091
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foPUxMvXbhk
Back to this, The Guardian: Sean Penn calls for billionaire to step up and buy aircraft for Ukraine (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/apr/01/sean-penn-calls-for-billionaire-to-step-up-and-buy-aircraft-for-ukraine). But they note:
However, a more serious obstacle to a billionaire buying F-15s and F-16s and flying them to Ukraine would be US export controls – major arms sales have to be approved by the US Congress before being allowed to proceed. “Typically fighter aircraft are sold by one government to another,” Netherwood added.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia isn't claiming their dead, and Ukraine is picking the bodies up off the ground. 7000 of them so far.
Why don't they just bury them? It's perfectly reasonable to do a decent burial, even a mass grave, after they've repeatedly tried to transfer the bodies back to Russia. Take pictures, assign ID numbers, associate names if possible, bury all of them and record where each is buried. That's not disrespectful, it's practical in the face of the Russian government's disrespect. Ukraine doesn't need to strain their resources holding thousands of corpses indefinitely.
Russia has claimed many less dead than their losses happen to be. Is this a way to help justify denying the additional losses?
Do they simply not care to give their loved ones the chance for a decent funeral?
Making arrangements to pick those bodies up just doesn't seem that hard. Undesirable, but not hard.
Yes, Russia would be very embaressed with so many deaths. Also the "soldier's mothers" were the only political movement that was ever a real danger to Putin. It's half of the reason why so many soldiers are from the other side of the country - sparsly populated, not very connected - where you don't end up with having a dozen funerals per day per town.
It's preferable the dead don't come back (at least for several months) for Putin. As long as there is no official message they are still alive, or worst MIA.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia isn't claiming their dead, and Ukraine is picking the bodies up off the ground. 7000 of them so far.
Why don't they just bury them? It's perfectly reasonable to do a decent burial, even a mass grave, after they've repeatedly tried to transfer the bodies back to Russia. Take pictures, assign ID numbers, associate names if possible, bury all of them and record where each is buried. That's not disrespectful, it's practical in the face of the Russian government's disrespect. Ukraine doesn't need to strain their resources holding thousands of corpses indefinitely.
Russia has claimed many less dead than their losses happen to be. Is this a way to help justify denying the additional losses?
Do they simply not care to give their loved ones the chance for a decent funeral?
Making arrangements to pick those bodies up just doesn't seem that hard. Undesirable, but not hard.
Yes, Russia would be very embaressed with so many deaths. Also the "soldier's mothers" were the only political movement that was ever a real danger to Putin. It's half of the reason why so many soldiers are from the other side of the country - sparsly populated, not very connected - where you don't end up with having a dozen funerals per day per town.
It's preferable the dead don't come back (at least for several months) for Putin. As long as there is no official message they are still alive, or worst MIA.
That still doesn't explain why Ukraine isn't just burying them.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia isn't claiming their dead, and Ukraine is picking the bodies up off the ground. 7000 of them so far.
Why don't they just bury them? It's perfectly reasonable to do a decent burial, even a mass grave, after they've repeatedly tried to transfer the bodies back to Russia. Take pictures, assign ID numbers, associate names if possible, bury all of them and record where each is buried. That's not disrespectful, it's practical in the face of the Russian government's disrespect. Ukraine doesn't need to strain their resources holding thousands of corpses indefinitely.
Russia has claimed many less dead than their losses happen to be. Is this a way to help justify denying the additional losses?
Do they simply not care to give their loved ones the chance for a decent funeral?
Making arrangements to pick those bodies up just doesn't seem that hard. Undesirable, but not hard.
Yes, Russia would be very embaressed with so many deaths. Also the "soldier's mothers" were the only political movement that was ever a real danger to Putin. It's half of the reason why so many soldiers are from the other side of the country - sparsly populated, not very connected - where you don't end up with having a dozen funerals per day per town.
It's preferable the dead don't come back (at least for several months) for Putin. As long as there is no official message they are still alive, or worst MIA.
That still doesn't explain why Ukraine isn't just burying them.
It does explain why the Russians are not notifying the parents of the deceased, but the Ukrainians are calling them. It is rather bizarre when the enemy gives more consideration for war dead than your own country would When the Ukrainians do this, they do give a spiel about the war and how Russia is doing an evil.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/7000-unclaimed-dead-russian-soldiers-left-in-morgues-ukraine-says-2022-4?utm_source=reddit.com
Russia isn't claiming their dead, and Ukraine is picking the bodies up off the ground. 7000 of them so far.
Why don't they just bury them? It's perfectly reasonable to do a decent burial, even a mass grave, after they've repeatedly tried to transfer the bodies back to Russia. Take pictures, assign ID numbers, associate names if possible, bury all of them and record where each is buried. That's not disrespectful, it's practical in the face of the Russian government's disrespect. Ukraine doesn't need to strain their resources holding thousands of corpses indefinitely.
Russia has claimed many less dead than their losses happen to be. Is this a way to help justify denying the additional losses?
Do they simply not care to give their loved ones the chance for a decent funeral?
Making arrangements to pick those bodies up just doesn't seem that hard. Undesirable, but not hard.
Yes, Russia would be very embaressed with so many deaths. Also the "soldier's mothers" were the only political movement that was ever a real danger to Putin. It's half of the reason why so many soldiers are from the other side of the country - sparsly populated, not very connected - where you don't end up with having a dozen funerals per day per town.
It's preferable the dead don't come back (at least for several months) for Putin. As long as there is no official message they are still alive, or worst MIA.
That still doesn't explain why Ukraine isn't just burying them.
Burying Russian soldiers in Ukraine would give the Russian government another reason for claiming Ukraine as Russian soil.
-
Sibley - Yes, I mixed up who mentioned the news sources earlier, thanks for the list. I probably should have said I don't visit Twitter, but do check reddit. So I've added the r/worldnews and will check back there.
former player - Russia will provide any vaguely plausible excuse, so if there's no war dead buried it will be something else. And I need to correct my own earlier concern over China being able to point to Russia's side of the story over civilian deaths. China would have the same stance either way, regardless of what Russia said.
If Putin is firing most of his military leaders, that's a good indication of a failed strategy. Looking at Georgia and Crimea, Russia took what they wanted and considered the war over. It's possible Putin expects he can take Eastern Ukraine and then try to end the war, while Ukraine expects to fight on to regain those territories.
Over the weekend, Biden agreed Nato planes could be sold/given to Ukraine, which could be a huge deal if it's acted on. Russia relies heavily on it's artillary, which is vulnerable to air strikes.
Decades ago the U.S. designed the A-10 warthog for a ground war in Europe, against the Soviet Union. It's designed for close air support of ground troops, taking out targets on the ground. It's able to withstand a lot of punishment, including a direct hit by an RPG. Considering it was designed for exactly the enemy Ukraine faces, it seems a shame the U.S. can't provide A-10s to Ukraine.
-
Decades ago the U.S. designed the A-10 warthog for a ground war in Europe, against the Soviet Union. It's designed for close air support of ground troops, taking out targets on the ground. It's able to withstand a lot of punishment, including a direct hit by an RPG. Considering it was designed for exactly the enemy Ukraine faces, it seems a shame the U.S. can't provide A-10s to Ukraine.
FWIW, the A-10 isn't very survivable in today's environment of MANPADs and larger SAMs. It's sexy as all get-out, but isn't as awesome as we all imagine it to be.
Now, if you had plenty of SEAD/DEAD to keep the Russian heads down, then yeah, the A-10 could wreak a lot of havoc.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
Just remember that barely anyone actually watches CNN - so whatever they're doing doesn't really matter.
And the reason no one watches CNN is what you've just articulated. They take the story de jour and devote a ridiculous amount of time to it. There's only so much information to talk about Trump, Ukraine, or whatever. Since the facts take 5% of the time the other 95% is taken up by meaningless speculation and commentary.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
You are exactly right. It's why I stopped watching news about a decade ago. Pretty much the only place I get my news anymore is placed like The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal - both still have actual news, done by actual journalists. Heck, even some long-form investigative journalism at that!
-
Very interesting thread by Kamil Galeev. Topics include literature and linguistics.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1516162437455654913
-
Just remember that barely anyone actually watches CNN - so whatever they're doing doesn't really matter.
The numbers really are staggering when CNN gets compared to other forms of media. CNN averages about 850,000 viewers in primetime [1 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/03/29/fox-news-makes-gains-in-1q-cable-news-ratings-while-cnn-msnbc-suffer-steep-declines/?sh=15a099bd6935)], so this guy's recent Youtube video on the Russian troop transport (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qONDdAC3dCA&t=9s) was seen by twice as many people as whatever talking head was on CNN.
-
So, the head of the Russian Orthodox church (Kirill), is providing vocal support and ideology to support Putins war in Ukraine. Church is supposed to be separate from the political system, though the history of the church in Russia has been, complicated. Good to see he is being denounced https://greekreporter.com/2022/04/06/archbishop-elpidophoros-slams-russias-orthodox-church-on-ukraine/. Here is a brief history of the Orthodox church in Russia, which provides background. https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/christianworld/article-701967/amp
-
So, the head of the Russian Orthodox church (Kirill), is providing vocal support and ideology to support Putins war in Ukraine. Church is supposed to be separate from the political system. Good to see he is being denounced https://greekreporter.com/2022/04/06/archbishop-elpidophoros-slams-russias-orthodox-church-on-ukraine/
I've read elsewhere that the head of the church used to be in the KGB in East Germany. Some have surmised that he is Putin's old boss. This link didn't go into it, but I've seen elsewhere that he is into the "Russian World" type of thinking. He and Putin are sort of buds.
The separation of church and state is a good thing.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
-
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
I think as news has gotten less profitable we've seen greater focus on the same stories over and over again because there are fewer total reporters and DEFINITELY fewer highly skilled investigative journalists.
In the USA we've lost huge numbers of local and regional papers that used to generate local stories that might be picked up by the associated press. As a result the news focuses more and more on just events in Washington and NYC, because that's where there are still journalists.
Even major natural disasters like the derecho in the midwest two summers ago tend to get short or little coverage because there just aren't that many reporters on the ground out there.
-
I've been paying some attention to the hackers, because I find it amusing. And there's been a lot of activity, from little, silly stuff to bigger hacks and leaked data. But I didn't add up how much leaked data. Saw this:
https://twitter.com/micahflee/status/1516521193808875527
That's a LOT of data. And this is the kind of thing that is a slow burn. It takes time to go through data, to do the research, come to conclusions. But with that much data available (so far!), the long term consequences for Russia could be big.
And the US is sending more to Ukraine. This article doesn't mention it, but I've seen tweets, etc that say aircraft parts and possibly entire airplanes have been provided.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/19/us-to-announce-another-colossal-military-aid-package-for-ukraine.html
-
I've been paying some attention to the hackers, because I find it amusing. And there's been a lot of activity, from little, silly stuff to bigger hacks and leaked data. But I didn't add up how much leaked data. Saw this:
https://twitter.com/micahflee/status/1516521193808875527
That's a LOT of data. And this is the kind of thing that is a slow burn. It takes time to go through data, to do the research, come to conclusions. But with that much data available (so far!), the long term consequences for Russia could be big.
I was in a livestream a few nights ago with some of those folks and they're still looking for people to sort through it all.
-
I've been paying some attention to the hackers, because I find it amusing. And there's been a lot of activity, from little, silly stuff to bigger hacks and leaked data. But I didn't add up how much leaked data. Saw this:
https://twitter.com/micahflee/status/1516521193808875527
That's a LOT of data. And this is the kind of thing that is a slow burn. It takes time to go through data, to do the research, come to conclusions. But with that much data available (so far!), the long term consequences for Russia could be big.
I was in a livestream a few nights ago with some of those folks and they're still looking for people to sort through it all.
It's going to take years. Because that's how much data they have available now - but I'm sure there will be more coming. There's a LOT of hackers who are taking a crack at Russia, and some of them are going to get through Russia's defenses.
-
Pentagon press conference. I'm hoping!! https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1516528734601465861
-
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
I think as news has gotten less profitable we've seen greater focus on the same stories over and over again because there are fewer total reporters and DEFINITELY fewer highly skilled investigative journalists.
In the USA we've lost huge numbers of local and regional papers that used to generate local stories that might be picked up by the associated press. As a result the news focuses more and more on just events in Washington and NYC, because that's where there are still journalists.
Even major natural disasters like the derecho in the midwest two summers ago tend to get short or little coverage because there just aren't that many reporters on the ground out there.
We have the same loss of regional newspapers here. They are bought up by bigger media companies and consolidated with the result that te news become less local. Interestingly enough one of the national newspapers have opened an office in my city because they want to follow the conversion to a green economy that is happening in this part of the country
-
Decades ago the U.S. designed the A-10 warthog for a ground war in Europe, against the Soviet Union. It's designed for close air support of ground troops, taking out targets on the ground. It's able to withstand a lot of punishment, including a direct hit by an RPG. Considering it was designed for exactly the enemy Ukraine faces, it seems a shame the U.S. can't provide A-10s to Ukraine.
FWIW, the A-10 isn't very survivable in today's environment of MANPADs and larger SAMs. It's sexy as all get-out, but isn't as awesome as we all imagine it to be.
Now, if you had plenty of SEAD/DEAD to keep the Russian heads down, then yeah, the A-10 could wreak a lot of havoc.
Of the seven A-10s shot down in this data, the pilots survived in 5 incidents. One was hit by a SAM, lost all hydraulics and was still trying to land in harsh weather when the pilot crashed. The A-10 has so many flares they drop a few just to say hello - that might help. But I could be missing more recent stats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
I'm just a civilian admirer, but have the impression U.S. army troops regard it highly. Bombs that go off target still explode, but a pilot doesn't have to pull the trigger on it's 30 mm gatling gun until the target is clear. It seems like a really effective weapon that's trusted by infantry.
I've heard Ukraine has more pilots than planes right now, so maybe they'd risk it.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
Tak! I have a friend who's back in Sweden now.
I think the news died on June 13, 2008. Tim Russert always did his homework, and
a politician pulled out some bullshit he called them on it. Compare that to his replacement, and it sounds more like a therapy session: "How do you feel about that?". No homework required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert
And in 2024 it will get worse - because ex-President Donald Trump will run again. The news media will repeat everything he says... ratings will go up... ad revenue goes up. Most TV channels may hate Trump, but I think it's more like the Erasure song: "I Love To Hate You". Not surprisingly, they don't feel the need to fix the problem of excessive revenue.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
Tak! I have a friend who's back in Sweden now.
I think the news died on June 13, 2008. Tim Russert always did his homework, and
a politician pulled out some bullshit he called them on it. Compare that to his replacement, and it sounds more like a therapy session: "How do you feel about that?". No homework required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert
And in 2024 it will get worse - because ex-President Donald Trump will run again. The news media will repeat everything he says... ratings will go up... ad revenue goes up. Most TV channels may hate Trump, but I think it's more like the Erasure song: "I Love To Hate You". Not surprisingly, they don't feel the need to fix the problem of excessive revenue.
Related to Tim Russert - His Book "Big Russ and Me" is terrific.
-
Fire at a Russian defense building.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/ (https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/)
Is there any significance to this? Another link
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html (https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html)
I would not think the Russians are being coordinated from a building that far away so see little link to the Ukraine war, but Russians do things top down so maybe there is a hidden story here and the fire may not be an accident.
-
I don't know, but I did find out from that article that Putin has declared Mariupol liberated. Sure..... but the city doesn't really exist anymore, so.....
They also apparently cancelled plans to go after the remaining defenders. That sounds like they knew the defenders would be able to kill a huge number of Russian troops, so they're just going to starve them out. I very much hope that there's a tunnel or some route out so that Russia can just keep on guarding an empty base.
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
Tak! I have a friend who's back in Sweden now.
I think the news died on June 13, 2008. Tim Russert always did his homework, and
a politician pulled out some bullshit he called them on it. Compare that to his replacement, and it sounds more like a therapy session: "How do you feel about that?". No homework required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert
And in 2024 it will get worse - because ex-President Donald Trump will run again. The news media will repeat everything he says... ratings will go up... ad revenue goes up. Most TV channels may hate Trump, but I think it's more like the Erasure song: "I Love To Hate You". Not surprisingly, they don't feel the need to fix the problem of excessive revenue.
At least there will be some limits to the crazyness as long as they don’t give back his twitter account.
-
Decades ago the U.S. designed the A-10 warthog for a ground war in Europe, against the Soviet Union. It's designed for close air support of ground troops, taking out targets on the ground. It's able to withstand a lot of punishment, including a direct hit by an RPG. Considering it was designed for exactly the enemy Ukraine faces, it seems a shame the U.S. can't provide A-10s to Ukraine.
FWIW, the A-10 isn't very survivable in today's environment of MANPADs and larger SAMs. It's sexy as all get-out, but isn't as awesome as we all imagine it to be.
Now, if you had plenty of SEAD/DEAD to keep the Russian heads down, then yeah, the A-10 could wreak a lot of havoc.
Of the seven A-10s shot down in this data, the pilots survived in 5 incidents. One was hit by a SAM, lost all hydraulics and was still trying to land in harsh weather when the pilot crashed. The A-10 has so many flares they drop a few just to say hello - that might help. But I could be missing more recent stats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
I'm just a civilian admirer, but have the impression U.S. army troops regard it highly. Bombs that go off target still explode, but a pilot doesn't have to pull the trigger on it's 30 mm gatling gun until the target is clear. It seems like a really effective weapon that's trusted by infantry.
I've heard Ukraine has more pilots than planes right now, so maybe they'd risk it.
I think the statistics provided are enough. Note that 5 of the A-10s were lost in a little less than two weeks of 1991. Todays radars have longer range and the ability to track more targets simultaneously. I’d be surprised if they also didn’t have the ability to network. As unimpressed as I am with the Russians’ performance so far, I don’t see the A-10s lasting very long against those defenses.
-
Decades ago the U.S. designed the A-10 warthog for a ground war in Europe, against the Soviet Union. It's designed for close air support of ground troops, taking out targets on the ground. It's able to withstand a lot of punishment, including a direct hit by an RPG. Considering it was designed for exactly the enemy Ukraine faces, it seems a shame the U.S. can't provide A-10s to Ukraine.
FWIW, the A-10 isn't very survivable in today's environment of MANPADs and larger SAMs. It's sexy as all get-out, but isn't as awesome as we all imagine it to be.
Now, if you had plenty of SEAD/DEAD to keep the Russian heads down, then yeah, the A-10 could wreak a lot of havoc.
Of the seven A-10s shot down in this data, the pilots survived in 5 incidents. One was hit by a SAM, lost all hydraulics and was still trying to land in harsh weather when the pilot crashed. The A-10 has so many flares they drop a few just to say hello - that might help. But I could be missing more recent stats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
I'm just a civilian admirer, but have the impression U.S. army troops regard it highly. Bombs that go off target still explode, but a pilot doesn't have to pull the trigger on it's 30 mm gatling gun until the target is clear. It seems like a really effective weapon that's trusted by infantry.
I've heard Ukraine has more pilots than planes right now, so maybe they'd risk it.
I think the statistics provided are enough. Note that 5 of the A-10s were lost in a little less than two weeks of 1991. Todays radars have longer range and the ability to track more targets simultaneously. I’d be surprised if they also didn’t have the ability to network. As unimpressed as I am with the Russians’ performance so far, I don’t see the A-10s lasting very long against those defenses.
The A-10 is an effective and inexpensive way to attack ground targets compared to its cousins. If the air picture was such that they thought the A-10 would be easy pickings, no aircraft will be providing ground support anyways. What can kill an A-10 can kill an F-16.
-
Who needs an A-10 when you can just use mini cruise missiles?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/21/mystery-drone-air-force-new-weapon-ukraine-00026970?2
On the other hand, I guess this sort of thing is why we can't afford decent healthcare in the US...
-W
-
I'm a little dismayed to see that CNN has turned into the 24-hour Ukraine war news channel. Interspersed briefly with segments like What are we going to do about inflation? or that the Queen of England didn't go to Easter services, and then it's right back to the war.
I fear that this non-stop coverage will cause people to turn away because they've been overloaded, not to mention that Other Stuff is still going on but we're not hearing about it.
I know it's important and it's happening live, but do we really need minute by minute updates around the clock?
I kind of miss the pre Trump years with more normal news. When we finally saw an end to the Trump idiocy of the day, then it was the pandemic non stop. Now, we have forgotten that covid exists and it is mostly Ukraine and the effects of the war. I have mostly stopped reading articles about the war and I never watch news on tv.
I think "normal news" probably ended about 30-40 years ago. Cable news has always been a shallow cesspit of sound bites, commentary, and speculation. How much time did CNN and the rest of cable news devote to the OJ Simpson case, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or any other big story in the last few decades? There's just no way to fill 24 hours of continuous news programming with meaningful information - at least not in a cost-effective manner. A bunch of talking heads in an echo chamber is much cheaper to produce than something like investigative journalism or on-site reporting. It's much easier to just regurgitate the same information a dozen different ways.
I didn’t specifically think about CNN or cable news as that is not what we have here in Sweden. In general I think the news have been more single issue focused or I am just tired of reading about all the crap in the world. Maybe it is time for a newspaper brake.
Tak! I have a friend who's back in Sweden now.
I think the news died on June 13, 2008. Tim Russert always did his homework, and
a politician pulled out some bullshit he called them on it. Compare that to his replacement, and it sounds more like a therapy session: "How do you feel about that?". No homework required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert
And in 2024 it will get worse - because ex-President Donald Trump will run again. The news media will repeat everything he says... ratings will go up... ad revenue goes up. Most TV channels may hate Trump, but I think it's more like the Erasure song: "I Love To Hate You". Not surprisingly, they don't feel the need to fix the problem of excessive revenue.
At least there will be some limits to the crazyness as long as they don’t give back his twitter account.
If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win. The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference. Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.
And then Mr Musk wants freedom. Who has been denied freedom on Twitter? Maybe one person more famous than anyone else? That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter. It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.
-
Who needs an A-10 when you can just use mini cruise missiles?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/21/mystery-drone-air-force-new-weapon-ukraine-00026970?2
On the other hand, I guess this sort of thing is why we can't afford decent healthcare in the US...
-W
No, you are a bit off balance with that remark. Health care in most parts of the world costs less than in the United States. Some countries where the health care costs less also deliver better results. So, how does this affect this discussion?
Well, if we had alternate health care that would leave even MORE money free for war weapons!
This Reuters article provides some clarity in Russia's aims for the war.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-fighters-hold-putin-claims-victory-mariupol-2022-04-22/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-fighters-hold-putin-claims-victory-mariupol-2022-04-22/)
From the article:
Rustam Minnekayev, deputy commander of Russia's central military district, was quoted by Russian state news agencies as saying Moscow aimed to seize the entire eastern Donbas region, link up with the Crimea peninsula, and capture Ukraine's entire south as far as a breakaway, Russian-occupied region of Moldova.
That would mean pushing hundreds of miles beyond current lines, past the major Ukrainian cities of Mykolaiv and Odesa.
Ukraine said his comments had given the lie to Russia's previous assertions that it has no territorial ambitions.
It looks like they want to go all the way around to Transnistria. they would then essentially, encircle Ukraine.
I hope the weapons Joe Biden gave them will help prevent this from happening. Of course, opinions may differ.
-
If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win. The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference. Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.
And then Mr Musk wants freedom. Who has been denied freedom on Twitter? Maybe one person more famous than anyone else? That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter. It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.
This is a very, very plausible scenario. Good business sense too . . . the kickbacks to Musk after Trump is re-elected will be significant.
-
If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win. The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference. Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.
And then Mr Musk wants freedom. Who has been denied freedom on Twitter? Maybe one person more famous than anyone else? That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter. It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.
This is a very, very plausible scenario. Good business sense too . . . the kickbacks to Musk after Trump is re-elected will be significant.
So a guy worth about $250 BILLION is going to spend another $45 BILLION to help get Trump re-elected so he can get government contracts and tax credits worth a few billion dollars that his companies will probably receive regardless of who's in the White House. Is that your argument?
The impetus for Elon Musk buying Twitter was probably the Babylon Bee (a conservative satire publication) getting their Twitter account suspended for calling a man a man. Musk called the CEO of Twitter to confirm that the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was actually suspended shortly before making his large stock purchase. He gave them an hour-long interview a couple of months ago and talked a lot about free speech, so he's clearly a fan. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.
-
If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win. The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference. Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.
And then Mr Musk wants freedom. Who has been denied freedom on Twitter? Maybe one person more famous than anyone else? That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter. It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.
This is a very, very plausible scenario. Good business sense too . . . the kickbacks to Musk after Trump is re-elected will be significant.
So a guy worth about $250 BILLION is going to spend another $45 BILLION to help get Trump re-elected so he can get government contracts and tax credits worth a few billion dollars that his companies will probably receive regardless of who's in the White House. Is that your argument?
The impetus for Elon Musk buying Twitter was probably the Babylon Bee (a conservative satire publication) getting their Twitter account suspended for calling a man a man. Musk called the CEO of Twitter to confirm that the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was actually suspended shortly before making his large stock purchase. He gave them an hour-long interview a couple of months ago and talked a lot about free speech, so he's clearly a fan. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.
This is the problem with in-group/out-group thinking. It makes us attribute to anyone in an 'out-group' from us nefarious motives. Although I'm not sure that this has to do with the situation in Ukraine...
-
I seem to recall Russia lying about it's border exercises, and then invading Ukraine. I saw the Ukrainian movie theater with nothing else around except the word "children" written in the parking lot.. directly hit by Russia, who then lied about it being intentional. The train station missile didn't fully detonate, so Russian writing with "for the children" was still visible on it. All of this is context for me when Russia makes any kind of claim.
I've seen multiple news reports where Russia and Ukraine are treated as equally trustworthy, where statements on both sides are simply repeated. And they probably get their information from somewhere else! They don't add context about Russia's prior lying, or even assign an 80-95% chance Russia is lying. They just quote Russia, a known source for fake news.
And then, later, these same media stations are going to warn me of the dangers of fake news. They won't mean to be ironic, and they won't reflect on how they report everything Russia says word for word. Are there any news websites that provide context? Do I need to search for Ukrainian news stations?
Try the big news agencies: AP, Reuters, Agence France Presse. Or the BBC, who are required by UK law to be accurate and unbiased.
The BBC quotes Russia without context - you can see their story earlier in this thread. I didn't quote it because my complaint has nothing to do with the poster who brought it up.
At least with AP & Reuters I expect raw "tape recorder" type reporting, but I certainly do not expect context of Russia's prior lying in their articles. I don't recall the specifics for DW & France 24, but believe they also left out context. Personally, I know the context - I'm just frustrated that for weeks Russian leadership gets quoted with no asterisk about their prior lies.
The Russian army left behind thousands of executed civilians, which were proved by satellite images to have been there when the Russians occupied Ukrainian cities. And yet when Russia dreamed up a conspiracy theory... the news media published it. And that gave China the cover to just say it needs to be investigated, instead of being forced into a corner for not blaming Russia for slaughtering civilians.
I can't suggest specific news sources that will solve that problem, but two Youtubers I watch that seem to be pretty on point in providing context around the news of the day is Beau of the Fifth Column (both U.S politics and Ukraine) and Perun (he specializes in military/defense analysis, right now centered around Ukraine). Beau is open about his progressive views, but also provides a lot of context for different topics that I simply don't see elsewhere. Perun doesn't do politics at all from what I've seen (except for being against the Ukraine invasion), and does more long-form analysis.
-
So a guy worth about $250 BILLION is going to spend another $45 BILLION to help get Trump re-elected so he can get government contracts and tax credits worth a few billion dollars that his companies will probably receive regardless of who's in the White House. Is that your argument?
The impetus for Elon Musk buying Twitter was probably the Babylon Bee (a conservative satire publication) getting their Twitter account suspended for calling a man trans woman a man. Musk called the CEO of Twitter to confirm that the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was actually suspended shortly before making his large stock purchase. He gave them an hour-long interview a couple of months ago and talked a lot about free speech, so he's clearly a fan. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.
Fixed that for you. Trans women are women.
-
Fire at a Russian defense building.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/ (https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/)
Is there any significance to this? Another link
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html (https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html)
I would not think the Russians are being coordinated from a building that far away so see little link to the Ukraine war, but Russians do things top down so maybe there is a hidden story here and the fire may not be an accident.
Nah, it´s just fire season over there.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1517538587151159297
-
From Twitter corrected to say just a warehouse. Still, a bunch of suspicious fires recently...
-
Karma coming to visit the Russians? Ukraine ought to take responsibility. And then a dozen western countries too. Probably the wrong thing to do but it would feel good for a moment. ;)
-
Just another summary of the war.
[url]https://www.nationalworld.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-ukraine-army-size-compared-russia-uk-us-nato-3581362[/url
Just think of how much good you could do with 200,000 strong young people instead of blowing up people's houses.
-
If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win. The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference. Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.
And then Mr Musk wants freedom. Who has been denied freedom on Twitter? Maybe one person more famous than anyone else? That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter. It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.
This is a very, very plausible scenario. Good business sense too . . . the kickbacks to Musk after Trump is re-elected will be significant.
So a guy worth about $250 BILLION is going to spend another $45 BILLION to help get Trump re-elected so he can get government contracts and tax credits worth a few billion dollars that his companies will probably receive regardless of who's in the White House. Is that your argument?
The impetus for Elon Musk buying Twitter was probably the Babylon Bee (a conservative satire publication) getting their Twitter account suspended for calling a man a man. Musk called the CEO of Twitter to confirm that the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was actually suspended shortly before making his large stock purchase. He gave them an hour-long interview a couple of months ago and talked a lot about free speech, so he's clearly a fan. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.
I certainly don't think it's Musk's only motive . . . but will still argue that it makes good business sense.
Tesla makes about 5 billion dollars a year. If he can swing a couple billion in tax credits or discounts that would be pretty significant - and would add up each year. Musk didn't get to 250 billion net worth by ignoring easy money - or by playing fairly. (A lot of people don't even know that he wasn't one of the founders of Tesla motors.)
Not sure how much of a fan of free speech Musk really is. He definitely wasn't a fan of it at all when his employees were talking about unionizing.
-
Karma coming to visit the Russians? Ukraine ought to take responsibility. And then a dozen western countries too. Probably the wrong thing to do but it would feel good for a moment. ;)
No, Ukraine certainly prefers plausible deniability here.
The "fire season" is also beginning right when Mariupol is about to fall with many thousand people, the majority of whom could be described as having been taken as hostages, surrounded by the Russian with troops ready for slaughter.
Do not underestimate the significance the events around Mariupol have for the Ukrainians.
THe Russians know this as evidenced by Putin personally stopping the final assault on the last redoubt of the Ukrainian forces and thousands of civilians in Mariupol.
The Ukrainian government has also made no doubt about that there is a red line about to be crossed in Mariupol.
This comes at a politically difficult time for Putin and he has no way to predict how hard the Ukrainians could hit soft targets in Russia.
-
Here is confirmation, were it required, that Russia has just gone full North Korea -
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1517641823426158594
"Russian authorities have arrested these people outside the Kremlin *for holding invisible signs.*"
-
A good explanation by Dugin on one way to view Ukraine from the Russian perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXNlNsOXqsM
The one-person chess analogy (i.e. the post-Cold War unipolar global order which he labels "liberal totalitarianism" elsewhere) is a key idea here. Controlling the narrative--or even falsely believing that you can control it--can be a dangerous drug.
Important to keep Kamil Galeev's observations/explanations in mind at the same time, however.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-health-holding-table-russia-b2063102.html
Sick man and his sick defense minister. Surprised he's now letting Shoigu sit right across from him instead of listening to him from the far end of a quarter-mile table. Either Shoigu is barely audible, or Putin has hearing issues, or hopefully both. Putin's always been shown seated in the photo ops from the last month or so, whereas they'd always show him doing his strongman walk. He definitely needs walking assistance.
Odds on him dying in the next 90 days from whatevers ailing him vs being taken out by someone in his inner guard?
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-health-holding-table-russia-b2063102.html
Sick man and his sick defense minister. Surprised he's now letting Shoigu sit right across from him instead of listening to him from the far end of a quarter-mile table. Either Shoigu is barely audible, or Putin has hearing issues, or hopefully both. Putin's always been shown seated in the photo ops from the last month or so, whereas they'd always show him doing his strongman walk. He definitely needs walking assistance.
Odds on him dying in the next 90 days from whatevers ailing him vs being taken out by someone in his inner guard?
I've seen speculation that the table grabbing is consistent with Parkinson's Disease. It starts with fairly minor tremors when your limbs are at rest. If you have your muscles active (such as holding a table or clenching your hands in a fist) the tremors are much reduced. If that's what he has, it's probably not going to kill him anytime soon.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-health-holding-table-russia-b2063102.html
Sick man and his sick defense minister. Surprised he's now letting Shoigu sit right across from him instead of listening to him from the far end of a quarter-mile table. Either Shoigu is barely audible, or Putin has hearing issues, or hopefully both. Putin's always been shown seated in the photo ops from the last month or so, whereas they'd always show him doing his strongman walk. He definitely needs walking assistance.
Odds on him dying in the next 90 days from whatevers ailing him vs being taken out by someone in his inner guard?
Low, but you can post your own guess here (https://www.metaculus.com/questions/10002/presidency-of-vladimir-putin-on-feb-1-2023/)
-
Here is confirmation, were it required, that Russia has just gone full North Korea -
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1517641823426158594
"Russian authorities have arrested these people outside the Kremlin *for holding invisible signs.*"
So we had peace signs against a war that is not happening, being in favor of the special operation, white sheets of paper and now invisible? The only thing left is thought crimes, yeah!
---
A sick Putin is of course a bad sign. He wants his name to go down in history as the restorer of Great Russia. If he knows he only has a year or two left (or even less) than he won't make any peace, however bad the situation goes.
On the other hand it's a bigger incentive for all aroudn him to get rid of the man that is throwing Russia back into the middle 20th century.
-
"In Russia the state has ordered publishers to eliminate the word "Ukraine" from textbooks. An attempt to erase a nation and a people, and to leave no trace, has begun."
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1517833610899955715
-
Here is confirmation, were it required, that Russia has just gone full North Korea -
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1517641823426158594
"Russian authorities have arrested these people outside the Kremlin *for holding invisible signs.*"
A guy was arrested a couple days ago for holding a sign that basically said "Nazis are bad" while standing next to a WW2 memorial. Police now automatically assume if you're putting on any public display you're against the government.
-
And in case you thought Kherson was just a distant memory:
https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1517681600925941762?s=20&t=dVvU4CML8FgFrG5i23uK3g (https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1517681600925941762?s=20&t=dVvU4CML8FgFrG5i23uK3g)
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1517872983506837504 (https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1517872983506837504)
Even if these numbers turn out to be only half accurate, this is just insane.
-
Putin has no shame. He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself. As if God is going to bless him, snort.
Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.
-
After they sunk the Russian battleship, they moved the other battleships offshore further. However, I saw a video that now the Russians are using submarines to fire missiles at the coast of Ukraine. The subs can be 50 meters below the surface and still fire the missiles.
How do you stop a submarine?
If Putin is sick, it may be that his contract is up. I think the standard contract is 24 years. That's what the devil gave Faust. So, he probably signed his contract about 1998 or 1999. It looks like he is working very hard to get himself a good spot in hell. This Ukraine invasion pretty well guarantees it.
-
This video tells of Ukraine's second biggest enemy. These guys are really good with contracts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4g-M91WGbI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4g-M91WGbI)
-
Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.
I'm watching Winter on Fire, a documentary about the 2013/2014 revolution in Ukraine. Been meaning to at least a month, finally sat down and watched it. Highly recommend it. It's on Netflix, not sure where else. The Ukrainians have guts. They had a march with 1 million people early on - and there's something like 40 million in their entire country. They fought for freedom then, and they won.
-
Fire at a Russian defense building.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/ (https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/huge-fire-at-top-secret-russian-defence-hq-leaves-one-dead-and-30-wounded/)
Is there any significance to this? Another link
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html (https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-massive-fire-at-nii-2-building-of-russian-ministry-of-defence-in-tver-watch-articleshow.html)
I would not think the Russians are being coordinated from a building that far away so see little link to the Ukraine war, but Russians do things top down so maybe there is a hidden story here and the fire may not be an accident.
Nah, it´s just fire season over there.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1517538587151159297
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1518413419187257344
-
If you mean the current board members of Twitter, if Elon Musk is patient he'll likely win. The board has less than 0.1% voting power while Mr Musk has somewhere near 10%, or a 100:1 difference. Eventually they'll see the writing on the wall.
And then Mr Musk wants freedom. Who has been denied freedom on Twitter? Maybe one person more famous than anyone else? That's what I think happens before the 2024 elections - Mr Musk restores Trump on Twitter. It's also possible Mr Musk has other ideas, or won't pursue ownership of Twitter... but my guess is this coin flip lands on Musk + Trump.
This is a very, very plausible scenario. Good business sense too . . . the kickbacks to Musk after Trump is re-elected will be significant.
So a guy worth about $250 BILLION is going to spend another $45 BILLION to help get Trump re-elected so he can get government contracts and tax credits worth a few billion dollars that his companies will probably receive regardless of who's in the White House. Is that your argument?
The impetus for Elon Musk buying Twitter was probably the Babylon Bee (a conservative satire publication) getting their Twitter account suspended for calling a man a man. Musk called the CEO of Twitter to confirm that the Babylon Bee's Twitter account was actually suspended shortly before making his large stock purchase. He gave them an hour-long interview a couple of months ago and talked a lot about free speech, so he's clearly a fan. I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.
This is the problem with in-group/out-group thinking. It makes us attribute to anyone in an 'out-group' from us nefarious motives. Although I'm not sure that this has to do with the situation in Ukraine...
I don't see evidence in my post of group thinking and nefarious motives. Donald Trump is banned from Twitter, and I think it's a very small leap to call him the most famous person banned from Twitter. Then you add in Mr Musk wanting to bring freedom to Twitter - it's a pretty easy connection to make.
Just to add some additional information, Mr Musk strongly protested California's Covid-19 laws. He was angry enough to move his company headquarters from California to Texas. To me, this sounds more like a libertarian.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/07/tesla-moves-its-headquarters-from-california-to-texas.html
Another form of mental bias is "all or none" thinking, where you assume if Michael in ABQ's scenario is true, what I said can't happen. Elon Musk can do more than one thing once he controls Twitter. I suspect he'll do both, which also fits with his tendancy to be controversial.
I guess I'm only extending the tangent which started as a complaint about the lack of context around news from Ukraine. Since I don't follow where my post exibits group thinking and nefarious motives, I thought it worth exploring.
-
Putin has no shame. He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself. As if God is going to bless him, snort.
Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.
That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will. I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule. If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.
By the way, another footnote on Russia's lies about the Moscow: after claiming it was just a fire, they retaliated against the factory that makes Neptune ship destroying missiles. I see, no missile hit your ship, and then you retaliated against the missle that didn't hit your ship...
-
Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.
How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations? I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors. E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.
-
The US objective in Ukraine has been made official and matches the Ukrainian objective:
"... Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. secretary of defense, said that there would be a more detailed discussion about what Ukraine would need to prevail against Russia at a meeting in Germany on Tuesday. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” he said."
-
Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.
How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations? I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors. E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.
I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.
-
Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.
How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations? I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors. E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.
I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.
The biggest chunk of US debt is intragovernmental, i.e. Social Security loaning money to the rest of the federal government. Foreign interests come second, with Japan holding about $1.3T and China holding $1.1T. Source (https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124). Interestingly, the UK, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Ireland come next.
-
The US objective in Ukraine has been made official and matches the Ukrainian objective:
"... Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. secretary of defense, said that there would be a more detailed discussion about what Ukraine would need to prevail against Russia at a meeting in Germany on Tuesday. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” he said."
This quote should make for good Russian propaganda.
(edited to correct a weird autocorrect)
-
The US objective in Ukraine has been made official and matches the Ukrainian objective:
"... Lloyd J. Austin III, the U.S. secretary of defense, said that there would be a more detailed discussion about what Ukraine would need to prevail against Russia at a meeting in Germany on Tuesday. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” he said."
This quote should make-or-break good Russian propaganda.
Maybe, but the way I am currently looking at yesterday's events is that the US has stepped forward and essentially said that there are now enough fish in the barrel and that the US does not give a damn about Russia's feelings.
There are two ways how this is important in terms of propaganda.
Firstly, Russian propaganda does its best to frame the war as one caused by NATO's intransigent behavior and has spent years painting NATO as the enemy. By clearly identifying the defeat and elimination of Russia's military capacities for a future war of this scale and this type of conduct as US objectives by the US Secretary of Defense, will require recalibration of Russian propaganda towards the US as the enemy #1 and NATO #2. Not that easy to do, but even if they manage to do that, it still takes NATO somewhat out of the limelight while it reorganizes.
Secondly, there is that issue with Germany. Germany has committed to increase their defense spending massively. The German military is not in good shape right now, but what, paradoxically, will happen is that they will emerge with one of the most advanced and powerful militaries in the world.
For historical reasons, Germany cannot afford to emerge from this war as the nation that brought defeat to Russia. It is also not in the interest of other European nations - notwithstanding the current complaints that Germany is not doing enough. US Secretary of Defense Austin's message preempted the perception that Germany is in some way a major player leading the western involvement in the war against Russia: the outcome of the war in Ukraine is a matter of US interest first.
Well, that´s how I look at it right now but it´s early. Let´s see what happens next.
-
Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.
Putin has no shame. He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself. As if God is going to bless him, snort.
Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.
That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will. I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule. If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.
Ahem... The head of the Russian orthodox church Kiril is an ex-KGB from the same town as Putin - St. Petersburg. Also a billionaire I think (the Kreml photoshopped a 30K watch away from his wrist but forgot the reflection in the polished table. Amateurs!)
He is one of Putins closest lackeys, that's why Putin can play the religious one.
-
Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.
How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations? I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors. E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.
I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.
The biggest chunk of US debt is intragovernmental, i.e. Social Security loaning money to the rest of the federal government. Foreign interests come second, with Japan holding about $1.3T and China holding $1.1T. Source (https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124). Interestingly, the UK, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Ireland come next.
I don't think the US is at the highest risk of debt slavery. Who owns, say, Sudan's debt? Or Yemen? Let's go down the list of all the poor, troubled countries. Those are the ones who most need debt cancellation.
-
Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.
I hear you.
It´s the most amazing thing - Germany has this massive defense industry and yet is brutally incompetent by any measure in actually making use of its own products - even McKinsey agrees.
Blows my mind whenever I think about it.
-
Amazing how awful people can be, right pecunia? I think there should be mass, worldwide, national debt cancellation. Country A owes B, B owes A - cancel it out. Then we'll wipe out what's left.
How much of national debt is actually held directly by other nations? I was under the impression that the lion share of national debt (usually in the form of bonds) is owned by local and foreign non-state investors. E.g. people like you and me, often indirectly if we own fund shares or similar instruments, as well as by professional investors in various forms.
I've been told that China owns a great deal of US Treasuries directly. But yeah, you're right. It wouldn't be easy. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.
The biggest chunk of US debt is intragovernmental, i.e. Social Security loaning money to the rest of the federal government. Foreign interests come second, with Japan holding about $1.3T and China holding $1.1T. Source (https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124). Interestingly, the UK, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Ireland come next.
Perhaps the largest single holder. According to usaspending.gov most US debt is owned by US investors, followed by the Fed, followed by the Social Security Trust Fund, followed by Japan.
https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/debt/analysis/
-
Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.
Putin has no shame. He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself. As if God is going to bless him, snort.
Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.
That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will. I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule. If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.
Ahem... The head of the Russian orthodox church Kiril is an ex-KGB from the same town as Putin - St. Petersburg. Also a billionaire I think (the Kreml photoshopped a 30K watch away from his wrist but forgot the reflection in the polished table. Amateurs!)
He is one of Putins closest lackeys, that's why Putin can play the religious one.
They are such criminals, literally.
-
Don't worry about Germany getting a good army. The ones most surpised about it would the Germans. We have successfully peaced our forces by dividing money until it disappears, than we invited McKinsey to encircle the last pockets of resistance and burn away any monetary ammunition left.
Putin has no shame. He went to Easter church services and was seen repeatedly crossing himself. As if God is going to bless him, snort.
Then afterwards, I assume it was back to the regularly scheduled carnage.
That also shows the extent to which churches in Russia are bent to Putin's will. I believe in Poland, it was the church (Catholic?) which organized mass protests against Communist rule. If there's a popular movement against Putin (which probably wouldn't matter to him), it would likely start there.
Ahem... The head of the Russian orthodox church Kiril is an ex-KGB from the same town as Putin - St. Petersburg. Also a billionaire I think (the Kreml photoshopped a 30K watch away from his wrist but forgot the reflection in the polished table. Amateurs!)
He is one of Putins closest lackeys, that's why Putin can play the religious one.
They are such criminals, literally.
. Yes. If Putin is ever prosecuted, Kiril should be tried as well
-
Could Poland and Bulgaria very quickly build a couple nuclear power plants for warming homes? Since Russia cut off their natural gas.
-
Could Poland and Bulgaria very quickly build a couple nuclear power plants for warming homes? Since Russia cut off their natural gas.
From what I understand nuclear power plants don't happen quickly. I believe there are already plans in place to get more gas from Norway to Poland and Bulgaria next autumn.
Now, if only Germany would get it's act together so that we could also cut off Russian gas.
-
I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.
Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?
We have an interesting two lake nuclear system near by. The nuclear plant and the hydro plant work together, during low demand the dam runs in reverse and pumps water to the upper lake using the excess nuclear power. During high demand the hydro dam is business as usual.
As a side bonus, there is a beach by where the cooling water comes out. It's nice and warm most of the year ....
-
I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.
Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?
In addition to any "real" facts and the weighing between different factors and risks, do remember that northern Europe was hard hit by fallout from Chernobyl, and even before that some countries had a large anti-nuclear fraction of the political spectrum. The German decisions to shut down nuclear power was taken after the Japanese tsunami and the Fukushima incident back in 2011. It is therefore to a large degree driven by other factors than a "pure" calculations of risks and rewards - a large portion of fear of the invisible radioactive threat from nuclear power plants.
The "green parties" seem to place closing down of nuclear higher than reducing co2 on their agenda, at least in my country and as far as I can see also in Germany.
The political opinions about this are now changing in many places since they realize that both the Russian threat and the CO2 would make it make more sense to have modern, safe nuclear power plants than to rely on Russian fossil fuels. A switchover takes time, though.
-
One interesting piece of news now is that a high-ranking Gazprom manager by the name of Igor Volobuyev has left Russia to go fight in the Ukrainian army. He talks about how Gazprom go around sanctions regarding payments etc and that his conscience couldn't take being part of the Russian side any more.
I haven't yet found a long form article in English about it, but for those who can read it or trust google translate, here a few links to the sources:
https://www.liga.net/politics/interview/ya-uchastvoval-v-voyne-istoriya-vitse-prezidenta-gazprombanka-kotoryy-sbejal-iz-rossii
https://theins.ru/news/250661
I found it in Swedish here (probably paywalled for most of you):
https://www.svd.se/a/eEgP4a/rysk-chef-pa-gazprom-flyr-for-att-strida-i-ukraina
I'm sure longer version will appear in English language media soon too.
-
One interesting piece of news now is that a high-ranking Gazprom manager by the name of Igor Volobuyev has left Russia to go fight in the Ukrainian army. He talks about how Gazprom go around sanctions regarding payments etc and that his conscience couldn't take being part of the Russian side any more.
I haven't yet found a long form article in English about it, but for those who can read it or trust google translate, here a few links to the sources:
https://www.liga.net/politics/interview/ya-uchastvoval-v-voyne-istoriya-vitse-prezidenta-gazprombanka-kotoryy-sbejal-iz-rossii
https://theins.ru/news/250661
I found it in Swedish here (probably paywalled for most of you):
https://www.svd.se/a/eEgP4a/rysk-chef-pa-gazprom-flyr-for-att-strida-i-ukraina
I'm sure longer version will appear in English language media soon too.
He's probably made the safer choice.
-
So many Gazprom people suicided in the last weeks...
I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.
Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?
In addition to any "real" facts and the weighing between different factors and risks, do remember that northern Europe was hard hit by fallout from Chernobyl,
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
-
So many Gazprom people suicided in the last weeks...
I'm not sure why they aren't already running the nuclear + hydro.
Am I ignorant of the true environmental impact of nuclear over gas?
In addition to any "real" facts and the weighing between different factors and risks, do remember that northern Europe was hard hit by fallout from Chernobyl,
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
Renewables do not produce a uniform quantity of energy. Renewables may not work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. There is currently no realistic way to store the vast amount of energy needed during these times when Mother Nature doesn't favor the production of energy.
It is hoped that fantastic improvements will be made in batteries. This is akin to the hope for nuclear fusion.
In the meantime, renewables need to be backed up by a reliable form of power production.
So 30 percent of EU Uranium comes from Russia, so let's see what Mr. Wiki says:
Globally, the distribution of uranium ore deposits is widespread on all continents, with the largest deposits found in Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. To date, high-grade deposits are only found in the Athabasca Basin region of Canada.
The great thing about Uranium fuel is that it is only replaced every 18 months or two years. This gives you time to find a new source for the fuel. However, unlike coal or natural gas the fuel must be made into fuel rods and the fuel rods needed for each type of reactor may only be manufactured at specific locations.
The Ukraine war and Chernobyl make me think the Russians are like an evil Santa Claus. They just never stop giving presents you don't want. Now they are shutting off the gas.
Nuclear plants in the West were not built like Chernobyl. It is an Apples to Oranges thing. I look at Chernobyl a little bit like burning wood in your house without a stove. The Chernobyl house may have burned down, but should you blame the wood?
-
Hydroelectric and tidal barriers are both renewable sources of energy that can be timed to the need (tidal a bit less so, I grant you).
-
If expensive qualifications and requirements could be setup, Thorium reactors could be less toxic and produce 100x less nuclear waste (which also fades faster). But nuclear reactors aren't something you throw together at the last minute, so it's no help to the EU as Russia blackmails them with turning off oil & LNG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Poland's reaction is diplomatic but telling: EU countries should re-examine their depdence on Russia for energy sources. Or to shorten that: "Germany, WTF?"
"A majority of Germans is in favour of stopping oil and gas imports from Russia even if an embargo would lead to supply problems in the country. In a survey by public broadcaster ZDF, 55 percent of respondents supported an import ban, while while 39 percent were against."
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/majority-germans-favour-oil-and-gas-embargo-against-russia-survey
Then again, German elections were at the end of 2021, which take pressure off Politicians to act... although this does seem like an issue that's too big to ignore. If Germany is willing to double it's defense budget over fears of a Russian military, maybe funding the Russian military isn't that strategic.
-
I continue to be really impressed with Poland through all of this. They clearly were prepared for many years for something to go wrong with Russia, including avoiding ever becoming as dependent on Russian gas as countries farther west, and now they're putting that plan into place.
They've done dramatic things in terms of reshaping their society and cities to welcome refugees. About one out of every 12 people in Poland today is a Ukrainian refugee. To hit that same proportion the USA would need to welcome 28 million refugees.
-
I noticed this today. I know that there has been speculation about Russia's cyber-warfare capabilities.
CNN: Russian hacking in Ukraine has been extensive and intertwined with military operations, Microsoft says (https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/europe/russia-cyberattacks-ukraine-war-microsoft/index.html)
-
I continue to be really impressed with Poland through all of this. They clearly were prepared for many years for something to go wrong with Russia, including avoiding ever becoming as dependent on Russian gas as countries farther west, and now they're putting that plan into place.
They've done dramatic things in terms of reshaping their society and cities to welcome refugees. About one out of every 12 people in Poland today is a Ukrainian refugee. To hit that same proportion the USA would need to welcome 28 million refugees.
What I've read says the same thing over and over: the Poles have been there, they know what it's like. It may have been decades ago, but their culture remembers.
I too am impressed with the people of Poland. Not necessarily with their government in other ways, but people are complex. I'm glad to see the good side.
-
Poland lived under Soviet rule. There is no desire or appetite to live under Russian rule. They see in Ukraine the same will for independence. And frankly are inspired by their fighting spirit. Anything that Poland does, in addition to helping Ukraine, is also to give a big middle finger to Putin. That said there is fear of the war expanding. Long term economic, social/crowding concerns. there is going to be yet another generation of people who are displaced, often losing everything, and possibly stuck in some areas that will be permanently occupied with oppressive tactics. I can't really watch the news right now.
-
Poland lived under Soviet rule. There is no desire or appetite to live under Russian rule. They see in Ukraine the same will for independence. And frankly are inspired by their fighting spirit. Anything that Poland does, in addition to helping Ukraine, is also to give a big middle finger to Putin. That said there is fear of the war expanding. Long term economic, social/crowding concerns. there is going to be yet another generation of people who are displaced, often losing everything, and possibly stuck in some areas that will be permanently occupied with oppressive tactics. I can't really watch the news right now.
Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time? They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable. Besides this those sanctions must do some good. It doesn't seem that they have affected Russian actions much, but it's said they are like an illness that gradually weakens the country they are applied to.
Maybe if some of those Ukrainians came to the US, they could help revive the rust belt. All those steel mills and such used to have a lot of Polish and Ukrainian workers. I think smart people with a good work ethic could still make a good life for themselves.
-
Poland lived under Soviet rule. There is no desire or appetite to live under Russian rule. They see in Ukraine the same will for independence. And frankly are inspired by their fighting spirit. Anything that Poland does, in addition to helping Ukraine, is also to give a big middle finger to Putin. That said there is fear of the war expanding. Long term economic, social/crowding concerns. there is going to be yet another generation of people who are displaced, often losing everything, and possibly stuck in some areas that will be permanently occupied with oppressive tactics. I can't really watch the news right now.
Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time? They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable. Besides this those sanctions must do some good. It doesn't seem that they have affected Russian actions much, but it's said they are like an illness that gradually weakens the country they are applied to.
Maybe if some of those Ukrainians came to the US, they could help revive the rust belt. All those steel mills and such used to have a lot of Polish and Ukrainian workers. I think smart people with a good work ethic could still make a good life for themselves.
Not likely. The Russians can continue to hold the Donbass as they have for the last 8 years. Typical military calculations are you need 3-4x advantage in numbers as the attacker vs. the defender. Ultimately this still achieves some of Putin's goals of controlling Ukraine as a buffer area between NATO and Russia.
As Americans we don't have any collective memory of being invaded except for a handful of isolated attacks (9/11 & Pearl Harbor). Russian meanwhile has been invaded multiple times in the last couple hundred years and has no natural barriers (oceans, mountains, swamps, rivers, etc.) between it and the rest of Europe and Asia. It may seem completely unthinkable that Germany or France would invade Russia again - but things can change quickly. Germany went from a shattered wreck after losing WW1 to conquering Europe just 20 years later. Putin has seen Ukraine as a buffer that would absorb an attack from the west as that is all Russia has ever had for defense - sheer distance (and the winter).
-
Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time? They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable.
If they actually went all the way to the Russian border, would they actually be fighting "on their home turf"? Going all the way to the borders would involve the Ukrainian forces fighting deep into ethnically Russian and Russian speaking areas that would presumably have much closer ties to Russia.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png/320px-Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png)
-
The 3-4x multiplier for attackers assumes, I believe, that the quality of forces on both sides is equal. That's not the case here--Ukrainians have better morale, better training, and better intelligence. I also imagine that all of the new artillery and tanks being delivered, with better fire control, counter-battery fire, precision and/or airburst munitions, will also improve their chances. Will it be enough? I don't know.
One of the challenges of a Ukrainian counter-offensive is that their own supply lines get longer and the front will narrow, while the Russians' supply lines will get shorter. So the further they push the Russians back, the harder it will get. On the other hand, if they can push in the south far enough to cut off Crimea, and then drive a second salient through to Mariupol, they could create a nasty pocket of isolated Russians.
-
Isn't there a chance that they can chase the Russians back to the borders this time? They are being supplied a lot of weapons, the people fight well, they say the Russian soldiers don't have a strong will to fight, they are on their home turf, the very survival of the country is at stake, the oppressors do horrible things to their villages, and I really think the Russian government may not be all that stable.
If they actually went all the way to the Russian border, would they actually be fighting "on their home turf"? Going all the way to the borders would involve the Ukrainian forces fighting deep into ethnically Russian and Russian speaking areas that would presumably have much closer ties to Russia.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png/320px-Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png)
Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.
-
Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.
Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.
-
Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.
Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.
Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.
-
Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.
And many cities have spent the last eight years getting blasted by the Ukrainians.
-
Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.
Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.
I'm just thinking that just because somebody speaks the same language doesn't necessarily mean I will support them. If, for example, New Zealand became a rogue military country attacking it's neighbors, I probably wouldn't support them. I do realize there are more aspects to the shared culture than language, but I just don't think the people of Eastern Ukraine are still necessarily allied with the Russians.
However, if Russians have denied these people free access to the facts as they have their own people and have set up various ways of brainwashing them with extreme propaganda, I may be wrong. Perhaps, they may have gifted them with free fuel. I read one article that said they did that in Transnistria. A strong carrot would be needed to make them fight a war against their own country.
Who supports people that do the genocide thing?
Russia is a huge country. It is not overpopulated. I just think if the people in Eastern Ukraine were largely pro Russian, they could move there. It seems a more logical option than starting a war. You think, maybe, this war was greatly encouraged by the Russians and less so by "Separatists?" It sure looks like a pattern.
-
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority
-
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority
American reactors were originally designed for a 40 year operational life. Changes can occur to reactor vessels due to radiation. Everything wears out. Samples of the metals (coupons) are periodically examined to verify the integrity of the vessel's metal. Reactors are designed with components checked by artificial aging to assure this 40 year life.
Some are older than that 40 years now. When reactors are life extended, thorough analysis and testing is done to ensure components are good for the extra life span. Sometimes, they are replaced as assurance they will not fail with the added life.
French reactors are built to common designs. If a problem is indicated in one, all are examined for a common mode issue. This may entail taking operating units off line. This is akin to predictive maintenance where problems are solved before they occur.
Here's a news article explaining about bad pipes at several French plants.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/edf-extend-civaux-nuclear-outage-shut-down-reactors-chooz-safety-measures-2021-12-15/ (https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/edf-extend-civaux-nuclear-outage-shut-down-reactors-chooz-safety-measures-2021-12-15/)
This philosophy differs from the "run to failure" idea used for other industrial activities.
-
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority
I think the issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a 10 year old reactor, but if the French wanted to build more reactors today the absolute most experienced people they could get for the job are a decade out of practice at building them.
Maintaining institutional capacity and knowledge about major construction projects is a big part of why the US navy builds nuclear aircraft carriers that way it does (on slow and staggered timelines despite being the same overall design). It probably costs a lot more than if we built five or ten at once, and then waited a few decades until the next new design is ready, but doing it this way ensures there will always be some people who have recent hands on experience in the process.
-
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority
I think the issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a 10 year old reactor, but if the French wanted to build more reactors today the absolute most experienced people they could get for the job are a decade out of practice at building them.
That's one thing. But I was mainly pointing out that even Nuclear France isn't building new reactors because they are too expensive.
Nuclear energy has always been massivly subventionized. Now that this has become harder through public pressure (and safety measures means more expenses on top) it's totally unprofitable to build one.
1kWh of atomic power costs 2 times as much as wind and 3 times as much as solar. Wind and solar will still get cheaper. Nuclear only more expensive. You can get a LOT of storage (or reserve power plants e.g. on biofuel) for a few billions saved!
Even if you are of the opinion that there is no risk with nuclear reactors easily destroyed by a single big airplane or cruise missle, or with waste that needs a storage for a million years and still has no place after half a century of searching - even then it's still more expensive.
-
Yeah, as a result if you regularily eat wild boar in southern Germany you get radioation doses like several lung x-rays a year.
Atomic France currently has to import electricity because so many of their reactors make problems. The newest one is older than 10 years btw. The companies do not want to build new nuclear power because it's too expensive, even if you don't figure in waste storage and insurance (insurance alone would cost more than the plant creates income).
Just face it already: Renewables are way faster to build, cheaper and you don't rely on Russian fuel (30% of EU Uranium comes from Russia).
Why should a 10 year old nuclear power plant be a problem? TVA has nuclear power plants that are from the 1970s and 1980s now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_operated_by_the_Tennessee_Valley_Authority
I think the issue isn't that there is anything wrong with a 10 year old reactor, but if the French wanted to build more reactors today the absolute most experienced people they could get for the job are a decade out of practice at building them.
That's one thing. But I was mainly pointing out that even Nuclear France isn't building new reactors because they are too expensive.
Nuclear energy has always been massivly subventionized. Now that this has become harder through public pressure (and safety measures means more expenses on top) it's totally unprofitable to build one.
1kWh of atomic power costs 2 times as much as wind and 3 times as much as solar. Wind and solar will still get cheaper. Nuclear only more expensive. You can get a LOT of storage (or reserve power plants e.g. on biofuel) for a few billions saved!
Even if you are of the opinion that there is no risk with nuclear reactors easily destroyed by a single big airplane or cruise missle, or with waste that needs a storage for a million years and still has no place after half a century of searching - even then it's still more expensive.
I'd not heard that word subventionized. I had heard of subsidized. Good word.
Wind and solar need to be backed up. When you consider an Earth safe energy backup for wind and solar, the price is much higher. Pumped hydro, for example , is a major undertaking.
Newer types of nuclear reactors on the drawing boards have waste products that are largely are decayed in 300 years. There is also less waste. In fact today's reactors don't put out a huge volume of waste. Three hundred years is realistic. Other industrial waste is a forever thing.
I believe you are correct that some of the construction skills of past years are less available today. However, if new reactors were built, those skills would be developed and the cost would come down.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-strikes-kyiv-united-nations-chief-meets-zelenskyy-city-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-warns-britain-provoking-ukraine-2022-04-26/
Russia fired missiles at Kyiv while UN officials were there. Russia threatened the UK because of their support of Ukraine. I'm sure there's more. Is Putin TRYING to get Russia flattened? Really. Yes, its bully tactics and whatever you want to call it, but if they actually do manage to pull other countries directly into the war, rather than just supplying Ukraine with weapons, it is not going to end well for Russia.
-
I just read a story about Americans being very concerned about all the fake news floating around about Ukraine, largely spread by Russia. My reaction was, "What fake news? I get my most detailed and accurate (sources cited) news and thoughtful commentary on the MMM Ukraine thread."
So thank you all for that.
-
From my armchair, it looks like the Ukrainians are pursuing a "defense in depth" strategy. If that is indeed the case, news of territorial losses in the most severely contested areas by the Ukrainians should be expected in the days or weeks to come:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth#:~:text=Defence%20in%20depth%20
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-strikes-kyiv-united-nations-chief-meets-zelenskyy-city-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-warns-britain-provoking-ukraine-2022-04-26/
Russia fired missiles at Kyiv while UN officials were there. Russia threatened the UK because of their support of Ukraine. I'm sure there's more. Is Putin TRYING to get Russia flattened? Really. Yes, its bully tactics and whatever you want to call it, but if they actually do manage to pull other countries directly into the war, rather than just supplying Ukraine with weapons, it is not going to end well for Russia.
Germany, France, UK, Italy each have larger economies than Russia - but none of them has an active military as large as Russia's. Actually, they have less military combined than Russia.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
This month, Russia gave up on invading Western Ukraine (for now), and focused on Eastern Ukraine. As Secretary of State Blinkin put it, Russia failed to take Ukraine. Russia's narrower focus is partly out of desperation. I think that's where the bullying is from as well - desperation. Let's see if Poland takes President Biden's hint, and sends MiG fighter jets to Ukraine.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-missile-strikes-kyiv-united-nations-chief-meets-zelenskyy-city-2022-4?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-warns-britain-provoking-ukraine-2022-04-26/
Russia fired missiles at Kyiv while UN officials were there. Russia threatened the UK because of their support of Ukraine. I'm sure there's more. Is Putin TRYING to get Russia flattened? Really. Yes, its bully tactics and whatever you want to call it, but if they actually do manage to pull other countries directly into the war, rather than just supplying Ukraine with weapons, it is not going to end well for Russia.
Germany, France, UK, Italy each have larger economies than Russia - but none of them has an active military as large as Russia's. Actually, they have less military combined than Russia.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
This month, Russia gave up on invading Western Ukraine (for now), and focused on Eastern Ukraine. As Secretary of State Blinkin put it, Russia failed to take Ukraine. Russia's narrower focus is partly out of desperation. I think that's where the bullying is from as well - desperation. Let's see if Poland takes President Biden's hint, and sends MiG fighter jets to Ukraine.
The fighter jet issue has been very much back-and-forth. Given the fact that both sides have lots of anti-aircraft capabilities, I'm not sure how much Ukraine would benefit from having more jets.
That said, there have been reports that a hundred Polish Soviet-era tanks simply vanished from their warehouses a couple weeks ago...
-
I saw, but can not find at the moment, an article stating that we're finding out some of what the West is giving Ukraine because it's showing up on the open source equipment sites! Ie, destroyed, damaged, used to destroy Russian assets, or just spotted.
-
I saw, but can not find at the moment, an article stating that we're finding out some of what the West is giving Ukraine because it's showing up on the open source equipment sites! Ie, destroyed, damaged, used to destroy Russian assets, or just spotted.
This is probably how it is going to increasingly look behind Russian lines with more western military aid deployed every day:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1520038358583545857
-
Good discussion of the current situation in Ukraine, although I disagree somewhat with the idea that an ´agreed, orderly withdrawal´ preserving some of the Russian assets currently deployed in Ukraine is a realistic option for Russia. That may not be something the US is prepared to allow at this stage; unless the Biden administration is bluffing, of course - and I do not think they are:
"NATO countries are supporting Ukraine as it exercises its inherent right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Ukraine is pursuing its own political goals. This is why it is just as important to avoid any suggestion that NATO is imposing war aims on Kyiv as it would be to impose a peace deal on Kyiv. For now there is no great divergence of aims. Lloyd Austin has spoken of weakening Russia ‘to the point where it can’t do things like invade Ukraine’. Although that suggests doing more than ensuring that Ukraine defeats Russia in practice one aim achieves the other. Equally, the ambitious war aims set out by the UK Foreign Secretary on Wednesday evening, including reversing the annexation of Crimea, converge with those of Kyiv.
But they may well prove difficult to meet, and it would be unfortunate to get into the position where Ukraine was somehow seen to have failed if they had not. There is now unity around the proposition that the Russian invasion must fail, and be shown to have failed, but it is probably best if statements about what Western countries would like to see happen be left at that."
https://samf.substack.com/p/escalators-and-quagmires?utm_source=twitter&s=r
-
From my armchair, it looks like the Ukrainians are pursuing a "defense in depth" strategy. If that is indeed the case, news of territorial losses in the most severely contested areas by the Ukrainians should be expected in the days or weeks to come:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth#:~:text=Defence%20in%20depth%20
Yes, they are doing it and been before since the start. Also the Russians still have logistics problems, so literally every meter from the border makes it harder for them and often easier for Ukraine.
That said, there have been reports that a hundred Polish Soviet-era tanks simply vanished from their warehouses a couple weeks ago...
Ukraine may now have more working tanks than Russia, as they have captured so many and been more reluctant in using them (and instead did the defense in depth). Russia still has 5 times of that in "reserve", but the quotes there are for a reason. Half of them may be unusable rustbuckets and the other half needs severe work before they are in fighting condition. Not to mention that without a real mobilisation there is no one to man them.
As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, I can't see them losing, the West will give them as many weapons as they want, while Russias productionability is restricted to low tech now.
-
From my armchair, it looks like the Ukrainians are pursuing a "defense in depth" strategy. If that is indeed the case, news of territorial losses in the most severely contested areas by the Ukrainians should be expected in the days or weeks to come:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth#:~:text=Defence%20in%20depth%20
Yes, they are doing it and been before since the start. Also the Russians still have logistics problems, so literally every meter from the border makes it harder for them and often easier for Ukraine.
...
Indeed, they have been doing defense in depth from the start.
But it bears reiterating it as I have noticed some concerns about recent territory gains of the Russians particularly around Izium.
This area is crucial for the Russians but things are not going well for them as evidenced by the tactical command in the Izium area having been taken over by General Gerasimov.
Grasimov is so high up in the military hierarchy that his apparent deployment into the battle zone is rather remarkable.
Under the circumstances, the Ukrainian retreats are probably best interpreted as tactical in most cases, which of course does not mean that there are no losses.
In any case, one should not be unduly alarmed about this.
-
From my armchair, it looks like the Ukrainians are pursuing a "defense in depth" strategy. If that is indeed the case, news of territorial losses in the most severely contested areas by the Ukrainians should be expected in the days or weeks to come:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth#:~:text=Defence%20in%20depth%20
Yes, they are doing it and been before since the start. Also the Russians still have logistics problems, so literally every meter from the border makes it harder for them and often easier for Ukraine.
...
Indeed, they have been doing defense in depth from the start.
But it bears reiterating it as I have noticed some concerns about recent territory gains of the Russians particularly around Izium.
This area is crucial for the Russians but things are not going well for them as evidenced by the tactical command in the Izium area having been taken over by General Gerasimov.
Grasimov is so high up in the military hierarchy that his apparent deployment into the battle zone is rather remarkable.
Under the circumstances, the Ukrainian retreats are probably best interpreted as tactical in most cases, which of course does not mean that there are no losses.
In any case, one should not be unduly alarmed about this.
Wikipedia says this about Gerasimov; "Gerasimov was involved in the planning of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.[18][19]"
He "is a Russian army general serving as the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and First Deputy Defence Minister, replacing Nikolay Makarov. He was appointed by president Vladimir Putin on 9 November 2012.[2][3][4]"
It sounds like he sets policy for the Russians: "Gerasimov was alleged to have conceived the "Gerasimov doctrine" – combining military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural and other tactics for the purpose of achieving strategic goals.[6] "
I saw a video that described him as a genius. However, when I see he planned this "special military operation," I'm not sure what to think. He may turn this war to Russia's benefit or be dead General #11.
-
A very dangerous individual who can easily be seen as a potential successor to Putin.
-
From my armchair, it looks like the Ukrainians are pursuing a "defense in depth" strategy. If that is indeed the case, news of territorial losses in the most severely contested areas by the Ukrainians should be expected in the days or weeks to come:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth#:~:text=Defence%20in%20depth%20
Yes, they are doing it and been before since the start. Also the Russians still have logistics problems, so literally every meter from the border makes it harder for them and often easier for Ukraine.
...
Indeed, they have been doing defense in depth from the start.
But it bears reiterating it as I have noticed some concerns about recent territory gains of the Russians particularly around Izium.
This area is crucial for the Russians but things are not going well for them as evidenced by the tactical command in the Izium area having been taken over by General Gerasimov.
Grasimov is so high up in the military hierarchy that his apparent deployment into the battle zone is rather remarkable.
Under the circumstances, the Ukrainian retreats are probably best interpreted as tactical in most cases, which of course does not mean that there are no losses.
In any case, one should not be unduly alarmed about this.
Wikipedia says this about Gerasimov; "Gerasimov was involved in the planning of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.[18][19]"
He "is a Russian army general serving as the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and First Deputy Defence Minister, replacing Nikolay Makarov. He was appointed by president Vladimir Putin on 9 November 2012.[2][3][4]"
It sounds like he sets policy for the Russians: "Gerasimov was alleged to have conceived the "Gerasimov doctrine" – combining military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural and other tactics for the purpose of achieving strategic goals.[6] "
I saw a video that described him as a genius. However, when I see he planned this "special military operation," I'm not sure what to think. He may turn this war to Russia's benefit or be dead General #11.
It would be as if GEN Milley left his job at the Pentagon and took command of a Corps-sized element on the frontline in Iraq. It says there are no Russian generals that have Putin's confidence to pull this off.
-
A very dangerous individual who can easily be seen as a potential successor to Putin.
Given the rate that Ukraine is churning through Russian Generals this might not be so much of an option very shortly.
-
Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.
And many cities have spent the last eight years getting blasted by the Ukrainians.
That's actually Kremlin propaganda.
-
Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.
And many cities have spent the last eight years getting blasted by the Ukrainians.
That's actually Kremlin propaganda.
And it's as absurd as it gets - but the Putinists will parrot it nevertheless.
Here is an analysis of what really happened during the last eight years in eastern Ukraine and why there will be no pro-Russian insurgency in the, soon to be formerly, Russian occupied areas of Ukraine:
How Putin managed to derussify East Ukraine in just 8 years
Kamil Galeev
Galina Starovoitova Fellow @TheWilsonCenter.
"When Putin manufactured the Donbass War he presented it as an Ukrainian inner conflict. Many in Russia bought it. Many in the West bought it. Many idiots even now talk about "Ukraine shelling civilians of Donbass for eight years". Bad Ukrainians being bad, that caused the war"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1504103672019513345.html
-
Many of the cities in that region have now spent a month being blasted by Russian artillery, while the citizens that live there have either fled, died, or sheltered. I'm guessing there's less Pro-Russia sentiment there now than there was 6 weeks ago.
And many cities have spent the last eight years getting blasted by the Ukrainians.
That's actually Kremlin propaganda.
And it's as absurd as it gets - but the Putinists will parrot it nevertheless.
Here is an analysis of what really happened during the last eight years in eastern Ukraine and why there will be no pro-Russian insurgency in the, soon to be formerly, Russian occupied areas of Ukraine:
How Putin managed to derussify East Ukraine in just 8 years
Kamil Galeev
Galina Starovoitova Fellow @TheWilsonCenter.
"When Putin manufactured the Donbass War he presented it as an Ukrainian inner conflict. Many in Russia bought it. Many in the West bought it. Many idiots even now talk about "Ukraine shelling civilians of Donbass for eight years". Bad Ukrainians being bad, that caused the war"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1504103672019513345.html
That was a good link. It made some order out of chaos for me. It was like finding the key that fit the lock of explanation. Once again, I drank the Kool Aid.
I think Transnistria is similar, yet different. If the explosions continue in the next few weeks there, it will be the Russians attempting to make it fit the pattern.
-
I think Transnistria is similar, yet different. If the explosions continue in the next few weeks there, it will be the Russians attempting to make it fit the pattern.
I just spoke with an acquaintance here in town who comes from Transnistria and whose father still lives there. Since the whole family (mainly in Transnistria and Moldova but some elsewhere) is involved in helping fleeing Ukrainians right now, they all seems to be on "our" side when it comes to views on Russia and Putin right now.
They are worried about the recent explosions there, of course, and from my understanding all think they are caused by Russia. At least according to the guy I spoke to. Of course, I don't know how representative they are.
-
I think Transnistria is similar, yet different. If the explosions continue in the next few weeks there, it will be the Russians attempting to make it fit the pattern.
I just spoke with an acquaintance here in town who comes from Transnistria and whose father still lives there. Since the whole family (mainly in Transnistria and Moldova but some elsewhere) is involved in helping fleeing Ukrainians right now, they all seems to be on "our" side when it comes to views on Russia and Putin right now.
They are worried about the recent explosions there, of course, and from my understanding all think they are caused by Russia. At least according to the guy I spoke to. Of course, I don't know how representative they are.
Moldova/Transnistria will get the same playbook treatment as Ukraine/Donbas.
-
I think Transnistria is similar, yet different. If the explosions continue in the next few weeks there, it will be the Russians attempting to make it fit the pattern.
I just spoke with an acquaintance here in town who comes from Transnistria and whose father still lives there. Since the whole family (mainly in Transnistria and Moldova but some elsewhere) is involved in helping fleeing Ukrainians right now, they all seems to be on "our" side when it comes to views on Russia and Putin right now.
They are worried about the recent explosions there, of course, and from my understanding all think they are caused by Russia. At least according to the guy I spoke to. Of course, I don't know how representative they are.
Moldova/Transnistria will get the same playbook treatment as Ukraine/Donbas.
That is clearly a risk. :(
-
I think Transnistria is similar, yet different. If the explosions continue in the next few weeks there, it will be the Russians attempting to make it fit the pattern.
I just spoke with an acquaintance here in town who comes from Transnistria and whose father still lives there. Since the whole family (mainly in Transnistria and Moldova but some elsewhere) is involved in helping fleeing Ukrainians right now, they all seems to be on "our" side when it comes to views on Russia and Putin right now.
They are worried about the recent explosions there, of course, and from my understanding all think they are caused by Russia. At least according to the guy I spoke to. Of course, I don't know how representative they are.
Moldova/Transnistria will get the same playbook treatment as Ukraine/Donbas.
That is clearly a risk. :(
If Moldova allied with Ukraine in the fight, I see them as a small asset. This is what Wikipedia says:
A transition to a professional force of 12,000 to 15,000 volunteers was planned at first, but when fighting erupted in 1991 between supporters of the central government in Chișinău and supporters of separatist regions (Transnistria conflict), males between eighteen and forty years of age were mobilized, and the size of Moldova's military was temporarily expanded to meet the demands of the Transnistria War.[6] In early 1995, the armed forces totaled some 11,000 volunteers, and there were plans to gradually create a professional army, similar to that of the United States.
The country is neither in NATO nor the EU. It is supposed to be very poor.
The Russian army has a military base, a large ammunition dump and about 1,500 soldiers stationed in breakaway Transnistria, stating that they are there as "peacekeepers".[105]
This part struck me as very unusual:
As of 2009 the population of Transnistria comprised about 555,000 people. Ninety percent of the population of Transnistria are citizens of Transnistria.[67] Transnistrians may have dual, triple or even quadruple citizenship of internationally recognised countries, including:
Citizens of Moldova:[68] around 300,000 people (including dual citizens of Moldova and Russia, around 20,000[69]) or of Moldova and the EU states (around 80%) of Romania,[70][71] Bulgaria, or the Czech Republic
Citizens of Romania: unknown number[72]
Citizens of Russia: around 150,000 people (including around 15,000 dual citizens of Belarus, Israel, Turkey); excluding those holding dual citizenship of Russia and of Moldova (around 20,000)
Citizens of Ukraine: around 100,000 people[73] There are around 20,000–30,000 people with dual citizenship (Moldova and Ukraine, or Russia and Ukraine) or triple citizenship (Moldova, Russia and Ukraine). They are included in the number of Ukrainian citizens.[74]
Persons without citizenship: around 20,000–30,000 people[citation needed]
It seems like lots of Russians live in Transnistria. It looks like a little more than a fourth of the total population.
-
Germany just approved the shipment of 1000 anti-tank and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine.
This is significcant because Germany is involved in the development and production of weaponry in Europe and retains veto rights against export of such weaponry into crisis regions and has exercised this veto aggressively in the past.
Germany has also agreed to remove Russia from the SWIFT system.
These are aggressive moves by Germany.
I should have written "These are aggressive moves for Germany"
Not quite. Germany is talking about removing Russia from the SWIFT system - but with carveouts for energy. So basically, they don't want to actually feel the pain (and make Russia feel the pain) of cutting off oil and natural gas sales - which compose a large percentage of Germany's energy supply. Across the EU about 40% of their natural gas comes from Russia (along with oil and coal). Germany gets about that much and with more than half their natural gas going to manufacturing, it would be a huge hit to their economy which is heavily focused on manufacturing and exports.
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/live-updates-on-ukraine-war/
Germany supports “targeted and functional” limits on Russian access to the SWIFT global interbank payment system, its foreign and economy ministers said. Berlin had been the major holdout in Europe against imposing the measure, whose economic impact would be significant. However, the ministers’ statement said SWIFT exclusion should be crafted in such a way that it “affects the right people.” Finance Minister Christian Lindner was more specific, saying, “necessary deliveries of raw materials” (read: Russian energy exports) should not be disrupted by the move.
Original source article (in German) https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/ukraine-krieg-ein-swift-ausschluss-der-die-richtigen-trifft-europa-einig-ueber-naechste-sanktion-gegen-russland/28110092.html
The SWIFT carveouts have a lot to do with limiting impact to EU which may be crucial for sustainability of the sanction; particularly when considering that the impact might be more severe for nations in the EU other than Germany.
It is complicated, but thank the gods for the German Green Party to be part of the government.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that the German Green Party is fortunately part of the German government coalition, with foreign minister Annalena Baerbock and minister of the economy Robert Habeck apparently Germany´s most popular politicians at this time.
https://twitter.com/GermanGreens/status/1519732256335613953
Yesterday, the "basis" of the Green Party (Bündnis ’90/Die Grünen) overwhelmingly approved of supporting Ukraine with heavy weapons etc. and of the massive expansion of the German defense budget at their ´small´congress in Düsseldorf.
This is excellent news for Ukraine, NATO and the US effort. Slava Ukraini!
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/gruene-parteitag-waffenlieferung-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html
(There is a lot written in the German press about the "surprising turnaround" of the Greens on matters of military etc. This is all complete nonsense.
If anything, the Bündnis ’90/Die Grünen are the least corrupted party when it comes to Russia, and likely are the most reliable but sometimes critical partner in issues of transatlantic and European cooperation.
There is nothing naive about them and the incorporation of direct democratic features into policy making is a strength not a weakness, as it puts even more weight behind the policy.
FYI, I have been watching the party since inception around 1980)
-
This part struck me as very unusual:
As of 2009 the population of Transnistria comprised about 555,000 people. Ninety percent of the population of Transnistria are citizens of Transnistria.[67] Transnistrians may have dual, triple or even quadruple citizenship of internationally recognised countries, including:
Citizens of Moldova:[68] around 300,000 people (including dual citizens of Moldova and Russia, around 20,000[69]) or of Moldova and the EU states (around 80%) of Romania,[70][71] Bulgaria, or the Czech Republic
Citizens of Romania: unknown number[72]
Citizens of Russia: around 150,000 people (including around 15,000 dual citizens of Belarus, Israel, Turkey); excluding those holding dual citizenship of Russia and of Moldova (around 20,000)
Citizens of Ukraine: around 100,000 people[73] There are around 20,000–30,000 people with dual citizenship (Moldova and Ukraine, or Russia and Ukraine) or triple citizenship (Moldova, Russia and Ukraine). They are included in the number of Ukrainian citizens.[74]
Persons without citizenship: around 20,000–30,000 people[citation needed]
It seems like lots of Russians live in Transnistria. It looks like a little more than a fourth of the total population.
The history of Moldova is kind of messy several hundred years back, torn between empires like the Ottomans and the Russians. If you are a young person in Transnistria, it is clearly an advantage to get e.g. a Russian passport since the Russians are about the only sponsor of that "nation", and getting e.g. an EU passport (like a a Romanian) will allow you to live and work anywhere in the EU with much less paperwork than if you're from the outside.
-
Yeah, living in (and specifically being born in) a place that considers itself an independent country but not recognized as an independent country sucks for a lot of reasons but one is travel:
Right now a kid born in Transnistria could get a Transnistrian passport issued to them, but there aren't any countries that recognize Transnistria as a country (with the exceptions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh all of which arguably aren't countries themselves), so that passport won't let you go anywhere (except Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh). Hence the strong incentive for folks living in the region to find a way to qualify for passport citizenship in some more generally internationally recognized country.
-
A very dangerous individual who can easily be seen as a potential successor to Putin.
Given the rate that Ukraine is churning through Russian Generals this might not be so much of an option very shortly.
In theater for 48 hours and Ukrainian forces already taking a swing at him. Unconfirmed, but apparently several members of his entourage were killed or wounded and he was wounded in the leg.
https://twitter.com/legioner61/status/1520762669841760257?t=50Pf4erJ2YWekSbSI_ImGQ&s=19 (https://twitter.com/legioner61/status/1520762669841760257?t=50Pf4erJ2YWekSbSI_ImGQ&s=19)
And the Chief of Staff of 2nd CAA also killed earlier.
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-general-commanded-electronic-warfare-115447368.html (https://news.yahoo.com/russian-general-commanded-electronic-warfare-115447368.html)
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
-
A very dangerous individual who can easily be seen as a potential successor to Putin.
Given the rate that Ukraine is churning through Russian Generals this might not be so much of an option very shortly.
In theater for 48 hours and Ukrainian forces already taking a swing at him. Unconfirmed, but apparently several members of his entourage were killed or wounded and he was wounded in the leg.
https://twitter.com/legioner61/status/1520762669841760257?t=50Pf4erJ2YWekSbSI_ImGQ&s=19 (https://twitter.com/legioner61/status/1520762669841760257?t=50Pf4erJ2YWekSbSI_ImGQ&s=19)
And the Chief of Staff of 2nd CAA also killed earlier.
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-general-commanded-electronic-warfare-115447368.html (https://news.yahoo.com/russian-general-commanded-electronic-warfare-115447368.html)
Moving General Gerasimov into theater and creating a vortex of electronic and high value target activity around him must rank among the most idiotic decisions the Russians have made so far.
In fact, it is so obviously idiotic that one might be inclined to see this as an attempt to eliminate a threat to Putin himself, but that might give Putin too much credit.
More likely, they are stuck in a reactive mode trying to demonstrate control of the situation. And then reality bites, like it always does.
-
I've seen this one in several places. Apparently, Putin is getting his soldiers from near Lake Baikal. These Asian guys wanted loot as much as the Chechens. The Chechens took their loot. So the Russian soldiers got in a shooting battle with each other.
https://odessa-journal.com/the-shooting-of-buryats-with-chechens-cannot-share-the-spoils/ (https://odessa-journal.com/the-shooting-of-buryats-with-chechens-cannot-share-the-spoils/)
There is no honor among thieves.
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
From what I've found, it seems like Russia has about 1,100 generals/admirals. For comparison, the US has 600-something generals/admirals. Russia also has about 2/3 the number of soldiers as the US, so Russia losing a general is not the same as the US losing a general. There was a plane crash in the early 80s that wiped out 28 Russian generals/admirals.
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
From what I've found, it seems like Russia has about 1,100 generals/admirals. For comparison, the US has 600-something generals/admirals. Russia also has about 2/3 the number of soldiers as the US, so Russia losing a general is not the same as the US losing a general. There was a plane crash in the early 80s that wiped out 28 Russian generals/admirals.
That is helpful to know, thank you. My googling wasn't coming up with anything productive.
So, until the number of dead generals starts getting into triple digits, it's probably not really significant. (Unless an actually significant general such as Gerasimov is killed of course.)
Incidentally, I saw that Ukraine knew that Gerasimov was present at the attack location, but not in time. So he had left just prior to the attack.
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
From what I've found, it seems like Russia has about 1,100 generals/admirals. For comparison, the US has 600-something generals/admirals. Russia also has about 2/3 the number of soldiers as the US, so Russia losing a general is not the same as the US losing a general. There was a plane crash in the early 80s that wiped out 28 Russian generals/admirals.
That is helpful to know, thank you. My googling wasn't coming up with anything productive.
So, until the number of dead generals starts getting into triple digits, it's probably not really significant. (Unless an actually significant general such as Gerasimov is killed of course.)
Incidentally, I saw that Ukraine knew that Gerasimov was present at the attack location, but not in time. So he had left just prior to the attack.
Reminds me of these companies that are management heavy. I wonder if all that duplication of management leads to inefficiencies. Too many chiefs and they are looking for more indians.
-
Except those people have had plenty of experience, both direct and indirect, with what it means to be governed by Russia. Don't be so sure that they're still pro-Russia.
Rather than black and white, there are many messy shades of gray. Some people will be pro-Russian, and some people will be anti-Russian. The higher number of pro-Russian people the less the Ukrainian forces would be fighting "on their home turf." I'm guessing the pro-/anti- ratio is more favorable to Russia in the far eastern parts of Ukraine than Kiev.
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
-
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Since 2014, most of the refugees from that region have fled to Russia rather than other parts of Ukraine.
Based on your comment, I assume you'll think it's fine if a Pro-Russian government installed in the Donbas region tells the pro-Ukranian people there to "Go live in western Urkaine. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
-
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Since 2014, most of the refugees from that region have fled to Russia rather than other parts of Ukraine.
Based on your comment, I assume you'll think it's fine if a Pro-Russian government installed in the Donbas region tells the pro-Ukranian people there to "Go live in western Urkaine. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
It's not the same though. It's Ukrainian territory (just held by Russia at the moment, which I don't think is going to be permanent). Thus someone living there who prefers to be governed by Russia is perfectly within their rights to relocate to Russia. Not icky at all. If Ukraine were to offer a sum of money to people who wished to relocate to Russia, but they're not forcing them to leave or to take the money, then it's icky but not horrifically icky.
If Russia kicks out the Ukrainians, then those people aren't voluntarily relocating, they're being forced to. That's horrifically icky.
And yes, I'm sure there are specific terms for icky and horrifically icky, but it's Monday and I can't think of them. You get the idea though.
-
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Since 2014, most of the refugees from that region have fled to Russia rather than other parts of Ukraine.
Based on your comment, I assume you'll think it's fine if a Pro-Russian government installed in the Donbas region tells the pro-Ukranian people there to "Go live in western Urkaine. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
It may be more likely that the Russians would haul them off to Siberia as they have been doing with other civilians in Ukraine. Why give up the free labor?
-
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Since 2014, most of the refugees from that region have fled to Russia rather than other parts of Ukraine.
Based on your comment, I assume you'll think it's fine if a Pro-Russian government installed in the Donbas region tells the pro-Ukranian people there to "Go live in western Urkaine. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
It's not the same though. It's Ukrainian territory (just held by Russia at the moment, which I don't think is going to be permanent). Thus someone living there who prefers to be governed by Russia is perfectly within their rights to relocate to Russia. Not icky at all. If Ukraine were to offer a sum of money to people who wished to relocate to Russia, but they're not forcing them to leave or to take the money, then it's icky but not horrifically icky.
If Russia kicks out the Ukrainians, then those people aren't voluntarily relocating, they're being forced to. That's horrifically icky.
That's not what Russia is doing.
Russia has kidnapped and enslaved hundreds of thousands Ukrainians.
-
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Since 2014, most of the refugees from that region have fled to Russia rather than other parts of Ukraine.
Based on your comment, I assume you'll think it's fine if a Pro-Russian government installed in the Donbas region tells the pro-Ukranian people there to "Go live in western Urkaine. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
It's not the same though. It's Ukrainian territory (just held by Russia at the moment, which I don't think is going to be permanent). Thus someone living there who prefers to be governed by Russia is perfectly within their rights to relocate to Russia. Not icky at all. If Ukraine were to offer a sum of money to people who wished to relocate to Russia, but they're not forcing them to leave or to take the money, then it's icky but not horrifically icky.
If Russia kicks out the Ukrainians, then those people aren't voluntarily relocating, they're being forced to. That's horrifically icky.
That's not what Russia is doing.
Russia has kidnapped and enslaved hundreds of thousands Ukrainians.
Yes, I know. I was responding specifically to the scenarios Just Joe and YttriumNitrate mentioned. What Russia is actually doing is beyond horrifically icky.
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
The more I learn about the Russian guys, the more I think they are a culture that retains mysterious mystic beliefs. From the link:
Putin is said to bathe in the blood extracted from deer antlers, which are hacked off while they are growing and still full of fresh blood, the outlet said. The sickening “antler baths” are an alternative therapy in the Altai region of Russia, which borders Khazakstan and Mongolia.
After this war is said and done, Hollywood is going to have fun making a movie about this Putin guy.
-
Germany said today that they would support an immediate Russian oil embargo. It would not apply to gas. It sounds like they've made some pretty dramatic progress in reducing their imports of Russian oil/gas though, which is good.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/civilians-evacuated-mariupol-pelosi-meets-ukraines-zelenskiy-2022-05-02/
-
Germany is sending 7 PzH 2000s, self-propelled armored howitzers to Ukraine.
This is a political decision that overrides the objections og the German military.
@NotWoofers does not know why this "sudden turnaround" happened, but avid readers of this thread should have an understanding.
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1521475720358281216
-
Or the Ukranian gov't could say: "hey. here is $10K. Go live in Russia. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Since 2014, most of the refugees from that region have fled to Russia rather than other parts of Ukraine.
Based on your comment, I assume you'll think it's fine if a Pro-Russian government installed in the Donbas region tells the pro-Ukranian people there to "Go live in western Urkaine. You don't like us. We don't want you here. Good luck to you."
Nope. Ukraine ought to be able to protect its borders and govern all its regions.
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
The more I learn about the Russian guys, the more I think they are a culture that retains mysterious mystic beliefs. From the link:
Putin is said to bathe in the blood extracted from deer antlers, which are hacked off while they are growing and still full of fresh blood, the outlet said. The sickening “antler baths” are an alternative therapy in the Altai region of Russia, which borders Khazakstan and Mongolia.
After this war is said and done, Hollywood is going to have fun making a movie about this Putin guy.
That just sounds absurd. You would need a herd of 1,000 deer to get enough blood to bathe in. How could this have ever developed as a therapy if the only person rich enough to afford it is the president? This would literally cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor alone just to get enough people cutting off deer antlers and capturing the blood to get the tens of gallons necessary to actually bathe in (less if it was just poured over someone).
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
The more I learn about the Russian guys, the more I think they are a culture that retains mysterious mystic beliefs. From the link:
Putin is said to bathe in the blood extracted from deer antlers, which are hacked off while they are growing and still full of fresh blood, the outlet said. The sickening “antler baths” are an alternative therapy in the Altai region of Russia, which borders Khazakstan and Mongolia.
After this war is said and done, Hollywood is going to have fun making a movie about this Putin guy.
That just sounds absurd. You would need a herd of 1,000 deer to get enough blood to bathe in. How could this have ever developed as a therapy if the only person rich enough to afford it is the president? This would literally cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor alone just to get enough people cutting off deer antlers and capturing the blood to get the tens of gallons necessary to actually bathe in (less if it was just poured over someone).
Maybe, the mix is watered down. It kinda sorta fits. I saw a video of Putin speaking English. It was just like an old Vampire movie. Come to think of it he looks like the actor in the old black and white "Nosferatu" film.
Looks like he is getting Cancer surgery.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/ (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
The more I learn about the Russian guys, the more I think they are a culture that retains mysterious mystic beliefs. From the link:
Putin is said to bathe in the blood extracted from deer antlers, which are hacked off while they are growing and still full of fresh blood, the outlet said. The sickening “antler baths” are an alternative therapy in the Altai region of Russia, which borders Khazakstan and Mongolia.
After this war is said and done, Hollywood is going to have fun making a movie about this Putin guy.
That just sounds absurd. You would need a herd of 1,000 deer to get enough blood to bathe in. How could this have ever developed as a therapy if the only person rich enough to afford it is the president? This would literally cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor alone just to get enough people cutting off deer antlers and capturing the blood to get the tens of gallons necessary to actually bathe in (less if it was just poured over someone).
Maybe, the mix is watered down. It kinda sorta fits. I saw a video of Putin speaking English. It was just like an old Vampire movie. Come to think of it he looks like the actor in the old black and white "Nosferatu" film.
Looks like he is getting Cancer surgery.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/ (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
They're referencing the same Telegram account as the first one. Until we get a better source - fake news.
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
From what I've found, it seems like Russia has about 1,100 generals/admirals. For comparison, the US has 600-something generals/admirals. Russia also has about 2/3 the number of soldiers as the US, so Russia losing a general is not the same as the US losing a general. There was a plane crash in the early 80s that wiped out 28 Russian generals/admirals.
On paper Russia has a lot of generals. Not quite sure what they all do, but its doubtful very many are occupying critical roles.
https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1521484749461725188 (https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1521484749461725188)
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
From what I've found, it seems like Russia has about 1,100 generals/admirals. For comparison, the US has 600-something generals/admirals. Russia also has about 2/3 the number of soldiers as the US, so Russia losing a general is not the same as the US losing a general. There was a plane crash in the early 80s that wiped out 28 Russian generals/admirals.
On paper Russia has a lot of generals. Not quite sure what they all do, but its doubtful very many are occupying critical roles.
https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1521484749461725188 (https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1521484749461725188)
They have the very critical role of ensuring that Putin stays in power. (hypnotic look: ~~~Read the book in my signature~~~)
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
-
How many generals does Russia have? It would be helpful for scale, because Ukraine keeps killing them. If Russia has 100 generals, that's one context. It's quite another if there's 1000. And I have no idea.
From what I've found, it seems like Russia has about 1,100 generals/admirals. For comparison, the US has 600-something generals/admirals. Russia also has about 2/3 the number of soldiers as the US, so Russia losing a general is not the same as the US losing a general. There was a plane crash in the early 80s that wiped out 28 Russian generals/admirals.
On paper Russia has a lot of generals. Not quite sure what they all do, but its doubtful very many are occupying critical roles.
https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1521484749461725188 (https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1521484749461725188)
They have the very critical role of ensuring that Putin stays in power. (hypnotic look: ~~~Read the book in my signature~~~)
The ones in command of divisions, districts, and security agencies? Sure. The old fart in the photo I linked, not so much. Soviet Union was known for having very old generals on the payroll just to keep their pay and privileges intact. I wouldn't be surprised if that was still the case to some degree.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
While I haven't gone down the internet rabbit hole of how good is Sweden's military, I have on the Finnish military. And unless my brain is completely shortcircuted right now (possible), they're neighbors and they get along great. So if Russia decides to be stupid enough to attack Sweden, then they'll be facing both Sweden and Finland. And that's leaving anything to do with NATO out of it.
For the sake of the Russian people, I very much hope Putin doesn't go down that path. Because Russia would be flattened.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
From the article: "The word 'we' is in the colour of the Russian flag and 'they' in the colours of the Swedish flag. Selective quotes appear next to each picture purporting to paint the figure as a Nazi."
So, because the Swedish flag has the same colors as the Ukrainian flag, they must be Nazis, wow!
I think they are just showing they are upset because they may join NATO.
I do hope those new weapons will back the Russians up.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
While I haven't gone down the internet rabbit hole of how good is Sweden's military, I have on the Finnish military. And unless my brain is completely shortcircuted right now (possible), they're neighbors and they get along great. So if Russia decides to be stupid enough to attack Sweden, then they'll be facing both Sweden and Finland. And that's leaving anything to do with NATO out of it.
According to a Swedish friend of mine, Sweden and Finland have an understanding that either both will join NATO, or neither will join. I believe it's to avoid being singled out for attack by Russia (although I wonder if Russia would really open up a war on two fronts?).
Currently I feel most trolled by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He previously commented that Ukraine did not want him visiting - of course he didn't originally mention that more of Germany's money goes to Russia than Ukraine. Kind of significant! This "poor me" approach came out when discussing oil sanctions as well, "a burden for Germany". I wonder how that burden compares to civilians being slaughted by the thousands? Or how Greece endured austarity, where Germany seems to want to avoid austarity over it's past mistakes.
I think as long as the EU makes progress together, like with oil sanctions, the divide between Germany and other countries is more tolerable. I don't know what happens when Germany runs out of things it can agree to, and refuses to abandon Russian LNG before 2023. If the resentments run deep enough, France's LePen may get a shot at the Presidency in 5 years - and she wants to exit the EU. (Frexit?)
Meanwhile the U.S. is allocating tens of billions in military aid, which should make a huge difference. Especially if Zelinsky says "we'd like those MiGs now!" with the money.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
While I haven't gone down the internet rabbit hole of how good is Sweden's military, I have on the Finnish military. And unless my brain is completely shortcircuted right now (possible), they're neighbors and they get along great. So if Russia decides to be stupid enough to attack Sweden, then they'll be facing both Sweden and Finland. And that's leaving anything to do with NATO out of it.
According to a Swedish friend of mine, Sweden and Finland have an understanding that either both will join NATO, or neither will join. I believe it's to avoid being singled out for attack by Russia (although I wonder if Russia would really open up a war on two fronts?).
Russia couldn't manage a war on two fronts just in Ukraine. Opening up a second front against an even better-prepared foe would be...ill-advised. Of course, given the past couple of months, "ill-advised" doesn't mean it won't happen.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
While I haven't gone down the internet rabbit hole of how good is Sweden's military, I have on the Finnish military. And unless my brain is completely shortcircuted right now (possible), they're neighbors and they get along great. So if Russia decides to be stupid enough to attack Sweden, then they'll be facing both Sweden and Finland. And that's leaving anything to do with NATO out of it.
For the sake of the Russian people, I very much hope Putin doesn't go down that path. Because Russia would be flattened.
Even two hundred years ago (and then some, before 1809), when Finland was still part of Sweden, it was said that the brave Swedish king would fight the Russians to the last Finn. ;)
But yes, NATO talks for Sweden and Finland are very much real now. It is not uncontroversial in Sweden at least.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
While I haven't gone down the internet rabbit hole of how good is Sweden's military, I have on the Finnish military. And unless my brain is completely shortcircuted right now (possible), they're neighbors and they get along great. So if Russia decides to be stupid enough to attack Sweden, then they'll be facing both Sweden and Finland. And that's leaving anything to do with NATO out of it.
According to a Swedish friend of mine, Sweden and Finland have an understanding that either both will join NATO, or neither will join. I believe it's to avoid being singled out for attack by Russia (although I wonder if Russia would really open up a war on two fronts?).
Russia couldn't manage a war on two fronts just in Ukraine. Opening up a second front against an even better-prepared foe would be...ill-advised. Of course, given the past couple of months, "ill-advised" doesn't mean it won't happen.
A "real" invasion war westward from Russia would probably not be on the table. They simply don't have the power now. At least not for the whole nations. If you however look at a map for the islands of Gotland (belonging to Sweden) and possibly also Bornholm (Denmark) and Ĺland (Finland) you can see that a Russian military presence there would be ... effective.
Sweden have finally, FINALLY, stepped up our own defense presence on Gotland. Finally.
A desperate Russia that fires of their missiles from Kaliningrad can reach parts of Sweden easily (including my city). Let's hope that Putin won't get that desperate. I live my life as if that is not a real fact. I focus my efforts on helping the Ukrainians.
-
Oh fun... now Russia has started an internal ad campaign stating that Swedish people are all nazis. They apparently did something similar to Ukraine before starting this years invasion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10778809/Russia-labels-SWEDEN-Nazis-join-NATO-Kremlin-claimed-Hitler-Jewish-blood.html
Sometimes, getting yelled at by the "right" person is the sign of that you're doing something right. :)
While I haven't gone down the internet rabbit hole of how good is Sweden's military, I have on the Finnish military. And unless my brain is completely shortcircuted right now (possible), they're neighbors and they get along great. So if Russia decides to be stupid enough to attack Sweden, then they'll be facing both Sweden and Finland. And that's leaving anything to do with NATO out of it.
According to a Swedish friend of mine, Sweden and Finland have an understanding that either both will join NATO, or neither will join. I believe it's to avoid being singled out for attack by Russia (although I wonder if Russia would really open up a war on two fronts?).
Russia couldn't manage a war on two fronts just in Ukraine. Opening up a second front against an even better-prepared foe would be...ill-advised. Of course, given the past couple of months, "ill-advised" doesn't mean it won't happen.
A "real" invasion war westward from Russia would probably not be on the table. They simply don't have the power now. At least not for the whole nations. If you however look at a map for the islands of Gotland (belonging to Sweden) and possibly also Bornholm (Denmark) and Ĺland (Finland) you can see that a Russian military presence there would be ... effective.
Sweden have finally, FINALLY, stepped up our own defense presence on Gotland. Finally.
A desperate Russia that fires of their missiles from Kaliningrad can reach parts of Sweden easily (including my city). Let's hope that Putin won't get that desperate. I live my life as if that is not a real fact. I focus my efforts on helping the Ukrainians.
Looking at a map of Konigsberg, they may be able to get missiles off, but that may be all. They would be attacked from all sides.
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
-
But yes, NATO talks for Sweden and Finland are very much real now. It is not uncontroversial in Sweden at least.
I am curious how threats from Russia interact with the controversy. In the USA I think having a threat from a foreign country telling us "Don't do X or else" would strength the voices arguing for X and weaken for voices arguing against X (with the implication that maybe they on foreign country's side). But I don't know how much of that is general human nature and how much is America-specific idiosyncrasies.
From what you are seeing is the dynamic the same in Sweden? Or are Russian threats moot? Or perhaps even effective at shifting the discussion more against the idea of joining NATO?
-
From what you are seeing is the dynamic the same in Sweden? Or are Russian threats moot? Or perhaps even effective at shifting the discussion more against the idea of joining NATO?
From what I see, the NATO-opposing side does not claim to be directly influenced by the Russian threats. It is more old principles or general principles. Some people have been anti-NATO, anti-war, anti-nuke and anti-USA since times immemorial - they do not change their opinion quickly.
One of the parties in the Swedish parliament now was openly communist and actually financially sponsored by the USSR up until the fall of European communism 30 years ago. That party was the only party voting against supporting the Ukrainians with munitions last month - and they lost a lot of voter sympathy for that.
The wider opinion has switched to pro-NATO very very quickly the last two months, and this is just a continuation of a wider trend the last few years. Sweden has had military exercises together with NATO troops since several years and most people that are not on the extreme left seems to like that.
From what I see, people are more getting mad than scared right now. I.e. the russian threats have the opposite effect, many people are more pro-NATO now.
At least in my bubble. I try to tend to stray away from the far left and the extreme right in my friend groups.
-
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
Nah... not really. Maybe. Nukes? Mutually assured destruction?
One good thing about our current times is that even a authoritative ruler like Putin tries to avoid using the word "War" for his actions, and tries to uphold the illusion of a democracy with fair elections. It doesn't save the life of the Ukrainian people or his own soldiers, but still...
-
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
Nah... not really. Maybe. Nukes? Mutually assured destruction?
It's a bit comforting to know that the US isn't the only country with politicians unwilling to enforce "red lines." I mean, how many times has Putin (or is spokespeople) said "Doing X is an act of war, don't do it!"? It happened with sanctions, it happened with Javelins, it happened with tanks and artillery and intel and... and... and... It's to the point where even if they *did* mean "don't do this or we'll nuke," nobody would take them seriously. It's the opposite of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
-
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
Nah... not really. Maybe. Nukes? Mutually assured destruction?
It's a bit comforting to know that the US isn't the only country with politicians unwilling to enforce "red lines." I mean, how many times has Putin (or is spokespeople) said "Doing X is an act of war, don't do it!"? It happened with sanctions, it happened with Javelins, it happened with tanks and artillery and intel and... and... and... It's to the point where even if they *did* mean "don't do this or we'll nuke," nobody would take them seriously. It's the opposite of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
I find the bolded bit terrifying rather than comforting, but agree otherwise.
-
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
Nah... not really. Maybe. Nukes? Mutually assured destruction?
It's a bit comforting to know that the US isn't the only country with politicians unwilling to enforce "red lines." I mean, how many times has Putin (or is spokespeople) said "Doing X is an act of war, don't do it!"? It happened with sanctions, it happened with Javelins, it happened with tanks and artillery and intel and... and... and... It's to the point where even if they *did* mean "don't do this or we'll nuke," nobody would take them seriously. It's the opposite of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
You are absolutely right. I can pinpoint when it became clear that there was no planned response with unconventional weapons. It took them more than a week, if I recall correctly, to publicly respond and calling it an act of war - too late for a credible response. They blinked, and that was it:
... the most severe economic sanctions (or what may be better characterized as economic attacks) ever imposed on a near peer nation are in place and the objectives are the precipitation of a banking crisis and the collapse of the Russian economy.
This is unprecedented and constitutes a major challenge to the Russian leadership. Under the current circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Russian leadership could interepret this other than an act of war.
...
-
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
Nah... not really. Maybe. Nukes? Mutually assured destruction?
It's a bit comforting to know that the US isn't the only country with politicians unwilling to enforce "red lines." I mean, how many times has Putin (or is spokespeople) said "Doing X is an act of war, don't do it!"? It happened with sanctions, it happened with Javelins, it happened with tanks and artillery and intel and... and... and... It's to the point where even if they *did* mean "don't do this or we'll nuke," nobody would take them seriously. It's the opposite of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
I find the bolded bit terrifying rather than comforting, but agree otherwise.
Right now he has trouble getting troops (cannon fodder to some). I thought if he made an actual "war" proclamation that he would be free to draft any and all eligible individuals. Russia has a population of 144 million. Ukraine has a population of around 44 million. Putin has made a phone call to his buddy in Belarus to get his army in gear. Belarus has a population of 9.3 million.
Population resources are 3.5 to 1. He seems to have a huge backlog of military equipment left from the Soviet days. Since old Soviet equipment has been refitted for NATO, it seems as though the Soviet backlog could be renewed for use in the Ukraine conflict.
He has both lied to his people about this war and stifled them from any form of resistance to this war. I can envision some forms of resistance beginning in Belarus if the troops are sent South to Ukraine, but I think the populace of Russia will follow lockstep.
I've read wars are often a battle of resources with soldiers being one of the chief ones. The West can eventually exceed the military resources that Russia can supply since they don't have the capacity for renewal, but the supply of soldiers could be limited.
-
If Putin says this is now an all out war, will it make much of a difference?
Nah... not really. Maybe. Nukes? Mutually assured destruction?
It's a bit comforting to know that the US isn't the only country with politicians unwilling to enforce "red lines." I mean, how many times has Putin (or is spokespeople) said "Doing X is an act of war, don't do it!"? It happened with sanctions, it happened with Javelins, it happened with tanks and artillery and intel and... and... and... It's to the point where even if they *did* mean "don't do this or we'll nuke," nobody would take them seriously. It's the opposite of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
I find the bolded bit terrifying rather than comforting, but agree otherwise.
Right now he has trouble getting troops (cannon fodder to some). I thought if he made an actual "war" proclamation that he would be free to draft any and all eligible individuals. Russia has a population of 144 million. Ukraine has a population of around 44 million. Putin has made a phone call to his buddy in Belarus to get his army in gear. Belarus has a population of 9.3 million.
Population resources are 3.5 to 1. He seems to have a huge backlog of military equipment left from the Soviet days. Since old Soviet equipment has been refitted for NATO, it seems as though the Soviet backlog could be renewed for use in the Ukraine conflict.
He has both lied to his people about this war and stifled them from any form of resistance to this war. I can envision some forms of resistance beginning in Belarus if the troops are sent South to Ukraine, but I think the populace of Russia will follow lockstep.
I've read wars are often a battle of resources with soldiers being one of the chief ones. The West can eventually exceed the military resources that Russia can supply since they don't have the capacity for renewal, but the supply of soldiers could be limited.
Maybe not entirely lockstep. There's been a LOT of fires in Russia. There's 3 main possible sources that I see: Ukraine is starting them somehow, accidental, or people inside Russia are starting them. With all the big fires and explosions, all in different parts of Russia, I can't believe they're all Ukraine. Or all accidents. It must be a combo of the 3.
-
Right now he has trouble getting troops (cannon fodder to some). I thought if he made an actual "war" proclamation that he would be free to draft any and all eligible individuals. Russia has a population of 144 million. Ukraine has a population of around 44 million. Putin has made a phone call to his buddy in Belarus to get his army in gear. Belarus has a population of 9.3 million.
Population resources are 3.5 to 1. He seems to have a huge backlog of military equipment left from the Soviet days. Since old Soviet equipment has been refitted for NATO, it seems as though the Soviet backlog could be renewed for use in the Ukraine conflict.
From what I've seen, however, the vast majority of that reserve military equipment is scrap. Sitting in warehouses and fields, rusting away while their defense contractors abscond with the maintenance funds. They've already thrown the best equipment they have into this fight, up to and including one-off prototype tanks. There is documented evidence they've lost half of their tanks, and the reality is likely substantially higher. Their vaunted elite paratroopers, the VDV, have been shredded in every engagement. The pride of their Black Sea fleet, the Moskva, was sunk, and even it was decades out-of-date. They've already pulled a number of units from the eastern half of the country to backfill for their losses. They have somewhere between 8k and 12k troops just trying to beat out the last of the resistance (1k Ukrainians?) in Mariupol.
Population resources don't mean a whole lot, either. Ukraine has the edge in equipment, training, tactics, discipline, and morale. Perhaps eight years ago their troops were on par with the Russians, but ever since 2014 they've been reforming and training with western government advice. Russia can't just throw a bunch of minimally-trained, undisciplined, under-supplied troops into battle and expect to win, although I wouldn't be surprised if they try. They're already suffering a massive brain drain--many of those with the resources to leave, are leaving. And I've heard anecdotes of young men who are conveniently out of town when the recruiters come knocking.
At the moment, the front is pretty static, with only very marginal gains for either side. And that's *after* Russia withdrew from the north and regrouped in the south and east, and before the heavier weapons and support (tanks, artillery, etc) started arriving from the West. It'll be interesting to see what impact the new arms make.
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
The more I learn about the Russian guys, the more I think they are a culture that retains mysterious mystic beliefs. From the link:
Putin is said to bathe in the blood extracted from deer antlers, which are hacked off while they are growing and still full of fresh blood, the outlet said. The sickening “antler baths” are an alternative therapy in the Altai region of Russia, which borders Khazakstan and Mongolia.
After this war is said and done, Hollywood is going to have fun making a movie about this Putin guy.
That just sounds absurd. You would need a herd of 1,000 deer to get enough blood to bathe in. How could this have ever developed as a therapy if the only person rich enough to afford it is the president? This would literally cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor alone just to get enough people cutting off deer antlers and capturing the blood to get the tens of gallons necessary to actually bathe in (less if it was just poured over someone).
Nah, with the corruption level in Russia you just need one pair of antlers to show off to the clients, the rest of the blood is straight from whatever the slaughterhouse processed recently.
-
Kremlinology is alive and well: Putin to undergo cancer surgery, transfer power to ex-FSB chief: report (https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/vladimir-putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power/)
"according to a video from the mysterious Telegram channel “General SVR” on Saturday."
Fake news. Until one of the intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government, or Russian news says something, it's a rumor. And if Russian news says it, its probably still false but at least you can extrapolate what the truth likely is based on the falsehood.
The more I learn about the Russian guys, the more I think they are a culture that retains mysterious mystic beliefs. From the link:
Putin is said to bathe in the blood extracted from deer antlers, which are hacked off while they are growing and still full of fresh blood, the outlet said. The sickening “antler baths” are an alternative therapy in the Altai region of Russia, which borders Khazakstan and Mongolia.
After this war is said and done, Hollywood is going to have fun making a movie about this Putin guy.
That just sounds absurd. You would need a herd of 1,000 deer to get enough blood to bathe in. How could this have ever developed as a therapy if the only person rich enough to afford it is the president? This would literally cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor alone just to get enough people cutting off deer antlers and capturing the blood to get the tens of gallons necessary to actually bathe in (less if it was just poured over someone).
Nah, with the corruption level in Russia you just need one pair of antlers to show off to the clients, the rest of the blood is straight from whatever the slaughterhouse processed recently.
Aha! THAT must be why it isn't working! :P
-
Right now he has trouble getting troops (cannon fodder to some). I thought if he made an actual "war" proclamation that he would be free to draft any and all eligible individuals. Russia has a population of 144 million. Ukraine has a population of around 44 million. Putin has made a phone call to his buddy in Belarus to get his army in gear. Belarus has a population of 9.3 million.
Population resources are 3.5 to 1. He seems to have a huge backlog of military equipment left from the Soviet days. Since old Soviet equipment has been refitted for NATO, it seems as though the Soviet backlog could be renewed for use in the Ukraine conflict.
From what I've seen, however, the vast majority of that reserve military equipment is scrap. Sitting in warehouses and fields, rusting away while their defense contractors abscond with the maintenance funds. They've already thrown the best equipment they have into this fight, up to and including one-off prototype tanks. There is documented evidence they've lost half of their tanks, and the reality is likely substantially higher. Their vaunted elite paratroopers, the VDV, have been shredded in every engagement. The pride of their Black Sea fleet, the Moskva, was sunk, and even it was decades out-of-date. They've already pulled a number of units from the eastern half of the country to backfill for their losses. They have somewhere between 8k and 12k troops just trying to beat out the last of the resistance (1k Ukrainians?) in Mariupol.
Population resources don't mean a whole lot, either. Ukraine has the edge in equipment, training, tactics, discipline, and morale. Perhaps eight years ago their troops were on par with the Russians, but ever since 2014 they've been reforming and training with western government advice. Russia can't just throw a bunch of minimally-trained, undisciplined, under-supplied troops into battle and expect to win, although I wouldn't be surprised if they try. They're already suffering a massive brain drain--many of those with the resources to leave, are leaving. And I've heard anecdotes of young men who are conveniently out of town when the recruiters come knocking.
At the moment, the front is pretty static, with only very marginal gains for either side. And that's *after* Russia withdrew from the north and regrouped in the south and east, and before the heavier weapons and support (tanks, artillery, etc) started arriving from the West. It'll be interesting to see what impact the new arms make.
What about the rather strong possibility of Belarus entering the war? Here's what Wiki says:
In 2017 the IISS estimated that personnel in the armed forces numbered 48,000. Most soldiers are conscripts serving for a period of 18 months, although there is an alternative service option.[6]
Belarus conducted military reforms in the early 2000s which reshaped its armed forces as a relatively effective force for a small state in somewhat difficult economic conditions.[7]
Unlike Russia, Belarus had some rather strong protests regarding dictator Lukashenko's reelection. In fact, I think there are a lot of folks in that country that support Ukraine and if they sent the army away, the people may make trouble for the dictator. Even he has been quoted as not wanting Belarus in this fight.
-
Right now he has trouble getting troops (cannon fodder to some). I thought if he made an actual "war" proclamation that he would be free to draft any and all eligible individuals. Russia has a population of 144 million. Ukraine has a population of around 44 million. Putin has made a phone call to his buddy in Belarus to get his army in gear. Belarus has a population of 9.3 million.
Population resources are 3.5 to 1. He seems to have a huge backlog of military equipment left from the Soviet days. Since old Soviet equipment has been refitted for NATO, it seems as though the Soviet backlog could be renewed for use in the Ukraine conflict.
From what I've seen, however, the vast majority of that reserve military equipment is scrap. Sitting in warehouses and fields, rusting away while their defense contractors abscond with the maintenance funds. They've already thrown the best equipment they have into this fight, up to and including one-off prototype tanks. There is documented evidence they've lost half of their tanks, and the reality is likely substantially higher. Their vaunted elite paratroopers, the VDV, have been shredded in every engagement. The pride of their Black Sea fleet, the Moskva, was sunk, and even it was decades out-of-date. They've already pulled a number of units from the eastern half of the country to backfill for their losses. They have somewhere between 8k and 12k troops just trying to beat out the last of the resistance (1k Ukrainians?) in Mariupol.
Population resources don't mean a whole lot, either. Ukraine has the edge in equipment, training, tactics, discipline, and morale. Perhaps eight years ago their troops were on par with the Russians, but ever since 2014 they've been reforming and training with western government advice. Russia can't just throw a bunch of minimally-trained, undisciplined, under-supplied troops into battle and expect to win, although I wouldn't be surprised if they try. They're already suffering a massive brain drain--many of those with the resources to leave, are leaving. And I've heard anecdotes of young men who are conveniently out of town when the recruiters come knocking.
At the moment, the front is pretty static, with only very marginal gains for either side. And that's *after* Russia withdrew from the north and regrouped in the south and east, and before the heavier weapons and support (tanks, artillery, etc) started arriving from the West. It'll be interesting to see what impact the new arms make.
Raw manpower is a pointless statistic without comparing it to how quickly can that manpower be trained and equipped for war. Before the United States could put millions into the Army for WW2, it had to expand the number of training bases and staff 10x to accommodate the influx. That took months and was started before Pearl Harbor. Even the millions of former conscripts and retired soldiers will need weeks of retraining before they're of any use. Most will be out of shape, in poor health, and working jobs that will still be necessary to the Russian economy. Can they replaced? Sure, but not quickly. Russians best option if it wants to make the war formal would be to send the existing conscripts into the fight. They are the best trained and equipped reserves available, for varying definitions of trained and equipped. Once they're committed and start dying, that's it. That's the next generation of potential career soldiers that won't be around to rebuild the Russian army when this is over.
-
Russia couldn't manage a war on two fronts just in Ukraine. Opening up a second front against an even better-prepared foe would be...ill-advised. Of course, given the past couple of months, "ill-advised" doesn't mean it won't happen.
[/quote]
That said Finnland's military is all about "holding them back long enough to get massive help from other countries" (because they are even more outnumbered than the Ukrainians, who were not only very brave but also extremely lucky at the beginning). They have neither equipment nor plans for an attack. But they will have a damn effective defense. Even if Russia fully mobilizes, I doubt they could win in both countries at the same time.
What about the rather strong possibility of Belarus entering the war?
Nah. The military heads refused to do that once already in fear of losing control. The Belarus leader is not going to risk a military revolt on top of the half-revolt the civilians are making (like sabotaging of train infrastructure). I mean there is an actual active-military belarussian troop fighting on the Ukrainian side. They just decided they need a long break from their service and are defending Belarussian democracy on Ukrainian soil (their words).
-
Russia couldn't manage a war on two fronts just in Ukraine. Opening up a second front against an even better-prepared foe would be...ill-advised. Of course, given the past couple of months, "ill-advised" doesn't mean it won't happen.
That said Finnland's military is all about "holding them back long enough to get massive help from other countries" (because they are even more outnumbered than the Ukrainians, who were not only very brave but also extremely lucky at the beginning). They have neither equipment nor plans for an attack. But they will have a damn effective defense. Even if Russia fully mobilizes, I doubt they could win in both countries at the same time.
What about the rather strong possibility of Belarus entering the war?
Nah. The military heads refused to do that once already in fear of losing control. The Belarus leader is not going to risk a military revolt on top of the half-revolt the civilians are making (like sabotaging of train infrastructure). I mean there is an actual active-military belarussian troop fighting on the Ukrainian side. They just decided they need a long break from their service and are defending Belarussian democracy on Ukrainian soil (their words).
[/quote]
I like that assessment of what Belarus will do. I'm sure Putin has been putting the pressure on the Belarus dictator. So, what other country does Putin have on his side?
Now, if I was Putin, I think I'd look around and say, "The whole world is not with me on this one. Am I doing something wrong?"
So, the assessment from previous comments is that he will not be able to make substantial additions to the troops he now has. Most of the world is committed to helping the Ukrainians stop this war. Modern weapons supplied to Ukraine will help. Sooner or later, those sanctions will do something.
The Russians need to be ground down.
Hopefully after the war, international bankers will not keep the country poor.
And the Snake Island stampi0s sort of cool.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/20/1093764504/ukraine-snake-island-postage-stamp (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/20/1093764504/ukraine-snake-island-postage-stamp)
-
So, the assessment from previous comments is that he will not be able to make substantial additions to the troops he now has.
IF he does not mobilize. There are signs he is preparing for it. But it still holds true that those reserves will be very much ill equipped and with extremely low moral.
-
I like that assessment of what Belarus will do. I'm sure Putin has been putting the pressure on the Belarus dictator. So, what other country does Putin have on his side?
Now, if I was Putin, I think I'd look around and say, "The whole world is not with me on this one. Am I doing something wrong?"
So, the assessment from previous comments is that he will not be able to make substantial additions to the troops he now has. Most of the world is committed to helping the Ukrainians stop this war. Modern weapons supplied to Ukraine will help. Sooner or later, those sanctions will do something.
...
And the Snake Island stampi0s sort of cool.
What countries are on Putin's side? Broadly speaking, it's a regular "Who's who" of the world's worst dictators, plus countries who depend on Russia for oil, weapons, or both.
Putin may well be able to mobile a lot of troops. The consensus I've seen is that they'll be worthless in battle. In the long term, Russia is hosed, and Ukraine will take hundreds of billions, or trillions, to rebuild. In the short term, it's a matter of how much additional destruction Russia can wreak. In the medium term, it's a question of how much Ukrainian land Russia can hold, and for how long.
I think that's why Putin wants to hold a referendum--if he can claim that Luhansk/Donbas have voted to join Russia, then Ukrainian attacks on Russian forces there can be used as justification for wider mobilization.
I want to buy one of those stamps...
-
So, what other country does Putin have on his side?
What countries are on Putin's side? Broadly speaking, it's a regular "Who's who" of the world's worst dictators, plus countries who depend on Russia for oil, weapons, or both.
The most populous countries on earth: China & India. While China doesn't want to upset trading partners (EU, US), they refuse to join sanctions on Russia. India seems to be closer to Russia than I expected, with almost a rebellious attitude at pressure from the West. And these two are strange bedfellows, with India & China having no love lost over their border skirmishes.
Now, if I was Putin, I think I'd look around and say, "The whole world is not with me on this one. Am I doing something wrong?"
From listening to experts on Putin, I don't think he introspects like this. Putin is less likely to do soul searching, and more likely to impose laws imprisoning people 3-15 years if they criticize the war. The journalist who flashed a sign on Russian TV explaining what was going on got 3 years in prison, I think (I didn't follow the trial itself).
Putin created this whole WWII theme around Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Most of Russia simply accepts it - and some would be too scared to admit otherwise. Like the Russian living in Ukraine trying to explain she might be killed by Russian bombing - and her mother contradicted her, saying no that was Ukraine bombing itself, etc. Russians won't believe their own children even if they might die. I'd say that's a pretty severe form of brainwashing, and leaves Putin unconcerned about what people think.
-
So, what other country does Putin have on his side?
What countries are on Putin's side? Broadly speaking, it's a regular "Who's who" of the world's worst dictators, plus countries who depend on Russia for oil, weapons, or both.
The most populous countries on earth: China & India. While China doesn't want to upset trading partners (EU, US), they refuse to join sanctions on Russia. India seems to be closer to Russia than I expected, with almost a rebellious attitude at pressure from the West. And these two are strange bedfellows, with India & China having no love lost over their border skirmishes.
Now, if I was Putin, I think I'd look around and say, "The whole world is not with me on this one. Am I doing something wrong?"
From listening to experts on Putin, I don't think he introspects like this. Putin is less likely to do soul searching, and more likely to impose laws imprisoning people 3-15 years if they criticize the war. The journalist who flashed a sign on Russian TV explaining what was going on got 3 years in prison, I think (I didn't follow the trial itself).
Putin created this whole WWII theme around Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Most of Russia simply accepts it - and some would be too scared to admit otherwise. Like the Russian living in Ukraine trying to explain she might be killed by Russian bombing - and her mother contradicted her, saying no that was Ukraine bombing itself, etc. Russians won't believe their own children even if they might die. I'd say that's a pretty severe form of brainwashing, and leaves Putin unconcerned about what people think.
People keep saying "this is Putin's war, not the Russian people's war". I disagree. The Russian people are closing their eyes and refusing to see what is actually happening. That is not a morally neutral action.
-
So, what other country does Putin have on his side?
What countries are on Putin's side? Broadly speaking, it's a regular "Who's who" of the world's worst dictators, plus countries who depend on Russia for oil, weapons, or both.
The most populous countries on earth: China & India. While China doesn't want to upset trading partners (EU, US), they refuse to join sanctions on Russia. India seems to be closer to Russia than I expected, with almost a rebellious attitude at pressure from the West. And these two are strange bedfellows, with India & China having no love lost over their border skirmishes.
I think the dependence on Russia for weapons is only a small part of the puzzle when it comes to understanding India's position.
India and Russia have a history going back decades. I work with a couple of folks from there and one night over beers did the obnoxiously cliche american thing and asked one of them about why India was so supportive of Russia. He brought up the 1971 war (that I never even learned about in school) and spoke glowingly about how Russia was the only country that would come in India's aid when the whole world was against them. Armed with that I've been able to talk to a few other people with more finesse than "hey, explain your original home country to me" and a substantial majority of individual people who grew up in India speak very positively of Russia.
-
So, what other country does Putin have on his side?
What countries are on Putin's side? Broadly speaking, it's a regular "Who's who" of the world's worst dictators, plus countries who depend on Russia for oil, weapons, or both.
The most populous countries on earth: China & India. While China doesn't want to upset trading partners (EU, US), they refuse to join sanctions on Russia. India seems to be closer to Russia than I expected, with almost a rebellious attitude at pressure from the West. And these two are strange bedfellows, with India & China having no love lost over their border skirmishes.
I think the dependence on Russia for weapons is only a small part of the puzzle when it comes to understanding India's position.
India and Russia have a history going back decades. I work with a couple of folks from there and one night over beers did the obnoxiously cliche american thing and asked one of them about why India was so supportive of Russia. He brought up the 1971 war (that I never even learned about in school) and spoke glowingly about how Russia was the only country that would come in India's aid when the whole world was against them. Armed with that I've been able to talk to a few other people with more finesse than "hey, explain your original home country to me" and a substantial majority of individual people who grew up in India speak very positively of Russia.
It could be that both India and China will smile at Russia from the sidelines during this war and not engage. India is beginning to build it's own weapons. They have sold their BrahMos cruise missiles to neighboring countries. There is a lot of Western investment pouring into India. I doubt whether they want to sour a bright future on supporting an old friend who has strayed from the right path.
I sometimes wrongly like to think I have been aware of world events. The 1971 war was the war when Bangladesh separated themselves from Pakistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971)
Rock'n'Roll history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_Bangladesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_Bangladesh)
Perhaps both countries will continue to buy Russian oil at a discount from the world oil price.
-
The Indian armed forces were heavily dependent on Soviet technology until the late 1990s. It was only then that the US began moving away from supplying Pakistan exclusively (though India was more ideologically aligned with representative democracy and Pakistan had recurrent issues with military dictators, India was thought to be more socialist and thus aligned with the USSR). This changed as Pakistan intelligence began supporting non-US aligned militant Islamists. Not that the US had an issue with Islamic extremists per se, but as long as they aligned with the US goals of destabilizing the USSR influence in the region (I.e. in Afghanistan). When Pakistan intelligence began supporting Al Qaeda / Taliban associated groups, the US became less interested in Pakistan. India has not really forgiven the US for supporting Pakistan and essentially is pursuing a self-interest foreign policy without any strong defensive alliances with either side. They have no reason to expect reciprocity from the US ok event of another Pakistan attack.
So basically now India is saying that Russia’s fiascos don’t affect India generally, there’s a low risk of the conflict expanding to India, and there’s no reason to think the US will support India with oil exports in exchange for helping out (we can barely support Europe’s needs). Thus the lack of interest in crippling their economy for an unrelated matter. This rationale also applies to China, and really any country not bordering Ukraine. I think in the long term this is short-sighted, but can understand the reluctance to assist when resources are limited, and there is no clear end to the conflict.
Regarding the wars - India is irritated that the US kept selling weapons to Pakistan despite multiple attacks by Pakistan over several years. Granted; there was plenty of money to be made by both the US and USSR supplying weapons to the two sides. Also it can be argued that India got involved in a Pakistani civil war in 1971, though who started what is always unclear in these conflicts. India will argue it was a humanitarian crisis in east Pakistan (Bangladesh) that spurred their involvement, but it was also a “kick them when they are down” strategy too. Regardless no one was excited about getting involved, for obvious reasons.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
Testing Russia's resolve to escalate at a time of deepening involvement in Ukrainian operations that moght be transitioning into a broader counteroffensive.
-
Or accepting a non-optimal foreign relations choice (my guess is Russia already knew we were sharing intel with Ukraine, but talking about it publicly probably makes it harder to swallow) because of domestic pressure. The Biden administration is getting much more flack domestically from people who are upset at then for not doing more in Ukraine than for doing too much, so talking publicly about more of what they are already doing may be an attempt to relieve some of that pressure.
-
I was under the impression that intel sharing with Ukraine has already been known for several weeks. For higher-ups in the US to openly state it, however, is significant.
But what is Russia gonna do about it? Cyberattacks? Nukes? That's about all they've got left. Certainly the cyberattacks are worth worrying about, but those have also been going on for quite some time.
-
I was under the impression that intel sharing with Ukraine has already been known for several weeks. For higher-ups in the US to openly state it, however, is significant.
But what is Russia gonna do about it? Cyberattacks? Nukes? That's about all they've got left. Certainly the cyberattacks are worth worrying about, but those have also been going on for quite some time.
Russia would have to be complete morons to think we weren't giving them intel. We have dozens of aircraft watching the war 24/7. Saying it out loud is the weird part. Russia can't do anything overt about it to us.
-
I was under the impression that intel sharing with Ukraine has already been known for several weeks. For higher-ups in the US to openly state it, however, is significant.
But what is Russia gonna do about it? Cyberattacks? Nukes? That's about all they've got left. Certainly the cyberattacks are worth worrying about, but those have also been going on for quite some time.
Russia would have to be complete morons to think we weren't giving them intel. We have dozens of aircraft watching the war 24/7. Saying it out loud is the weird part. Russia can't do anything overt about it to us.
Is this now considered a war of attrition? It seems like the battle lines don't have much movement. It seems every day the Ukrainians chip away at maybe 200 men, 5 or 6 tanks, etc. Russia seems to be fighting for crazy ideas. Will they eventually decide to cut their losses and just go home?
-
I was under the impression that intel sharing with Ukraine has already been known for several weeks. For higher-ups in the US to openly state it, however, is significant.
But what is Russia gonna do about it? Cyberattacks? Nukes? That's about all they've got left. Certainly the cyberattacks are worth worrying about, but those have also been going on for quite some time.
Russia would have to be complete morons to think we weren't giving them intel. We have dozens of aircraft watching the war 24/7. Saying it out loud is the weird part. Russia can't do anything overt about it to us.
Is this now considered a war of attrition? It seems like the battle lines don't have much movement. It seems every day the Ukrainians chip away at maybe 200 men, 5 or 6 tanks, etc. Russia seems to be fighting for crazy ideas. Will they eventually decide to cut their losses and just go home?
Russia has been throwing tanks and artillery against the eastern lines for 3 weeks now and gained 20 miles from Izyum. The main line facing Donetsk has moved single digit miles. It's cost them close to 5k dead or wounded and a few hundred vehicles. Ukraine doesn't really advertise its losses, but they are considerably fewer than Russia's. Ukrainian forces are also driving Russian troops from Kharkiv back towards the border. Ukraine doesn't have the armor or mobility to encircle Russian troop concentrations, but they're taking territory. Russian strategy won't really change until Ukrainian forces retake Kherson and they start losing ground in Donbas. I think Putin is still hoping he can negotiate himself into holding post-2014 territory.
It is a war of attrition for the most part, but right now Ukraine has the advantage being mostly on the defensive with very precise weaponry.
-
Looks like the Ukrainian counteroffensive is well under way:
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1522871820487372800
-
Looks like the Ukrainian counteroffensive is well under way:
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1522871820487372800
Ooh, looks nice.
I guess by now most of the Ukrainian reservist are in the fight, giving Ukraine a numerical advantage now that Kyiv front is closed.
That is also the reason I think for the sudden Belarus's "manouvers". Since Belarus does not dare to force it's troops to attack, they should at least be a thread high enough that it pins down a sizable amount of Ukrainian troops.
Imho all comes down to if Putin dares to declare mobilization on the 9th. If not he will lose to time and support of Ukraine from The West.
-
I am still continuously impressed by how bad the Russians are. Several times a week I find myself wondering if they are trying to lose the war on purpose. Like when Lavrov said Jews were Nazis and Hitler was a Jew. And Putin had to apologize to the Israeli PM after they started to transfer non-lethal arms and before they could start getting to the sophisticated and deadly stuff. Like, really? Plus several extremely dumb tactical and strategic decisions a day, like getting repeatedly blasted on Snake Island, or suggesting a "military socialist" economy is the right ticket. It really seems like they are trying to both lose the war and drag their economy and society into the Russian 1950's for perpetuity.
-
I am still continuously impressed by how bad the Russians are. Several times a week I find myself wondering if they are trying to lose the war on purpose. Like when Lavrov said Jews were Nazis and Hitler was a Jew. And Putin had to apologize to the Israeli PM after they started to transfer non-lethal arms and before they could start getting to the sophisticated and deadly stuff. Like, really? Plus several extremely dumb tactical and strategic decisions a day, like getting repeatedly blasted on Snake Island, or suggesting a "military socialist" economy is the right ticket. It really seems like they are trying to both lose the war and drag their economy and society into the Russian 1950's for perpetuity.
How can they obtain allies or even be sold war materials when they kill innocent women and children? No Society condones that sort of behavior. Those photos of them blowing up that baby hospital and killing pregnant women didn't help them. Then, they don't have a real cause. The Nazi thing sure seems like a fairy tale. The trumped up tales of Russians being persecuted in breakaway provinces smells like rotten fish too.
If Russia was an individual person, it would be locked up to be observed for a while due to abhorrent behavior.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
Russia deliberately attacking a U.S. Navy ship is an act of war. That also triggers NATO article 5, that an attack on one is an attack on all. The U.S. and Europe could decide to declare war on Russia over such an attack - and the firepower the U.S. brings on Russia would be far worse than one Navy ship feeding intel to Ukraine.
If this Navy intelligence ship is a hostage and Russia a gunman, then I'd say the U.S. would be Dirty Harry aiming at the gunman's head and saying "Go ahead, make my day." Not with a smile, but with grim determination. The U.S. already views Ukraine as a means to defend democrancy and weaken Russia. If Russia wants to declare war on NATO, that would make permanently weakening Russia a certainty.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BljFluglIPg
Watching the video, it seems more obvious that the US has been helping the Ukraine with intelligences.
At first I wonder why the NY times would published such news but as the video continue to explain, maybe the US is leaking the info out on purpose just to deter the Soviet just a bit. It's like "hey Ukraine has our help, you're not going to win this war. You need to quit now".
-
Russia has retreated from Kharkiv, that’s a good sign. It appears the heavy weapons NATO is sending has beaten back Russian forces in several areas, but they just keep coming in other areas. It’s a bloody fight of wack-a-mole. Russian strategy remains completely poorly thought out, as per usual.
-
Yes, Ukraine is doing quite well in the north. But their progress in pushing Russia back further south isn't as good. I know there's a ton of stuff being sent to Ukraine, not sure if it's in active use yet. Hopefully they'll be able to make more progress in the south.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-7
-
The talking heads in Russian media probably realized they all overstepped the Nazi narrative vis a vis Israel, and are now qualifying "Nazi doesn't mean anti-Jew" but rather "Nazi means whatever we need it to mean."
-
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1523036461595242498 (https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1523036461595242498)
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1522993211513663489 (https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1522993211513663489)
Russian state media expressing concern that mobilization wouldn't be logistically supportable. 180 degree change from a week ago where they were advocating national call to arms against all of Europe.
-
Yes, Ukraine is doing quite well in the north. But their progress in pushing Russia back further south isn't as good. I know there's a ton of stuff being sent to Ukraine, not sure if it's in active use yet. Hopefully they'll be able to make more progress in the south.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-7
They need to blow that bridge up to Russian mainland and stop stuff from coming up through Crimea.
-
They would simply ship it. Of course that is a lot harder/expensive.
The talking heads in Russian media probably realized they all overstepped the Nazi narrative vis a vis Israel, and are now qualifying "Nazi doesn't mean anti-Jew" but rather "Nazi means whatever we need it to mean."
My feelings are very much conflicted in the face of the the unusual thruthness.
-
They would simply ship it. Of course that is a lot harder/expensive.
- SNIP -
My feelings are very much conflicted in the face of the the unusual thruthness.
That bridge to Crimea sure does look like a weak link in the Russian military.
If you look at a map, you will see the territory the Russians have. It's like a belt of land along the border. Part of that belt crosses the sea of Azov. The Russian holding is rather narrow. If that belt of Russian occupied land was broken there, they would largely only be able to resupply their forces on Crimea either by the new bridge to Crimea or by sea.
Could it be broken? Look at the tough time the Russians have had with the soldiers in Mariupol.
It just seems like with the new weapons being supplied, attempts to resupply by water could be thwarted from the air.
That bridge is new. It would also demoralize the Russians.
Just another thought on your computer screen. Not even worth a cup of coffee.
-
Yes, Ukraine is doing quite well in the north. But their progress in pushing Russia back further south isn't as good. I know there's a ton of stuff being sent to Ukraine, not sure if it's in active use yet. Hopefully they'll be able to make more progress in the south.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-7
Retaking a chunk of the North means cutting of a major supply route which has been supporting the Russian forces in the East. Supplies and logistics are already a significant weak point for Russia. Cutting this supply line will be a major blow to the capacity of Russian forces - which are frequently already low on equipment, fuel and food. Tank or APC doesn't do much good when it runs out of gas and ammo. Soldiers' morale and ability to fight significantly degrades without food.
-
Good surprises!
Canada's PM Trudeau went to Ukraine, specifically Irpin.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1523307225485352965
Jill Biden went to Ukraine, she met with Zelensky's wife today. Who at least for today was in Uzhhorod in Western Ukraine. First time since the war started that her location was publicly known.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1523302746207698945
-
Incredible video about the attack from the Autrian military. Unfortunately German only, but maybe someone makes subtitles.
If I am not wrong it shows what we had earlier in this thread about the town with artillery on bith sides. Also pictures and numbers I have not seen before and historical comparison. Even if you don't understand the language, you should watch the pictures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJiuc4KWmQo
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSxdfu3WPSc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSxdfu3WPSc)
Moscow Victory Parade. Putin's speech starts at 24:19.
TL;DW
-This conflict is an extension of WW2
-It's all NATO's fault for teaching Ukraine how to defend themselves
-They wanted to put nukes (not bioweapons) in Ukraine
-Donbas is Russia
-I care about wounded soldiers. I signed a law saying so.
Also, the parade was 75% of the size of previous years incorporating some older equipment because the better stuff is at the front. Original plan was to have SU-27s fly in a "Z" shape, but they're all at the front so older MiG-29s were swapped in. Flyover was also to include bombers. All were cancelled due to "weather." Its partly cloudy in Moscow today. Maintenance problems are suspected.
-
Also, the parade was 75% of the size of previous years incorporating some older equipment because the better stuff is at the front. Original plan was to have SU-27s fly in a "Z" shape, but they're all at the front so older MiG-29s were swapped in. Flyover was also to include bombers. All were cancelled due to "weather." Its partly cloudy in Moscow today. Maintenance problems are suspected.
I saw a post somewhere that said that *all* victory day flyovers in the entire country were cancelled due to "weather".
I have to wonder if they're worried about Stingers infiltrating the country. Heaven knows they've had plenty of "accidents" at various military-related facilities over the past few weeks.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
Russia deliberately attacking a U.S. Navy ship is an act of war.
I don't disagree with you but doesn't that play both ways? If the Pentagon helped sink a Russian ship even if the USA didn't pull the trigger directly - couldn't the Russians argue this was an act of war?
Or - am I missing something like they won't complain too loudly b/c they are unable to really do anything about it?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
Russia deliberately attacking a U.S. Navy ship is an act of war.
I don't disagree with you but doesn't that play both ways? If the Pentagon helped sink a Russian ship even if the USA didn't pull the trigger directly - couldn't the Russians argue this was an act of war?
Or - am I missing something like they won't complain too loudly b/c they are unable to really do anything about it?
Wasn't that the whole cold war?
-
Also, the parade was 75% of the size of previous years incorporating some older equipment because the better stuff is at the front. Original plan was to have SU-27s fly in a "Z" shape, but they're all at the front so older MiG-29s were swapped in. Flyover was also to include bombers. All were cancelled due to "weather." Its partly cloudy in Moscow today. Maintenance problems are suspected.
I saw a post somewhere that said that *all* victory day flyovers in the entire country were cancelled due to "weather".
I have to wonder if they're worried about Stingers infiltrating the country. Heaven knows they've had plenty of "accidents" at various military-related facilities over the past few weeks.
You know they've been a sort of paranoid country with the worry about NATO attacking and I guess Ukraine attacking. This was their propaganda so I'm guessing at least some of them believed it. Now that they've got all these countries helping Ukraine, what's that done for the paranoia? The thing is that they've run roughshod over a lot of countries for a long long time. Is some of their paranoia justified? Is it only Ukraine messing around inside their country? The power plant fire North of Japan was a long ways from Ukraine.
-
Also, the parade was 75% of the size of previous years incorporating some older equipment because the better stuff is at the front. Original plan was to have SU-27s fly in a "Z" shape, but they're all at the front so older MiG-29s were swapped in. Flyover was also to include bombers. All were cancelled due to "weather." Its partly cloudy in Moscow today. Maintenance problems are suspected.
I saw a post somewhere that said that *all* victory day flyovers in the entire country were cancelled due to "weather".
I have to wonder if they're worried about Stingers infiltrating the country. Heaven knows they've had plenty of "accidents" at various military-related facilities over the past few weeks.
You know they've been a sort of paranoid country with the worry about NATO attacking and I guess Ukraine attacking. This was their propaganda so I'm guessing at least some of them believed it. Now that they've got all these countries helping Ukraine, what's that done for the paranoia? The thing is that they've run roughshod over a lot of countries for a long long time. Is some of their paranoia justified? Is it only Ukraine messing around inside their country? The power plant fire North of Japan was a long ways from Ukraine.
It's true, Russia has strong-armed a lot of other countries. What is happening in Ukraine is showing that Russia is a paper tiger (ie, actually weak). This will embolden those other countries that Russia has bullied in the past.
-
Incredible video about the attack from the Autrian military. Unfortunately German only, but maybe someone makes subtitles.
If I am not wrong it shows what we had earlier in this thread about the town with artillery on bith sides. Also pictures and numbers I have not seen before and historical comparison. Even if you don't understand the language, you should watch the pictures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJiuc4KWmQo
The video automatically had English subtitles for me. This is a nice video. I'll be conducting training next week with the National Guard and I think I'll use it as an example of 1. how to conduct a briefing, and 2. a good strategic/operational/tactical overview.
-
It's true, Russia has strong-armed a lot of other countries. What is happening in Ukraine is showing that Russia is a paper tiger (ie, actually weak). This will embolden those other countries that Russia has bullied in the past.
It's like somebody gave the bully a bloody nose. Or pointed out that the emperor has no clothes. Russia has been shown to have little effective military might, even before they invaded Ukraine. Now they have a whole lot less.
You know what it reminds me of? The demise of Scar at the end of The Lion King...
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
Russia deliberately attacking a U.S. Navy ship is an act of war.
I don't disagree with you but doesn't that play both ways? If the Pentagon helped sink a Russian ship even if the USA didn't pull the trigger directly - couldn't the Russians argue this was an act of war?
Or - am I missing something like they won't complain too loudly b/c they are unable to really do anything about it?
Putin's said that sanctions are an act of war. IANAL, much less an international one, but I believe you could make a decent case that sanctions, on say computer chips, are equivalent to a blockade, which is an act of war. Of course, Ukraine could argue that Russia's special military operations in Ukraine are really an act of war. Considering all the crazy things that have resulted in war in the past; soccer matches, calling a queen ugly, both sides have plenty of legitimate reasons to declare war on the other.
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational. Yes, he misjudged the Ukrainian people's will to fight and the amount of aid that would inspire the West to provide. But Putin, has no desire to expand the war to include the US and/or NATO. If he is just patient (many years) the west will probably get distracted by something else, aid will slow to Ukraine, and Russia could win a war of attrition with Ukraine. So Putin will continue to do nothing but protest the west actions, and rattle the nuclear saber.
-
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational. Yes, he misjudged the Ukrainian people's will to fight and the amount of aid that would inspire the West to provide. But Putin, has no desire to expand the war to include the US and/or NATO. If he is just patient (many years) the west will probably get distracted by something else, aid will slow to Ukraine, and Russia could win a war of attrition with Ukraine. So Putin will continue to do nothing but protest the west actions, and rattle the nuclear saber.
That ignores the long-term effect of sanctions. IMO, between sanctions and Ukraine whittling down their forces, Russia is on borrowed time. If trade were normalized, and without western military support, sure, Russia would likely win a war of attrition. Even if the West gets bored and stops supplying weapons, Ukraine would potentially still be able to purchase weapons, while Russia would be frozen in time a la North Korea.
-
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational. Yes, he misjudged the Ukrainian people's will to fight and the amount of aid that would inspire the West to provide. But Putin, has no desire to expand the war to include the US and/or NATO. If he is just patient (many years) the west will probably get distracted by something else, aid will slow to Ukraine, and Russia could win a war of attrition with Ukraine. So Putin will continue to do nothing but protest the west actions, and rattle the nuclear saber.
That ignores the long-term effect of sanctions. IMO, between sanctions and Ukraine whittling down their forces, Russia is on borrowed time. If trade were normalized, and without western military support, sure, Russia would likely win a war of attrition. Even if the West gets bored and stops supplying weapons, Ukraine would potentially still be able to purchase weapons, while Russia would be frozen in time a la North Korea.
And the brain drain effect. Russia has lost a LOT of people in the last few months, and most of them are the people you don't want to lose - younger, highly educated. Putin is increasingly left with the old, the very young, and the uneducated/unintelligent.
-
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational. Yes, he misjudged the Ukrainian people's will to fight and the amount of aid that would inspire the West to provide. But Putin, has no desire to expand the war to include the US and/or NATO. If he is just patient (many years) the west will probably get distracted by something else, aid will slow to Ukraine, and Russia could win a war of attrition with Ukraine. So Putin will continue to do nothing but protest the west actions, and rattle the nuclear saber.
That ignores the long-term effect of sanctions. IMO, between sanctions and Ukraine whittling down their forces, Russia is on borrowed time. If trade were normalized, and without western military support, sure, Russia would likely win a war of attrition. Even if the West gets bored and stops supplying weapons, Ukraine would potentially still be able to purchase weapons, while Russia would be frozen in time a la North Korea.
The West is not a single entity. I would like to think other countries with older cultures view this war with a longer time horizon than the US. Aid may diminish from one country and increase from one or more. It is the responsibility of the Ukrainians to hold to a high standard during this war. They must not allow any excuse to deny additional support. It is also their responsibility to "sell" this war. I think they've been doing an excellent PR job so far.
-
Putin's said that sanctions are an act of war. IANAL, much less an international one, but I believe you could make a decent case that sanctions, on say computer chips, are equivalent to a blockade, which is an act of war. Of course, Ukraine could argue that Russia's special military operations in Ukraine are really an act of war.
There's no argument to be made. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the start of the war. Let's not repeate Russian propaganda.
-
...
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational.
...
Beg my pardon, this actually overstretches my imagination.
-
...
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational.
...
Beg my pardon, this actually overstretches my imagination.
This could also be a power display.
-
Listening to this, about 12 minutes in they specifically talk about how people in Ukraine view Russia now. In short: according to the speaker, pure hatred.
https://geopolitics-decanted.simplecast.com/episodes/analysis-of-the-war-in-ukraine-may-1-2022
-
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational. Yes, he misjudged the Ukrainian people's will to fight and the amount of aid that would inspire the West to provide. But Putin, has no desire to expand the war to include the US and/or NATO. If he is just patient (many years) the west will probably get distracted by something else, aid will slow to Ukraine, and Russia could win a war of attrition with Ukraine. So Putin will continue to do nothing but protest the west actions, and rattle the nuclear saber.
That ignores the long-term effect of sanctions. IMO, between sanctions and Ukraine whittling down their forces, Russia is on borrowed time. If trade were normalized, and without western military support, sure, Russia would likely win a war of attrition. Even if the West gets bored and stops supplying weapons, Ukraine would potentially still be able to purchase weapons, while Russia would be frozen in time a la North Korea.
The promise of sanctions doesn't match history. Other South Africa, and maybe Libya what countries have changed course because of sanctions? Burma, Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela are under "strong" sanctions and scores of countries are under weaker sanctions. The leaders are still in power, they are still killing their own, people and many cases threatening to kill other countries, and obviously, Russia is doing precisely that
"And the brain drain effect. Russia has lost a LOT of people in the last few months, and most of them are the people you don't want to lose - younger, highly educated. Putin is increasingly left with the old, the very young, and the uneducated/unintelligent."
Agreed it is a significant loss, and the Russian economy is hurting, but other than computer chips, Russia is a pretty self-reliant country, they export food, and energy. They have lots of heavy industry, and military production. Yes, it is poorly run and very inefficient.
But Ukraine's economy is also suffering, I saw on the PBS Newshour 50-70% of Ukrainian winter wheat isn't planted, they lack manpower, fertilizer, and equipment. Plus even if they can get it planted and harvested, how will they get shipped out. Odesa is blockade by Russian warships. What if Trump is elected and he stops aid to Ukraine, after all Zelensky wasn't very nice to Trump, plus Trump would hate to have to compete with Zelensky for press attention. Where would Ukraine get the money to buy the weapons, with it is major export unable to leave the country?
The last report, I saw Europe was buying $1 billion dollars a day worth of Russian energy, which dwarves aid to Ukraine by an order of magnitude.
I've painted an admittedly grim picture in Ukraine, but I think talk of Putin's decisive loss in Ukraine is very premature.
-
"Zelensky wasn't very nice to Trump"??
Seriously?
Because he wouldn't give in to Trump's blackmail and cook up false allegations against Biden, in league with Trump's Russian handlers? You describe that as "not very nice to Trump"?
We don't know how the war will go but Russia doesn't have air or sea superiority, they are throwing everything the've got at the ground war and getting nowhere much, and the new artillery weapons together with sophisticated intelligence and drone-led targeting abilities of Ukraine will make progressively more difference to the ground war: sanctions make it impossible for Russia to get the tech needed on the scale needed to counteract Ukraine's already superior and still increasing abilities. Who knows what the war situation will be in two years' time? (For that matter, who knows whether Putin will still be alive and in power in two years' time, or even if the existing Russian Federation will still be intact?)
It's most of another two years before Trump can possibly get back into power. Europe is moving away from Russian oil and gas with Russia having few options to replace the European market (it is already selling some oil at a loss): in two years' time Europe will be taking very little from Russia. There's a decent chance that by then the billions already sanctioned and seized from Russian oligarchs will be transferred to Ukraine.
I agree the loss of harvests is a problem. But it is less a problem for Ukraine, which will still produce enough to feed itself than it is for all the countries in the middle east and Africa whose populations depend on exports from Ukraine for their daily bread. Taken together with climate change affecting food production in those countries you can expect to see famine in the poorest of those countries and possibly large scale unrest in others.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Not certain why this is being publicized. Seems like it could lead to American Navy ships being targeted...
Russia deliberately attacking a U.S. Navy ship is an act of war.
I don't disagree with you but doesn't that play both ways? If the Pentagon helped sink a Russian ship even if the USA didn't pull the trigger directly - couldn't the Russians argue this was an act of war?
Or - am I missing something like they won't complain too loudly b/c they are unable to really do anything about it?
That definitely. Putin does NOT want a war with the US ;)
But no, telling someone where something is - especially something big like a war ship - is not an act of war.
that sanctions, on say computer chips, are equivalent to a blockade,
Most definitely not. A sanction means you decide to not do trade. A blockade means you decide someone else does no trade. Very different pair of shoes. (Though you could say that heavy diplomatic pressure on a 3rd country to also sanction is a bit of grey.)
I think they've been doing an excellent PR job so far.
Damn fine work, indeed.
Another interesting twitter thread, this time on artillery use, the software for that and starlink importance for it.
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1523791050313433088
-
It's the Eurovision Song Contest this week and Ukraine is hotly tipped to win, for obvious reasons. Their entry was chosen just before the war began and hopefully the group will be making it to the contest. I have to say though, it is catchy and would have finished near the top anyway.
https://youtu.be/UiEGVYOruLk
Ukraine always incorporate traditional sounds and instruments in their entries. Last year's entry was an absolute banger and finished 5th after a massive audience vote upended the scoreboard.
https://youtu.be/U7-dxzp6Jvs
They won in 2016 with a song about the deportation of Tatars from Crimea by the Russians in the 1940s. In fact they've always done very well in the contest.
Russia and Belarus are banned from this year's contest.
-
I watched this early this morning. Its 20 minutes on the ground with folks in the east just trying to survive. No journalist talking over the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvJwv-6oNOQ
-
...
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational.
...
Beg my pardon, this actually overstretches my imagination.
This could also be a power display.
The power of purchasing custom made furniture?
I know some Amish guys who would be willing to make me a table 1 inch longer for the right price.
-
...
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational.
...
Beg my pardon, this actually overstretches my imagination.
This could also be a power display.
The power of purchasing custom made furniture?
I know some Amish guys who would be willing to make me a table 1 inch longer for the right price.
Go for it!
Power in the sense of "You can't come near/touch me" and "I'm the head of this meeting/operation/country."
Sitting together implies cooperation and equality. Sitting that far apart is symbolic of superiority and control.
-
...
Contrary to popular opinion early in the war, that Putin was acting crazy, he is actually being quite rational.
...
Beg my pardon, this actually overstretches my imagination.
This could also be a power display.
The power of purchasing custom made furniture?
I know some Amish guys who would be willing to make me a table 1 inch longer for the right price.
Go for it!
Power in the sense of "You can't come near/touch me" and "I'm the head of this meeting/operation/country."
Sitting together implies cooperation and equality. Sitting that far apart is symbolic of superiority and control.
I feel like he should at least spring for a fancier seat:
(https://winteriscoming.net/files/2021/04/Screen-Shot-2021-04-21-at-11.00.59-AM-850x560.jpg)
-
What exactly is that? If it's a pop culture reference, it's lost on me.
-
It's the Game of Thrones throne. :P
-
I watched this early this morning. Its 20 minutes on the ground with folks in the east just trying to survive. No journalist talking over the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvJwv-6oNOQ
Wow. That makes it real.
-
The wife of my relative in Poland is collecting items, as she has contacts through work to get things through to Ukraine, not just to the border but farther west. Staying that people in the western part of country are running out of food, formula, medicines. It is interesting her list of requests. Baby formula and shelf stable milk, diapers, baby clothes. Toys (used but good condition). Shelf stable foods. And then the list goes: fingerless gloves. Axes and chainsaws. Sleeping bags, shoulder straps. Generators. Damn. The Ukrainian people are bad ass. It continues. Helmets. Bulletproof vests. Night vision goggles. Handcuffs. Also 2 laptops and 2 printers
-
But Ukraine's economy is also suffering, I saw on the PBS Newshour 50-70% of Ukrainian winter wheat isn't planted, they lack manpower, fertilizer, and equipment. Plus even if they can get it planted and harvested, how will they get shipped out
Spring wheat surely? Or do you mean harvested instead of planted? Ukraine's winter wheat would have been planted months before the Russian invasion and even under normal circumstances they wouldn't start planting winter wheat again until the fall.
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
I was also seeing unconfirmed reports that in the north Ukraine had pushed the Russians back to the boarder. And there's another dead oligarch.
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
I was also seeing unconfirmed reports that in the north Ukraine had pushed the Russians back to the boarder. And there's another dead oligarch.
Who and how? I am still waiting for a defenestration.
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
I was also seeing unconfirmed reports that in the north Ukraine had pushed the Russians back to the boarder. And there's another dead oligarch.
Who and how? I am still waiting for a defenestration.
Alexander Subbotin, found dead on Sunday in a shaman's home in Mytishchi (just northeast of Moscow). Allegedly went there looking for a hangover cure. All I got, not a great source.
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
I was also seeing unconfirmed reports that in the north Ukraine had pushed the Russians back to the boarder. And there's another dead oligarch.
Who and how? I am still waiting for a defenestration.
Alexander Subbotin, found dead on Sunday in a shaman's home in Mytishchi (just northeast of Moscow). Allegedly went there looking for a hangover cure. All I got, not a great source.
Newsweek link saying the same. However, their information may also be from dubious source.
https://www.newsweek.com/alexander-subbotin-7th-russian-oligarch-mysteriously-die-this-year-1705164 (https://www.newsweek.com/alexander-subbotin-7th-russian-oligarch-mysteriously-die-this-year-1705164)
It could be that these guys have not been "team players" on Putin's Russian team. Those who don't play like the coach wants get cut from the squad.
-
More catastrophic losses for Russia:
The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine
David Axe, Forbes
"The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them."
https://tinyurl.com/bdd826vj
-
More catastrophic losses for Russia:
The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine
David Axe, Forbes
"The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them."
https://tinyurl.com/bdd826vj
Deployment and use of a vulnerable asset like a pontoon bridge requires extreme security. Ukrainian artillery was within range and devasted the Russians. Putin thinks he's fighting WW2. Drone and space observation intelligence allow you to coordinate the attack. It's far easier to defend an obstacle than cross it.
-
More catastrophic losses for Russia:
The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine
David Axe, Forbes
"The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them."
https://tinyurl.com/bdd826vj
Deployment and use of a vulnerable asset like a pontoon bridge requires extreme security. Ukrainian artillery was within range and devasted the Russians. Putin thinks he's fighting WW2. Drone and space observation intelligence allow you to coordinate the attack. It's far easier to defend an obstacle than cross it.
Allegedly a Ukrainian engineering officer from that brigade predicted where they'd build the bridge a couple days prior and they just waited for the crossing to start.
-
More catastrophic losses for Russia:
The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine
David Axe, Forbes
"The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them."
https://tinyurl.com/bdd826vj
Deployment and use of a vulnerable asset like a pontoon bridge requires extreme security. Ukrainian artillery was within range and devasted the Russians. Putin thinks he's fighting WW2. Drone and space observation intelligence allow you to coordinate the attack. It's far easier to defend an obstacle than cross it.
Allegedly a Ukrainian engineering officer from that brigade predicted where they'd build the bridge a couple days prior and they just waited for the crossing to start.
He provided some additional detail as well: https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777 (https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777)
That's a massive tactical victory for Ukraine. Russia has lost an estimated 1,000-1,200 vehicles and 20,000 troops so far. For them to lose 30-50 vehicles and 1000 troops in a single engagement has to be devastating.
-
More catastrophic losses for Russia:
The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine
David Axe, Forbes
"The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them."
https://tinyurl.com/bdd826vj
Deployment and use of a vulnerable asset like a pontoon bridge requires extreme security. Ukrainian artillery was within range and devasted the Russians. Putin thinks he's fighting WW2. Drone and space observation intelligence allow you to coordinate the attack. It's far easier to defend an obstacle than cross it.
Allegedly a Ukrainian engineering officer from that brigade predicted where they'd build the bridge a couple days prior and they just waited for the crossing to start.
He provided some additional detail as well: https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777 (https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777)
That's a massive tactical victory for Ukraine. Russia has lost an estimated 1,000-1,200 vehicles and 20,000 troops so far. For them to lose 30-50 vehicles and 1000 troops in a single engagement has to be devastating.
https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524742847664173057 (https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524742847664173057)
73 vehicles identified so far.
-
What a coup. Honestly the Ukrainians are doing so much better than I anticipated. That said, the country is getting devastated. Buildings including hospitals, schools and apartments. Infrastructure (bridges, roads, telecom). And forests and fields burned down. Such an incredible waste.
-
He provided some additional detail as well: https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777 (https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777)
That's a massive tactical victory for Ukraine. Russia has lost an estimated 1,000-1,200 vehicles and 20,000 troops so far. For them to lose 30-50 vehicles and 1000 troops in a single engagement has to be devastating.
https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524742847664173057 (https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524742847664173057)
73 vehicles identified so far.
Dang, that was a pretty big commitment by the Russian army.
The location of this failed attack appears to be about halfway between Izyum and Luhansk, here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Terykony+Kreydovoho+Kar'yeru/@48.9834103,38.232286,108332m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x41200d6f5e836b2d:0x26a8cb8f938bc0b5!8m2!3d48.9093122!4d38.2652048). Going by this map (https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1523667293384765440/photo/1) it looks like it may have been an attempt to encircle Ukrainian forces in Severodonetsk and Lysychans'k.
-
He provided some additional detail as well: https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777 (https://twitter.com/kms_d4k/status/1524506162728779777)
That's a massive tactical victory for Ukraine. Russia has lost an estimated 1,000-1,200 vehicles and 20,000 troops so far. For them to lose 30-50 vehicles and 1000 troops in a single engagement has to be devastating.
https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524742847664173057 (https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524742847664173057)
73 vehicles identified so far.
Dang, that was a pretty big commitment by the Russian army.
The location of this failed attack appears to be about halfway between Izyum and Luhansk, here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Terykony+Kreydovoho+Kar'yeru/@48.9834103,38.232286,108332m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x41200d6f5e836b2d:0x26a8cb8f938bc0b5!8m2!3d48.9093122!4d38.2652048). Going by this map (https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1523667293384765440/photo/1) it looks like it may have been an attempt to encircle Ukrainian forces in Severodonetsk and Lysychans'k.
Severodonetsk is still in trouble from the north and the east. Ukrainian forces there are worried they could be encircled. We'll see how the next couple days shape up.
-
What a coup. Honestly the Ukrainians are doing so much better than I anticipated. That said, the country is getting devastated. Buildings including hospitals, schools and apartments. Infrastructure (bridges, roads, telecom). And forests and fields burned down. Such an incredible waste.
This whole thing is so so sad. And sort of counter productive for Russia even with a cynical view...
Finland has just decided to try to join NATO and on Monday there is a parliamentary debate in Sweden which will most probably result in the same for us. Not really what Putin hoped, I guess.
-
Allegedly a Ukrainian engineering officer from that brigade predicted where they'd build the bridge a couple days prior and they just waited for the crossing to start.
Sun Tsu approves of this. Especially the part (even though it was coincidence) where a part of the troops had already crossed the river.
Clauswitz would have said: Nothing is harder than a retreat from an undefensible position.
-
More BS:
How many troops does Russia have available to it in Ukraine? I found this:
Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, told The Associated Press that over 100,000 Russian troops are currently fighting in Ukraine, including mercenaries from Syria and Libya.Apr 23, 2022
I also found this story saying some don't wish to be sent to the "grinder." So, they refuse to go.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/12/they-were-furious-the-russian-soldiers-refusing-to-fight-in-ukraine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/12/they-were-furious-the-russian-soldiers-refusing-to-fight-in-ukraine)
I did see that Russia has forcefully drafted men in the "breakaway" republics. I didn't see how many.
How many does Ukraine have?
Before the war:
In 2021 the size of Ukraine's armed forces, which consists of 246,445 (195,626 military personnel), makes it the second largest in the region after the Russian Armed Forces.
Wikipedia said this:
In early 2014, Ukraine had 130,000 personnel in its armed forces that could be boosted to about one million with reservists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine)
Since they have called up available people and have about 40,000 foreign volunteers, do they have a million?
Ukrainians are now trained better and are becoming better equipped. Will the facts of the "special military operation" force Putin to call the war a war to get a greater number of troops? I'm not sure how he can equip additional troops unless they've got a lot of equipment squirreled away around the Russian Empire.
-
Typically, a unit is combat ineffective after losing about a quarter of it's troops. So if you kill or wound 2-3 Soldiers in a 9-person squad - the rest are needed to evacuate/care for the wounded Soldier. Russia is estimated to have lost 10-15k dead, which means probably 2-3x that wounded. With potentially around 50,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing) that's a significant percentage of their combat forces.
US Intel estimates are that Russia has lost about 1/4 of its available combat power. Even though their Army has a million troops, many of those are not combat troops (i.e. truck drivers, maintenance, training, etc.). They've lost about 2,000 pieces of equipment between tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, rockets, trucks, etc. A tank crew without a tank or an artillery crew without an artillery piece aren't going to suddenly become effective infantry.
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
I was also seeing unconfirmed reports that in the north Ukraine had pushed the Russians back to the boarder. And there's another dead oligarch.
Who and how? I am still waiting for a defenestration.
Alexander Subbotin, found dead on Sunday in a shaman's home in Mytishchi (just northeast of Moscow). Allegedly went there looking for a hangover cure. All I got, not a great source.
Well he's not hungover. Success?
-
More catastrophic losses for Russia:
The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine
David Axe, Forbes
"The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them."
https://tinyurl.com/bdd826vj
I saw this earlier today, and when I saw it again here, I just had to smile. And then I felt a deep and profound sadness for the waste of it all. Up to a thousand young Russian men with the potential to build their nation snuffed out. And for what? To invade a country that didn't even pose a military threat to satisfy the thirst for power of an unhealthy old man. It's all so wrong.
-
Looks like Ukraine hit another Russian ship, which then caught fire. Does Ukraine even have a navy?
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1524842158330630175
-
They've lost about 2,000 pieces of equipment between tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, rockets, trucks, etc. A tank crew without a tank or an artillery crew without an artillery piece aren't going to suddenly become effective infantry.
Try 5,000 pieces of equipment
https://www.minusrus.com/en
-
Looks like Ukraine hit another Russian ship, which then caught fire. Does Ukraine even have a navy?
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1524842158330630175
Yes they do, but not too big these days. Some parts of the navy they once inherited from the USSR was taken by the Russians already back in 2014. Several Ukrainian naval commanders simply surrendered their ships to Russia back then. As Wikipedia writes:
As of 24 March 2014, all of the larger ships but one (the Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy) of the Ukrainian Navy were captured by the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Some of those vessels were later returned but mainly support vessels like tugboats etc from what I saw. The Netman Sahaydachniy was sinked by the Ukrainians in the beginning of the current invasion to prevent the Russians from taking her.
Apparently they also count coastal rocket-artillery and naval infantry as part of their navy and that part have shown that they still work I think.
-
So, do you think that Ukraine will be able to get it's rightful land back?
I can see the Russians sitting off the coast and firing missiles from submarines to mess things up unless they can keep the subs permanently nestled cuddling the bottom of the black sea somehow. Apparently, there is the belief that the Russkies (referred to as Orcs today) are not believed to be able to rouse a great deal of additional capability. They have a lot of money but due to sanctions can neither manufacture nor purchase additional arms. Despite great rhetoric from their media, I think a lot of their people don't really give a sh*t about this war. There is nothing in it for the Russian people. They were not attacked.
The Ukrainians have the will to fight, good supply from abroad and available manpower resources.
All the land to be taken back is on the border. That may be the hardest to take back. (Location, location and location)
Is this like predicting the market?
-
Looks like Ukraine hit another Russian ship, which then caught fire. Does Ukraine even have a navy?
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1524842158330630175
Yes they do, but not too big these days. Some parts of the navy they once inherited from the USSR was taken by the Russians already back in 2014. Several Ukrainian naval commanders simply surrendered their ships to Russia back then. As Wikipedia writes:
As of 24 March 2014, all of the larger ships but one (the Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy) of the Ukrainian Navy were captured by the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Some of those vessels were later returned but mainly support vessels like tugboats etc from what I saw. The Netman Sahaydachniy was sinked by the Ukrainians in the beginning of the current invasion to prevent the Russians from taking her.
Apparently they also count coastal rocket-artillery and naval infantry as part of their navy and that part have shown that they still work I think.
Love it. Essentially, they have no ships but are still sinking/damaging/destroying Russian ships.
-
Love it. Essentially, they have no ships but are still sinking/damaging/destroying Russian ships.
Memes are abundant:
https://twitter.com/blitzkrieg2king/status/1524794345404121089
-
I saw this earlier today, and when I saw it again here, I just had to smile. And then I felt a deep and profound sadness for the waste of it all. Up to a thousand young Russian men with the potential to build their nation snuffed out. And for what? To invade a country that didn't even pose a military threat to satisfy the thirst for power of an unhealthy old man. It's all so wrong.
One wonders how many weren't actually Russian, but instead forced/coerced/tricked conscripts from the portions of Ukraine which Russia illegally seized in 2014.
-
So, do you think that Ukraine will be able to get it's rightful land back?
I think it comes down to how many precision weapons Ukraine can procure. Everything from ATGMs to MANPADs to laser-guided artillery shells to quadcopters dropping grenades. We've already seen from Russia's attempts that mass artillery bombardment isn't effective as an offensive tactic, at least the way Russia is trying to use it. And Russia is probably hunkering down in the areas they're occupying. IMO, for the Ukrainians to take back Donbas and Luhansk, they'll need to wipe out the Russians with precision munitions in order to overcome the lack of overwhelming numbers.
-
Wanted to add that, as a non-military person, I've been fascinated by reports of Ukrainian's use of personal drones and cell phone location tracking technologies to aid in their military defense and counter-attacks.
It reminds me of those citizens in Hong Kong using umbrellas or hand-held lasers to thwart the government's use of facial recognition.
Basic, fast and clever can beat complex, bulky and slow.
-
So, do you think that Ukraine will be able to get it's rightful land back?
I think it comes down to how many precision weapons Ukraine can procure. Everything from ATGMs to MANPADs to laser-guided artillery shells to quadcopters dropping grenades. We've already seen from Russia's attempts that mass artillery bombardment isn't effective as an offensive tactic, at least the way Russia is trying to use it. And Russia is probably hunkering down in the areas they're occupying. IMO, for the Ukrainians to take back Donbas and Luhansk, they'll need to wipe out the Russians with precision munitions in order to overcome the lack of overwhelming numbers.
When the Russians shell civilian hospitals and schools, it certainly encourages other countries to help Ukraine. The Russians are helping to "sell" the idea of help to Ukraine around the world.
Apparently, Rand Paul is a tougher customer than the politicians of the world. he has stifled aid to Ukraine. In a way I admire his adhering to his libertarian beliefs. Some of the beliefs seem goofy sometimes, but some don't.
If Russia maintains it's current forces, will Ukraine suffer from being the underdog? They are receiving both high tech weapons and older Soviet weapons from other nations. They have captured a lot of stuff from the Russians. Numbers presented on Wikipedia show they have a large army of reserves available to drive the finite number of Russians from their country.
Some of these video channels I'll refer to as scuttlebut have been stating that Putin is shaking up the top brass in his military. They state Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov among others are now out of the Ukraine war. Will replacement bring better command or will the lower echelon be less skilled and provide worse guidance? I also wonder if this will make them even less creative in their battle plans as they could be next. They would then more rigidly follow established and predictable Russian doctrine.
-
And four hours from now, the Russian electricity supply to Finland will stop. This is claimed to be in regards to payment terms (rubles vs euros). This corresponds to 10% of the Finnish electricity demand and will in the short term be compensated by increased imports from Sweden. Results will probably be higher prices of energy in Scandinavia in total as the networks are connected. This fall, the new Finnish nuclear plant is hopefully ready and it will replace more than this loss. More wind power is also added.
Real time view of the Scandinavian and Baltic electricity situation (prices, import/export) is available here: https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/ (in Swedish, but foreign speakers should get the gist of Euros and Megawatts if you scroll down to the maps and graphs).
Source: a Swedish-language Finnish newspaper: https://www.hbl.fi/artikel/elimporten-fran-ryssland-till-finland-avbryts/
At the time of this posting, 948 MW is imported from Russia to Finland. In five hours, this should be zero.
There has also been recent interruptions in natural gas supply in Ukraine, Poland and probably more countries. It's a good thing we're not in the coldest part of the year here.
-
And four hours from now, the Russian electricity supply to Finland will stop. This is claimed to be in regards to payment terms (rubles vs euros). This corresponds to 10% of the Finnish electricity demand and will in the short term be compensated by increased imports from Sweden. Results will probably be higher prices of energy in Scandinavia in total as the networks are connected. This fall, the new Finnish nuclear plant is hopefully ready and it will replace more than this loss. More wind power is also added.
Real time view of the Scandinavian and Baltic electricity situation (prices, import/export) is available here: https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/ (in Swedish, but foreign speakers should get the gist of Euros and Megawatts if you scroll down to the maps and graphs).
Source: a Swedish-language Finnish newspaper: https://www.hbl.fi/artikel/elimporten-fran-ryssland-till-finland-avbryts/
At the time of this posting, 948 MW is imported from Russia to Finland. In five hours, this should be zero.
There has also been recent interruptions in natural gas supply in Ukraine, Poland and probably more countries. It's a good thing we're not in the coldest part of the year here.
Looks like the latest electrical generating unit was timed almost right.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity (https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity)
-
Interesting but not yet confirmed:
https://twitter.com/AlexKhrebet/status/1524361427766726656
I was also seeing unconfirmed reports that in the north Ukraine had pushed the Russians back to the boarder. And there's another dead oligarch.
Just want to come back to this for a moment.
I posted the link to the tweet (from two days ago) because it indicated that some Russian units had been observed to establish defensive positions.
From the tweet: "... Russian troops have turned to defence, a Ukrainian General Staff official told a press briefing. ..."
This series of tweets explains well why this can be such an important signal when observed during an ongoing offensive:
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1525184401541406723
-
So, do you think that Ukraine will be able to get it's rightful land back?
This could go any number of ways. There will certainly be some sort of negotiation accompanying any end of hostilities. This negotiation will include who gets to control what territory, what reparations (if any) are due from Russia to Ukraine, whether economic sanctions against Russia will end, among other things.
What Russia wants is currently different enough from what Ukraine wants that both sides would rather keep fighting than capitulate to the other side's demands. That is unlikely to be the case forever. As the war drags on, one side or the other is likely to gain the higher ground at the negotiating table and that will be reflected in the eventual peace settlement.
-
Interesting and chilling: "...it´s kind of fun for them..."
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/05/13/ukrainian-drones-combat-russian-forces-burnett-dnt-ebof-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/russia-ukraine-military-conflict/
-
They've lost about 2,000 pieces of equipment between tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, rockets, trucks, etc. A tank crew without a tank or an artillery crew without an artillery piece aren't going to suddenly become effective infantry.
Try 5,000 pieces of equipment
https://www.minusrus.com/en
I guess I hadn't been keeping track of how quickly the number has grown. Oryx has it at about 3,600 - which is only if there's photographic or video evidence - so it's always going to undercount somewhat. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
-
And four hours from now, the Russian electricity supply to Finland will stop. This is claimed to be in regards to payment terms (rubles vs euros). This corresponds to 10% of the Finnish electricity demand and will in the short term be compensated by increased imports from Sweden. Results will probably be higher prices of energy in Scandinavia in total as the networks are connected. This fall, the new Finnish nuclear plant is hopefully ready and it will replace more than this loss. More wind power is also added.
Real time view of the Scandinavian and Baltic electricity situation (prices, import/export) is available here: https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/ (in Swedish, but foreign speakers should get the gist of Euros and Megawatts if you scroll down to the maps and graphs).
Source: a Swedish-language Finnish newspaper: https://www.hbl.fi/artikel/elimporten-fran-ryssland-till-finland-avbryts/
At the time of this posting, 948 MW is imported from Russia to Finland. In five hours, this should be zero.
There has also been recent interruptions in natural gas supply in Ukraine, Poland and probably more countries. It's a good thing we're not in the coldest part of the year here.
Presumably Finland has been paying market rates for that electricity. That's a lot of foreign currency flowing into Russia that's about to stop.
I found one source (S&P Global) that stated Finland purchased 9.2 TWh (9,200,000 MWh) from Russia in 2021. At a an average price of say 80 Euros per MWh ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/1271437/finland-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price/ ) that comes out to 736 million Euros - or about $760 million (and a bunch of Rubles).
-
How much does this war cost? The guy in this video puts the cost to Russia at 5 billion dollars a day.
He has lots of other monetary figures which may interest a lot of you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Wo5GRSPS0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Wo5GRSPS0)
I don't know what Russia is still expecting to get out of this war. Obtaining the gas and oil of Ukraine probably won't do them any good any more. The extra farmland of the breakaway Republics should be marginal compared to all the land they can cultivate.
It would be difficult to negotiate with a country that has values so differing from the norm that they appear crazy. An above pose said they are shutting off a source of electricity to Finland. That is a self imposed sanction as they lose an established reliable revenue stream. It's crazy.
-
So, do you think that Ukraine will be able to get it's rightful land back?
I originally thought maybe, probably not (back in March). But the Russians have continued to amaze me with their stupidness and incompetence. I now think yes for Donbas, maybe for Crimea.
The Ukrainians have been mobilizing hundreds of thousands of increasingly well trained, increasingly well equipped, increasingly well motivated soldiers. They will be very upset if Ukraine surrenders land before they get a chance to take shots at Russians. You can be sure Green Berets and others from many countries are training them into the best possible fighting force, and the US is likely to give $40B more in weapons, again in addition to other countries. The new weapons deliveries will coincide well with the timing for offensives by Ukraine based on their training schedules.
So far the Ukrainians seem to be mostly keeping their original force size in battle. I haven't seen signs of the legions of new troops, so I can only surmise that they are building them up, while their original regular army focuses on maximizing damage to Russia while minimizing their own losses. The Russians are obliging through a series of totally stupid and pointless offensives that do little more than exhaust their troops and materials. I've seen comparisons to an early 2000's computer game AI and that seems about right. I guess once things are ready by a result of Ukraine buildup and Russian attrition Ukraine will launch a massive counter attack with several hundred thousand soldiers. I note that August and December seem like popular historical months for counter offensives, without offering any evidence to support that. That would coincide with 6 and 10 months of training, and Donbas and Crimea?
Crimea will be harder. It is almost an island, with a thin isthmus that will be very hard to get troops across and keep them supplied. Ukraine will basically need to have completely eliminated either the Russian army or have immunity from the Russian air force before they can try it, and possibly have destroyed the bridge as well.
Russia will not negotiate anything that has not been decided on the battlefield. Their negotiating position is conquest of and tribute from all Ukraine, and anything short of that can only be negotiated by force.
-
They've lost about 2,000 pieces of equipment between tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, rockets, trucks, etc. A tank crew without a tank or an artillery crew without an artillery piece aren't going to suddenly become effective infantry.
Try 5,000 pieces of equipment
https://www.minusrus.com/en
I guess I hadn't been keeping track of how quickly the number has grown. Oryx has it at about 3,600 - which is only if there's photographic or video evidence - so it's always going to undercount somewhat. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
And he typically has a backlog of 200-300 pieces of equipment to review.
The river crossing that destroyed a BTG's worth of vehicles is estimated to have killed about 500 soldiers. A couple days later a Russian company-sized element attempted to reassemble the bridge and met a similar fate. Instead of 73 wrecks on the shore there's now over 80.
Ukraine states that Russian losses are 26k KIA with probably 2x wounded. They have 8000 Russian soldiers in bags in the freezer which is a much easier number to verify.
Russian troop strength is difficult to keep track of because they've beefed up their army's numbers with mercenaries and non-Russian conscripts and they don't seem to keep track of them living or dead. The Russian army in total is about 600k which includes conscripts to Generals and infantrymen to paper pushers. The other 300k that you hear about is air force, navy, VDV, and nuclear forces.
-
At this point Ukraine is completely justified in going after targets on the Russian side of the border as well.
Why should everything in Ukraine be destroyed while Russian soil is untouched? Why should the Russian military be able to gain reprieve and regroup without harassment on their formal side of the border?
The more heavily fortified the Ukraine military becomes over time, and the more advanced weapons that they gain, the bigger the risk to Russia that this will eventually happen.
-
What a coup. Honestly the Ukrainians are doing so much better than I anticipated. That said, the country is getting devastated. Buildings including hospitals, schools and apartments. Infrastructure (bridges, roads, telecom). And forests and fields burned down. Such an incredible waste.
This whole thing is so so sad. And sort of counter productive for Russia even with a cynical view...
Finland has just decided to try to join NATO and on Monday there is a parliamentary debate in Sweden which will most probably result in the same for us. Not really what Putin hoped, I guess.
I know people say that all war is pointless and sad. Even by war standards, this seems especially so. I mean in 2013 Ukraine was basically the most pro-Russian country on earth, thinking they were just two Russian-speaking post-Soviet states together in a hard world. The Ukrainians made a slight effort to try and improve their situation, and for that the Russians attacked. But the really stupid thing is that the Russians have been killing and obliterating Ukraine basically in direct proportion into how friendly they were toward Russia before hand, primarily the Russo-phone Russo-phile east, while the western parts which were indifferent to Russia are largely untouched. I mean, why? Literally everybody on earth is being harmed by this, at bare minimum from higher commodity prices. The exception is those Russia considers enemies, and even then those are not benefiting in the absolute sense, only by strength relative to Russia caused by Russian decline. NATO the organization (but not its members) is a big winner. Russia is getting crushed, as is Ukraine and worse, but Ukraine is made stronger in the long run.
I think a good analogy for autocracies is that they are like a person who cannot feel pain. That may seem like a huge advantage in normal life because pain is mostly just an inconvenience, but over the long run pain is also what keeps us alive. Democracies are acutely aware of pain and always pull back until they are pushed to their limit, while autocracies inevitably go too far. Then it turns out that democracies were in better health. Authoritarians think self examination through freedom of speech is a weakness, a pointless exercise in self adulation, when actually it is a strength which corrects mistakes.
Also, Putin took Russia backward 200 years. Communism is actually a quasi liberal form of government that in general was genuinely attempting to work for the people, even though it was not as effective as democracy and regulated free markets. It was quite a bit better and more legitimate than the old Russian empire was. Putin never made any attempt to work for the Russian people. The Russians keep having revolutions that take them from one terrible government to the next.
-
So, do you think that Ukraine will be able to get it's rightful land back?
Yip. Russian army will be in no position to defend anything in 3 more months.
-
That's a lot of foreign currency flowing into Russia that's about to stop.
This is true.
Right now the map I linked to shows that there is no electricity flowing directly between Russia and Finland and only small amounts exchanged between Russia and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). Right now, Estonia actually exports electricity to Russia.
-
Crimea will be harder. It is almost an island, with a thin isthmus that will be very hard to get troops across and keep them supplied. Ukraine will basically need to have completely eliminated either the Russian army or have immunity from the Russian air force before they can try it, and possibly have destroyed the bridge as well.
Russia will not negotiate anything that has not been decided on the battlefield. Their negotiating position is conquest of and tribute from all Ukraine, and anything short of that can only be negotiated by force.
One of the reasons for Putin's timing of the war (which was so bad for so many reasons, mainly to do with the weather) may I think have been to do with water to Crimea. Crimea gets its water supply from a canal off the Dnipro river near Kherson. The Ukrainians blocked this canal and Crimea was running out of water as a result: without opening it up this summer there would have been no agriculture there and drinking water being trucked over the bridge. One of the first things the Russians did after invading that part of Ukraine was open up the canal.
If Ukraine can retake that land - which would be a very big task, they are currently still trying to push the Russian's back to the Dnipro and are nowhere near getting back across it - they can block the canal again and make Crimea untenable in the long term for the Russians. The Ukrainians then might not even have to fight on the Crimean peninsula, they could get it by negotiation.
-
Looks like the latest electrical generating unit was timed almost right.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity (https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity)
Oh, they finished before the French EPR that should have been the first EPR in Europe in 2012! (btw. costs increased from projected 3,3 to 20 billion there).
I don't think 10% electricity will be a problem for Finnland. It will make it even harder for the Russian economy though.
I also concur that with how things are currently are, every day makes the Russian position even harder.
I think Putins propaganda bites him in the back now. He can't give back any "freed" territory in the Donbass or Crimea, while the Ukrainians, for the foreseeable future, won't stop fighting until they have it.
-
...
One of the reasons for Putin's timing of the war (which was so bad for so many reasons, mainly to do with the weather) may I think have been to do with water to Crimea. Crimea gets its water supply from a canal off the Dnipro river near Kherson. The Ukrainians blocked this canal and Crimea was running out of water as a result: without opening it up this summer there would have been no agriculture there and drinking water being trucked over the bridge. One of the first things the Russians did after invading that part of Ukraine was open up the canal.
If Ukraine can retake that land - which would be a very big task, they are currently still trying to push the Russian's back to the Dnipro and are nowhere near getting back across it - they can block the canal again and make Crimea untenable in the long term for the Russians. The Ukrainians then might not even have to fight on the Crimean peninsula, they could get it by negotiation.
^^^^ Precisely
And here is an interesting thread regarding the accuracy of Ukrainian reports on Russian losses:
"The story of this engagement tells alot about the war. In one specific area it provides some really good evidence that Ukrainian claims of Russian losses are far more accurate than many have supposed. In this case, we have a fascinating test."
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1525370885464547329
-
Looks like the latest electrical generating unit was timed almost right.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity (https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR-starts-supplying-electricity)
Oh, they finished before the French EPR that should have been the first EPR in Europe in 2012! (btw. costs increased from projected 3,3 to 20 billion there).
I don't think 10% electricity will be a problem for Finnland. It will make it even harder for the Russian economy though.
I also concur that with how things are currently are, every day makes the Russian position even harder.
I think Putins propaganda bites him in the back now. He can't give back any "freed" territory in the Donbass or Crimea, while the Ukrainians, for the foreseeable future, won't stop fighting until they have it.
Yeh - That big generating unit cost about the same as 4 days of what the Russians spend on their current "special military operation."
That generating unit should give 60 years of power. The best thing you could say about the Russian spending is that it gives historians another war to write about. Other than that only death.
-
Crimea will be harder. It is almost an island, with a thin isthmus that will be very hard to get troops across and keep them supplied. Ukraine will basically need to have completely eliminated either the Russian army or have immunity from the Russian air force before they can try it, and possibly have destroyed the bridge as well.
Russia will not negotiate anything that has not been decided on the battlefield. Their negotiating position is conquest of and tribute from all Ukraine, and anything short of that can only be negotiated by force.
One of the reasons for Putin's timing of the war (which was so bad for so many reasons, mainly to do with the weather) may I think have been to do with water to Crimea. Crimea gets its water supply from a canal off the Dnipro river near Kherson. The Ukrainians blocked this canal and Crimea was running out of water as a result: without opening it up this summer there would have been no agriculture there and drinking water being trucked over the bridge. One of the first things the Russians did after invading that part of Ukraine was open up the canal.
If Ukraine can retake that land - which would be a very big task, they are currently still trying to push the Russian's back to the Dnipro and are nowhere near getting back across it - they can block the canal again and make Crimea untenable in the long term for the Russians. The Ukrainians then might not even have to fight on the Crimean peninsula, they could get it by negotiation.
We had a pretty long discussion on it a couple pages back. But why was this year the big emergency? It really took 8 years to run out of water for agriculture?
-
Crimea will be harder. It is almost an island, with a thin isthmus that will be very hard to get troops across and keep them supplied. Ukraine will basically need to have completely eliminated either the Russian army or have immunity from the Russian air force before they can try it, and possibly have destroyed the bridge as well.
Russia will not negotiate anything that has not been decided on the battlefield. Their negotiating position is conquest of and tribute from all Ukraine, and anything short of that can only be negotiated by force.
One of the reasons for Putin's timing of the war (which was so bad for so many reasons, mainly to do with the weather) may I think have been to do with water to Crimea. Crimea gets its water supply from a canal off the Dnipro river near Kherson. The Ukrainians blocked this canal and Crimea was running out of water as a result: without opening it up this summer there would have been no agriculture there and drinking water being trucked over the bridge. One of the first things the Russians did after invading that part of Ukraine was open up the canal.
If Ukraine can retake that land - which would be a very big task, they are currently still trying to push the Russian's back to the Dnipro and are nowhere near getting back across it - they can block the canal again and make Crimea untenable in the long term for the Russians. The Ukrainians then might not even have to fight on the Crimean peninsula, they could get it by negotiation.
We had a pretty long discussion on it a couple pages back. But why was this year the big emergency? It really took 8 years to run out of water for agriculture?
Here is what Wiki says:
According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of blocking the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016.[7] The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in the Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies of the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers of Crimea were able to increase the fleet of agricultural machinery.[8][9][10]
These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017,[11] and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages,[12][13][3] with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021.[13] That same year, the New York Times cited senior American officials as saying that securing Crimea's water supply could be an objective of a possible incursion by Russia into Ukraine.[14][
You just can't believe anything the Russians say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal)
This water supply thing is getting to be a bigger and bigger issue in many parts of the world.
-
Crimea will be harder. It is almost an island, with a thin isthmus that will be very hard to get troops across and keep them supplied. Ukraine will basically need to have completely eliminated either the Russian army or have immunity from the Russian air force before they can try it, and possibly have destroyed the bridge as well.
Russia will not negotiate anything that has not been decided on the battlefield. Their negotiating position is conquest of and tribute from all Ukraine, and anything short of that can only be negotiated by force.
One of the reasons for Putin's timing of the war (which was so bad for so many reasons, mainly to do with the weather) may I think have been to do with water to Crimea. Crimea gets its water supply from a canal off the Dnipro river near Kherson. The Ukrainians blocked this canal and Crimea was running out of water as a result: without opening it up this summer there would have been no agriculture there and drinking water being trucked over the bridge. One of the first things the Russians did after invading that part of Ukraine was open up the canal.
If Ukraine can retake that land - which would be a very big task, they are currently still trying to push the Russian's back to the Dnipro and are nowhere near getting back across it - they can block the canal again and make Crimea untenable in the long term for the Russians. The Ukrainians then might not even have to fight on the Crimean peninsula, they could get it by negotiation.
We had a pretty long discussion on it a couple pages back. But why was this year the big emergency? It really took 8 years to run out of water for agriculture?
Here is what Wiki says:
According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of blocking the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016.[7] The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in the Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies of the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers of Crimea were able to increase the fleet of agricultural machinery.[8][9][10]
These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017,[11] and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages,[12][13][3] with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021.[13] That same year, the New York Times cited senior American officials as saying that securing Crimea's water supply could be an objective of a possible incursion by Russia into Ukraine.[14][
You just can't believe anything the Russians say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal)
This water supply thing is getting to be a bigger and bigger issue in many parts of the world.
The last few years haven't been good for rainfall either:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/climate-change-may-prevent-ukraine-from-becoming-an-agricultural-superpower/
The single most striking and alarming factor about the changing weather conditions in Ukraine during 2020 was the scarcity of rain. The Ukrainian agricultural industry relies heavily on rainfall, but rain was irregular throughout the past year and fell 8% below annual norms. Eastern and southern Ukraine registered the lowest rainfall last year, with the Donetk, Luhansk, and Mykolaiv regions particularly hard-hit.
Arab Spring 2.0 is just around the corner. The last time was due to rising food prices - it's going to be much worse now with the double (triple?) whammy of global inflation, reduced exports from Ukraine/Russia, and droughts.
-
Arab Spring 2.0 is just around the corner. The last time was due to rising food prices - it's going to be much worse now with the double (triple?) whammy of global inflation, reduced exports from Ukraine/Russia, and droughts.
There are food riots happening right now in Iran (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/world/iran-protests-food-prices.html) and Sri Lanka (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61389189).
India announced a wheat export ban yesterday (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/india-prohibits-wheat-exports-with-immediate-effect-2022-05-14/).
Export bans worry net importers of rice and wheat, leading them to accelerate buying from any countries still exporting, which, in turn, and panics those same exporting nations leading to more and more countries imposing export bans.
-
Arab Spring 2.0 is just around the corner. The last time was due to rising food prices - it's going to be much worse now with the double (triple?) whammy of global inflation, reduced exports from Ukraine/Russia, and droughts.
There are food riots happening right now in Iran (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/world/iran-protests-food-prices.html) and Sri Lanka (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61389189).
India announced a wheat export ban yesterday (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/india-prohibits-wheat-exports-with-immediate-effect-2022-05-14/).
Export bans worry net importers of rice and wheat, leading them to accelerate buying from any countries still exporting, which, in turn, and panics those same exporting nations leading to more and more countries imposing export bans.
Famine is coming to east Africa again as well -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-61437239
-
Well, there are 3 ways for large numbers of people to die: war, disease, and famine.
We've had disease (covid). We've got war (most immediately Russia-Ukraine), and famine is expanding. It's a self reinforcing loop too. Somehow, I don't think the next decades are going to significantly settle down.
-
Well, there are 3 ways for large numbers of people to die: war, disease, and famine.
We've had disease (covid). We've got war (most immediately Russia-Ukraine), and famine is expanding. It's a self reinforcing loop too. Somehow, I don't think the next decades are going to significantly settle down.
You forgot the 4th rider: stupidity.
-
Well, there are 3 ways for large numbers of people to die: war, disease, and famine.
We've had disease (covid). We've got war (most immediately Russia-Ukraine), and famine is expanding. It's a self reinforcing loop too. Somehow, I don't think the next decades are going to significantly settle down.
You forgot the 4th rider: stupidity.
In all the pictures of the four riders I've seen he must have already fallen off.
-
To be clear, I hope Ukraine wins and have donated money to Ukrainian charities, but I'd like to throw some "devil's advocate" ideas out there.
First, Ukraine is unified against Russia, which includes Azog brigades that are a bit like the far right parties in the EU. So after a peace is formed, those people need to be represented in Ukraine's goverment to some extent, to avoid more fighting. The U.S. managed to stop another Russian invasion of it's neighbor decades ago, but what resulted in Afganistan wasn't good news later. I believe Ukraine won't be that bad, but it's worth considering what Ukraine might look like after the war.
Second, Russia has threatened to hit Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia seems fine with killing civiilians and even children in Ukraine (like their "for the children" message on a missle that hit a train station filled with civilians). Russia is running out of ways to make progress in this war, and especially if cornered they might do something desperate.
-
To be clear, I hope Ukraine wins and have donated money to Ukrainian charities, but I'd like to throw some "devil's advocate" ideas out there.
First, Ukraine is unified against Russia, which includes Azog brigades that are a bit like the far right parties in the EU. So after a peace is formed, those people need to be represented in Ukraine's goverment to some extent, to avoid more fighting. The U.S. managed to stop another Russian invasion of it's neighbor decades ago, but what resulted in Afganistan wasn't good news later. I believe Ukraine won't be that bad, but it's worth considering what Ukraine might look like after the war.
Second, Russia has threatened to hit Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia seems fine with killing civiilians and even children in Ukraine (like their "for the children" message on a missle that hit a train station filled with civilians). Russia is running out of ways to make progress in this war, and especially if cornered they might do something desperate.
These Azov guys may have some far right inclinations, but there doesn't seem to be very many of them. I didn't see it in this descriptive article, but I believe some of them ran for elected positions and didn't win in Ukraine.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment)
Here's a more descriptive article:
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-de-nazifying-ukraine/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-de-nazifying-ukraine/)
From the second article:
In the 30 years since Ukraine’s declaration of independence, Mierzejewski-Voznyak wrote, “its radical right’s national electoral support only rarely exceeded 3 percent of the popular vote. Radical right parties typically enjoyed just a few wins in single-mandate districts, and no far right candidate for president has ever secured more than 5 percent of the popular vote in an election.” The far right did, however, for the first time win a proportional share of the parliamentary government in 2012 when it won 10.4% of the popular vote. Since then, the far right’s share in parliamentary elections fell to 6% in 2014 and then to 2% in 2019.
It certainly looks like these people had their chance to be represented in the Ukrainian government in the past and as the intent for Ukraine is to remain a democracy, I suspect they will again be allowed to participate.
-
A most interesting interview of the head of Ukrainian military intelligence (english subtitles):
https://twitter.com/i/status/1525373625410387973
-
I believe Ukraine won't be that bad, but it's worth considering what Ukraine might look like after the war.
A throughly bombed country that will build back better than it was before.
-
To be clear, I hope Ukraine wins and have donated money to Ukrainian charities, but I'd like to throw some "devil's advocate" ideas out there.
First, Ukraine is unified against Russia, which includes Azog brigades that are a bit like the far right parties in the EU. So after a peace is formed, those people need to be represented in Ukraine's goverment to some extent, to avoid more fighting. The U.S. managed to stop another Russian invasion of it's neighbor decades ago, but what resulted in Afganistan wasn't good news later. I believe Ukraine won't be that bad, but it's worth considering what Ukraine might look like after the war.
Second, Russia has threatened to hit Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia seems fine with killing civiilians and even children in Ukraine (like their "for the children" message on a missle that hit a train station filled with civilians). Russia is running out of ways to make progress in this war, and especially if cornered they might do something desperate.
These Azov guys may have some far right inclinations, but there doesn't seem to be very many of them. I didn't see it in this descriptive article, but I believe some of them ran for elected positions and didn't win in Ukraine.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment)
Here's a more descriptive article:
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-de-nazifying-ukraine/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-de-nazifying-ukraine/)
From the second article:
In the 30 years since Ukraine’s declaration of independence, Mierzejewski-Voznyak wrote, “its radical right’s national electoral support only rarely exceeded 3 percent of the popular vote. Radical right parties typically enjoyed just a few wins in single-mandate districts, and no far right candidate for president has ever secured more than 5 percent of the popular vote in an election.” The far right did, however, for the first time win a proportional share of the parliamentary government in 2012 when it won 10.4% of the popular vote. Since then, the far right’s share in parliamentary elections fell to 6% in 2014 and then to 2% in 2019.
It certainly looks like these people had their chance to be represented in the Ukrainian government in the past and as the intent for Ukraine is to remain a democracy, I suspect they will again be allowed to participate.
Very helpful, thanks! The first article estimates 1k Azog soldiers versus 450k Ukrainian military + reserves (I assume they've called up reserves!), so that makes them about 0.2% of the army, leaving the other 99.8% non-Azog soldiers. Very interesting how I hear news stories about a group that is 0.2% of the army, as if that mattered somehow.
I flatly reject Putin's claim that the child of holocaust survivors, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, is a Nazi. I hadn't made the connection between far right and actual Nazis, though. I guess it's fair to point out that connection.
Consider how chilling it is for Putin to equate far right voters with Nazis. Germany has the "Alternative for Germany" party, which is far right... so can Putin invade Germany on this theory? Sweden has something similar, and Russia is threatening over appying to join NATO.
So it looks like the composition of Ukraine's military won't be a factor in elections after the war (whenever that is). The existing far right vote might even get weaker as so many countries reach out to help Ukraine.
-
Very helpful, thanks! The first article estimates 1k Azog soldiers versus 450k Ukrainian military + reserves (I assume they've called up reserves!), so that makes them about 0.2% of the army, leaving the other 99.8% non-Azog soldiers. Very interesting how I hear news stories about a group that is 0.2% of the army, as if that mattered somehow.
I flatly reject Putin's claim that the child of holocaust survivors, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, is a Nazi. I hadn't made the connection between far right and actual Nazis, though. I guess it's fair to point out that connection.
Consider how chilling it is for Putin to equate far right voters with Nazis. Germany has the "Alternative for Germany" party, which is far right... so can Putin invade Germany on this theory? Sweden has something similar, and Russia is threatening over appying to join NATO.
So it looks like the composition of Ukraine's military won't be a factor in elections after the war (whenever that is). The existing far right vote might even get weaker as so many countries reach out to help Ukraine.
At this point, Russian authorities have labeled Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Germany, and fucking Israel as Nazis. The word no longer has any meaning.
-
From what I can tell, for the Russians, Nazi now means "not Russian", and they're happy to use the Nazi term because they know how everyone else uses it.
For anyone freaking out about the far right in Ukraine's military, please go take a look at the US military. Pot calling the kettle black there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/white-supremacist-group-patriot-front-one-in-five-applicants-tied-to-us-military
Edit:
Finland has announced they're applying to NATO. Russia just keeps winning, huh?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/europe/finland-nato-membership-russia-ukraine-intl/index.html
-
From what I can tell, for the Russians, Nazi now means "not Russian", and they're happy to use the Nazi term because they know how everyone else uses it.
Yup, redefining words so you can use them to attack your enemies while hoping people will hear you saying the word and think it word means what everyone else uses the word to mean is an icky but common tactic among extremists.
-
Some background on "nazism" and Putin's war:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497306746330697738 (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497306746330697738)
There may be another thread where he discusses this as well. His whole collection of threads is fascinating; I have little ability to evaluate its contents or thrust, but very interesting.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711 (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711)
-
From what I can tell, for the Russians, Nazi now means "not Russian", and they're happy to use the Nazi term because they know how everyone else uses it.
For anyone freaking out about the far right in Ukraine's military, please go take a look at the US military. Pot calling the kettle black there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/white-supremacist-group-patriot-front-one-in-five-applicants-tied-to-us-military
Edit:
Finland has announced they're applying to NATO. Russia just keeps winning, huh?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/europe/finland-nato-membership-russia-ukraine-intl/index.html
I was playing devil's advocate and someone was correcting me, but I don't see anyone "freaking out". I appreciated getting accurate information, and to pay that forward, the article you cite mentions 18 soldiers out of 480,000 in the U.S. army. So I'm also not worried so much when 99.996% of the U.S. army are blameless.
Besides Russia's naval losses in a land war (I still love that meme every time I see it!), Finland and Sweden had a prior agreement to act jointly in joining NATO or staying out. I believe Sweden's application to NATO won't be far behind.
-
From what I can tell, for the Russians, Nazi now means "not Russian", and they're happy to use the Nazi term because they know how everyone else uses it.
For anyone freaking out about the far right in Ukraine's military, please go take a look at the US military. Pot calling the kettle black there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/white-supremacist-group-patriot-front-one-in-five-applicants-tied-to-us-military
Edit:
Finland has announced they're applying to NATO. Russia just keeps winning, huh?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/europe/finland-nato-membership-russia-ukraine-intl/index.html
I was playing devil's advocate and someone was correcting me, but I don't see anyone "freaking out". I appreciated getting accurate information, and to pay that forward, the article you cite mentions 18 soldiers out of 480,000 in the U.S. army. So I'm also not worried so much when 99.996% of the U.S. army are blameless.
Besides Russia's naval losses in a land war (I still love that meme every time I see it!), Finland and Sweden had a prior agreement to act jointly in joining NATO or staying out. I believe Sweden's application to NATO won't be far behind.
Wasn't necessarily posting with you in mind and my term of "freaking out" was honestly more directed to the idiots on twitter, but I think that in general the US has found out that various far right ideas have become more common in law enforcement and the military than many are comfortable with.
Agreed re Sweden. I find it amusing that Finland and Sweden, after staying out of NATO for so long are now both rapidly changing their stance. Putin really messed up.
-
From what I can tell, for the Russians, Nazi now means "not Russian", and they're happy to use the Nazi term because they know how everyone else uses it.
For anyone freaking out about the far right in Ukraine's military, please go take a look at the US military. Pot calling the kettle black there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/white-supremacist-group-patriot-front-one-in-five-applicants-tied-to-us-military
Edit:
Finland has announced they're applying to NATO. Russia just keeps winning, huh?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/europe/finland-nato-membership-russia-ukraine-intl/index.html
I was playing devil's advocate and someone was correcting me, but I don't see anyone "freaking out". I appreciated getting accurate information, and to pay that forward, the article you cite mentions 18 soldiers out of 480,000 in the U.S. army. So I'm also not worried so much when 99.996% of the U.S. army are blameless.
Besides Russia's naval losses in a land war (I still love that meme every time I see it!), Finland and Sweden had a prior agreement to act jointly in joining NATO or staying out. I believe Sweden's application to NATO won't be far behind.
Wasn't necessarily posting with you in mind and my term of "freaking out" was honestly more directed to the idiots on twitter, but I think that in general the US has found out that various far right ideas have become more common in law enforcement and the military than many are comfortable with.
Agreed re Sweden. I find it amusing that Finland and Sweden, after staying out of NATO for so long are now both rapidly changing their stance. Putin really messed up.
Not entirely by chance that both apply at the same time. The two countries have a long standing defense agreement.
https://www.government.se/government-policy/defence-cooperation-between-finland-and-sweden/ (https://www.government.se/government-policy/defence-cooperation-between-finland-and-sweden/)
-
Slava Ukraini!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1525935012222316545
-
Some background on "nazism" and Putin's war:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497306746330697738 (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497306746330697738)
There may be another thread where he discusses this as well. His whole collection of threads is fascinating; I have little ability to evaluate its contents or thrust, but very interesting.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711 (https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711)
Kamil is a trusted source of news and analysis.
-
I believe Sweden's application to NATO won't be far behind.
Yesterday, the board of the Swedish social democratic party said yes to a NATO bid and since that party has been the epicenter of Swedish politics for a century, this was probably the final nail in the coffin of the old stance in Swedish polity in this matter. My guess, it's a matter of days before the final decisions are taken.
-
I remember finding this explainer on the Azov regiment good. Ros Atkins explaining things is generally always worth a look.
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1507623076812439558?s=20&t=XGOvcS6QYm_EiZautAn-Ig (https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1507623076812439558?s=20&t=XGOvcS6QYm_EiZautAn-Ig)
-
For anyone interested, here are two articles about the German Greens and their support for Ukraine, which apparently has surprised many but should not have.
Yesterday, there were elections in the largest German state and the Greens captured more than 18% percent of the votes, which is a spectacular tripling of their previous result in the state and represents a resounding endorsement of their Ukraine and other policies.
All this is excellent news for Ukraine, transatlantic cooperation and NATO, and very bad news for Putin.
(the title is actually misleading)
Germany's Greens Have Transformed in the Face of Russia's War
"The Greens have long been regarded as peace-loving idealists. They are now among the loudest voices calling for heavy weapons to be delivered to Ukraine and have placed considerable pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to do so. The pacifists of yore have gone quiet and now the talk is of tanks and howitzers."
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/from-peaceniks-to-hawks-germany-s-greens-have-transformed-in-the-face-of-russia-s-war-a-19bd95f6-fcbc-497d-8ad9-1a767be205f1
Interview with German Foreign Minister Baerbock
"There Are Moments When I Am Also Unsure"
"German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock of the Green Party had been hoping to pursue a feminist foreign policy. Now, she has become a proponent of weapons deliveries to Ukraine. In an interview, she explains how those two things are not mutually exclusive."
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/inteview-with-german-foreign-minister-baerbock-there-are-moments-when-i-am-also-unsure-a-46b9ca9b-edce-4377-bce7-b40df320c850
-
Well, there are 3 ways for large numbers of people to die: war, disease, and famine.
We've had disease (covid). We've got war (most immediately Russia-Ukraine), and famine is expanding. It's a self reinforcing loop too. Somehow, I don't think the next decades are going to significantly settle down.
You forgot the 4th rider: stupidity.
In all the pictures of the four riders I've seen he must have already fallen off.
Nah, he is there. It's just that people can't see him. His existance is only abvious through indirect observations.
which includes Azog brigades that are a bit like the far right parties in the EU. So after a peace is formed, those people need to be represented in Ukraine's goverment to some extent, to avoid more fighting.
Well... Asov as a regiment was only made an army part after 2014. And most of them are probably dead now.
They don't have the size to be politically important - nor directly. Maybe if they get hero status for Mariuopol, but here again: If some survive.
Don't forget that Ukraine was maybe the only European country that did not have far right wingers in their parliament - after 2014 and the officialization of the Asovs.
I flatly reject Putin's claim that the child of holocaust survivors, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, is a Nazi.
For Putin an Ukrainian Nazi is someone who does not see himself as Russian. Everyone who sees himself as Ukrainian is bad, bad is Nazi.
That's about the "thought" process.
About the German Greens and pacifists:
I think there is confusion about the term. For side A) it means no weapon and fighting whatever happens. For side B) it means avoiding fighting and not using military as a political means.
Or in other words: A) says: You have to defend by holding out the other cheek, while for B) they would never attack, but defend.
That is why the Greens (and others) in Germany where so adamant about Iran/Iraq wars and heavily protested the Afghan war, but group B) which is the biggest has no big problems helping Ukraine. They don't like it, but they know, if Ukraine falls Putin will just go on.
Both sides accuse the other of having a fundamental misunderstanding of reality (here: what motivaes Putin to attack or not attack).
-
I believe Sweden's application to NATO won't be far behind.
Yesterday, the board of the Swedish social democratic party said yes to a NATO bid and since that party has been the epicenter of Swedish politics for a century, this was probably the final nail in the coffin of the old stance in Swedish polity in this matter. My guess, it's a matter of days before the final decisions are taken.
Aaand now, the formal decision is made in Sweden too to apply to NATO.
-
And ... Putin blinked again.
There will be no nuclear response to the accession of Finland and Sweden at this time:
Putin says Russia will respond if NATO bolsters Sweden, Finland militarily
By Guy Faulconbridge
"Russia, Putin said, had no problem with Finland or Sweden, so there was no direct threat from NATO enlargement which included those countries."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-calls-finland-sweden-joining-nato-mistake-with-far-reaching-consequences-2022-05-16/
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FS0L55tX0AYys_i?format=jpg&name=small)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FS0L55tX0AYys_i?format=jpg&name=small)
See also: "get better materiel."
-
See also: "get better materiel."
Materiel doesn't make much of a difference when you have demotivated Soldiers, inflexible tactics/strategy, insufficient training, etc.
-
And ... Putin blinked again.
There will be no nuclear response to the accession of Finland and Sweden at this time
Wow, that's the first time I've seen him actually walk something back, rather than simply let it be forgotten. He didn't just move the goalposts, he ripped them up, carried them out of the stadium, and moved them out to Economy Lot G
-
(like their "for the children" message on a missle that hit a train station filled with civilians).
To be fair (not that anything is in war), I’ve heard a more accurate translation was “for our children” in an avenging sense rather than the “for your children” that was implied in most of the reporting.
-
On an only slightly related and more light-hearted note, Servant of the People showed up on my netflix (Germany) today. Available with subtitles in English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. I'm halfway through the first episode and enjoying it. Standard sitcom stuff really. But so strange to have the reality of his actual presidency and the current war in my head at the same time.
-
On an only slightly related and more light-hearted note, Servant of the People showed up on my netflix (Germany) today. Available with subtitles in English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. I'm halfway through the first episode and enjoying it. Standard sitcom stuff really. But so strange to have the reality of his actual presidency and the current war in my head at the same time.
I've seen that series. Pay particular attention to the mentions of Putin. In fact I thought perhaps Putin saw the series and is exacting revenge.
-
This is a big deal, the key map with arrows (source supposedly is ISW) is attached to my post.
I cannot verify it right now, but I cannot find any reason why one side or the other would benefit from then info being released now - well, sometimes that´s all one can get:
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1526231508914442241/photo/2
-
This is a big deal, the key map with arrows (source supposedly is ISW) is attached to my post.
I cannot verify it right now, but I cannot find any reason why one side or the other would benefit from it - well, sometimes that´s all one can get:
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1526231508914442241/photo/2
Wow, Ukraine is getting close enough that the railroad from Belgorod is within artillery range.
-
There's an evacuation of wounded Ukrainian soldiers from Azovstal in Mariupol going on, with a prisoner exchange for Russian POWs apparently agreed -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805
That's big news, if the defenders of Mariupol have got an agreed safe way out.
This comes two days after Kalush Orchestra mentioned them at Eurovision; I think it's possible that the horrible optics for Russia of their actions in UKraine have become undeniable at all levels of their government and military and led to this agreement after previous ceasefire failures. See also this -
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1526321105916641281
-
There's an evacuation of wounded Ukrainian soldiers from Azovstal in Mariupol going on, with a prisoner exchange for Russian POWs apparently agreed -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61461805
That's big news, if the defenders of Mariupol have got an agreed safe way out.
This comes two days after Kalush Orchestra mentioned them at Eurovision; I think it's possible that the horrible optics for Russia of their actions in UKraine have become undeniable at all levels of their government and military and led to this agreement after previous ceasefire failures. See also this -
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1526321105916641281
I've been following this since yesterday and it's been very confusing to sort out what is going on. From what it appears to be so far:
-50 seriously wounded being taken to a Russian-controlled hospital near the border; future disposition of these men unknown
-200 or so lightly wounded being directly exchanged for Russian POWs
-Still 1000 soldiers in the bunkers able to fight, but may also be exchanged in the coming days
Zelensky and the Azov commander both gave public statements pretty much stating that there's no reason for them to continue resistance. They delayed a large number of Russian forces for 80 days and it's time to end the siege. The goal seems to be to get everybody back into Ukrainian hands, but that will depend on Russia adhering to whatever deal is being made.
-
One thing Putin is really good at: finding ever more ways being an idiot.
Putin involved in war ‘at level of colonel or brigadier’, say western sources
"Vladimir Putin has become so personally involved in the Ukraine war that he is making operational and tactical decisions “at the level of a colonel or brigadier”, according to western military sources.
The Russian president is helping determine the movement of forces in the Donbas, they added, where last week the invaders suffered a bloody defeat as they tried on multiple occasions to cross a strategic river in the east of Ukraine.
The sources added that Putin is still working closely with Gen Valery Gerasimov, the commander of the Russian armed forces, in contrast to claims made by Ukraine last week that the military chief had been sidelined."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/16/putin-involved-russia-ukraine-war-western-sources
-
Wow, the comparison to Hitler keeps getting better. Germany may well have won WWII, or at least managed a more favorable defeat, if Hitler had let his generals run the army.
-
Wow, the comparison to Hitler keeps getting better. Germany may well have won WWII, or at least managed a more favorable defeat, if Hitler had let his generals run the army.
Wait a minute, I heard the allied invasion partly succeeded because Hitler was asleep, and nobody dared to wake him and ask to deploy tanks.
Apparently Putin has started directing the attack, taking over responsibilities that should be handled by far more junior officers. I guess he has to with so many generals taking dirt naps.
I hope Ukrainians figure out Putin's sleep schedule, and attack during it.
-
Wow, the comparison to Hitler keeps getting better. Germany may well have won WWII, or at least managed a more favorable defeat, if Hitler had let his generals run the army.
Wait a minute, I heard the allied invasion partly succeeded because Hitler was asleep, and nobody dared to wake him and ask to deploy tanks.
Apparently Putin has started directing the attack, taking over responsibilities that should be handled by far more junior officers. I guess he has to with so many generals taking dirt naps.
I hope Ukrainians figure out Putin's sleep schedule, and attack during it.
hehehe, I like the way you think!
-
I just listened to a podcast about overconfidence - specifically in men. Seems very fitting now reading about how someone who is competent in one area (politics) assuming that he is therefore competent in a completely unrelated area - military tactics and strategy.
Of course, Putin is not the first leader of a country to try and micromanage a war. I know there were stories of US presidents during Vietnam trying to do similar things - directing troops at levels that should be handled by Captains and Colonels (including Lieutenant Colonels in there). It's one thing for the President to be directly involved in a very sensitive mission like the raid on Osama Bin Laden, but there's no justification to be dealing with tactical or operational level decisions - they should strictly be at the strategic level.
-
Am I wrong, or is the element of surprise almost completely gone in 2022 given current technologies?
It's not like you have to rely on scratchy radio transmissions or stand on a hill using binoculars to find out what's happening. And I mentioned earlier that CNN's constant coverage is almost like a livestream. Just wondering what all of this does to strategy.
-
Am I wrong, or is the element of surprise almost completely gone in 2022 given current technologies?
It's not like you have to rely on scratchy radio transmissions or stand on a hill using binoculars to find out what's happening. And I mentioned earlier that CNN's constant coverage is almost like a livestream. Just wondering what all of this does to strategy.
At a strategic level it's certainly harder to hide a huge column of tanks moving from one area to another - and signaling a large offensive. Down at the tactical level though, there's only so many drones and cameras and if you're sitting in a trench, you don't have time to scroll through a million posts on Twitter to see if the guy on the other side of a tree line just posted a photo giving away his exact location.
For years the problem hasn't been a lack of information, it's processing the flood of information in a timely manner. If you think of a large drone flying at 30,000 feet beaming back real time video to a command post - you have to have multiple people to monitor that around the clock and make decisions about what you're seeing and communicate that to the right people to make timely decisions.
-
Thanks, Michael, that makes sense.
-
Pretty sure Russia still has to rely on the guy with binoculars on the hill...
-
Am I wrong, or is the element of surprise almost completely gone in 2022 given current technologies?
It's not like you have to rely on scratchy radio transmissions or stand on a hill using binoculars to find out what's happening. And I mentioned earlier that CNN's constant coverage is almost like a livestream. Just wondering what all of this does to strategy.
At a strategic level it's certainly harder to hide a huge column of tanks moving from one area to another - and signaling a large offensive. Down at the tactical level though, there's only so many drones and cameras and if you're sitting in a trench, you don't have time to scroll through a million posts on Twitter to see if the guy on the other side of a tree line just posted a photo giving away his exact location.
For years the problem hasn't been a lack of information, it's processing the flood of information in a timely manner. If you think of a large drone flying at 30,000 feet beaming back real time video to a command post - you have to have multiple people to monitor that around the clock and make decisions about what you're seeing and communicate that to the right people to make timely decisions.
You're right--and satellites only pass over an area every once in a while, plus the imagery takes time to get downloaded and processed and analyzed, plus it's a HUGE area, plus satellite schedules are known and you can hide tanks under garages, trees, etc. And like you say, there are only so many drones, and you have to decide where to have them scout, and hope they don't get shot down.
The story from the engineer who correctly predicted last week's river crossing attempt by the Russians didn't hinge on satellite or drone imagery, but on technical expertise and huge dollop of good luck.
-
The story from the engineer who correctly predicted last week's river crossing attempt by the Russians didn't hinge on satellite or drone imagery, but on technical expertise and huge dollop of good luck.
Apparently at this point Russia has tried and failed at that crossing at least 10 times.
-
I apologize, I accidentally posted an unfinished response.
The full post is below.
-
The story from the engineer who correctly predicted last week's river crossing attempt by the Russians didn't hinge on satellite or drone imagery, but on technical expertise and huge dollop of good luck.
Apparently at this point Russia has tried and failed at that crossing at least 10 times.
The commander of the Russian engineer brigade was one of the KIAs at the big crossing.
-
A few days ago, a former Russian colonel gave an excellent analysis of the war in Ukraine on Russian TV and some in the west have seen this as an important development as opinions like that are rare in the Russian media.
But they are wrong as this is just an attempt to keep the debate a Russian issue and potentially preparing the propaganda space for a face-saving retreat for the regime.
There is a tradition of self criticism in Marxism/Leninism that has always been used in two quite different ways: to purge dissenters from the party or to introduce issues that either could not be ignored anymore or arose in the minds of others in the upper echelons.
It is basically a gatekeeper strategy that makes any allowed debate one that takes places within the constraints of party orthodoxy, while allowing some, easily discreditable if the need should arise, crazy expert deviation from it. And at the same time, all undesirable debates will be suppressed.
This tradition also pays homage to a particular kind of expert veneration because, after all, Marxism/Leninism is the expert way how to run the world, and there are probably a lot of Russians who get nostalgic with that USSR stuff.
It is not evidence of major dissent but standard procedure in Marxism/Leninism to introduce a subject into public discourse using the perceivedly most neutral entry: an expert in the field.
The Russian TV audience skews older, just like in the US, and they most assuredly are not shocked when something controversial appears on TV, as that was always standard operating procedure to either steer and control the public discourse or at least to lend legitimacy to the propaganda.
Here is how the media sees it - and it´s grotesquely beside the point, but then, they simply do not know any of this.
They are saying that the colonel's statements left his fellow panelists stunned and that opinions like his are banished from the airwaves. As far as I know, the same person gave another excellent analysis weeks before the invasion and predicted the outcome.
Here is the article from Feb 3, Google translate does a decent job:
Predictions of bloodthirsty political scientists
About enthusiastic hawks and hasty cuckoos
"FINDINGS
In general, there will be no Ukrainian blitzkrieg. The statements of some experts such as “The Russian army will defeat most of the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 30-40 minutes”, “Russia is able to defeat Ukraine in 10 minutes in the event of a full-scale war”, “Russia will defeat Ukraine in eight minutes” have no serious grounds.
And finally, the most important thing. An armed conflict with Ukraine is currently fundamentally not in Russia's national interests. Therefore, it is best for some overexcited Russian experts to forget about their hatred fantasies. And in order to prevent further reputational losses, never remember again."
https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html
It is just like in the old days: a good propaganda operation blends factual analysis and reporting with the right amount of lies - see US extremist media.
And as far as Russian TV goes, the opinions of their pundits are so extreme, calling for using nukes or extermination of Ukrainians etc., that Putin almost looks like a prudent leader. And in this context, the colonel´s analysis might actually be, among other things, reassuring to those who might have developed some doubts - at least one can be assured that these issues are known and considered by dear leader.
So, notwithstanding that the good colonel´s analysis is excellent, the fact that it was aired on TV does not indicate anything but business as usual in the Russian TV propaganda operation.
On a Russian talk show, a retired colonel stuns his colleagues by pointing out that the invasion isn’t going well.
"A military analyst on one of Russian state television’s most popular networks left his fellow panelists in stunned silence on Monday when he said that the conflict in Ukraine was deteriorating for Russia, giving the kind of honest assessment that is virtually banished from the official airwaves."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/world/europe/russian-state-tv-ukraine-invasion.html
-
I apologize, I accidentally posted an unfinished response.
The full post is below.
I'm fine with leaving out both halves. To me this thread is more conversational, with people replying with information in context, rather than dropping pages of Google translate of Russian websites, or whatever it is you're doing.
-
I apologize, I accidentally posted an unfinished response.
The full post is below.
I'm fine with leaving out both halves. To me this thread is more conversational, with people replying with information in context, rather than dropping pages of Google translate of Russian websites, or whatever it is you're doing.
I might not have made it clear enough:
Mikhail M. Khodaryonok is a Russian nationalist who was lauded yesterday by western media for his frankness regarding the Ukraine war during a Russian TV show.
This guy published a devastating opinion about the likely war outcome three weeks before the invasion in a, for us, obscure Russian publication.
So he really pops up with credibility established although he might just be a government stooge standing in wait until his services were needed.
The idea that this guy courageously defied rules on live Russian TV just to speak up and tell the Russian people the truth is beyond naive, but was picked up by western media as one of the stories of the day.
These journalists did not do due diligence and clearly do not understand how Russian propaganda works the domestic audience.
The real story is that the Russian government found it necessary to have a member of the elite taking up a position that would otherwise be taken only by regime critics or foreigners.
I think it is a rather clumsy attempt to own the position and I´m wondering how they are going to move on from here, but it is a classic move done by the book.
(For a related example, look at Kim Jong-Un´s current predicament with a surging Coronavirus outbreak: he is chastising government agencies and whatnot for having been neglectful and lazy, effectively taking the role of government critic for himself, preempting outside criticism.)
And for Khodaryonok´s February 3 article being available only in Russian, I cannot help it, it´s written for a domestic audience (the weirdness of it and all) and was not widely distributed at the time.
-
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
If they're going to follow a well known playbook of how to explain all of this to their people, ok? It's not going to change much in the short and medium term. If it gets Russia to stop bombing Ukraine and pull all the troops out, great. But Ukraine is still a mess and Russia is still responsible for making that mess. Even if Putin falls (and I think one way or another he will), the chances of getting someone in power that the rest of the world is remotely ok with is likely pretty low.
-
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
What shortages economic factors are predicted to kick in in the fall? Russia seems to be maintaining a positive balance of trade and still has active trade relationships in the big Asian economies (excluding Japan) but I'd certainly like to hear that the sanctions are likely to start biting more at some point.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
I don't think we're talking about enough people to really have a demographic impact (although obviously the suffering of the young men who are losing their lives or being seriously injured and their families is a big and bad thing on a human level). But we already discussed this point up thread.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
This one I mostly agree with you on. No one is going to take Russian conventional military threats as seriously for some time to come. However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
Completely agreed. The flight of young/educated people with the resources to leave is going to (and probably already is) having bad demographic and economic effects on Russia and those effects will likely be felt for decades to come.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
I hope you're right on this one. In terms of alternatives, it takes a long time to build nuclear plants and CNG terminals. Five years from now are European leaders still going to have the willingness to tell their voters they need to pay more for electricity and heat to avoid importing cheap natural gas from Russia? So far Europe (outside of a few countries like Poland, good for Poland!) hasn't even been willing to stop importing Russian gas during the invasion of Ukraine.
-
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
This one I mostly agree with you on. No one is going to take Russian conventional military threats as seriously for some time to come. However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
My completely non-expert take here: Russia claims to have a ton of tanks and other conventional equipment in reserve, but we've seen evidence that most of these "reserves" are unusable, sitting in a field somewhere rusting. I've seen suggestions that this is because the commanders used the maintenance budget to line their own pockets instead of keeping the equipment in a state of readiness. Regardless of the reasons why this is happening, do we have any reason to believe that these problems don't extend to the nuclear side of their military? I'm not interested in calling their bluff there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of warheads they have in usable condition is much less than they claim.
-
My quoting ability is not up to this. Changing colors.
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
What shortages economic factors are predicted to kick in in the fall? Russia seems to be maintaining a positive balance of trade and still has active trade relationships in the big Asian economies (excluding Japan) but I'd certainly like to hear that the sanctions are likely to start biting more at some point.
Russia had a certain quantity of materials, parts, etc on hand. So while they're dealing with shortages they have also been able to use up what they did have. The impacts are uneven. And while yes they have continued to trade with China and India, are the logistics to those countries able to replace the prior logistics with Europe? My source is most immediately Michael Kofman (sp?). He is predicting that the full impact of the sanctions will begin to be felt in August/September if I'm remembering correctly.
More practically, it makes sense that they can limp along for some time without massive shit-hitting-the-fan events. How long can you eat from your pantry before you actually run out of food? Quite some time probably, with some pain as certain things run out but you won't starve. At some point though, you really will run out.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
I don't think we're talking about enough people to really have a demographic impact (although obviously the suffering of the young men who are losing their lives or being seriously injured and their families is a big and bad thing on a human level). But we already discussed this point up thread.
Agreed, it may not have a huge impact overall, but there will be some impact. I doubt anyone except Russia has the data to accurately predict.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
This one I mostly agree with you on. No one is going to take Russian conventional military threats as seriously for some time to come. However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
Not counting the idiots, I have seen some light speculation about the viability of Russia's nukes as a whole. Has the maintenance been kept up? Realistically, I suspect that's wishful thinking - but also, Putin was threatening Sweden and Finland if they joined NATO. Well, Sweden and Finland are applying to join NATO and Putin's response boils down to "that's fine" from what I've read. Every time you threaten and then back down reduces the credibility of your threats.
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
Completely agreed. The flight of young/educated people with the resources to leave is going to (and probably already is) having bad demographic and economic effects on Russia and those effects will likely be felt for decades to come.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
I hope you're right on this one. In terms of alternatives, it takes a long time to build nuclear plants and CNG terminals. Five years from now are European leaders still going to have the willingness to tell their voters they need to pay more for electricity and heat to avoid importing cheap natural gas from Russia? So far Europe (outside of a few countries like Poland, good for Poland!) hasn't even been willing to stop importing Russian gas during the invasion of Ukraine.
I would suspect that eventually, Europe will resume buying from Russia. However, it's never going to be the same quantity. They won't need it. I don't see Europe's energy needs as monolithic. I see it as the accumulation of millions of individual needs. Every solar panel that is installed, every wind turbine, every house that gets insulated, every upgrade to a more efficient furnace, will reduce the demand for natural gas. Those tiny changes will add up. If Europe collectively reduces their need for natural gas by a third (picking a random amount based on nothing), that's significant.
And I suspect the Eastern European countries that dislike Russia so strongly will not be as easily swayed by cheap natural gas. Plus, and I don't have time to find it right now, I do remember reading months ago about Russia's gas/oil production, and they're exhausting the easily extracted deposits. It costs more to get the other stuff out. It may not be cheap natural gas at some point.
Overall, my sources are an eclectic mix of: Michael Kofman (sp?) on twitter, the people he follows, the Institute of War, OISNT, and there's a podcast that has had Michael Kofman on it, War on the Rocks. The Pentagon does background briefings periodically which I at least sometimes see and read. Of course, time will really tell what happens.
-
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
This one I mostly agree with you on. No one is going to take Russian conventional military threats as seriously for some time to come. However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
My completely non-expert take here: Russia claims to have a ton of tanks and other conventional equipment in reserve, but we've seen evidence that most of these "reserves" are unusable, sitting in a field somewhere rusting. I've seen suggestions that this is because the commanders used the maintenance budget to line their own pockets instead of keeping the equipment in a state of readiness. Regardless of the reasons why this is happening, do we have any reason to believe that these problems don't extend to the nuclear side of their military? I'm not interested in calling their bluff there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of warheads they have in usable condition is much less than they claim.
Russia has north of 6000 nuclear warheads. If only 10% of those were viable, that is still 600-- more than enough to throw us collectively back to the stone age. The major hurdle is willingness to use them.
-
The story from the engineer who correctly predicted last week's river crossing attempt by the Russians didn't hinge on satellite or drone imagery, but on technical expertise and huge dollop of good luck.
Apparently at this point Russia has tried and failed at that crossing at least 10 times.
That's what I like about the Russians. Their disasters are more repeatable than their successes, and their motto is "If at first you don't succeed, try again." They never realized that motto is only useful if you are willing to honestly assess and address the cause of your failure.
They should put me in charge of the Russian army. I could easily lose just as badly without expending half as much effort/lives/equipment/money.
-
I don't think like a Russian leader or any leader, but you would think even the worst manager could be able to look at this war and say the gains do not exceed the expenditure. They would say they didn't want an expansion of NATO. Essentially, the Ukrainians are de facto NATO soldiers and with the baby killings are likely to remain so. The Finns and Swedes have pretty much nullified the gain that would have been achieved by bullying Ukraine into staying out. The world knows there are few to any real Nazis there. We can only fool our own people for so long. The loss of men and equipment increases the vulnerabilities of Russia. Our world credit rating with the Banksters is in a bad way. It's getting to be hassle to sell our stuff. It's getting to be a hassle to buy the stuff we need. We are not welcome in a lot of organizations these days. Some of our smartest young people are leaving.
Just the same if they were on Wall Street, folks would love them as they have had the best trade surplus since 1994.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-11/russian-current-account-surplus-surges-to-record-on-energy-sales (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-11/russian-current-account-surplus-surges-to-record-on-energy-sales)
From the article:
Russia recorded the largest current-account surplus since at least 1994, as revenues from oil and gas exports surged and imports plunged after the U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions over President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
I guess you could say with the manpower losses in the war that they are cutting manpower and shedding unnecessary equipment.
-
Russia recorded the largest current-account surplus since at least 1994, as revenues from oil and gas exports surged and imports plunged after the U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions over President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
A trade surplus is only meaningful in an 'all else being equal' context. I'd rather have the US's trade deficit than Russia trade surplus right now...
-
Russia recorded the largest current-account surplus since at least 1994, as revenues from oil and gas exports surged and imports plunged after the U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions over President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
A trade surplus is only meaningful in an 'all else being equal' context. I'd rather have the US's trade deficit than Russia trade surplus right now...
Yep - Russia is further proof that trickle down economics is not reality.
-
Oh this is funny: "Russian occupation authorities announced plans to destroy the Azovstal Steel Plant and turn Mariupol into a resort city, depriving Russia of some of the most important economic benefits it hoped to reap by taking the city in the first place."
They're also reporting protests against forced mobilization from the residents of the occupied cities.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-18
-
@maizefolk
https://warontherocks.libsyn.com/ The "Counter-attacks..." episode, about 18 minutes in is the discussion about Russia's economy.
-
This is proving to be a good selector of non-oligarch Russians with the means and intelligence to leave rather than fall for propaganda. The possibility of getting drafted into a stupid war with a high death rate is a different scenario than having an autocrat mostly stay out of your business as long as you don't complain and throw some money at them. That, more than parts, oil, etc will be the longer-lasting effect of this fiasco.
-
Oh this is funny: "Russian occupation authorities announced plans to destroy the Azovstal Steel Plant and turn Mariupol into a resort city, depriving Russia of some of the most important economic benefits it hoped to reap by taking the city in the first place."
They're also reporting protests against forced mobilization from the residents of the occupied cities.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-18
"I'm going to demolish a steel factory the size of a small city." Yeah, you and what explosives? The Russian military has been bombing that site for two months and much of it is still standing. If this factory was in the US, it would an EPA nightmare that would never be clean enough. But sure, we'll plant some trees and turn it into a park.
-
I apologize, I accidentally posted an unfinished response.
The full post is below.
I'm fine with leaving out both halves. To me this thread is more conversational, with people replying with information in context, rather than dropping pages of Google translate of Russian websites, or whatever it is you're doing.
I might not have made it clear enough:
Mikhail M. Khodaryonok is a Russian nationalist who was lauded yesterday by western media for his frankness regarding the Ukraine war during a Russian TV show.
This guy published a devastating opinion about the likely war outcome three weeks before the invasion in a, for us, obscure Russian publication.
So he really pops up with credibility established, although he might just be a government stooge standing in wait until his services were needed.
The idea that this guy courageously defied rules on live Russian TV just to speak up and tell the Russian people the truth is beyond naive, but was picked up by western media as one of the stories of the day.
These journalists did not do due diligence and clearly do not understand how Russian propaganda works the domestic audience.
The real story is that the Russian government found it necessary to have a member of the elite taking up a position that would otherwise be taken only by regime critics or foreigners.
I think it is a rather clumsy attempt to own the position and I´m wondering how they are going to move on from here, but it is a classic move done by the book.
(For a related example, look at Kim Jong-Un´s current predicament with a surging Coronavirus outbreak: he is chastising government agencies and whatnot for having been neglectful and lazy, effectively taking the role of government critic for himself, preempting outside criticism.)
And for Khodaryonok´s February 3 article being available only in Russian, I cannot help it, it´s written for a domestic audience (the weirdness of it and all) and was not widely distributed at the time.
Well, it took only 24 hours for things to become clearer:
To the astonishment of some western journalists, colonel Khodarenok apparently contradicted his so honest assessment of the war in Ukraine from the day prior, which was celebrated by some in the west as evidence of turmoil in the Russian leadership:
Speaking to a Russian state TV channel on Wednesday, Khodarenok said, "When people talk about Ukraine acquiring the ability to counterattack, well it's a big exaggeration. And as concerns the actions of our supreme command, there is every reason to believe that the implementation of these plans will in the very near future give Ukraine an unpleasant surprise."
The problem is that there is no contradiction whatsoever. The Kremlin needs to own the debate in the propaganda operations it controls and that is primarily Russian TV for the domestic audience.
The honest colonel is apparently tasked with making that happen and comes with the credentials of having predicted the disaster, and also by having been celebrated by some western media for his frank assessments, which should further reassure any doubters.
Going forward, supression of the bad news from Ukraine is simply not possible anymore. So he will continue to support the Kremlin in its war in Ukraine, and that will likely be interspersed with more "honest and frank" assessments, most likely followed by calls for punishment directed at the "fifth service" - at least that is my best guess.
That this guy was given so much credit in western media, for his supposedly courageous comments, handed the Kremlin a propaganda victory by not only creating the fantasy of infighting among the political elites, but also by inadvertently giving Russian TV credit for broadcasting dissenting opinions.
The truth is that dissent is not allowed on Russian TV, period.
And for that matter, the head of the fifth service, Col-General Sergei Beseda, has already been imprisoned for by now 5 weeks and was under house arrest the four weeks prior.
It is all about how to sell the bad news to Russians while clamoring for punishment of the ones found responsible.
The Russians are very good at propaganda and should not be underestimated.
-
This one I mostly agree with you on. No one is going to take Russian conventional military threats as seriously for some time to come. However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
The Russian Military wasn't even keeping up on basic, super easy to check maintenance for supposedly ready-to-go vehicles. Rotten tires and dead batteries were very widespread. Dead batteries were one reason they ran out of fuel so fast in the Kyiv push - if you have to idle your tank 24/7 to avoid needing a jump start, you're going to burn a lot of extra fuel. Maintenance funds were being siphoned at every level.
Tritium is the version of hydrogen for a hydrogen bomb, which most are. Tritium has a half life slightly over 12 years. It's quite expensive. Without it, your hydrogen bomb won't work. It's also not easy for a non-expert to determine whether the tritium was actually refreshed, or just "pencil whipped" and the funds siphoned out. The warheads (and missiles) need other maintenance as well. Heck, the silos are probably rusted shut for most ICBMs.
Since all their nuclear weapons are 30+ years old (fall of the Soviet Union) - there's not much tritium left in them, presuming standard Russian maintenance was applied.
-
However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
Tritium is the version of hydrogen for a hydrogen bomb, which most are. Tritium has a half life slightly over 12 years. It's quite expensive. Without it, your hydrogen bomb won't work. It's also not easy for a non-expert to determine whether the tritium was actually refreshed, or just "pencil whipped" and the funds siphoned out. The warheads (and missiles) need other maintenance as well. Heck, the silos are probably rusted shut for most ICBMs.
Since all their nuclear weapons are 30+ years old (fall of the Soviet Union) - there's not much tritium left in them, presuming standard Russian maintenance was applied.
I haven't found information on the proportion of fission and fusion in Russia's nuclear arsenal, but I strongly suspect it is not 100% fusion. The uranium based nukes would still be a concern. Hydrogen bombs are much more powerful, so Russia's mention of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield seems much more likely to refer to fission bombs.
I'm guessing neither of us will crack Russian state secrets with a few minutes of searching online... but here's the closest I found:
"Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 9% of world reasonably assured resources"
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx
-
However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
Tritium is the version of hydrogen for a hydrogen bomb, which most are. Tritium has a half life slightly over 12 years. It's quite expensive. Without it, your hydrogen bomb won't work. It's also not easy for a non-expert to determine whether the tritium was actually refreshed, or just "pencil whipped" and the funds siphoned out. The warheads (and missiles) need other maintenance as well. Heck, the silos are probably rusted shut for most ICBMs.
Since all their nuclear weapons are 30+ years old (fall of the Soviet Union) - there's not much tritium left in them, presuming standard Russian maintenance was applied.
I haven't found information on the proportion of fission and fusion in Russia's nuclear arsenal, but I strongly suspect it is not 100% fusion. The uranium based nukes would still be a concern. Hydrogen bombs are much more powerful, so Russia's mention of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield seems much more likely to refer to fission bombs.
I'm guessing neither of us will crack Russian state secrets with a few minutes of searching online... but here's the closest I found:
"Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 9% of world reasonably assured resources"
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx
Sure, but the big city or ICBM-silo busting nukes are all fusion. The proposition put forth was that Russia had the capability of wiping out all major US cities.
Also note that tritium is far from the only service item. Even fission bombs need servicing over time.
-
However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
Tritium is the version of hydrogen for a hydrogen bomb, which most are. Tritium has a half life slightly over 12 years. It's quite expensive. Without it, your hydrogen bomb won't work. It's also not easy for a non-expert to determine whether the tritium was actually refreshed, or just "pencil whipped" and the funds siphoned out. The warheads (and missiles) need other maintenance as well. Heck, the silos are probably rusted shut for most ICBMs.
Since all their nuclear weapons are 30+ years old (fall of the Soviet Union) - there's not much tritium left in them, presuming standard Russian maintenance was applied.
I haven't found information on the proportion of fission and fusion in Russia's nuclear arsenal, but I strongly suspect it is not 100% fusion. The uranium based nukes would still be a concern. Hydrogen bombs are much more powerful, so Russia's mention of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield seems much more likely to refer to fission bombs.
I'm guessing neither of us will crack Russian state secrets with a few minutes of searching online... but here's the closest I found:
"Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 9% of world reasonably assured resources"
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx
Sure, but the big city or ICBM-silo busting nukes are all fusion. The proposition put forth was that Russia had the capability of wiping out all major US cities.
Also note that tritium is far from the only service item. Even fission bombs need servicing over time.
Oh, you could be right about that. Do you have a source to confirm it?
I assume most current ICBMs are multiple independent rentry vehicles (MIRV) which helps defeat defenses. I found mention of Russian missiles that could carry 10 large or 16 smaller warheads - which suggests flexibility. But I don't know if it's between large vs medium fusion warheads, versus fission.
-
Nuclear weapons are not easy to maintain, much harder than tanks. The fact that Russia couldn't maintain their basic weaponry isn't a strong endorsement for their nuclear systems, even assuming that the "elite" military personnel are working in nuclear-armed groups (submarines, ICBMs, etc).
-
I share the doubts about the viability of Russia's nuclear arsenal. But even a couple of bombs still working and getting through would be a big problem. Best to still take it seriously.
The reason for for my doubt is very simple and from direct experience:
A few years after the fall of the USSR, I worked for an American military sub-contractor. This company employs primarily chemists, chem engineers, and mechanical engineers with lots of PhD's in both fields . . . that's all I will say about it. In 97 my company sent a couple of higher up scientists on a "loot Soviet technology" tour of Russia. They talked to people in the military and places like the Russian Academy of Sciences thinking it would be a fire sale, and they came back with some ideas. 97-99 we paid to have various Russian scientists come to the US several times to meet with us about what they had, and we sent scientists there as well to investigate the best leads. When the Russian scientists were in the US, I was often put in charge of hosting them since I was young and had no family. Basically I took them to dinner every night, arranged entertainment like shows, took them shopping, etc. so I got to talk with them quite a lot in addition to working with them all day. Alas, I was young and low on the ladder and never got to go to Russia, but everyone who went confirmed what the Russian scientists said: the condition of things there in terms of financial support for science and technology was quite grim. One example I remember was that my colleague said there was a long hallway in one of their more prestigious scientific institutes in St. Petersburg that was lit by a single little light bulb when there should have been dozens along the way. Another issue that came up was that they didn't really have appropriate containers for anything, so they'd send us samples in things like an old vitamin bottle. Whenever we sent them supplies, we also needed to provide ample bribe money so they could retrieve their items from customs.
Bottom line, corruption was rampant, every man was for himself, every scientist who wasn't at the tip top of the "on the take" pyramid wanted us to help get them out of there, and all money was being stripped away from their scientific efforts and poured into the coffers of the men who are now the oligarchs.
It's just hard for me to imagine how you'd keep a nuclear arsenal in tip top shape in that environment . . .
-
@Zamboni Did many of those scientists leave Russia? You may not know of course, but curious.
-
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
If they're going to follow a well known playbook of how to explain all of this to their people, ok? It's not going to change much in the short and medium term. If it gets Russia to stop bombing Ukraine and pull all the troops out, great. But Ukraine is still a mess and Russia is still responsible for making that mess. Even if Putin falls (and I think one way or another he will), the chances of getting someone in power that the rest of the world is remotely ok with is likely pretty low.
The problem is, according to my Russian friend who now is American, is that the people in power, simply don't care. They don't care about the quality of life of the populace, as long as they get theirs. I remember my friend telling me over the last 15-20 years, that morale in Russia keeps getting lower and lower. She feels change in leadership, now that it has gotten to this (things are entrenched), is not going to change significantly. It's a tragedy on many fronts. I guess good news in the sense that Russia threat to Ukraine and Europe in general is not as bad (other than isolation increases paranoia). But not good news in the sense that things will improve for the Russian people.
-
Bottom line, corruption was rampant, every man was for himself, every scientist who wasn't at the tip top of the "on the take" pyramid wanted us to help get them out of there, and all money was being stripped away from their scientific efforts and poured into the coffers of the men who are now the oligarchs.
It's just hard for me to imagine how you'd keep a nuclear arsenal in tip top shape in that environment . . .
Putin has been in power since that time, so I'd assume corruption hasn't changed much. Russia ranks in the bottom 1/4th of countries on perception of corruption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
-
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
If they're going to follow a well known playbook of how to explain all of this to their people, ok? It's not going to change much in the short and medium term. If it gets Russia to stop bombing Ukraine and pull all the troops out, great. But Ukraine is still a mess and Russia is still responsible for making that mess. Even if Putin falls (and I think one way or another he will), the chances of getting someone in power that the rest of the world is remotely ok with is likely pretty low.
The problem is, according to my Russian friend who now is American, is that the people in power, simply don't care. They don't care about the quality of life of the populace, as long as they get theirs. I remember my friend telling me over the last 15-20 years, that morale in Russia keeps getting lower and lower. She feels change in leadership, now that it has gotten to this (things are entrenched), is not going to change significantly. It's a tragedy on many fronts. I guess good news in the sense that Russia threat to Ukraine and Europe in general is not as bad (other than isolation increases paranoia). But not good news in the sense that things will improve for the Russian people.
Yes, its a tragedy. But it's not one that anyone can do anything about. The Russian people are going to have to figure things out, as difficult as that may be. Regime change, to be successful, has to come from within. Cultural change must come from within. The rest of the world can hope they'll make whatever changes are needed to improve their lives, but we can't do it for them.
I'm also reminded of the phrase: don't try harder to help others than they're willing to help themselves. Why do you think the world is helping Ukraine? If they weren't willing to fight, and fight hard, we wouldn't be sending all the weapons and equipment.
-
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
If they're going to follow a well known playbook of how to explain all of this to their people, ok? It's not going to change much in the short and medium term. If it gets Russia to stop bombing Ukraine and pull all the troops out, great. But Ukraine is still a mess and Russia is still responsible for making that mess. Even if Putin falls (and I think one way or another he will), the chances of getting someone in power that the rest of the world is remotely ok with is likely pretty low.
The problem is, according to my Russian friend who now is American, is that the people in power, simply don't care. They don't care about the quality of life of the populace, as long as they get theirs. I remember my friend telling me over the last 15-20 years, that morale in Russia keeps getting lower and lower. She feels change in leadership, now that it has gotten to this (things are entrenched), is not going to change significantly. It's a tragedy on many fronts. I guess good news in the sense that Russia threat to Ukraine and Europe in general is not as bad (other than isolation increases paranoia). But not good news in the sense that things will improve for the Russian people.
Yes, its a tragedy. But it's not one that anyone can do anything about. The Russian people are going to have to figure things out, as difficult as that may be. Regime change, to be successful, has to come from within. Cultural change must come from within. The rest of the world can hope they'll make whatever changes are needed to improve their lives, but we can't do it for them.
I'm also reminded of the phrase: don't try harder to help others than they're willing to help themselves. Why do you think the world is helping Ukraine? If they weren't willing to fight, and fight hard, we wouldn't be sending all the weapons and equipment.
Yes! Look how fast some of these American regime change adventures went sour as soon as the troops left. There apparently wasn't enough internal desire to change. These folks in Ukraine are fitting the stereotype of fighting for freedom. All the outside countries are doing is to help them get where they want to go.
So, if someone was to try to help the Russians do a regime change, would they have a similar desire or would they default to gangster nation status?
-
To be perfectly honest, Russia has fucked itself. Badly.
-They've made themselves a pariah state, which is having significant impacts on their economy. Those economic impacts haven't been fully felt yet, and the time frame I've seen estimated when that's really going to hit is this fall.
-They're getting a lot of young men killed, which will only worsen their very real demographic challenges.
-Militarily, they've shown themselves to be largely a paper tiger, with the exception of nuclear weapons and even that people are questioning. They've been losing large quantities of planes, ships, trucks, and other military equipment, with no real way to replace them. Continued aggression only forces Russia to use even older equipment.
-There have been millions of Russian who have fled the country, many of them younger and educated. This also hurts - both demographically and economically.
-Russian efforts to force Europe to pay for gas, oil and electricity in rubles has resulted in massive pushes in renewables or alternate energy sources. Europe isn't coming back.
If they're going to follow a well known playbook of how to explain all of this to their people, ok? It's not going to change much in the short and medium term. If it gets Russia to stop bombing Ukraine and pull all the troops out, great. But Ukraine is still a mess and Russia is still responsible for making that mess. Even if Putin falls (and I think one way or another he will), the chances of getting someone in power that the rest of the world is remotely ok with is likely pretty low.
The problem is, according to my Russian friend who now is American, is that the people in power, simply don't care. They don't care about the quality of life of the populace, as long as they get theirs. I remember my friend telling me over the last 15-20 years, that morale in Russia keeps getting lower and lower. She feels change in leadership, now that it has gotten to this (things are entrenched), is not going to change significantly. It's a tragedy on many fronts. I guess good news in the sense that Russia threat to Ukraine and Europe in general is not as bad (other than isolation increases paranoia). But not good news in the sense that things will improve for the Russian people.
Yes, its a tragedy. But it's not one that anyone can do anything about. The Russian people are going to have to figure things out, as difficult as that may be. Regime change, to be successful, has to come from within. Cultural change must come from within. The rest of the world can hope they'll make whatever changes are needed to improve their lives, but we can't do it for them.
I'm also reminded of the phrase: don't try harder to help others than they're willing to help themselves. Why do you think the world is helping Ukraine? If they weren't willing to fight, and fight hard, we wouldn't be sending all the weapons and equipment.
Yes! Look how fast some of these American regime change adventures went sour as soon as the troops left. There apparently wasn't enough internal desire to change. These folks in Ukraine are fitting the stereotype of fighting for freedom. All the outside countries are doing is to help them get where they want to go.
So, if someone was to try to help the Russians do a regime change, would they have a similar desire or would they default to gangster nation status?
I think creating democracy is hard, it doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen just by having a vote. The essentials, before you even get to voting, are:
1) Security from external forces - you can't have democracy if outsiders can violently disrupt your society whenever they please.
2) A rules-based internal order rather than one based on personal power.
3) A sufficient level of economic security for the majority of the population (eg no famines).
Russia has the first but quite possibly as a result of propaganda doesn't believe it has it. It dosn't have the second and the third is going to get iffy. So I don't think Russia is going to become a democracy any time soon.
-
Senate passed a $40 billion package for Ukraine aid. "The bill, passed on an 86-to-11 vote Thursday, provides a combined $20 billion in military aid that is expected to finance the transfer of advanced weapons systems, such as Patriot antiaircraft missiles and long-range artillery. "
If we actually give Ukraine Patriot missiles, that's pretty big. Previous reporting was that the US had refused.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/ukraine-aid-senate/
-
Senate passed a $40 billion package for Ukraine aid. "The bill, passed on an 86-to-11 vote Thursday, provides a combined $20 billion in military aid that is expected to finance the transfer of advanced weapons systems, such as Patriot antiaircraft missiles and long-range artillery. "
If we actually give Ukraine Patriot missiles, that's pretty big. Previous reporting was that the US had refused.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/ukraine-aid-senate/
This WaPo article is making the rounds, but isn't saying what people think it is. Could give Patriot and HIMARS - not will.
Patriot requires a large team of operators and months of training. It also uses tech that may not be compatible with other Ukrainian systems right away. It's more likely that we'll continue to find ways to buy or transfer the remaining Russian-built SAMs from our friends until we can overcome these hurdles and get a NATO-standard SAM system into Ukraine.
-
I'm glad the aid bill passed.
@Zamboni Did many of those scientists leave Russia? You may not know of course, but curious.
Leaving Russia was clearly their primary goal in talking to us. I remember specifically one guy wanted us to help get him, his girlfriend (also a scientist), and his girlfriend's adult daughter permanently into the US. Lol, he wanted to leave his wife in Russia. Can't make this stuff up. I don't think he got out, but his girlfriend was younger and had a very unique name, and I'm pretty sure she now lives in Staten Island.
When she visited with him, it was very clear that she was fascinated by the US, so I'm not surprised she managed it. For example, she was astounded by all of the different churches and would read the signs on them out loud whenever we drove around, and so I had to explain about different flavors of Christianity. I never noticed there were so many churches around here before that, but I do live in the bible belt I guess.
She also was absolutely floored by the variety of food at the local grocery store. Why are there so many different canned tomatoes? What is different about them? How can you decide which one you want to buy? Why do some of them cost so much? Very, very expensive. All of these cost more than in Russia, but did you know inflation is very very bad in Russia now? I am very worried about buying food for my daughter soon . . . And on and on. I can't even remember what little toiletry item they needed that caused us to go there, but it turned into an extended tour of the "land of wonder" that is an American low end grocery store.
Another guy I can see is still publishing papers once and awhile at his institute in Russia. He wanted out, but once we dug into what he knew, it was clear he had nothing that could match what we already had in the US, so it wasn't profitable for my company to do anything for him. That was the general theme: Western science and technology was way ahead of what we were finding in the former Soviet Union in the late 90s. So the "looting their technology" idea was pretty much a total bust because they were just very far behind us in most areas back then. I'd imagine that, since then, the internet may have gotten them up to speed pretty fast. Russia did (and probably still does) have a relatively highly educated population. But there's still that massive corruption issue which keeps progress from happening in many areas.
Anyway, I completely see why Ukraine, Poland, etc. had enough of Russian rule and WILL NOT GO BACK. Anyone my age or older remembers how bad they had it. Ukraine will never surrender.
-
Leaving Russia was clearly their primary goal ... his girlfriend was younger and had a very unique name, and I'm pretty sure she now lives in Staten Island.
So... worse than Russia?
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
Ego? And it's not the only city in ruins, perhaps just the largest. So far at least.
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
Ego? And it's not the only city in ruins, perhaps just the largest. So far at least.
I've been wondering what they're going to do with all that rubble? Where on earth do you put it? In the sea?
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
Ego? And it's not the only city in ruins, perhaps just the largest. So far at least.
I've been wondering what they're going to do with all that rubble? Where on earth do you put it? In the sea?
Rubble will be in demand as the sea rises. I'd guess it would make good riprap.
-
However who are these people who are questioning whether Russia has nuclear weapons and what are they basing that on?
Tritium is the version of hydrogen for a hydrogen bomb, which most are. Tritium has a half life slightly over 12 years. It's quite expensive. Without it, your hydrogen bomb won't work. It's also not easy for a non-expert to determine whether the tritium was actually refreshed, or just "pencil whipped" and the funds siphoned out. The warheads (and missiles) need other maintenance as well. Heck, the silos are probably rusted shut for most ICBMs.
Since all their nuclear weapons are 30+ years old (fall of the Soviet Union) - there's not much tritium left in them, presuming standard Russian maintenance was applied.
I haven't found information on the proportion of fission and fusion in Russia's nuclear arsenal, but I strongly suspect it is not 100% fusion. The uranium based nukes would still be a concern. Hydrogen bombs are much more powerful, so Russia's mention of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield seems much more likely to refer to fission bombs.
I'm guessing neither of us will crack Russian state secrets with a few minutes of searching online... but here's the closest I found:
"Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 9% of world reasonably assured resources"
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx
Sure, but the big city or ICBM-silo busting nukes are all fusion. The proposition put forth was that Russia had the capability of wiping out all major US cities.
Also note that tritium is far from the only service item. Even fission bombs need servicing over time.
Oh, you could be right about that. Do you have a source to confirm it?
I assume most current ICBMs are multiple independent rentry vehicles (MIRV) which helps defeat defenses. I found mention of Russian missiles that could carry 10 large or 16 smaller warheads - which suggests flexibility. But I don't know if it's between large vs medium fusion warheads, versus fission.
Modern nuclear weapons are two-stage (fission and then fusion), except really small nukes. The fission is the first (primary ) stage.
In order to make the device use less fissionable material (U-235 or Pu-239), "boosting" with tritium is used.
It also enables the user to select variable yields. Why you would not just "turn it up to 11" is lost on me.
Even really small nukes are likely to be boosted to reduce fissionable mass, weight etc.
The power of a thermonuclear weapon is based on the starting fission primary yield.
"The yield of each stage is directly dependent on the yield of the stage immediately proceeding it" --- US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Chuck Hanson, 1988, page 25.
So what was intended to be a megaton weapon could be in the low kiloton range, especially if the primary does not ignite the fusion secondary.
That said, someone at ground zero is unlikely to have a different experience. Note the before and after pictures of shot Koon "fizzle" on 7 April 1954. It still left a crater 990ft wide and 75ft deep.
Here the "fizzle" meant 110kilotons vs expected 1000kilotons. Militarily the difference is between wiping out a city and severely damaging some parts of the city.
Externally, one would not be able to tell if a weapon had tritium, since tritium is such a weak beta particle emitter. No externally detectable radiation would be present.
(ok, maybe some neutrinos, but a portable neutrino detector, analyzer is yet to be invented).
Tritium EXIT signs have about 20 Curies (7.4x1011 Bq , 7.4x105 MBq) and are safe unless broken.
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
Ego? And it's not the only city in ruins, perhaps just the largest. So far at least.
I've been wondering what they're going to do with all that rubble? Where on earth do you put it? In the sea?
Rubble will be in demand as the sea rises. I'd guess it would make good riprap.
Metal can potentially be recycled. Electrical wiring as well, possibly metal pipes. Glass can be recycled, as can some plastics. Concrete, asphalt, and "rubble" can apparently be used to make aggregate, which would be useful in rebuilding. I know I've seen concrete used to stabilize river banks. Wood is a fuel source. Wood in good condition could be reused. Some things might be repairable - solid wood furniture could maybe be repaired, sanded and refinished and have new life.
Not going to say it wouldn't be a ton of effort, but I'm sure there's low hanging fruit to be gained. Heck, Ukraine could potentially employ a bunch of people to break it down and deal with it. They're going to have a lot of traumatized people who may not be able to do higher skill work due to their trauma. Soft manual labor might actually help. If your job involves hitting concrete with a mechanized hammer, it might help work through some of those emotions.
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
Ego? And it's not the only city in ruins, perhaps just the largest. So far at least.
According to Poland's Ambassador to the U.S., Poland has been trying to warn Europe for years about Russian ambitions. Almost a year ago Putin published an article about why Russians and Ukranians are the same people, which probably looks more ominous now than it did at the time. For a man supposedly after Nazis, you might be surprised that Putin claims the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. I expect the Ambassador from Poland (talking on a show on Al Jazeera) knows the situation better than I do, and he claims Putin feels humiliation over it, and stews on it. It seems the answer to "why?" is the rebuilding of the Soviet empire.
And that answer, by the way, suggests Russia also wants to attack Moldova, it's just too busy. So while $40 billion from the U.S. will help Ukraine, it may also be time to help Moldova.
Apparently Poland offered ID cards to Ukranians who had fled there, and a million applied. Polish and Ukranian languages are similar enough it apparently only takes a few months to learn the language. When U.S. members of Congress visited Poland, they wanted to see refugee camps - there aren't any. Given the numbers of people streaming into Poland, it sounds relatively smoother than what I would have expected.
-
Lol, I know, right? I really liked her, so hope she is taking the ferry off the island on the regular.
Mariupol looks completely gutted. And for what?
Ego? And it's not the only city in ruins, perhaps just the largest. So far at least.
I've been wondering what they're going to do with all that rubble? Where on earth do you put it? In the sea?
Rubble will be in demand as the sea rises. I'd guess it would make good riprap.
Metal can potentially be recycled. Electrical wiring as well, possibly metal pipes. Glass can be recycled, as can some plastics. Concrete, asphalt, and "rubble" can apparently be used to make aggregate, which would be useful in rebuilding. I know I've seen concrete used to stabilize river banks. Wood is a fuel source. Wood in good condition could be reused. Some things might be repairable - solid wood furniture could maybe be repaired, sanded and refinished and have new life.
Not going to say it wouldn't be a ton of effort, but I'm sure there's low hanging fruit to be gained. Heck, Ukraine could potentially employ a bunch of people to break it down and deal with it. They're going to have a lot of traumatized people who may not be able to do higher skill work due to their trauma. Soft manual labor might actually help. If your job involves hitting concrete with a mechanized hammer, it might help work through some of those emotions.
Yeh - They stripped wiring and pipes from all those abandoned houses in Detroit before they bulldozed them. I guess this would be similar.
-
And that answer, by the way, suggests Russia also wants to attack Moldova, it's just too busy. So while $40 billion from the U.S. will help Ukraine, it may also be time to help Moldova.
As long as Ukraine doesn't fall, Russia has no avenue open to attack Moldova. So Moldova is a beneficiary of the USA's military aid to Ukraine.
Apparently Poland offered ID cards to Ukranians who had fled there, and a million applied. Polish and Ukranian languages are similar enough it apparently only takes a few months to learn the language. When U.S. members of Congress visited Poland, they wanted to see refugee camps - there aren't any. Given the numbers of people streaming into Poland, it sounds relatively smoother than what I would have expected.
Poland has really gone above and beyond. Like you say they've seen this coming and been preparing for it for decades.
Polish and Ukrainian use entirely different alphabets, so don't underestimate how hard it will be for Ukrainians to get up to speed.
March in Polish: Marzec
March in Ukrainian: Березень
-
They’re different alphabets, but it’s not that hard to learn an alphabet. My 10-year-old taught herself Cyrillic a couple of weeks ago using an iPad app. Not sure why, she’s just that kind of kid and wanted to learn Russian. Have to start with the alphabet.
-
They’re different alphabets, but it’s not that hard to learn an alphabet. My 10-year-old taught herself Cyrillic a couple of weeks ago using an iPad app. Not sure why, she’s just that kind of kid and wanted to learn Russian. Have to start with the alphabet.
A fair point. Your 10 year old may be particularly gifted, I may be particularly slow in this particular arena, or it may be something that comes much easier to the young (like learning languages generally seems to be).
I spent nine months as a younger adult trying to hammer the devanagari alphabet into my brain. While I think I had it by the end of that time, now, years later, I've lost it again entirely. Although that also required learning a lot of new sounds that aren't used in english (hopefully not an issue between polish and ukrainian).
-
I’ve never heard of the devanagari alphabet, so I looked it up. Whoa. That would be wayyy more difficult to learn than the Roman/Cyrillic a combination. At least Roman and Cyrillic have a common look and feel and even some common letters.
-
I mostly taught myself Cyrillic at the beginning of the war. It wasn't so bad. I still don't have perfect command of all their vowels, but if I read a name I can usually get pretty close now. I think going the other way may be a bit easier just because of how ubiquitous Latin-script languages are in international business. Ukrainians likely saw Latin script all the time on the packaging for imported goods and learning the basics would have probably been pretty common.
-
Re Moldova and Transnistria - have anyone seen any news from that region? My acquaintance from Transnistria have mentioned repeated instances of bombs / detonations in the region, and his father who still lives there believes that it is caused by the Russians to be blamed in Ukraine and/or Moldova. I have not seem much about this in the news sources I follow and googling have led me to unknown news sources.
Re Ukrainians and language - the ones who flee to the west are of different ages. Based in my own experiences of meeting Ukrainians, most people 40 or younger should have some knowledge of English (but sometimes very little practice in using the language before fleeing) and "our" alphabet should be known or quick to learn. For older people, it could be different I guess.
Google translate and similar services also help immensely.
-
May I also give a book recommendation for those interested in Russia?
"Putin's Trolls: On the Frontlines of Russia's Information War Against the World" by Jessikka Aro, a journalist from Finland.
https://www.amazon.com/Jessikka-Aro/e/B09V1G6S6R/
I haven't actually read it myself yet (so many books to read) but given the reviews in Swedish media it should be worth its time for those interested.
-
I'm pretty sure the moderators of this very website had to ban some anti-vax Russian disinformation trolls a few years ago (pre-pandemic). Or maybe he/they weren't Russian . . . but that is what we little people were guessing based upon the cyclic time of day of all of the postings.
Sat images showing mass graves and explosions of wheat silos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOnD5UNHS8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOnD5UNHS8)
The collateral damage is hard for us to even imagine at this point.
-
They’re different alphabets, but it’s not that hard to learn an alphabet. My 10-year-old taught herself Cyrillic a couple of weeks ago using an iPad app. Not sure why, she’s just that kind of kid and wanted to learn Russian. Have to start with the alphabet.
A fair point. Your 10 year old may be particularly gifted, I may be particularly slow in this particular arena, or it may be something that comes much easier to the young (like learning languages generally seems to be).
I spent nine months as a younger adult trying to hammer the devanagari alphabet into my brain. While I think I had it by the end of that time, now, years later, I've lost it again entirely. Although that also required learning a lot of new sounds that aren't used in english (hopefully not an issue between polish and ukrainian).
Kids are fast learners. My 2 year old niece knows part of the alphabet in english as well as lot of english words as she looks at english programs for kids on youtube. She speaks finnish and swedish at home with her parents. So to determine what she says you have to figure out which language she is using first. One day she was fire fighting in english. It took a while to figure out that she screamed fire in english. :-)
-
I'm pretty sure the moderators of this very website had to ban some anti-vax Russian disinformation trolls a few years ago (pre-pandemic). Or maybe he/they weren't Russian . . . but that is what we little people were guessing based upon the cyclic time of day of all of the postings.
Sat images showing mass graves and explosions of wheat silos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOnD5UNHS8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOnD5UNHS8)
The collateral damage is hard for us to even imagine at this point.
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Will Russia continue to export its grain? Can they? How much will Ukraine be able to produce, store, and export? Other major grain production regions have struggled with too much or too little rain.
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
-
I'm pretty sure the moderators of this very website had to ban some anti-vax Russian disinformation trolls a few years ago (pre-pandemic). Or maybe he/they weren't Russian . . . but that is what we little people were guessing based upon the cyclic time of day of all of the postings.
Sat images showing mass graves and explosions of wheat silos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOnD5UNHS8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOnD5UNHS8)
The collateral damage is hard for us to even imagine at this point.
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Will Russia continue to export its grain? Can they? How much will Ukraine be able to produce, store, and export? Other major grain production regions have struggled with too much or too little rain.
Russia has tried to steal Ukrainian grain and sell it, but it hasn't been accepted at some ports. Those guys are real pirates.
If this war does cause a famine in Africa, could it be argued that they are at war with a good portion of the world?
-
A senior Russian diplomat at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland has defected. His statement is worth reading:
Exclusive: Senior Russian Diplomat at U.N. Defects
STATEMENT BY BORIS BONDAREV, RUSSIAN COUNSELLOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN GENEVA
"My name is Boris Bondarev, in the MFA of Russia since 2002, since 2019 until now — Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.
For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year.
The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.
Those who conceived this war want only one thing — to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this."
https://tinyurl.com/2z3s6xzz
-
This is the best summary, I´ve seen so far, of Russian intelligence failures leading up to the war and which explain its disastrous conduct. Essentially, the Russian intelligence operation turned onto itself in some important ways and Mr Putin failed to see this:
INTELLIGENCE AND THE WAR IN UKRAINE: PART 2
NEVEEN SHAABAN ABDALLA, PHILIP H. J. DAVIES, KRISTIAN GUSTAFSON, DAN LOMAS, AND STEVEN WAGNER
"We can infer that Russian intelligence services supported Putin’s view of Ukraine as a state ready to be absorbed. Bellingcat’s Christo Grozev suggests that in early April, Putin sacked more than 150 Russian intelligence officers, including the Federal Security Service’s Fifth Service chief, Gen. Sergei Beseda, “for reporting unreliable, overly optimistic information concerning Ukraine,” which suggests a military and political culture of providing inaccurate or outright deceptive intelligence upwards. This move, if true, underlines the hypothesis that Putin believed a false picture of the kind of war he was getting into."
...
"Russia and outsiders both have long perceived the Russian superiority in denial and deception. We even use their term, maskirovka. Now, their only successful deception appears to have been self-directed, a reflection of their poorly executed “correlation of forces and means” analysis. The result has been the death of many commanders, including, at the time of writing, nine general officers and more than 30 colonels. While generals have never been immune to enemy fire, the issues of command and control in the Russian army — especially the need to push forward stalled operations — are likely contributing to their unusually rapid demise in Ukraine. The degradation of staff and command officers is certainly multiplying Russia’s problems in its campaign and poses a long-term challenge for recovery."
https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/intelligence-and-the-war-in-ukraine-part-2/
-
War on the Rocks is very good as far as I can tell, they're one of my regular sources.
-
A senior Russian diplomat at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland has defected. His statement is worth reading:
Exclusive: Senior Russian Diplomat at U.N. Defects
STATEMENT BY BORIS BONDAREV, RUSSIAN COUNSELLOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN GENEVA
"My name is Boris Bondarev, in the MFA of Russia since 2002, since 2019 until now — Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.
For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year.
The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.
Those who conceived this war want only one thing — to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this."
https://tinyurl.com/2z3s6xzz
No bets on his life expectancy. But good for him, it's hard to stand up for your principles when you know the consequences are very possibility fatal.
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
The Middle East depends heavily on wheat from Russia & Ukraine, which was a factor in my purchase of commodity ETFs. As if gasoline prices weren't high enough, add instability in the Middle East.
-
Apparently Poland offered ID cards to Ukranians who had fled there, and a million applied. Polish and Ukranian languages are similar enough it apparently only takes a few months to learn the language. When U.S. members of Congress visited Poland, they wanted to see refugee camps - there aren't any. Given the numbers of people streaming into Poland, it sounds relatively smoother than what I would have expected.
Polish and Ukrainian use entirely different alphabets, so don't underestimate how hard it will be for Ukrainians to get up to speed.
Yes, the alphabet is different, right now. Fun fact: there is a long history of flip/flopping between Latin and Cyrillic for writing Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Latin_alphabet
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
The Middle East depends heavily on wheat from Russia & Ukraine, which was a factor in my purchase of commodity ETFs. As if gasoline prices weren't high enough, add instability in the Middle East.
I've never understood the articles abut country X imported Y% of their wheat from Ukraine. Wheat is fungible. A lot less wheat on the market means that prices go up globally, which is bad for everyone who buys wheat anywhere in the world.
The middle eastern country the most likely to get in to trouble with high wheat price is Egypt. They depend a lot on imports (from anywhere in the world) and unlike a lot of other countries they don't have lots of oil revenue to allow the government to subsidize the costs.
Bangladesh may be in bad shape as well.
Don't look at just where Ukrainian wheat used to go, look at any countries that 1) import a lot of wheat relative to their population and 2) probably cannot afford to subsidize their population through a major price spike.
-
A senior Russian diplomat at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland has defected. His statement is worth reading:
Exclusive: Senior Russian Diplomat at U.N. Defects
STATEMENT BY BORIS BONDAREV, RUSSIAN COUNSELLOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN GENEVA
"My name is Boris Bondarev, in the MFA of Russia since 2002, since 2019 until now — Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.
For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year.
The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.
Those who conceived this war want only one thing — to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this."
https://tinyurl.com/2z3s6xzz
No bets on his life expectancy. But good for him, it's hard to stand up for your principles when you know the consequences are very possibility fatal.
Agreed. The bolded part about comparison jumped out at me as a bold assertion, and a powerful indicator of the wealth siphoned away by the oligarch class. At present there are 56 superyachts subject to seizure with an estimated combined value of about $5.6 billion (I suspect this number is pretty squishy). This doesn't add up against the list of active ships in the Russian Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Ships_and_submarines_in_service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Ships_and_submarines_in_service)
Either the yachts subject to seizure are a small slice of that pie, the Russian Navy is oversold, or he knows the value of a juicy soundbite and this is his best (and maybe last) opportunity to call out the corruption.
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
The Middle East depends heavily on wheat from Russia & Ukraine, which was a factor in my purchase of commodity ETFs. As if gasoline prices weren't high enough, add instability in the Middle East.
I've never understood the articles abut country X imported Y% of their wheat from Ukraine. Wheat is fungible. A lot less wheat on the market means that prices go up globally, which is bad for everyone who buys wheat anywhere in the world.
The middle eastern country the most likely to get in to trouble with high wheat price is Egypt. They depend a lot on imports (from anywhere in the world) and unlike a lot of other countries they don't have lots of oil revenue to allow the government to subsidize the costs.
Bangladesh may be in bad shape as well.
Don't look at just where Ukrainian wheat used to go, look at any countries that 1) import a lot of wheat relative to their population and 2) probably cannot afford to subsidize their population through a major price spike.
Keep in mind that when people say "Egypt imports wheat from Ukraine" what that really means is companies in Egypt (or in some cases the government) purchases wheat from companies in Ukraine. They likely have relationships and contracts in place. There is not necessarily a huge amount of wheat available on the spot market. If there is, now you need to worry about all the logistics of importing it. The company buying or selling it probably arranged for the transportation and had an infrastructure in place. Finding a new supplier - especially when lots of other countries/companies are at the same time - is going to be difficult.
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
The Middle East depends heavily on wheat from Russia & Ukraine, which was a factor in my purchase of commodity ETFs. As if gasoline prices weren't high enough, add instability in the Middle East.
I've never understood the articles abut country X imported Y% of their wheat from Ukraine. Wheat is fungible. A lot less wheat on the market means that prices go up globally, which is bad for everyone who buys wheat anywhere in the world.
The middle eastern country the most likely to get in to trouble with high wheat price is Egypt. They depend a lot on imports (from anywhere in the world) and unlike a lot of other countries they don't have lots of oil revenue to allow the government to subsidize the costs.
Bangladesh may be in bad shape as well.
Don't look at just where Ukrainian wheat used to go, look at any countries that 1) import a lot of wheat relative to their population and 2) probably cannot afford to subsidize their population through a major price spike.
Keep in mind that when people say "Egypt imports wheat from Ukraine" what that really means is companies in Egypt (or in some cases the government) purchases wheat from companies in Ukraine. They likely have relationships and contracts in place. There is not necessarily a huge amount of wheat available on the spot market. If there is, now you need to worry about all the logistics of importing it. The company buying or selling it probably arranged for the transportation and had an infrastructure in place. Finding a new supplier - especially when lots of other countries/companies are at the same time - is going to be difficult.
Per Wikipedia, the top wheat exporters are:
# Country Quantity
tonnes
1 Russia 37,267,014
2 United States 26,131,626
3 Canada 26,110,509
4 France 19,792,597
5 Ukraine 18,055,673
6 Australia 10,400,418
7 Argentina 10,196,931
8 Germany 9,259,493
9 Kazakhstan 5,198,943
10 Poland 4,689,130
Good luck to the Middle East importing large quantities of wheat from Australia, North or South America. It's a long way, and I'm sure the spoilage rates would be higher.
-
Good luck to the Middle East importing large quantities of wheat from Australia, North or South America. It's a long way, and I'm sure the spoilage rates would be higher.
We're actually really REALLY good at shipping grain and other agricultural commodities around the world, both in terms of stability of the product but also in terms of the low cost of moving commodities from one side of the world to the other.
European animal ag runs on soybeans shipped in all the way from Argentina. It'll often be more expensive to transport grain from the port inland to the customer's city within the same country than it is to ship from a port on on continent to a port on an entire different continent.
-
Good luck to the Middle East importing large quantities of wheat from Australia, North or South America. It's a long way, and I'm sure the spoilage rates would be higher.
We're actually really REALLY good at shipping grain and other agricultural commodities around the world, both in terms of stability of the product but also in terms of the low cost of moving commodities from one side of the world to the other.
European animal ag runs on soybeans shipped in all the way from Argentina. It'll often be more expensive to transport grain from the port inland to the customer's city within the same country than it is to ship from a port on on continent to a port on an entire different continent.
Interesting, thank you. So availability rather than pure transport difficulties will be the biggest hurdle.
-
So - Talking about shipping. It seems as though a buttload of munitions have been sent to Ukraine. Where are they?
Mr. Zelenskyy says that his troops are outnumbered 20:1 on the Eastern front as far as equipment is concerned.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446 (https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446)
The other story is that the Russians can't get enough troops. They have authorized people in the age group of 40-45 to volunteer for the special operation.
Ukraine has a huge army of volunteers.
It just seems like something is not adding up.
-
So - Talking about shipping. It seems as though a buttload of munitions have been sent to Ukraine. Where are they?
Mr. Zelenskyy says that his troops are outnumbered 20:1 on the Eastern front as far as equipment is concerned.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446 (https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446)
The other story is that the Russians can't get enough troops. They have authorized people in the age group of 40-45 to volunteer for the special operation.
Ukraine has a huge army of volunteers.
It just seems like something is not adding up.
In the Donbas sector where the fighting is heaviest, Russia has concentrated its forces which are heavily skewed towards artillery. Just taking that into account the Ukrainian army could be outnumbered that severely. Thanks to Belarus, Transnistria, and threats of amphibious assault on Odessa, the Ukrainian army has to spread itself to cover 75% of its border with troops. They have a Territorial Defense Force consisting of volunteer militia of varying levels of equipment and experience who exist to help cover these regions, but they're not "the army" and by law they can't leave their home provinces. In pure manpower the Ukrainian Army is roughly equal to what Russia has deployed to this war, but Russia has the initiative and the luxury of fighting on a smaller front. Rumors have been going for weeks that Ukraine is training thousands of troops equipped with donated weapons and vehicles in order to conduct large-scale counterattacks this summer.
https://www.uawardata.com/ (https://www.uawardata.com/)
This is a good site to see how both sides have arrayed their forces. If you see a green box with a little "L" in it, that's Ukrainian TDF. All the other green boxes are Ukrainian Army brigades. If they knew that the north and southwest would be secure they'd move thousands of troops into the fight, but for the moment they're stuck there.
Russia is having difficulties recruiting replacements. Since this is a special operation and not a declared war Putin can't just grab reservists and throw them in en masse. They have to be recruited again. The Russian government is also signing 6 month enlistments where the soldier only gets a couple weeks of training before being thrown into the fight.
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
The Middle East depends heavily on wheat from Russia & Ukraine, which was a factor in my purchase of commodity ETFs. As if gasoline prices weren't high enough, add instability in the Middle East.
I've never understood the articles abut country X imported Y% of their wheat from Ukraine. Wheat is fungible. A lot less wheat on the market means that prices go up globally, which is bad for everyone who buys wheat anywhere in the world.
The middle eastern country the most likely to get in to trouble with high wheat price is Egypt. They depend a lot on imports (from anywhere in the world) and unlike a lot of other countries they don't have lots of oil revenue to allow the government to subsidize the costs.
Bangladesh may be in bad shape as well.
Don't look at just where Ukrainian wheat used to go, look at any countries that 1) import a lot of wheat relative to their population and 2) probably cannot afford to subsidize their population through a major price spike.
I assumed what you're suggesting people measure, and agree measuring per capita wheat consumption is a better approach. Wouldn't per capita income suffice for (2)?
-
Saw on the BBC where a Russian 20-somethings were chanting "Fuck War" at a Russian rock concert. Hope all the Russian 20-somethings rebel against Putin's government and military.
-
They’re different alphabets, but it’s not that hard to learn an alphabet. My 10-year-old taught herself Cyrillic a couple of weeks ago using an iPad app. Not sure why, she’s just that kind of kid and wanted to learn Russian. Have to start with the alphabet.
Your daughter is a Russian mole.
-
Watching that my brain decided to present the random factoid that one of the issues leading up to the French Revolution was the price and availability of food. There were food riots in Paris.
Not being able to afford food kicked off a whole lot of revolutions and civil wars. From ancient rome to the arab spring.
There are food riots happening right now in Sri Lanka and Iran.
When people cannot feed their families everything else goes out the window.
The Middle East depends heavily on wheat from Russia & Ukraine, which was a factor in my purchase of commodity ETFs. As if gasoline prices weren't high enough, add instability in the Middle East.
I've never understood the articles abut country X imported Y% of their wheat from Ukraine. Wheat is fungible. A lot less wheat on the market means that prices go up globally, which is bad for everyone who buys wheat anywhere in the world.
The middle eastern country the most likely to get in to trouble with high wheat price is Egypt. They depend a lot on imports (from anywhere in the world) and unlike a lot of other countries they don't have lots of oil revenue to allow the government to subsidize the costs.
Bangladesh may be in bad shape as well.
Don't look at just where Ukrainian wheat used to go, look at any countries that 1) import a lot of wheat relative to their population and 2) probably cannot afford to subsidize their population through a major price spike.
I assumed what you're suggesting people measure, and agree measuring per capita wheat consumption is a better approach. Wouldn't per capita income suffice for (2)?
Per capita income is a decent proxy, but it can miss the case where the government and most people are poor, but a small number of private people (or companies) make a lot of money which pulls up the average.
It also takes a while to catch up. Oil prices have come close to doubling. That puts countries like Saudi Arabia in a much better position to cushion their population* from a doubling (or more) in wheat prices than it was a year ago.
*Of course subsidizing wheat doesn't magically create more supply, it just bids up the price more until someone doesn't have the money to afford wheat anymore and is forced to go hungry, balancing supply and demand.
-
So - Talking about shipping. It seems as though a buttload of munitions have been sent to Ukraine. Where are they?
Mr. Zelenskyy says that his troops are outnumbered 20:1 on the Eastern front as far as equipment is concerned.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446 (https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446)
The other story is that the Russians can't get enough troops. They have authorized people in the age group of 40-45 to volunteer for the special operation.
Ukraine has a huge army of volunteers.
It just seems like something is not adding up.
First you need to train troops on equipment. Then you need the ammo. That might actually become the biggest problem for Ukriane. They are using mostly USSR stuff where there isn't much left of it outside Russia who is unlikely to sell it.
-
So - Talking about shipping. It seems as though a buttload of munitions have been sent to Ukraine. Where are they?
Mr. Zelenskyy says that his troops are outnumbered 20:1 on the Eastern front as far as equipment is concerned.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446 (https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/russia-ukraine/?id=83931446)
The other story is that the Russians can't get enough troops. They have authorized people in the age group of 40-45 to volunteer for the special operation.
Ukraine has a huge army of volunteers.
It just seems like something is not adding up.
I read in the NYT yesterday only about a dozen of the M777 howitzers are in combat. The reason? Lack of trained crews. It will be a few more weeks before enough crews can be trained up. Same with counter-battery artillery. Powered artillery takes even longer to train.
Ukraine has lots of volunteers, but they need training and equipment too. On the other hand, Russia started off with a much, much larger army. Much more of everything. Even though Russian losses have been substantial they still have a lot. Russia has concentrated her troops in the Donbas, hoping for a brute force break through and encirclement of Ukrainian troops. From battle reports I've read it is starting to get critical as Ukraine is being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Russian troops.
-
US Treasury is cutting off Russia's ability to pay debt through US banks. Defaults are expected to be declared in late July.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-janet-yellen-government-and-politics-20dbb506790dddc6f019fa7fdf265514
-
Those who conceived this war want only one thing — to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this."
https://tinyurl.com/2z3s6xzz
No bets on his life expectancy. But good for him, it's hard to stand up for your principles when you know the consequences are very possibility fatal.
Agreed. The bolded part about comparison jumped out at me as a bold assertion, and a powerful indicator of the wealth siphoned away by the oligarch class. At present there are 56 superyachts subject to seizure with an estimated combined value of about $5.6 billion (I suspect this number is pretty squishy). This doesn't add up against the list of active ships in the Russian Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Ships_and_submarines_in_service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Ships_and_submarines_in_service)
Either the yachts subject to seizure are a small slice of that pie, the Russian Navy is oversold, or he knows the value of a juicy soundbite and this is his best (and maybe last) opportunity to call out the corruption.
It seems like most of the Russian navy is Soviet ships. Maybe it is accurate if we compare yachts vs navy ships completed over the past 10 or 20 years?
-
And the race is on to see if more Ukrainians or more Americans are killed by non-self-inflicted small arms fire in 2022.
-
And the race is on to see if more Ukrainians or more Americans are killed by non-self-inflicted small arms fire in 2022.
If it's only small arms than this probabyl goes to the US.
I mean the US has more gun death per capita than many countries with an ongoing (civil) war.
-
And the race is on to see if more Ukrainians or more Americans are killed by non-self-inflicted small arms fire in 2022.
If it's only small arms than this probabyl goes to the US.
I mean the US has more gun death per capita than many countries with an ongoing (civil) war.
Let's not discuss America's legally enshrined gun fetish and the completely predictable result of it. Until Americans want fewer mass shootings rather than easy access to firearms, there doesn't seem to be any point.
So hopes and prayers again . . . because anything more concrete is out of the question.
-
And the race is on to see if more Ukrainians or more Americans are killed by non-self-inflicted small arms fire in 2022.
If it's only small arms than this probabyl goes to the US.
I mean the US has more gun death per capita than many countries with an ongoing (civil) war.
Let's not discuss America's legally enshrined gun fetish and the completely predictable result of it. Until Americans want fewer mass shootings rather than easy access to firearms, there doesn't seem to be any point.
So hopes and prayers again . . . because anything more concrete is out of the question.
To be fair, huge majorities of Americans favor stronger regulation of firearms. What's needed is for that support to translate into action, either through a very wise statute revision plan that gets advanced with a lot of effort and luck, or a broader upgrade of American politics that brings USA closer to democratic functioning (aka, results consistently reflect the people's desires).
Since legislation is less unlikely than broad reform, here's a plausible suggestion from an American gun aficionado (not me, the anonymous contributor in the article below). Hope and pray for this, please! :)
From Charlie Sykes in The Bulwark:
Laws (and culture) make a difference, and other countries have, in fact, “fixed” the gun problem — or at least the problem of mass shootings:
Image
And, even here, there are gun control laws that would make a difference.
Red flag laws (David French makes a great case here.)
Raising age for gun purchases
Banning high capacity magazines
Banning bump stocks
Universal background checks
A few years back Nicholas Kristof noted how safety measures/laws had dramatically reduced automobile-related deaths. “What would a public health approach look like for guns if it were modeled after cars?” he asked. It would include:
(long list of stuff in an image that didn't transmit to this forum; the list components individually plausible, arguably - BB)
Actual experience also shows that laws can make a difference:
(Bikey: Sykes' column showed a graph, in which connecticut passed a gun licensing law and Missouri repealed one; CT's gun deaths went up, Missouri's down)
All of this is perfectly reasonable. It’s also important to recognize two political realities:
(1) the GOP’s refusal to consider any realistic gun laws is nearly absolute, but
(2) several measures continue to enjoy widespread public support.
Strong majorities of Americans still back common-sense measures. Here’s a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted entirely after the shooting in Uvalde:
Requiring background checks on all gun sales: Eighty-eight percent strongly or somewhat support; 8% strongly or somewhat oppose. Net approval: +80
Creating a national database with info about each gun sale: Seventy-five percent strongly or somewhat support; 18% strongly or somewhat oppose. Net approval: +57
Banning assault-style weapons: Sixty-seven percent strongly or somewhat support; 25% strongly or somewhat oppose. Net approval: +42
Preventing sales of all firearms to people reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider: Eighty-four percent strongly or somewhat support; 9% strongly or somewhat oppose. Net approval: +75
Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: Eighty-one percent strongly or somewhat support; 11% strongly or somewhat oppose. Net approval: +70
**
Some more suggestions from a Bulwark reader, (who asked that his name be withheld.)
I’m m an avid firearms enthusiast a NRA life member since I was 16. I support more restrictions however and they will affect me. Here are some ideas I have never heard discussed.
Instead of trying to ban sales of “assault weapons” with all the definition challenges that made the Clinton AWB pretty much a moot point – defining features were tweaked and the basic firearm platform continued to sell . . .
Amend the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) which outlawed fully automatic weapons outside of stringent special NFA licensing of same.
•Add to the NFA controls – magazine fed, centerfire semi-auto rifles/carbines (this does sweep up some traditional hunting rifles with AKs and AR’s but not that many)
•Add to the NFA controls – rifle caliber pistols (AK pistols and AR pistols have been a hot commodity for years among the law abiding and the criminal gangs). “Rifle caliber” is not that hard to legally define in the gun world and there could be a mechanism to append a named caliber list the ATF publishes)
•Those two bullet points reflect a more easily defined class of firearms than previous attempts.
•All the good people who feel they must own one can; they just have to go through some pretty rigorous ATF screening and licensing then have to secure their NFA firearm from access to anyone not named in the registration.
•We’re never going to get rid of all the tens of millions of these anyway.
•Those who retain them without NFA licensing – are committing a felony. Enforce that.
•Create a channel for liquidating specimens to a LEO entity and qualify for a state or federal tax deduction of say, “a thousand bucks”. Most of them aren’t worth that. This worked pretty well for full auto weapons and “sawed off” shotguns back in the day.
Exit take: Failure to act is not inevitable. It’s a choice. And it means that there will be more mass shootings. More dead kids. And that’s a choice too.
-
Sorry about taking the off topic bait, ya'll. To get back on track, here's an article from Misha Firer, an anti-Russian expat from Russia, about the overall causes and conduct of the war.
It's shorter than my last post, throws govts on both sides under the bus, and lauds the people of both Ukraine and the West.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-next-for-Russia-after-the-Ukraine-invasion
-
Exit take: Failure to act is not inevitable. It’s a choice. And it means that there will be more mass shootings. More dead kids. And that’s a choice too.
Your suggestions sound pretty reasonable. It would be lovely if some were implemented, but I'm pessimistic about the odds of that happening. There is certainly a choice being made.
-
I wonder if it would go over if some organization started to take in guns from people in USA to send to Ukraine. I realize that the majority wouldn't be military issue, but they may help arm militias of various villages.
Just another weird thought and now it's time to return to normal war news.
-
I wonder if it would go over if some organization started to take in guns from people in USA to send to Ukraine. I realize that the majority wouldn't be military issue, but they may help arm militias of various villages.
Just another weird thought and now it's time to return to normal war news.
Could the organization be Save The Children, only instead of a picture of a sponsored child, it would be a fighter in Ukraine? "Here's a picture of Vlodomyr, who very much wants your AR-15."
-
I wonder if it would go over if some organization started to take in guns from people in USA to send to Ukraine. I realize that the majority wouldn't be military issue, but they may help arm militias of various villages.
Just another weird thought and now it's time to return to normal war news.
Could the organization be Save The Children, only instead of a picture of a sponsored child, it would be a fighter in Ukraine? "Here's a picture of Vlodomyr, who very much wants your AR-15."
I'm down with that. I don't have an AR, but I'd be happy to donate some arms and ammo.
-
Maybe the thing could be "piggybacked" to an existing organization.
I've seen several notices that the Ukrainian soldiers on the Eastern front have an arms imbalance of 20:1. In other words the Russians shoot 20 shells for the Ukrainian 1 shell. I guess those 90 howitzers are dwarfed by the Russian giant.
-
To be fair, huge majorities of Americans favor stronger regulation of firearms. What's needed is for that support to translate into action, either through a very wise statute revision plan that gets advanced with a lot of effort and luck, or a broader upgrade of American politics that brings USA closer to democratic functioning (aka, results consistently reflect the people's desires).
The fun thing is that (like most) it's a representative democracy, where the elected leaders are supposed to be better informed and do better decisions than most of the voters (because they actually work on the stuff instead on having 2 hours on Sunday to look into it).
I wonder if it would go over if some organization started to take in guns from people in USA to send to Ukraine. I realize that the majority wouldn't be military issue, but they may help arm militias of various villages.
Would be a nice way to get rid of all those weapons. Russia is killing civilians anyway, so why not give everyone a rifle. Make every village into a fortress.
But back to reality, heavy weapons is really where it's in it now.
-
In the different efforts to help Ukraine, some people have discovered that e.g. transporting medicines across borders requires paperwork, more so if it involves controlled substances like narcotic grade painkillers. I came across a Rotary club (Riga International) that almost stumbled on that hurdle but they decided to push through. Now they are experts in this field and other help organizations turn to them to handle the paperwork for such deliveries. My contact said "I would never have expected Rotary to make me a drug dealer". :)
For weapons, there are even more hurdles - including a fear from e.g. people in my country that some rifles and such will come back in the hands of criminals. To have a good grip on everything in the fog of war is not easy. Many of the guns and hand grenades that gangsters use in Sweden now are apparently surplus from the war in the Balkans, so they don't want it repeated with Russian and Ukrainian guns too. That said, I personally would love to see more AKs and ARs in the hands of the Ukrainian heroes rather than in the streets of countries who are not at war.
I have one friend who took a hands on approach - he is busy purchasing heavy trucks on the used market in Sweden, the ones costing less than 2K EUR but still running, and then fills them with supplies and drive them down to Ukraine. Once across the border, he hands the keys to the truck over the the local authorities in Ukraine and walks back across the border by foot and then tries to find a ride home. It is apparently appreciated. He recently posted an instruction on LinkedIn on how to fix the paperwork to make this export of the actual truck legal. Very hands on. I think he has managed to get four trucks exported by now.
Another very concrete help that other friends are involved in are more high-tech. E.g. to buy computer network equipment for e.g. fiber cable repair and have it delivered to Ukraine. There is much broken infrastructure now.
-
Maybe the thing could be "piggybacked" to an existing organization.
I've seen several notices that the Ukrainian soldiers on the Eastern front have an arms imbalance of 20:1. In other words the Russians shoot 20 shells for the Ukrainian 1 shell. I guess those 90 howitzers are dwarfed by the Russian giant.
I believe Russia started the invasion with ~1800 artillery units.
-
Maybe the thing could be "piggybacked" to an existing organization.
I've seen several notices that the Ukrainian soldiers on the Eastern front have an arms imbalance of 20:1. In other words the Russians shoot 20 shells for the Ukrainian 1 shell. I guess those 90 howitzers are dwarfed by the Russian giant.
I believe Russia started the invasion with ~1800 artillery units.
1800 units, with more than one artillery piece per unit, or 1800 artillery pieces total?
-
I have one friend who took a hands on approach - he is busy purchasing heavy trucks on the used market in Sweden, the ones costing less than 2K EUR but still running, and then fills them with supplies and drive them down to Ukraine. Once across the border, he hands the keys to the truck over the the local authorities in Ukraine and walks back across the border by foot and then tries to find a ride home. It is apparently appreciated. He recently posted an instruction on LinkedIn on how to fix the paperwork to make this export of the actual truck legal. Very hands on. I think he has managed to get four trucks exported by now.
You have an awesome friend.
1800 units, with more than one artillery piece per unit, or 1800 artillery pieces total?
1,600 artillery firing devices were sent for the first phase of the invasion out of a total of 5,700 in the Russian army. Also, there's no shortage of artillery rounds in Russia. If you look at Russia's behavior of back filling lost tanks, it's safe to assume their back filling lost artillery equipment.
Once they hit 50-80% total loss, I'd expect the back filling to stop as they will reserve the remaining functioning units for the protection of Moscow and their border. We're nearly at that point for tanks.
https://www.minusrus.com/en
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/27/artillery-long-range-ukraine-rocket-system/
Being reported that the US is going to send the MLRS, or Multiple Launch Rocket System. Per my googling, this is an impressive weapon, range around 40 miles.
Russia is of course blustering about escalation. Does anyone actually believe them at this point? (real question)
-
Maybe the U.S. could think a couple steps ahead, and anticipate what Russians will do to attack MLS systems? My guess would be more aircraft, so defensive SAM batteries might be a nice accompaniment.
gooki - What stunning losses, including most of the force Russia allocated to invade Ukraine. Russia has lost not only every tank it intended for the invasion, but 40% of it's tanks overall. It's artillary definitely needs more losses.
If Germany tries to act like it has the moral high ground, keep in mind they're sending more money to Russia than the U.S. is to Ukraine. Germany caved in to Russian demands to be paid in Russian Rubles. At some point Russia will demand payment in rifles and Germany will probably send those, too - maybe I'm too cynical, but Germany's actions don't help (Italy and Hungary also deserve blame, but Germany is the leader)
-
If Russia keep these losses going for another three months, I doubt they'll have an army any more, just some foot soldiers towing artillery behind stolen Toyota's.
As for the German government, who knows what's going on there. Probably drowning under their own bureaucracy. If they weren't part of NATO, Putin would have had more success invading them than the Ukraine. FWIW, I understand their reluctance to provide arms, with their history I'm sure they don't want to repeate the past. But they're not being clear about that.
-
1800 units, with more than one artillery piece per unit, or 1800 artillery pieces total?
1,600 artillery firing devices were sent for the first phase of the invasion out of a total of 5,700 in the Russian army. Also, there's no shortage of artillery rounds in Russia. If you look at Russia's behavior of back filling lost tanks, it's safe to assume their back filling lost artillery equipment.
Once they hit 50-80% total loss, I'd expect the back filling to stop as they will reserve the remaining functioning units for the protection of Moscow and their border. We're nearly at that point for tanks.
https://www.minusrus.com/en
The older tanks indicate that Russia is gettin trops from the east and leaves the better equipped Western tropps where they are.
They have a lot more tanks, but those are literal rustbuckets, parket outside for decades.
As for the German government, who knows what's going on there.
Several things going on, but mostly I suppose (some of) our big heads still think that our economy cannot survive a gas-out. (estimated range up to 8% recession, practically the same level as Russia with the sanctions)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/27/artillery-long-range-ukraine-rocket-system/
Being reported that the US is going to send the MLRS, or Multiple Launch Rocket System. Per my googling, this is an impressive weapon, range around 40 miles.
Russia is of course blustering about escalation. Does anyone actually believe them at this point? (real question)
Pretty good article describing what MLRS can do for Ukraine.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine)
To answer your question, nobody listens to Lavrov. He's been threatening to attack NATO weapons shipments since Week 2, but the closest they've come has been to hit warehouses deep inside Ukraine.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/27/artillery-long-range-ukraine-rocket-system/
Being reported that the US is going to send the MLRS, or Multiple Launch Rocket System. Per my googling, this is an impressive weapon, range around 40 miles.
Russia is of course blustering about escalation. Does anyone actually believe them at this point? (real question)
They WILL escalate. The last go around they raised the enlistment age from 40 to 45. They will escalate and raise it to 65 years of age. OR They will lower it to 12 years of age.
-
Well, if this goes on long enough, then a whole lot of scrap metal is going to end up getting back into circulation. IE, all those tanks that have been sitting for decades.
Ordinary people in Lithuania raised money to by a Bayraktar drone for Ukraine. That's impressive.
https://www.newsweek.com/lithuanian-citizens-pool-47m-buy-advanced-drone-ukraines-military-1711163
-
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1705708/nato-is-no-longer-bound-by-commitments-to-russia-and-will-beef-up-eastern-europe-presence-says-deputy-secretary-general
NATO apparently considers any restrictions about building up forces near Russia to be not applicable. Turns out that when there's an agreement between two parties, and one party breaks the agreement, the other party may decide that they're not bound by it anymore.
-
Yes, once a contract is broken, it is broken and no longer applies unless there is some sort of severance language in the provision. (PS I'm not a lawyer, just thinking about contracts I've signed.)
-
Yes, once a contract is broken, it is broken and no longer applies unless there is some sort of severance language in the provision. (PS I'm not a lawyer, just thinking about contracts I've signed.)
I'm pretty sure the Russians are big fans of non-compete clauses.
-
Yes, once a contract is broken, it is broken and no longer applies unless there is some sort of severance language in the provision. (PS I'm not a lawyer, just thinking about contracts I've signed.)
I'm pretty sure the Russians are big fans of non-compete clauses.
Almost Force Majeure (Acts of Putin)
-
Well, from what I can tell, Putin has not liked the idea or reality of NATO troops and weapons along the Russian boarder. And it seems that he's going to get more of that in future. Sheesh, how dumb can this guy be? Even living in a bubble, he's got to be aware of the 1997 (I think? didn't double check the year) agreement with NATO.
-
Well, from what I can tell, Putin has not liked the idea or reality of NATO troops and weapons along the Russian boarder. And it seems that he's going to get more of that in future. Sheesh, how dumb can this guy be? Even living in a bubble, he's got to be aware of the 1997 (I think? didn't double check the year) agreement with NATO.
For Putin an agreement is something you let other act upon until you are ready to grab whatever you want.
He has done it before - several times - and this time he just miscalculated and now got a lot more on his plate than he wanted. Not exactly the first time something like that happened in the world. Especially for world-disconnected autocrats.
-
Well, from what I can tell, Putin has not liked the idea or reality of NATO troops and weapons along the Russian boarder. And it seems that he's going to get more of that in future. Sheesh, how dumb can this guy be? Even living in a bubble, he's got to be aware of the 1997 (I think? didn't double check the year) agreement with NATO.
For Putin an agreement is something you let other act upon until you are ready to grab whatever you want.
He has done it before - several times - and this time he just miscalculated and now got a lot more on his plate than he wanted. Not exactly the first time something like that happened in the world. Especially for world-disconnected autocrats.
Exactly! You see these people claiming Zelenskyy could have avoided this war had he made a deal for neutrality. Reality shows they are wrong.
-
Well, from what I can tell, Putin has not liked the idea or reality of NATO troops and weapons along the Russian boarder. And it seems that he's going to get more of that in future. Sheesh, how dumb can this guy be? Even living in a bubble, he's got to be aware of the 1997 (I think? didn't double check the year) agreement with NATO.
For Putin an agreement is something you let other act upon until you are ready to grab whatever you want.
He has done it before - several times - and this time he just miscalculated and now got a lot more on his plate than he wanted. Not exactly the first time something like that happened in the world. Especially for world-disconnected autocrats.
Exactly! You see these people claiming Zelenskyy could have avoided this war had he made a deal for neutrality. Reality shows they are wrong.
Well, I hope Putin chokes on it this time.
-
Well, from what I can tell, Putin has not liked the idea or reality of NATO troops and weapons along the Russian boarder. And it seems that he's going to get more of that in future. Sheesh, how dumb can this guy be? Even living in a bubble, he's got to be aware of the 1997 (I think? didn't double check the year) agreement with NATO.
For Putin an agreement is something you let other act upon until you are ready to grab whatever you want.
He has done it before - several times - and this time he just miscalculated and now got a lot more on his plate than he wanted. Not exactly the first time something like that happened in the world. Especially for world-disconnected autocrats.
Exactly! You see these people claiming Zelenskyy could have avoided this war had he made a deal for neutrality. Reality shows they are wrong.
Oh, but he could have just given Russia Crimea and this would.. okay, and then the very eastern edge of Ukraine, and no war... well, okay, also the Donbas. But after that, Russia would... well invade because it wants to take the whole country. But if Ukraine had just surrendered everything, no war!
And if Moldova just surrendered the Dniper region, then... well if they surrendered the eastern part of the country...
-
Something something not learning history something something repeating....
“The Sudetenland is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe.” -- Adolf Hitler, September 26, 1938
-
This thing about Putin having Cancer doesn't seem to go away. Newsweek has a piece on this. This isn't Newsweek but references it.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjechuud5 (https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjechuud5)
-
This thing about Putin having Cancer doesn't seem to go away. Newsweek has a piece on this. This isn't Newsweek but references it.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjechuud5 (https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjechuud5)
The thing is: It may well be true. And explain a lot. Including maybe even the long tables (suppressed immune system?).
The other thing is: Because it would be so important (ahem... read the book in my sig) it surely is something the CIA etc. would put up to attack him even if untrue.
We will probably never know.
If he has cancer though... it's hard not to root for it.
-
This thing about Putin having Cancer doesn't seem to go away. Newsweek has a piece on this. This isn't Newsweek but references it.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjechuud5 (https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjechuud5)
The thing is: It may well be true. And explain a lot. Including maybe even the long tables (suppressed immune system?).
The other thing is: Because it would be so important (ahem... read the book in my sig) it surely is something the CIA etc. would put up to attack him even if untrue.
We will probably never know.
If he has cancer though... it's hard not to root for it.
Old style Soviet leaders had "minor colds" until the death announcement (Andropov etc).
-
https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html (https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html)
Unconfirmed report that General Dvornikov has been replaced after less than two months in command of the war.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314 (https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314)
For the last week Ukrainian forces have been conducting a fighting withdrawal from Severodonetsk. Yesterday they flipped the script and counterattacked taking back a portion of the city after getting Russian forces into unfavorable terrain. Ukraine presidential advisor Arestovich gave an interview a couple days ago insinuating there was a counterattack in the works and we thought he was being a troll. Nope, he was dead serious.
This is important because it looks like most of Russia's available reserves have been thrown into this battle. A month ago the Russian plan was to encircle the region between Lyman and Popasna. Lyman was only taken a few days ago (and is still on the wrong side of the river) and the Popasna breakout has been stopped and might be pushed back. SevDon is now a frontal assault consisting of Russian army, Chechens, Wagner, and DPR. At the same time, Ukrainian forces are attacking in the southwest of the country.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html (https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html)
Unconfirmed report that General Dvornikov has been replaced after less than two months in command of the war.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314 (https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314)
For the last week Ukrainian forces have been conducting a fighting withdrawal from Severodonetsk. Yesterday they flipped the script and counterattacked taking back a portion of the city after getting Russian forces into unfavorable terrain. Ukraine presidential advisor Arestovich gave an interview a couple days ago insinuating there was a counterattack in the works and we thought he was being a troll. Nope, he was dead serious.
This is important because it looks like most of Russia's available reserves have been thrown into this battle. A month ago the Russian plan was to encircle the region between Lyman and Popasna. Lyman was only taken a few days ago (and is still on the wrong side of the river) and the Popasna breakout has been stopped and might be pushed back. SevDon is now a frontal assault consisting of Russian army, Chechens, Wagner, and DPR. At the same time, Ukrainian forces are attacking in the southwest of the country.
If Russia is throwing everything into this war, sooner or later some other country or organization will take advantage of that fact in some part of Russia. It seems like whatever cause the Russians attacked for doesn't mean a whole lot except the main one.
Just a reminder of the real reason for this war:
Hydrocarbon resources in Ukraine are concentrated in three regions: the Carpathian region in the west; the Dnieper-Donetsk region in the east; and the Black Sea-Sea of Azov region in the south.
Russia has had a good thing going selling the oil and gas. Even with all the sanctions, they are supposed to have a stellar year in gas sales this year. Any good gangster knows to cut out his competition.
The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, and up to 60% of its exports in 2019. In 2019, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry estimated the value of natural resources to 60% of the country's GDP.
Gangster wars for territory can get quite bloody.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html (https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html)
Unconfirmed report that General Dvornikov has been replaced after less than two months in command of the war.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314 (https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314)
For the last week Ukrainian forces have been conducting a fighting withdrawal from Severodonetsk. Yesterday they flipped the script and counterattacked taking back a portion of the city after getting Russian forces into unfavorable terrain. Ukraine presidential advisor Arestovich gave an interview a couple days ago insinuating there was a counterattack in the works and we thought he was being a troll. Nope, he was dead serious.
This is important because it looks like most of Russia's available reserves have been thrown into this battle. A month ago the Russian plan was to encircle the region between Lyman and Popasna. Lyman was only taken a few days ago (and is still on the wrong side of the river) and the Popasna breakout has been stopped and might be pushed back. SevDon is now a frontal assault consisting of Russian army, Chechens, Wagner, and DPR. At the same time, Ukrainian forces are attacking in the southwest of the country.
If Russia is throwing everything into this war, sooner or later some other country or organization will take advantage of that fact in some part of Russia. It seems like whatever cause the Russians attacked for doesn't mean a whole lot except the main one.
Just a reminder of the real reason for this war:
Hydrocarbon resources in Ukraine are concentrated in three regions: the Carpathian region in the west; the Dnieper-Donetsk region in the east; and the Black Sea-Sea of Azov region in the south.
Russia has had a good thing going selling the oil and gas. Even with all the sanctions, they are supposed to have a stellar year in gas sales this year. Any good gangster knows to cut out his competition.
The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, and up to 60% of its exports in 2019. In 2019, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry estimated the value of natural resources to 60% of the country's GDP.
Gangster wars for territory can get quite bloody.
But the Ukrainian gas and oil is quite small compared to Russia's
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf
Ukraine has 3% of Russia's gas reserves. (page 34)
Ukrainian gas production is 3% of Russia production.
Discussion: https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/04/russia-does-not-seem-to-be-after-ukraines-gas-reserves.html
I believe the war is an attempt to increase the tax base by annexing the equivalent 30% of Russia's population.
Putin and advisors truly believe that the fall of the Soviet Union was a very bad thing.
Midyear Population (million) Average Annual Growth Rate Density (Persons per sq. km.) Total Fertility Rate (Births per woman)
Russia 142 -0.20% 8.7 1.6
Ukraine 43.5 -0.50% 75.1 1.56
Ukraine population
as % of Russia 30.6%
Bangladesh 165.7 0.90% 1273 2.09
US 337 0.70% 36.9 1.84
https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/idb/#/country?COUNTRY_YEAR=2022&COUNTRY_YR_ANIM=2022&FIPS_SINGLE=UP&dashPages=DASH
Why would your gangster take over a 3% "two-bit" competitor?
By sheer coincidence the "96 hour special military operation" is 3% of the current war time to date.
mmmm, maybe you have something there :-)
Edit: Wikipedia says the Russian Army is 280,000 active duty. Army of Bangladesh is 260,000 personnel also fixed typo
-
Russia has had a good thing going selling the oil and gas. Even with all the sanctions, they are supposed to have a stellar year in gas sales this year.
It might be their last. The price of energy has gone up, so they're going to make some extra money. Also, the EU nations are stocking up on natural gas in preparation for either gas being embargoed or Russia cutting it off when winter comes around.
-
https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html (https://news.yahoo.com/general-dvornikov-no-longer-command-155200379.html)
Unconfirmed report that General Dvornikov has been replaced after less than two months in command of the war.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314 (https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1532823505968013314)
For the last week Ukrainian forces have been conducting a fighting withdrawal from Severodonetsk. Yesterday they flipped the script and counterattacked taking back a portion of the city after getting Russian forces into unfavorable terrain. Ukraine presidential advisor Arestovich gave an interview a couple days ago insinuating there was a counterattack in the works and we thought he was being a troll. Nope, he was dead serious.
This is important because it looks like most of Russia's available reserves have been thrown into this battle. A month ago the Russian plan was to encircle the region between Lyman and Popasna. Lyman was only taken a few days ago (and is still on the wrong side of the river) and the Popasna breakout has been stopped and might be pushed back. SevDon is now a frontal assault consisting of Russian army, Chechens, Wagner, and DPR. At the same time, Ukrainian forces are attacking in the southwest of the country.
If Russia is throwing everything into this war, sooner or later some other country or organization will take advantage of that fact in some part of Russia. It seems like whatever cause the Russians attacked for doesn't mean a whole lot except the main one.
Just a reminder of the real reason for this war:
Hydrocarbon resources in Ukraine are concentrated in three regions: the Carpathian region in the west; the Dnieper-Donetsk region in the east; and the Black Sea-Sea of Azov region in the south.
Russia has had a good thing going selling the oil and gas. Even with all the sanctions, they are supposed to have a stellar year in gas sales this year. Any good gangster knows to cut out his competition.
The oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, and up to 60% of its exports in 2019. In 2019, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry estimated the value of natural resources to 60% of the country's GDP.
Gangster wars for territory can get quite bloody.
But the Ukrainian gas and oil is quite small compared to Russia's
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf
Ukraine has 3% of Russia's gas reserves. (page 34)
Ukrainian gas production is 3% of Russia production.
Discussion: https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/04/russia-does-not-seem-to-be-after-ukraines-gas-reserves.html
I believe the war is an attempt to increase the tax base by annexing the equivalent 30% of Russia's population.
Putin and advisors truly believe that the fall of the Soviet Union was a very bad thing.
Midyear Population (million) Average Annual Growth Rate Density (Persons per sq. km.) Total Fertility Rate (Births per woman)
Russia 142 -0.20% 8.7 1.6
Ukraine 43.5 -0.50% 75.1 1.56
Ukraine population
as % of Russia 30.6%
Bangladesh 165.7 0.90% 1273 2.09
US 337 0.70% 36.9 1.84
https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/idb/#/country?COUNTRY_YEAR=2022&COUNTRY_YR_ANIM=2022&FIPS_SINGLE=UP&dashPages=DASH
Why would your gangster take over a 3% "two-bit" competitor?
By sheer coincidence the "96 hour special military operation" is 3% of the current war time to date.
mmmm, maybe you have something there :-)
Edit: Wikipedia says the Russian Army is 280,000 active duty. Army of Bangladesh is 260,000 personnel also fixed typo
Excellent response on the gas thing. Since the land they have taken and the land currently seeing the fighting is where most of the gas deposits are, it seemed to fit like a key in the right lock. However, the links you provided are very good. Unless you are a modern Republican, it's hard to argue with facts.
In my own primitive way I try to figure things out. There are few Nazis in Ukraine. Ukraine posed no credible threat to Russia. After Finland and Sweden join NATO (given Turkey's blessing) NATO will have expanded, Russia no longer fights for an economic ideology, and the claims that Ukraine is not a "real" country are obviously not credible. The tax base thing is odd as Ukraine is one of Europe's poorest countries.
I guess the fact that the population of Russia is falling could be a reason for the war, but even that seems insane. It is just having more people and land under your control. Yeh, people say Putin is doing this to get the old empire back. I guess he longs for the good old days that never were. However, he doesn't take all that good care of the people he's got right now.
I guess if I live another 20-30 years some historian will have figured out the real reasons for this war and I'll see it in a history book.
-
So the Russians were unable to encircle the city of Severodonetsk but went ahead with a concentrated attack on the town anyways.
If it is true that the Ukrainians are successfully turning back the attack of such a concentrated force in an urban environment, the view of the situation as a trap for Russian infantry and armor, which is now deprived of artillery support, becomes more plausible.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1532410485483749380
-
Unless you are a modern Republican, it's hard to argue with facts.
That is out of line. Please see Forum Rule #1.
In my own primitive way I try to figure things out. There are few Nazis in Ukraine. Ukraine posed no credible threat to Russia. After Finland and Sweden join NATO (given Turkey's blessing) NATO will have expanded, Russia no longer fights for an economic ideology, and the claims that Ukraine is not a "real" country are obviously not credible. The tax base thing is odd as Ukraine is one of Europe's poorest countries.
I guess the fact that the population of Russia is falling could be a reason for the war, but even that seems insane. It is just having more people and land under your control. Yeh, people say Putin is doing this to get the old empire back. I guess he longs for the good old days that never were. However, he doesn't take all that good care of the people he's got right now.
I think the problem is that you're trying to look at this from a logical, economic, etc perspective. None of that seems to apply to this war.
A couple decades ago, I spent a couple years in Russia, including the time around 9/11. As an American, I observed that the Russian people fell into two camps: those who were ready to join the rest of the world, and those who pined for the glory days of the Soviet Union. Putin appears to fall squarely into the latter camp. If that is an accurate reflection of his attitude, this whole war may simply be an attempt to re-establish Russia as a Great Power, purely for the emotional/morale/legacy boost. A bit dollop of believing your own propaganda and surrounding yourself with yes-men would merely enable the aspiration.
-
Excellent response on the gas thing. Since the land they have taken and the land currently seeing the fighting is where most of the gas deposits are, it seemed to fit like a key in the right lock. However, the links you provided are very good. Unless you are a modern Republican, it's hard to argue with facts.
In my own primitive way I try to figure things out. There are few Nazis in Ukraine. Ukraine posed no credible threat to Russia. After Finland and Sweden join NATO (given Turkey's blessing) NATO will have expanded, Russia no longer fights for an economic ideology, and the claims that Ukraine is not a "real" country are obviously not credible. The tax base thing is odd as Ukraine is one of Europe's poorest countries.
I guess the fact that the population of Russia is falling could be a reason for the war, but even that seems insane. It is just having more people and land under your control. Yeh, people say Putin is doing this to get the old empire back. I guess he longs for the good old days that never were. However, he doesn't take all that good care of the people he's got right now.
I guess if I live another 20-30 years some historian will have figured out the real reasons for this war and I'll see it in a history book.
I think it's too narrow to look at just Ukraine when trying to figure out Putin's motivations. I think something like "I want all former Soviet countries back under Russian rule" is closer to what Putin wants. Ukraine just seemed like the easiest next piece to grab.
-
Excellent response on the gas thing. Since the land they have taken and the land currently seeing the fighting is where most of the gas deposits are, it seemed to fit like a key in the right lock. However, the links you provided are very good. Unless you are a modern Republican, it's hard to argue with facts.
In my own primitive way I try to figure things out. There are few Nazis in Ukraine. Ukraine posed no credible threat to Russia. After Finland and Sweden join NATO (given Turkey's blessing) NATO will have expanded, Russia no longer fights for an economic ideology, and the claims that Ukraine is not a "real" country are obviously not credible. The tax base thing is odd as Ukraine is one of Europe's poorest countries.
I guess the fact that the population of Russia is falling could be a reason for the war, but even that seems insane. It is just having more people and land under your control. Yeh, people say Putin is doing this to get the old empire back. I guess he longs for the good old days that never were. However, he doesn't take all that good care of the people he's got right now.
I guess if I live another 20-30 years some historian will have figured out the real reasons for this war and I'll see it in a history book.
I think it's too narrow to look at just Ukraine when trying to figure out Putin's motivations. I think something like "I want all former Soviet countries back under Russian rule" is closer to what Putin wants. Ukraine just seemed like the easiest next piece to grab.
When one looks at the Russian Federation it's pretty clear that it is in fact a Russian empire albeit only a shadow of the one it once was.
With that perspective, the current war is an imperialist war and that happens to be the simplest explanation, not only for the war but also for Russia's general hostile posture towards its neighbors. The internal logic of empires is based on a perception of the outside world that sees only: 1. those that are subjugated, 2. those that still need to be subjugated and 3. those that present an existential threat.
Sadly, the inevitable conclusion is that Russia will continue to attack its neighbors and perceived enemies as long as it is militarily capable and the Russian Federation exists.
-
To understand Putin’s motives for all this, one must understand his adviser, Alexander Dugin, known as “Putin’s brain.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/22/alexander-dugin-author-putin-deady-playbook/
-
and those who pined for the glory days of the Soviet Union. Putin appears to fall squarely into the latter camp. If that is an accurate reflection of his attitude, this whole war may simply be an attempt to re-establish Russia as a Great Power,
He literally said that. Yes, that's what he wants. Turn back the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century (fall of the USSR) and reunite Big Russia, White Russia and Small Russia to make it a Great Power again.
Pro Tip: If autocrats say they want to do something, they generally mean it. They have no reason to lie (outside a strategic manouver to get something else, but you generally find that out easily. They want you to know after all.)
-
and those who pined for the glory days of the Soviet Union. Putin appears to fall squarely into the latter camp. If that is an accurate reflection of his attitude, this whole war may simply be an attempt to re-establish Russia as a Great Power,
He literally said that. Yes, that's what he wants. Turn back the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century (fall of the USSR) and reunite Big Russia, White Russia and Small Russia to make it a Great Power again.
Pro Tip: If autocrats say they want to do something, they generally mean it. They have no reason to lie (outside a strategic manouver to get something else, but you generally find that out easily. They want you to know after all.)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/06/john-bolton/did-vladimir-putin-call-breakup-ussr-greatest-geop/
From the Kremlin: http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/04/25/2031_type70029type82912_87086.shtml
"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself." -Vladmir Putin -2005
-
The most worrying aspect of this war is the apparent lack of strategic aims other than expansion of the number of people and area subjugated to Russia’s dictatorship. Purely politically driven wars are rare, but concerning in that they are often the most brutal as economic functioning of the conquered areas isn’t a primary objective. Examples include the Axis powers during WW2, but even then at least Japan had an economic goal of expanding oil reserves located in subjugated countries. Now Pitin has his equivalent of Tucker blathering on about Poland. Obviously Russia is in no shape to engage in a conventional war with another country. Emphasis on the conventional.
-
I guess the fact that the population of Russia is falling could be a reason for the war, but even that seems insane. It is just having more people and land under your control.
Russia has already deported/kidnapped several hundred thousand people and spread them out across Russia. Ukraine states specifically that this includes 200,000 children. The Russian Duma is on record debating how to turn them into Russians. Russia taking over an area and spreading the original inhabitants all over the place to weaken their identify has been in their playbook for hundreds of years. There's a Ukrainian minority everywhere in Russia due to this happening a century ago. Getting these citizens back will be a big part of any final peace deal, and might lead to enduring sanctions if Russia tries to play dumb on the subject.
-
I've seen articles questioning how long Ukraine can sustain its rate of losses, which they're probably measuring from the 250k strong army Ukraine had before the war started. That completely misses the larger picture.
Ukraine has over a million men aged 18-25, and millions more aged 30-39 who are almost certainly willing and able to fight. It's illegal for them to leave, so I expect most of them are still there. Russian war crimes make the case for joining, too, since it doesn't matter if you're Ukrainian military or an unarmed civilian - Russia will aim to kill either, indescriminately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_population_pyramid_1.1.2021.png
-
I've seen articles questioning how long Ukraine can sustain its rate of losses, which they're probably measuring from the 250k strong army Ukraine had before the war started. That completely misses the larger picture.
Ukraine has over a million men aged 18-25, and millions more aged 30-39 who are almost certainly willing and able to fight. It's illegal for them to leave, so I expect most of them are still there. Russian war crimes make the case for joining, too, since it doesn't matter if you're Ukrainian military or an unarmed civilian - Russia will aim to kill either, indescriminately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_population_pyramid_1.1.2021.png
I agree that Ukrainians have no choice but to fight. It's clear that Putin's goal is genocide. Not necessarily in the form of WW2 with industrialized slaughter, but through "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group".
Also, this is in a conventional armed conflict - a guerilla force with good intel can inflict significantly higher casualties against occupying forces. If they surrender, what would they have to look forward to other than the Gulags?
-
I've seen articles questioning how long Ukraine can sustain its rate of losses, which they're probably measuring from the 250k strong army Ukraine had before the war started. That completely misses the larger picture.
Ukraine has over a million men aged 18-25, and millions more aged 30-39 who are almost certainly willing and able to fight. It's illegal for them to leave, so I expect most of them are still there. Russian war crimes make the case for joining, too, since it doesn't matter if you're Ukrainian military or an unarmed civilian - Russia will aim to kill either, indescriminately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_population_pyramid_1.1.2021.png
Meanwhile, Russia has intentionally hobbled its replacement/recruitment programs by insisting this is a "special operation." The two million former soldiers who could be called up are not, and the ones that are being called up are getting minimal training and sent in. The separatists for whom this war is supposedly being fought are used as fodder and dying by the thousands. Soon there won't be any left. Russia is starting to piece together new battalions using the training cadre of their regiments. Normally a three-battalion regiment deploys two into combat with the third holding onto the conscripts and higher-level assets. That third battalion's officers are the seed corn for the next generation of troops. If they die too, then that regiment will cease to exist.
-
The episode is about 2.5 months old at this point, but I thought it was very educational about some of the reasons why the invasion is happening and what's going on with trends in Russia. Apparently, Putin is in a now-or-never situation even if it's a bad move.
Jordan has done several shows focused on Ukraine including one with a journalist-turned-fighter in Ukraine.
https://www.jordanharbinger.com/peter-zeihan-why-the-world-should-care-about-ukraine/
-
^^^
very nice
-
I've seen articles questioning how long Ukraine can sustain its rate of losses, which they're probably measuring from the 250k strong army Ukraine had before the war started. That completely misses the larger picture.
Ukraine has over a million men aged 18-25, and millions more aged 30-39 who are almost certainly willing and able to fight. It's illegal for them to leave, so I expect most of them are still there. Russian war crimes make the case for joining, too, since it doesn't matter if you're Ukrainian military or an unarmed civilian - Russia will aim to kill either, indescriminately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_population_pyramid_1.1.2021.png
I agree that Ukrainians have no choice but to fight. It's clear that Putin's goal is genocide. Not necessarily in the form of WW2 with industrialized slaughter, but through "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group".
Also, this is in a conventional armed conflict - a guerilla force with good intel can inflict significantly higher casualties against occupying forces. If they surrender, what would they have to look forward to other than the Gulags?
You speak of men - but there are women in the Ukrainian army as well. And any guerilla force is likely to include women as well. Women may be physically weaker than men but there's plenty of damage that women can do that doesn't need physical strength. Poisonings, sabotage, traps, misinformation, distraction, etc. Plenty of historical events where women have had significant impacts in unconventional ways. And while no one is going to like it, children or teens may well get involved in occupied areas. Ukraine has everything to lose here and if they need to, they'll use everything they have.
-
The episode is about 2.5 months old at this point, but I thought it was very educational about some of the reasons why the invasion is happening and what's going on with trends in Russia. Apparently, Putin is in a now-or-never situation even if it's a bad move.
Jordan has done several shows focused on Ukraine including one with a journalist-turned-fighter in Ukraine.
https://www.jordanharbinger.com/peter-zeihan-why-the-world-should-care-about-ukraine/
Zeihan seems to be making the round of podcasts in the last couple of months. A lot of his proposed explanations are ones I don't hear from anyone else. I don't have the expertise or background to know whether he's right or not. But they are fascinating ones to consider.
-
The episode is about 2.5 months old at this point, but I thought it was very educational about some of the reasons why the invasion is happening and what's going on with trends in Russia. Apparently, Putin is in a now-or-never situation even if it's a bad move.
Jordan has done several shows focused on Ukraine including one with a journalist-turned-fighter in Ukraine.
https://www.jordanharbinger.com/peter-zeihan-why-the-world-should-care-about-ukraine/
Zeihan seems to be making the round of podcasts in the last couple of months. A lot of his proposed explanations are ones I don't hear from anyone else. I don't have the expertise or background to know whether he's right or not. But they are fascinating ones to consider.
Agreed, what he says is fascinating. And the demographics of Russia and China are no secret, I have heard the Russian demographic aspect discussed from multiple sources and they're all fairly consistent that Russia has to do this now or they won't have the numbers. I didn't see a date when that podcast was recorded, and things have changed quickly enough with Ukraine that it matters.
-
It was posted to the podcast feed on March 22nd. Not sure how long the gap between recording and posting was, but I would guess less than a week.
-
The episode is about 2.5 months old at this point, but I thought it was very educational about some of the reasons why the invasion is happening and what's going on with trends in Russia. Apparently, Putin is in a now-or-never situation even if it's a bad move.
Jordan has done several shows focused on Ukraine including one with a journalist-turned-fighter in Ukraine.
https://www.jordanharbinger.com/peter-zeihan-why-the-world-should-care-about-ukraine/
Zeihan seems to be making the round of podcasts in the last couple of months. A lot of his proposed explanations are ones I don't hear from anyone else. I don't have the expertise or background to know whether he's right or not. But they are fascinating ones to consider.
Agreed, what he says is fascinating. And the demographics of Russia and China are no secret, I have heard the Russian demographic aspect discussed from multiple sources and they're all fairly consistent that Russia has to do this now or they won't have the numbers. I didn't see a date when that podcast was recorded, and things have changed quickly enough with Ukraine that it matters.
The strength and weakness of Zeihan is he predicates his entire conceptual framework on two things: geography and demography; the view that this is Russia's now-or-never moment is motivated by the latter, and the object of their interest is explained in terms of the former. Because Zeihan is wedded to this analytical approach, it causes him to make awkward statements about the criticality of the northern European plain for Russian security. It simply does not follow that Russia must control what are essentially armor-vehicle invasion routes when it holds thousands of nuclear warheads. Germany isn't going to invade Russia merely because the ground from Berlin to Moscow is flat!
Rather than Russian ambitions being about tanks and mountain ranges, the real problem is culture and national ethos. The Russian mindset is one of past great-power glory and its current non-western system is directly challenged in the context of a unipolar western world order. These sort of ideological and cultural explanations are more prevalent in arguments advanced by, for example, Kamil Galeev and Aleksandr Dugin (both have been sporadically linked in this thread) who explain Russia's motivations and needs more in terms of the compatibility and competition between ideological frameworks. Of course, Dugin is right to note that Putin is not motivated by such theoretical considerations and is a mere pragmatist, but it so happens that Putin's narrower instrumental goal of maintaining his own power intersect with these sorts of special operations that enhance feelings of national glory and cement his position as the preeminent strongman.
Having said that, I do recommend reading through at least one of Zeihan's books (The Accidental Superpower is good to start with--he does repeat himself a lot if you listen to him frequently) since I do expect one of his higher-level predictions of a more deglobalized world appears increasingly likely.
-
Having said that, I do recommend reading through at least one of Zeihan's books (The Accidental Superpower is good to start with--he does repeat himself a lot if you listen to him frequently) since I do expect one of his higher-level predictions of a more deglobalized world appears increasingly likely.
In my view, supply chains will partially withdraw from Russia - and that's it. Look at Russia's annexation of Crimea - Germany added Nordstream II after that. Poland espouses no dependence on Russia, while Germany & Italy are still working on it. There's no pressure on India & China to stop importing Russian oil. Africa is complaining about the price of Russian grain - not their dependency on Russia. If global supply chains are ambivalent on Russia while it commits war crimes, I think it's safe to say global supply chains won't change much.
China had Covid Zero lockdowns, where I believe most factories created bubbles (aka workers sleeping at work). So that forms a test case: did importers wait for China to recover, or switch their supply chains out of China? As China reopens, do those supply chains reopen to China? I expect the answer to be yes to both, even knowing China may attempt to grab territory in the future. People don't ask why one product costs 10% more than another, they buy the cheaper one - the more efficient supply chain wins. I expect supply chains outside Russia to return to normal.
-
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/putins-nightmare-a-ukrainian-guerrilla-movement-has-emerged/
This seems like it could go on forever with partisans killing Russians while Russians retaliate with greater violence.
-
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/putins-nightmare-a-ukrainian-guerrilla-movement-has-emerged/
This seems like it could go on forever with partisans killing Russians while Russians retaliate with greater violence.
There is not much left outside nukes.
Yes, occupying the territory is virtually impossible of the Russians don't chase anyone out there (or kill) and then what?
This war is to end the existance of "Ukraine". From a purely economical or territorial point Russia cannot win. Ukrainians will not yield. The longer the war goes on the more efficient partisan attacks will be, by the simple effect that you can't be on high guard for weeks or even months. It's easy to kill a 18 year old conscript standing guard in the dead of the night on some corner.
The French resistance was in an arguably worse position than the Ukrainians today. They fought for years. All the partisans today need is to get their hands on a $300 drone, a hand grenade and a bit of technical skill. The rest of their equipment they can just take from the killed Russians.
It's a really bad situation.
-
It’s like the Russians forgot about their Afghanistan war (and ours).
-
Excellent response on the gas thing. Since the land they have taken and the land currently seeing the fighting is where most of the gas deposits are, it seemed to fit like a key in the right lock. However, the links you provided are very good. Unless you are a modern Republican, it's hard to argue with facts.
In my own primitive way I try to figure things out. There are few Nazis in Ukraine. Ukraine posed no credible threat to Russia. After Finland and Sweden join NATO (given Turkey's blessing) NATO will have expanded, Russia no longer fights for an economic ideology, and the claims that Ukraine is not a "real" country are obviously not credible. The tax base thing is odd as Ukraine is one of Europe's poorest countries.
I guess the fact that the population of Russia is falling could be a reason for the war, but even that seems insane. It is just having more people and land under your control. Yeh, people say Putin is doing this to get the old empire back. I guess he longs for the good old days that never were. However, he doesn't take all that good care of the people he's got right now.
I guess if I live another 20-30 years some historian will have figured out the real reasons for this war and I'll see it in a history book.
I think it's too narrow to look at just Ukraine when trying to figure out Putin's motivations. I think something like "I want all former Soviet countries back under Russian rule" is closer to what Putin wants. Ukraine just seemed like the easiest next piece to grab.
When one looks at the Russian Federation it's pretty clear that it is in fact a Russian empire albeit only a shadow of the one it once was.
With that perspective, the current war is an imperialist war and that happens to be the simplest explanation, not only for the war but also for Russia's general hostile posture towards its neighbors. The internal logic of empires is based on a perception of the outside world that sees only: 1. those that are subjugated, 2. those that still need to be subjugated and 3. those that present an existential threat.
Sadly, the inevitable conclusion is that Russia will continue to attack its neighbors and perceived enemies as long as it is militarily capable and the Russian Federation exists.
And Putin confirms:
Restoration of empire is the endgame for Russia's Vladimir Putin
"Reading Russian President Vladimir Putin's mind is rarely a straightforward task, but on occasion the Kremlin leader makes it easy.
Such was the case on Thursday, when Putin met with a group of young Russian entrepreneurs. Anyone looking for clues as to what Putin's endgame for Ukraine might be should read the transcript, helpfully released here in English.
Putin's words speak for themselves: What he is aiming for in Ukraine is the restoration of Russia as an imperial power.
Many observers quickly picked up on one of Putin's more provocative lines, in which he compared himself to Peter the Great, Russia's modernizing tsar and the founder of St. Petersburg -- Putin's own birthplace -- who came to power in the late 17th century."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/europe/russia-putin-empire-restoration-endgame-intl-cmd/index.html
-
The outcome of the battle for Severodonetsk is still in swing, but it seems like the Ukrainian army is still inching its way forward between Kherson and Melitopol. Progress is slow, whether its a lack of mobility or doing all they can to avoid casualties I can't say. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group (almost 50 countries) just met in person again today and the outcome appears to be a pledge for an additional 100 tubes of artillery and handful more MLRS systems plus radios and night vision equipment. SecDef Austin says the initial battery of HIMARS should be in action as early as next week and another group of artillerymen beginning training.
-
It's honestly discouraging that the U.S. and some Western allies are now in a proxy war against Russia. I can only hope for Putin's swift physical decline and for Russia to get a new and sane leader who will stop this madness.
-
It's honestly discouraging that the U.S. and some Western allies are now in a proxy war against Russia. I can only hope for Putin's swift physical decline and for Russia to get a new and sane leader who will stop this madness.
Unlikely, Russia seem to gravitate towards cults of personality.
Be careful what you wish for, as succession fights are nasty, up to and including full civil war.
Also, outside interference is likely.
-
It's honestly discouraging that the U.S. and some Western allies are now in a proxy war against Russia. I can only hope for Putin's swift physical decline and for Russia to get a new and sane leader who will stop this madness.
Unlikely, Russia seem to gravitate towards cults of personality.
Be careful what you wish for, as succession fights are nasty, up to and including full civil war.
Also, outside interference is likely.
If Russia does devolve to civil war, most likely China will start to gobble up some territory. It's not by chance they they've moved a lot of troops to the border for 'military exercises'.
-
Thanks for lifting this thread. Made me donate some more money towards the causes I support down there.
-
I agree that Ukrainians have no choice but to fight. It's clear that Putin's goal is genocide. Not necessarily in the form of WW2 with industrialized slaughter, but through "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group".
Only because the Russians aren't as organized as the original Nazis. They're stealing massive amounts of food, conscripting Ukrainians from the Donbas and such and using them as cannon fodder. Deliberate artillery shelling and white phosphorus burning of civilian targets. Mass rape and murder. Etc. They're using "war crimes" as a checklist.
-
It's honestly discouraging that the U.S. and some Western allies are now in a proxy war against Russia. I can only hope for Putin's swift physical decline and for Russia to get a new and sane leader who will stop this madness.
Unlikely, Russia seem to gravitate towards cults of personality.
Be careful what you wish for, as succession fights are nasty, up to and including full civil war.
Also, outside interference is likely.
If Russia does devolve to civil war, most likely China will start to gobble up some territory. It's not by chance they they've moved a lot of troops to the border for 'military exercises'.
Perhaps "Special military operations? 96hr limit?"
While I understood the Russian need for an alternate for Baikonur / Tyuratam cosmodrome, Vostochny is only 80 miles from the Chinese border.
It is also not along a coastline (for better 1st stage drop-offs). Even if you hit a hole-in-one in a Kamchatka volcano, bad things are unlikely to happen.
China probably doesn't have that much interest in such a facility, they probably have better ones of their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_Cosmodrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Cosmodrome
-
Re: MOSKVA
How the F.. does a major fleet combatant get SUNK?
My thesis is that no one onboard was effectively (or at all) watching the radars or they were off.
I've talked with former naval people and every one said "when you leave port, all sensors are ON (either passive or active), even in peacetime.
I invite comments from @Nords @infromsea and others.
Supporting documents:
Moskva in harbor- peacetime. Note that all radars are pointed fore and aft and presumably off. You could cause serious noise on TV/radio etc nearby if you had them on in harbor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Project_1164_Moskva_2009_G1.jpg
This picture and video shows the ship in operation.
https://navalpost.com/moskva-slava-class-cruiser-p1000-bazalt-vulkan/
The "sinking" photo shows the aft (Top Dome) radar pointing directly aft and not to the side of the attack. You can't hit what you are not looking at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva
https://twitter.com/jesusfrommars/status/792488381230018560
http://wmunderway.mysite.com/seaphoto/catalog/CDsales/varyag/varyag.html
The claim that P8 helped target the Moskva is not supported by other studies (Grosick et al 1988)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/politics/moskva-russia-ship-ukraine-us.html
Some analysts say it it possible but unlikely that the P-8 could have provided timely (less than 2 hours) targeting information.
https://rockymountainnavy.com/tag/harpoon-v/
I grade this as unlikely:
A study of Harpoon use (by massed B-52, 20 Harpoons each) estimates
a)Even with a Memorandum of Understanding etc between the US Navy and US AirForce, the
ability of Navy P-3 (predecessor of P-8) would take a lot of training to get correct.
Other side point:
b) a ship of Moskva size would take 4-7 hits to take out.
and yet two hits did-in the Moskva, possibly as few as two missiles ...... mmmm.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA202045.pdf
HARPOON EMPLOYMENT IN NAVAL ANT!SURFACE WARFARE (ASUW)
LT COL FREDERICK E.GROSICK CDR PATRICK L.MASSEY LT COL MARK W.PETERSEN 1988
Simulations from 2019 also say it should be really hard to hit/mission-kill/sink a slava class cruiser actively aware and defending itself.
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/220633-to-kill-the-moscow-with-agm-84d/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxwh6MGLJNc
Yes sea-skimming missiles are hard to hit
HMS Sheffield
USS Stark
-
Re: MOSKVA
I invite comments from @Nords @infromsea and others.
Thank you, I appreciate the reasons for tagging me.
I have no comment on the deficiencies in this crew’s tactics, self-defense, or damage control.
-
The claim that P8 helped target the Moskva is not supported by other studies (Grosick et al 1988)
I know a guy who is in a position to know. He just grins and says he can't talk about it.
-
Keeping the HIMARS supplied in Ukraine is the real issue:
Ukraine Update: Not enough? Here's the challenge of moving even four HIMARS
"Each announcement of aid, whether from the United States or any other ally, is inevitably accompanied by a chorus of wailing and complaining: it’s not enough, it’s too late, it’s taking too long, why won’t they do more, etc, etc, etc. Amazon has pre-conditioned people into thinking Ukraine could just order up whatever, and hey, there it is three days later with free shipping!
You might think, who cares that someone is wrong on the internet! (And to be clear, I don’t see it here, I see it in other social media outlets). It matters because such thinking is counter-productive, ignorant, and stupid, and betrays a lack of understanding of the actual situation."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/1/2101780/-Ukraine-Update-Not-enough-Here-s-the-challenge-of-moving-even-four-HIMARS
-
Oh, I didn't know those come with such small (amount) pods, I was thinking the MLRS from the US are more like Russian ones with 20 missiles.
So it's more like the 4 3 Panzerhaubitze 2000 Germany is sending. Long range short burst.
-
Re: MOSKVA
I invite comments from @Nords @infromsea and others.
Thank you, I appreciate the reasons for tagging me.
I have no comment on the deficiencies in this crew’s tactics, self-defense, or damage control.
/teasing However, you have made a comment that includes the word deficiencies. A true no comment would be "I have no comment on this crew’s tactics, self-defense, or damage control." /teasing
Sorry if you felt put on the spot.
I am not a member of any military oriented forum, so I was trying to get the most informed commentary I could.
I once worked with ex-Navy nucs, and I had to be careful of asking questions that they were not able/comfortable answering.
For others: the history of "neither confirm or deny" https://unredacted.com/2014/02/11/neither-confirm-nor-deny-the-history-of-the-glomar-response-and-the-glomar-explorer/ -- this is relatively new, "no comment" is the prior response.
-
Oh, I didn't know those come with such small (amount) pods, I was thinking the MLRS from the US are more like Russian ones with 20 missiles.
So it's more like the 4 3 Panzerhaubitze 2000 Germany is sending. Long range short burst.
My understanding is that the US MLRS are far more accurate than the Russian ones - thus needing fewer missiles for a specific target.
-
Re: MOSKVA
How the F.. does a major fleet combatant get SUNK?
Missile warhead + unexpended fuel + poor damage control and potentially lucky hit on or near a magazine or ship-mounted missile = sinking ship.
In WW2 ships were built with more armor and just heavier construction and could handle more damage. A lot of the assumptions in the various models used by Navy planners are likely influenced by that and overestimate the resiliency of more modern warships.
Also, the Moskva carried 16 missiles on her deck that had 1,000 kg warheads - plus all the fuel. Igniting one of those - which are basically just in metal tubes would cause more damage than a normal missile strike because of all that fuel that would normally be partially expended by the time an enemy missile hit.
-
Re: MOSKVA
How the F.. does a major fleet combatant get SUNK?
Missile warhead + unexpended fuel + poor damage control and potentially lucky hit on or near a magazine or ship-mounted missile = sinking ship.
In WW2 ships were built with more armor and just heavier construction and could handle more damage. A lot of the assumptions in the various models used by Navy planners are likely influenced by that and overestimate the resiliency of more modern warships.
Also, the Moskva carried 16 missiles on her deck that had 1,000 kg warheads - plus all the fuel. Igniting one of those - which are basically just in metal tubes would cause more damage than a normal missile strike because of all that fuel that would normally be partially expended by the time an enemy missile hit.
Oops I forgot to post the pic of the Moskva listing and burning. Neither I nor references noted any burning missiles or fragments.
-
Re: MOSKVA
How the F.. does a major fleet combatant get SUNK?
Missile warhead + unexpended fuel + poor damage control and potentially lucky hit on or near a magazine or ship-mounted missile = sinking ship.
In WW2 ships were built with more armor and just heavier construction and could handle more damage. A lot of the assumptions in the various models used by Navy planners are likely influenced by that and overestimate the resiliency of more modern warships.
Also, the Moskva carried 16 missiles on her deck that had 1,000 kg warheads - plus all the fuel. Igniting one of those - which are basically just in metal tubes would cause more damage than a normal missile strike because of all that fuel that would normally be partially expended by the time an enemy missile hit.
Oops I forgot to post the pic of the Moskva listing and burning. Neither I nor references noted any burning missiles or fragments.
The deck-mounted cruise missiles didn't appear to be apart of the sinking, but there was definitely a giant hole on one end of the ship and fire swept through all the way to the other end.
-
Oh, I didn't know those come with such small (amount) pods, I was thinking the MLRS from the US are more like Russian ones with 20 missiles.
So it's more like the 4 3 Panzerhaubitze 2000 Germany is sending. Long range short burst.
The M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS carry 12 and 6 missiles, respectively. Each GPS-programmed missile is capable of hitting a target 43-50 miles away and delivering either a 200 pound warhead or blowing up right above the target like a giant tungsten ball bearing claymore mine (see video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5h7BkCj5rI&t=11s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5h7BkCj5rI&t=11s)
-
Ukraine is officially a candidate for membership in the EU! Which is apparently more symbolic than anything, but hey. Ukraine is going through hell, they deserve some good news.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/06/23/approved-eu-countries-endorse-ukraine-and-moldova-as-official-candidates-to-join-bloc
-
Ukraine is officially a candidate for membership in the EU! Which is apparently more symbolic than anything, but hey. Ukraine is going through hell, they deserve some good news.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/06/23/approved-eu-countries-endorse-ukraine-and-moldova-as-official-candidates-to-join-bloc
I believe that opens up certain funds for Ukraine to draw from, plus assistance from the bloc. Also, few people seem to know that the EU does have a defense facility (and basically unlimited financial resources), so it's a little bit more. Interesting that the announcement was made on the day six years after the UK voted to leave the EU. Somebody has a sense for the symbolic.
-
Ukraine is officially a candidate for membership in the EU! Which is apparently more symbolic than anything, but hey. Ukraine is going through hell, they deserve some good news.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/06/23/approved-eu-countries-endorse-ukraine-and-moldova-as-official-candidates-to-join-bloc
I believe that opens up certain funds for Ukraine to draw from, plus assistance from the bloc. Also, few people seem to know that the EU does have a defense facility (and basically unlimited financial resources), so it's a little bit more. Interesting that the announcement was made on the day six years after the UK voted to leave the EU. Somebody has a sense for the symbolic.
Very cool, I'm perfectly fine with the EU trolling the UK. They did ask for it.
-
Ukraine is officially a candidate for membership in the EU! Which is apparently more symbolic than anything, but hey. Ukraine is going through hell, they deserve some good news.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/06/23/approved-eu-countries-endorse-ukraine-and-moldova-as-official-candidates-to-join-bloc
I believe that opens up certain funds for Ukraine to draw from, plus assistance from the bloc. Also, few people seem to know that the EU does have a defense facility (and basically unlimited financial resources), so it's a little bit more. Interesting that the announcement was made on the day six years after the UK voted to leave the EU. Somebody has a sense for the symbolic.
Very cool, I'm perfectly fine with the EU trolling the UK. They did ask for it.
A minority did. (Sadly, a majority of those voting.)
-
So, Ukraine retreated from Severodonetsk and is reinforcing the river line and the heights around Lyshansk, conducted local counterattacks in southern Donbas and south of Zap, and the Kherson counteroffensive is still taking ground, but at a walking pace.
US HIMARS conducted their first fire mission somewhere in Ukraine. The Germany PHZ2000 is in the country now to be used shortly.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1540400176040402947 (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1540400176040402947)
-
Ukraine at War
Paving the Road from Survival to Victory
Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds
"THIS REPORT IS an assessment of the present dynamics of the fighting in Ukraine, how Russia is employing its capabilities and what is needed to defeat Russia’s invasion. It is based on fieldwork conducted in Ukraine prior to and during the invasion. This report does not cover Russia’s unconventional operations or Ukraine’s maritime flank."
https://ik.imagekit.io/po8th4g4eqj/prod/special-report-202207-ukraine-final-web.pdf
-
Ukraine either elected not to bleed for Lysychansk or the supply line wasn't secure enough. They retreated from the city mostly intact over the last few days. It looks like both sides in that sector are exhausted, but the area around Bakhmut is still under threat. Four HIMARS launchers have been operating in Ukraine for about two weeks now and appear to have destroyed up to 25 Russian supply points up to 80km behind the front line from Izyum to Melitopol.
Russia abandoned "Snake" island after several days of shelling from the mainland by Ukrainian artillery and the destruction of several anti-air systems. The garrison was taken away in the middle of the night with the Russian air force and Ukrainian drones both bombed the remaining equipment.
Ukrainian forces still grinding forward in Kherson oblast. No indications yet on either side's next major move.
-
Some of the videos showing Russian ammo dumps getting hit by HIMARS are pretty impressive. Big badaboom.
-
Some of the videos showing Russian ammo dumps getting hit by HIMARS are pretty impressive. Big badaboom.
Looks like they are going into war production to replace losses. It's a big country and has the capacity to produce mucho armaments.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH (https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH)
I hope the West has the will to support them in the needed capacity to fight back the Russians and reclaim their land.
-
Some of the videos showing Russian ammo dumps getting hit by HIMARS are pretty impressive. Big badaboom.
Looks like they are going into war production to replace losses. It's a big country and has the capacity to produce mucho armaments.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH (https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH)
I hope the West has the will to support them in the needed capacity to fight back the Russians and reclaim their land.
I can't imagine this'll do their economy any favors. Redirecting a portion toward ward production while you're already suffering from sanctions is gonna make for some domestic suffering.
-
Some of the videos showing Russian ammo dumps getting hit by HIMARS are pretty impressive. Big badaboom.
Looks like they are going into war production to replace losses. It's a big country and has the capacity to produce mucho armaments.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH (https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH)
I hope the West has the will to support them in the needed capacity to fight back the Russians and reclaim their land.
I can't imagine this'll do their economy any favors. Redirecting a portion toward ward production while you're already suffering from sanctions is gonna make for some domestic suffering.
I'm not sure about that. Putin has been saving for this war for some time. He is flush with cash. I doubt there will be deficit spending.
At the end of the great depression, people were still not doing well in the United States. Despite all the New Deal programs, the "pump" of the economy was not fully primed. I've been told on multiple occasions that the great spending of World War 2 on war production is what finally killed the great depression. It could be that war spending would actually be a stimulus to the economy of Russia.
I hope they are unsuccessful in their effort to boost military production. Ukraine is still greatly outgunned.
-
Some of the videos showing Russian ammo dumps getting hit by HIMARS are pretty impressive. Big badaboom.
Looks like they are going into war production to replace losses. It's a big country and has the capacity to produce mucho armaments.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH (https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-economy-law/russian-parliament-passes-first-vote-on-war-economy-measures-idUSKBN2OG0RH)
I hope the West has the will to support them in the needed capacity to fight back the Russians and reclaim their land.
I can't imagine this'll do their economy any favors. Redirecting a portion toward ward production while you're already suffering from sanctions is gonna make for some domestic suffering.
I'm not sure about that. Putin has been saving for this war for some time. He is flush with cash. I doubt there will be deficit spending.
At the end of the great depression, people were still not doing well in the United States. Despite all the New Deal programs, the "pump" of the economy was not fully primed. I've been told on multiple occasions that the great spending of World War 2 on war production is what finally killed the great depression. It could be that war spending would actually be a stimulus to the economy of Russia.
I hope they are unsuccessful in their effort to boost military production. Ukraine is still greatly outgunned.
Russia cutting billions in domestic spending in Transportation and S&T departments and increasing pension/welfare payments due to sanctions and war spending. A factory that makes complex machinery for natural gas production is facing strikes because subcontractors can't pay them.
https://www.rbc.ru/economics/04/07/2022/62c262859a79474c540ba55c?from=column_4 (https://www.rbc.ru/economics/04/07/2022/62c262859a79474c540ba55c?from=column_4)
As far as their war production, they're extremely limited on making advanced weapons. Tank, aircraft, and probably missile production stopped a couple months ago because the components for optics, computers, and avionics are all imported and sanctioned. The replacement vehicles showing up at the front are from Cold War-era storage and haven't been touched since the 1980s and probably required other vehicles to be stripped to make them functional. They might have a lot of cash, but there isn't much they can spend it on.
-
I'm not optimistic, however, that their factories for artillery ammunition are facing the same issues, and it certainly plays into their apparent preference for shelling everything into rubble before advancing.
-
I've been assuming that Ukraine is secretly training a huge wave of fully equipped capable new units, with undeclared help from other countries. I mean why wouldn't they? But if they are not, then the war will be protracted and costly. They don't even need new tanks, I understand that Ukraine also had thousands of rusting hulks which could be made operational with a lot of work.
I'm not optimistic, however, that their factories for artillery ammunition are facing the same issues, and it certainly plays into their apparent preference for shelling everything into rubble before advancing.
Agreed. I doubt manufacture of their artillery shells is much different than a century ago, how hard can it be for a place like Russia to mix fertilizer and fuel in a cheap steel casing, and slap on a low quality detonator?
-
I've been assuming that Ukraine is secretly training a huge wave of fully equipped capable new units, with undeclared help from other countries. I mean why wouldn't they? But if they are not, then the war will be protracted and costly. They don't even need new tanks, I understand that Ukraine also had thousands of rusting hulks which could be made operational with a lot of work.
I'm not optimistic, however, that their factories for artillery ammunition are facing the same issues, and it certainly plays into their apparent preference for shelling everything into rubble before advancing.
Agreed. I doubt manufacture of their artillery shells is much different than a century ago, how hard can it be for a place like Russia to mix fertilizer and fuel in a cheap steel casing, and slap on a low quality detonator?
Dumb artillery is effective when you just want semirandom destruction across a wide area and don't care if it takes awhile (and an awful lot of shells) to pound everything into progressively smaller chunks so that you eventually "capture" some scattered piles of rubble where a city used to be.
Modern (Western) guided artillery and rocket artillery are a whole different ballgame. You can surgically strike high value targets (ammo dumps, command posts, etc) with far fewer shots.
A dumb 155mm Western shell at max range has a circular error probability (CEP) of over 800 feet (ie half the rounds land within ~800 feet of the intended target). Russian artillery is similar.
Add a precision guidance kit to the same Western shell and you cut that CEP to 20 feet. So, half the shells within 20 feet of the target
Swap to a dedicated Excalibur shell and you get >90% of rounds within 13 feet of the target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1156_Precision_Guidance_Kit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
-
I've been assuming that Ukraine is secretly training a huge wave of fully equipped capable new units, with undeclared help from other countries. I mean why wouldn't they? But if they are not, then the war will be protracted and costly. They don't even need new tanks, I understand that Ukraine also had thousands of rusting hulks which could be made operational with a lot of work.
I'm not optimistic, however, that their factories for artillery ammunition are facing the same issues, and it certainly plays into their apparent preference for shelling everything into rubble before advancing.
Agreed. I doubt manufacture of their artillery shells is much different than a century ago, how hard can it be for a place like Russia to mix fertilizer and fuel in a cheap steel casing, and slap on a low quality detonator?
Dumb artillery is effective when you just want semirandom destruction across a wide area and don't care if it takes awhile (and an awful lot of shells) to pound everything into progressively smaller chunks so that you eventually "capture" some scattered piles of rubble where a city used to be.
And that is what they are doing. A German military just said in an interview that Russia can and likely is getting 70s + 80s era artillery shells out of storage. And they have a lot, while Ukraine has not.
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
What exactly Russia gets out of all this I have no idea, of course.
-W
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
What exactly Russia gets out of all this I have no idea, of course.
-W
They get a bombed out country and almost universal hatred. But apparently, Putin throwing a tantrum to express his rage at not quickly winning is reward enough.
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
What exactly Russia gets out of all this I have no idea, of course.
-W
That is my thought as well. Okay, they reduce Ukraine to ruins. I'm sure there are plenty of ruined Russian cities already left over from the Soviet era. Are they seizing Ukrainian farms and wheat capability?
Do they REALLY think NATO would cross their border unprovoked?
This website has plenty of ruined Russian places detailed: https://englishrussia.com/
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
What exactly Russia gets out of all this I have no idea, of course.
-W
That is my thought as well. Okay, they reduce Ukraine to ruins. I'm sure there are plenty of ruined Russian cities already left over from the Soviet era. Are they seizing Ukrainian farms and wheat capability?
Do they REALLY think NATO would cross their border unprovoked?
This website has plenty of ruined Russian places detailed: https://englishrussia.com/
I think it really is as simple as "Ukraine will become part of Russia by any means necessary".
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
What exactly Russia gets out of all this I have no idea, of course.
-W
Defensive depth. Russia has no natural barriers between the rest of Europe and Moscow and has a long memory for being invaded (WW2, WW1, Napoleon, etc.). Even though the idea of Ukraine or NATO invading Russia today may seem absurd, what about 20, 30, 50 years from now? I don't think losing tens of thousands of Soldiers (and everything else) for 100km of extra depth on the wrong axis for an invasion towards Moscow is worth it, but apparently Putin does.
The initial invasion in 2014 pretty much ensured Ukraine would be pinned down in dealing with the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia really didn't want Ukraine to get any closer to the west. It would be like if Mexico had turned communist during the Cold War. It felt like an existential threat even if no one in the west has any desire to attack Russia. Many wars have started due to miscalculation by one or both sides about the other sides intentions.
-
One of the fundamental rules of NATO is that no country can enter the alliance if they have an active border dispute.
That fact goes a long way to explain why Russia has invaded pockets of various countries (Georgia, for example). It also means that Ukraine won't be joining NATO anytime soon.
-
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can sort of sympathize (probably too strong a word) with Russia's rationale on invading Ukraine - not that I endorse it. I do have some thoughts:
1. I told my wife a couple weeks ago (when the western media was all rah-rah about the little-engine-that-could Ukraine upstarts were supposedly taking the fight to the russians) that eventually, whether it's one year or five years, there's going to be a lot of media soul searching about how they got the narrative of russia's progress so wrong. Similar to WMDs or how the media was so shocked when trump beat hillary.
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
3. As for what russia gets out of all this. I agree with the buffer part. The soviet union was really humiliated and torn apart when the cold war ended. Similar to Germany after WWI. It makes some sort of sense that Putin would try to do what he's doing just through the lens of humiliation of the country. Also, they get a ton of mineral resources and farmland, whether or not infrastructure is destroyed. All the better if it's destroyed, then russian companies can all get contracts to rebuild. The US wouldn't be guilty of that now would it?
4. Also, and maybe I'm giving russia too much credit, but to me at least it makes sense that they'd send in their crap weaponry first and hold back on using anything really high tech. This is a slog, and russia has the patience, and there's also the threat that some western alliance might strike back at russia at some point, so save the good stuff for if that happens. The low-tech approach is working, it's just slow (again, slow in the eyes of the western world who hasn't fought a war like this in 70 years).
Maybe russia is a paper tiger and I'm totally off base, but that's how I see it as of now. And lol how the US civs have all suddenly learned what HIMARS is, it's the latest fad.
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
I'm a bit more optimistic. Russia is expending enormous quantities of artillery ammunition. If they are truly breaking out their stockpiles from the 70's and 80's, and if they are getting supplies from Belarus, that tells me that they are A) running out of their own stock, B) having trouble getting it from their stockpiles to Ukraine, C) unable to produce enough, or D) all of the above. The Russian parliament voted earlier this week to move toward a war production footing, which makes me think B isn't the bottleneck, and that the Russians are worried about running out of artillery shells.
From what I can see, without artillery, Russia is impotent. Without artillery, they can't flatten territory, and therefore can't advance. Without artillery, they can't defend as well against attacks, either. Not only that, Russian artillery is what's preventing Ukrainian artillery from being used effectively. If Ukraine can reduce the effectiveness of Russian artillery via precision strikes on ammo dumps, it not only hampers Russia's capabilities, it also enables Ukraine's own artillery to rejoin the fight more effectively. It's a force multiplier.
I expect the response from Russia will be to disperse ammunition storage as a result, but considering their struggles with logistics over the past four and a half months, I can't see that going well for them. More ammo depots in hostile territory sounds like a logistical nightmare. More places to guard so that the hostile locals don't run off with it, more opportunity for partisans or special forces to attack the smaller forces, etc.
-
3. As for what russia gets out of all this. I agree with the buffer part. The soviet union was really humiliated and torn apart when the cold war ended. Similar to Germany after WWI. It makes some sort of sense that Putin would try to do what he's doing just through the lens of humiliation of the country. Also, they get a ton of mineral resources and farmland, whether or not infrastructure is destroyed. All the better if it's destroyed, then russian companies can all get contracts to rebuild. The US wouldn't be guilty of that now would it?
4. Also, and maybe I'm giving russia too much credit, but to me at least it makes sense that they'd send in their crap weaponry first and hold back on using anything really high tech. This is a slog, and russia has the patience, and there's also the threat that some western alliance might strike back at russia at some point, so save the good stuff for if that happens. The low-tech approach is working, it's just slow (again, slow in the eyes of the western world who hasn't fought a war like this in 70 years).
Maybe russia is a paper tiger and I'm totally off base, but that's how I see it as of now. And lol how the US civs have all suddenly learned what HIMARS is, it's the latest fad.
I can respond to a couple of your points. I spent a couple years in Russia around 2000-2002, and can tell that national pride is a huge deal for a significant portion of the population, particularly the older generation. There's a huge sense of paradise lost in connection with Russia's reputational downfall since 1989. The younger generation, at least the ones I interacted with, didn't have the same sense of loss or reminiscence of days of glory long past.
On #4, from what I've seen (and I've been following it pretty closely), this isn't the case. Russia sent in the best they had right from the start. Their much-vaunted VDV got slaughtered in multiple arenas. They only have limited (and dwindling) numbers of their most modern tanks, and only a handful (literally, single digits) of their most modern aircraft. Sending 60's-era tanks didn't happen for the first couple of months. They lost their most modern cruiser (Moskva), and their most modern air defense systems couldn't hold Snake Island. They started off using their most advanced precision cruise missiles, and currently are using long-range anti-ship missiles to attack land targets in western Ukraine.
Granted, we *did* see a whole lot of poorly-trained, poorly-equipped troops in the early days of the war. It's possible that all the recruiting and don't-call-it-conscription are being done in order to preserve better-trained or -equipped forces in case of an attack by NATO. But nothing I've seen so far would support such a conclusion, at least on any significant scale. It's really hard to keep large numbers of modern tanks or airplanes or rocket launchers hidden.
EDIT: Regarding comparisons to other wars--the Allies took 11 months to go 600 miles from Normandy to Berlin. By contrast, Russia has taken 4.5 months to advance roughly 80 miles from the south and east into Ukraine, and the last month has seen them gain only maybe a dozen miles in the far east, where they have put a huge concentration of forces. Realistically, the war has more or less devolved into WWI. Except now Ukraine has HIMARS and the rest of the western world behind them.
-
3. As for what russia gets out of all this. I agree with the buffer part. The soviet union was really humiliated and torn apart when the cold war ended. Similar to Germany after WWI. It makes some sort of sense that Putin would try to do what he's doing just through the lens of humiliation of the country. Also, they get a ton of mineral resources and farmland, whether or not infrastructure is destroyed. All the better if it's destroyed, then russian companies can all get contracts to rebuild. The US wouldn't be guilty of that now would it?
4. Also, and maybe I'm giving russia too much credit, but to me at least it makes sense that they'd send in their crap weaponry first and hold back on using anything really high tech. This is a slog, and russia has the patience, and there's also the threat that some western alliance might strike back at russia at some point, so save the good stuff for if that happens. The low-tech approach is working, it's just slow (again, slow in the eyes of the western world who hasn't fought a war like this in 70 years).
Maybe russia is a paper tiger and I'm totally off base, but that's how I see it as of now. And lol how the US civs have all suddenly learned what HIMARS is, it's the latest fad.
I can respond to a couple of your points. I spent a couple years in Russia around 2000-2002, and can tell that national pride is a huge deal for a significant portion of the population, particularly the older generation. There's a huge sense of paradise lost in connection with Russia's reputational downfall since 1989. The younger generation, at least the ones I interacted with, didn't have the same sense of loss or reminiscence of days of glory long past.
On #4, from what I've seen (and I've been following it pretty closely), this isn't the case. Russia sent in the best they had right from the start. Their much-vaunted VDV got slaughtered in multiple arenas. They only have limited (and dwindling) numbers of their most modern tanks, and only a handful (literally, single digits) of their most modern aircraft. Sending 60's-era tanks didn't happen for the first couple of months. They lost their most modern cruiser (Moskva), and their most modern air defense systems couldn't hold Snake Island. They started off using their most advanced precision cruise missiles, and currently are using long-range anti-ship missiles to attack land targets in western Ukraine.
Granted, we *did* see a whole lot of poorly-trained, poorly-equipped troops in the early days of the war. It's possible that all the recruiting and don't-call-it-conscription are being done in order to preserve better-trained or -equipped forces in case of an attack by NATO. But nothing I've seen so far would support such a conclusion, at least on any significant scale. It's really hard to keep large numbers of modern tanks or airplanes or rocket launchers hidden.
EDIT: Regarding comparisons to other wars--the Allies took 11 months to go 600 miles from Normandy to Berlin. By contrast, Russia has taken 4.5 months to advance roughly 80 miles from the south and east into Ukraine, and the last month has seen them gain only maybe a dozen miles in the far east, where they have put a huge concentration of forces. Realistically, the war has more or less devolved into WWI. Except now Ukraine has HIMARS and the rest of the western world behind them.
HIMARS!!!!!! My intelligence says who gives a flying fuck about HIMARS. And let's be clear, Ukraine is a corrupt country, it's not like they're sitting with the best from Whiteman AFB learning how to counterattack the russkies. But in any case I have no desire to argue who is right or who is wrong. We can revisit this thread in a couple years and see, but I suspect I'm right. We'll see.
-
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can sort of sympathize (probably too strong a word) with Russia's rationale on invading Ukraine - not that I endorse it. I do have some thoughts:
1. I told my wife a couple weeks ago (when the western media was all rah-rah about the little-engine-that-could Ukraine upstarts were supposedly taking the fight to the russians) that eventually, whether it's one year or five years, there's going to be a lot of media soul searching about how they got the narrative of russia's progress so wrong. Similar to WMDs or how the media was so shocked when trump beat hillary.
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
A couple thoughts. Most analysts assumed that Russia would steamroll Ukraine right away because Russia has a much larger, better equipped army, and because the Ukraine army folded like a wet blanket in 2014. Prior to the war, that was the narrative I was hearing. And apparently the Russians thought so too. Putin fired a number of generals and arrested several FSB agents in the early weeks of the war.
But after some quick initial gains in the south and east (and a bloody nose in the north) Russia's advance has been almost totally stalled out. Russia's gains have been limited to only a few square miles after months of fighting. And Ukraine has launched successful, but small, counter attacks in the northeast and south. I take causality reports with a large grain of salt but Ukrainian and some western sources estimate Russia had more than 30,000 KIA in three and a half months. If the true number is half of that, that is still an astonishing rate of loss. Fewer than 3,000 US troops were KIA in Afghanistan in the whole campaign, for example. I don't see how Russia can sustain this rate of loss. Sustaining these losses certainly was not part of the plan.
This site documents equipment losses on both sides from open sources.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
There is documentary evidence that Russia's most modern, advance equipment is being used on the battlefield and has also been destroyed in large numbers. I find it extremely unlikely Russia is holding anything significant back for later.
I think this is unfolding just as it appears. Russia and most analysts believed this would be quick. Ukraine brought its A game, and Russia turned out to be far more incompetent that anyone believed.
-
Their much-vaunted VDV got slaughtered in multiple arenas.
You might enjoy this video. It is a VDV propaganda piece with updated subtitles. Pretty good.
https://youtu.be/AL-rdzMo1MU
-
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can sort of sympathize (probably too strong a word) with Russia's rationale on invading Ukraine - not that I endorse it. I do have some thoughts:
1. I told my wife a couple weeks ago (when the western media was all rah-rah about the little-engine-that-could Ukraine upstarts were supposedly taking the fight to the russians) that eventually, whether it's one year or five years, there's going to be a lot of media soul searching about how they got the narrative of russia's progress so wrong. Similar to WMDs or how the media was so shocked when trump beat hillary.
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
A couple thoughts. Most analysts assumed that Russia would steamroll Ukraine right away because Russia has a much larger, better equipped army, and because the Ukraine army folded like a wet blanket in 2014. Prior to the war, that was the narrative I was hearing. And apparently the Russians thought so too. Putin fired a number of generals and arrested several FSB agents in the early weeks of the war.
But after some quick initial gains in the south and east (and a bloody nose in the north) Russia's advance has been almost totally stalled out. Russia's gains have been limited to only a few square miles after months of fighting. And Ukraine has launched successful, but small, counter attacks in the northeast and south. I take causality reports with a large grain of salt but Ukrainian and some western sources estimate Russia had more than 30,000 KIA in three and a half months. If the true number is half of that, that is still an astonishing rate of loss. Fewer than 3,000 US troops were KIA in Afghanistan in the whole campaign, for example. I don't see how Russia can sustain this rate of loss. Sustaining these losses certainly was not part of the plan.
This site documents equipment losses on both sides from open sources.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
There is documentary evidence that Russia's most modern, advance equipment is being used on the battlefield and has also been destroyed in large numbers. I find it extremely unlikely Russia is holding anything significant back for later.
I think this is unfolding just as it appears. Russia and most analysts believed this would be quick. Ukraine brought its A game, and Russia turned out to be far more incompetent that anyone believed.
You could be right, nobody on this forum knows the truth, myself included. The only thing I'd add is that I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't care if 3k or 30k soldiers have been killed. That's where I think the western media has blinders on.
-
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can sort of sympathize (probably too strong a word) with Russia's rationale on invading Ukraine - not that I endorse it. I do have some thoughts:
1. I told my wife a couple weeks ago (when the western media was all rah-rah about the little-engine-that-could Ukraine upstarts were supposedly taking the fight to the russians) that eventually, whether it's one year or five years, there's going to be a lot of media soul searching about how they got the narrative of russia's progress so wrong. Similar to WMDs or how the media was so shocked when trump beat hillary.
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
3. As for what russia gets out of all this. I agree with the buffer part. The soviet union was really humiliated and torn apart when the cold war ended. Similar to Germany after WWI. It makes some sort of sense that Putin would try to do what he's doing just through the lens of humiliation of the country. Also, they get a ton of mineral resources and farmland, whether or not infrastructure is destroyed. All the better if it's destroyed, then russian companies can all get contracts to rebuild. The US wouldn't be guilty of that now would it?
4. Also, and maybe I'm giving russia too much credit, but to me at least it makes sense that they'd send in their crap weaponry first and hold back on using anything really high tech. This is a slog, and russia has the patience, and there's also the threat that some western alliance might strike back at russia at some point, so save the good stuff for if that happens. The low-tech approach is working, it's just slow (again, slow in the eyes of the western world who hasn't fought a war like this in 70 years).
Maybe russia is a paper tiger and I'm totally off base, but that's how I see it as of now. And lol how the US civs have all suddenly learned what HIMARS is, it's the latest fad.
The only thing I'd add is that I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't care if 3k or 30k soldiers have been killed. That's where I think the western media has blinders on.
That is why Russia will lose. Among others. Russia's population is ~3x larger than Ukraine's. But, Russia has been taking casualties at ~3x the Ukrainian rate. Now look at Russia. It is a huge nation. It is held together by a handful of gossamer railroads and dilapidated highways, and it takes a lot of people just to make it work. All of its neighbors are hostile and have a history of military conflict with Russia, mostly recent, and Russia has many neighbors. Russia regularly antagonizes neighbors for no useful reason. Russia's population is not highly motivated to fight Ukraine. Russia is in a fragile position and cannot afford a 3:1 or even 2:1 losing casualty ratio with Ukraine, and maybe not even 1:1. Ukraine is compact, densely populated, has historically friendly or indifferent relations with all its neighbors except recently Russia, and has a highly motivated population.
Ukraine is backed by a consortium of countries with much larger population, more manufacturing, more advanced manufacturing, and most of the planet's wealth. They will get better weapons the longer the war lasts, while Russians will get worse weapons. Russia was able to attempt division and economic pain on "the West" in the past and get results, but now "the West" is onto them, and the more Russia antagonizes the more motivated "the West" will be to help Ukraine.
Politically Ukraine has united and brought their best minds to bear on the task, and is more egalitarian and less corrupt than ever. Russia is indifferent, led by corrupt officials with no direct personal interest in the actual fighting, and composed of many ethnic groups spread over a vast area. Much of Russia is shockingly poor and undeveloped as a result of local resources being diverted to corruption in Moscow with no local investment. Russians will largely have little interest or ability to contribute to the war.
Basically all the macros point to Ukraine winning, IMO, and IMO substantially within the next 12 months. This was decided by the end of February 2022, based on 1) Russia wasting their strategic advantage at the start, 2) Ukraine uniting against Russia, 3) "Western" nations deciding on whole-sale backing of Ukraine. The biggest wild card is the nature of support Ukraine receives.
(Not a military expert or even close)
-
I don't really have a dog in this fight but I can sort of sympathize (probably too strong a word) with Russia's rationale on invading Ukraine - not that I endorse it. I do have some thoughts:
1. I told my wife a couple weeks ago (when the western media was all rah-rah about the little-engine-that-could Ukraine upstarts were supposedly taking the fight to the russians) that eventually, whether it's one year or five years, there's going to be a lot of media soul searching about how they got the narrative of russia's progress so wrong. Similar to WMDs or how the media was so shocked when trump beat hillary.
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
3. As for what russia gets out of all this. I agree with the buffer part. The soviet union was really humiliated and torn apart when the cold war ended. Similar to Germany after WWI. It makes some sort of sense that Putin would try to do what he's doing just through the lens of humiliation of the country. Also, they get a ton of mineral resources and farmland, whether or not infrastructure is destroyed. All the better if it's destroyed, then russian companies can all get contracts to rebuild. The US wouldn't be guilty of that now would it?
4. Also, and maybe I'm giving russia too much credit, but to me at least it makes sense that they'd send in their crap weaponry first and hold back on using anything really high tech. This is a slog, and russia has the patience, and there's also the threat that some western alliance might strike back at russia at some point, so save the good stuff for if that happens. The low-tech approach is working, it's just slow (again, slow in the eyes of the western world who hasn't fought a war like this in 70 years).
Maybe russia is a paper tiger and I'm totally off base, but that's how I see it as of now. And lol how the US civs have all suddenly learned what HIMARS is, it's the latest fad.
The only thing I'd add is that I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't care if 3k or 30k soldiers have been killed. That's where I think the western media has blinders on.
That is why Russia will lose. Among others. Russia's population is ~3x larger than Ukraine's. But, Russia has been taking casualties at ~3x the Ukrainian rate. Now look at Russia. It is a huge nation. It is held together by a handful of gossamer railroads and dilapidated highways, and it takes a lot of people just to make it work. All of its neighbors are hostile and have a history of military conflict with Russia, mostly recent, and Russia has many neighbors. Russia regularly antagonizes neighbors for no useful reason. Russia's population is not highly motivated to fight Ukraine. Russia is in a fragile position and cannot afford a 3:1 or even 2:1 losing casualty ratio with Ukraine, and maybe not even 1:1. Ukraine is compact, densely populated, has historically friendly or indifferent relations with all its neighbors except recently Russia, and has a highly motivated population.
Ukraine is backed by a consortium of countries with much larger population, more manufacturing, more advanced manufacturing, and most of the planet's wealth. They will get better weapons the longer the war lasts, while Russians will get worse weapons. Russia was able to attempt division and economic pain on "the West" in the past and get results, but now "the West" is onto them, and the more Russia antagonizes the more motivated "the West" will be to help Ukraine.
Politically Ukraine has united and brought their best minds to bear on the task, and is more egalitarian and less corrupt than ever. Russia is indifferent, led by corrupt officials with no direct personal interest in the actual fighting, and composed of many ethnic groups spread over a vast area. Much of Russia is shockingly poor and undeveloped as a result of local resources being diverted to corruption in Moscow with no local investment. Russians will largely have little interest or ability to contribute to the war.
Basically all the macros point to Ukraine winning, IMO, and IMO substantially within the next 12 months. This was decided by the end of February 2022, based on 1) Russia wasting their strategic advantage at the start, 2) Ukraine uniting against Russia, 3) "Western" nations deciding on whole-sale backing of Ukraine. The biggest wild card is the nature of support Ukraine receives.
(Not a military expert or even close)
Somebody needs to start a betting odds thread. Obviously I think you are badly mistaken but I admit I could be wrong too. Oh to be a fly in the wall in those russkie meetings.
-
Basically all the macros point to Ukraine winning, IMO, and IMO substantially within the next 12 months. This was decided by the end of February 2022, based on 1) Russia wasting their strategic advantage at the start, 2) Ukraine uniting against Russia, 3) "Western" nations deciding on whole-sale backing of Ukraine. The biggest wild card is the nature of support Ukraine receives.
(Not a military expert or even close)
I think that right now the biggest threat to Ukraine is Western Europe getting tired of high energy prices and sending arms. There are already rumors of this in the media. But Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland remain firmly on the Ukrainian side.
-
Basically all the macros point to Ukraine winning, IMO, and IMO substantially within the next 12 months. This was decided by the end of February 2022, based on 1) Russia wasting their strategic advantage at the start, 2) Ukraine uniting against Russia, 3) "Western" nations deciding on whole-sale backing of Ukraine. The biggest wild card is the nature of support Ukraine receives.
(Not a military expert or even close)
I think that right now the biggest threat to Ukraine is Western Europe getting tired of high energy prices and sending arms. There are already rumors of this in the media. But Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland remain firmly on the Ukrainian side.
I think they understand the Russians better than most Western countries. You can practically hear the laughter across the Atlantic when some of the countries offer advice about negotiating with the Russians.
A few weeks ago I saw videos about the Ukrainians being outgunned by howitzers 20:1. It seems like Western aid just dribbles in a bit at a time. It could be that the public isn't being told of the "real" aid given to Ukraine. It could be that many countries simply don't have the equipment to spare. In fact some seem to give up planes, tanks and howitzers and then depend upon neighboring countries for their protection.
Russians seem to gain a little ground every day. There are strong indications now the Lukashenko will send the troops of Belarus to aid Russia. The soldiers of the DPR and LPR have served them great as cannon fodder while Russian troops made up the rear.
Western politicians had a conference on rebuilding Ukraine. I found this a bit bizarre when the war is still going full throttle.
Russia has been pulling out old Soviet armaments. There seems to be a great deal of stock.
I just hope the West can keep supporting the Ukrainians. Russia may not treat defeated nations with kindness.
-
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
Um, we did in fact go into Iraq and completely take over the country. What on earth are you talking about? Now, it was a terrible idea and it ended badly, but in terms of militarily taking over, we did that no problem. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was widely (including by me) expected to be a rehash of that scenario.
Imagine instead that the US had lost 25,000 or so dead and another 75,000 injured...
The peak YEAR for US military deaths in the US (2007) was 904. Russia's casualty rate per year is something on the order of 75 times that much.
Yeah, not comparable at all...
Also, for what it's worth, Russia (via proxies) already controlled most of Donesk and Luhansk before the war started. So it is essentially true that they have spent 3.5 months to go a few tens of kilometers in those areas.
That said, slow progress is still progress.
-W
-
You could be right, nobody on this forum knows the truth, myself included. The only thing I'd add is that I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't care if 3k or 30k soldiers have been killed. That's where I think the western media has blinders on.
I'm certain Russia doesn't care as well. My point is simply that operationally it is hard to replace that number of troops.
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
The vast majority of those troops leave after their initial 1-year conscription. So twice a year you have a quarter of your unit turnover to be replaced with new untrained Soldiers. Realistically they're getting maybe 6 months of useful service out of conscripts.
-
Basically all the macros point to Ukraine winning, IMO, and IMO substantially within the next 12 months. This was decided by the end of February 2022, based on 1) Russia wasting their strategic advantage at the start, 2) Ukraine uniting against Russia, 3) "Western" nations deciding on whole-sale backing of Ukraine. The biggest wild card is the nature of support Ukraine receives.
(Not a military expert or even close)
I think that right now the biggest threat to Ukraine is Western Europe getting tired of high energy prices and sending arms. There are already rumors of this in the media. But Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland remain firmly on the Ukrainian side.
The price of energy is less of a worry than it's continued supply, apparently. Germany is preparing for a shut off of Russian oil by getting coal production back into gear until more sustainable energy sources can take over in future. I'm sure other countries are doing there own replacement analyses. Already, Europeans are being asked to conserve energy as much as possible.
Russia holds the cards here, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to shoot themselves in the foot and turn off the tap entirely. Where else will they get money from?
-
Obviously I think you are badly mistaken but I admit I could be wrong too.
I'm curious which parts you think are mistaken?
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
If I understand the situation correctly, because this is a "special operation" and not a war, the conscripts cannot legally be sent into battle. Although there are reports of conscripts being sent into battle, for the most part Russian soldiers are on contracts.
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
If I understand the situation correctly, because this is a "special operation" and not a war, the conscripts cannot legally be sent into battle. Although there are reports of conscripts being sent into battle, for the most part Russian soldiers are on contracts.
For the most part this is true. The conscripts aren't in the fight. The point is that 25% of the Russian army never achieves a very high level of training whether they're used or not. Also, most of the training is conducted "on the job" by a cadre within the brigade or regiment. They go from basic training to active duty units rather than a follow-on school. With a significant portion of the Russian army currently fighting in Ukraine, this means the current conscript cohort is likely being trained at a reduced level away from their bases or units not participating in the war are doubling up on conscripts to train. Many of those conscripts will turn over after a year and sign longer-term contracts to stay in and be expected to help train the next cohort. The manpower situation is detrimental to the long-term health of their army.
-
3. As for what russia gets out of all this. I agree with the buffer part. The soviet union was really humiliated and torn apart when the cold war ended. Similar to Germany after WWI. It makes some sort of sense that Putin would try to do what he's doing just through the lens of humiliation of the country. Also, they get a ton of mineral resources and farmland, whether or not infrastructure is destroyed. All the better if it's destroyed, then russian companies can all get contracts to rebuild. The US wouldn't be guilty of that now would it?
4. Also, and maybe I'm giving russia too much credit, but to me at least it makes sense that they'd send in their crap weaponry first and hold back on using anything really high tech. This is a slog, and russia has the patience, and there's also the threat that some western alliance might strike back at russia at some point, so save the good stuff for if that happens. The low-tech approach is working, it's just slow (again, slow in the eyes of the western world who hasn't fought a war like this in 70 years).
Maybe russia is a paper tiger and I'm totally off base, but that's how I see it as of now. And lol how the US civs have all suddenly learned what HIMARS is, it's the latest fad.
I can respond to a couple of your points. I spent a couple years in Russia around 2000-2002, and can tell that national pride is a huge deal for a significant portion of the population, particularly the older generation. There's a huge sense of paradise lost in connection with Russia's reputational downfall since 1989. The younger generation, at least the ones I interacted with, didn't have the same sense of loss or reminiscence of days of glory long past.
On #4, from what I've seen (and I've been following it pretty closely), this isn't the case. Russia sent in the best they had right from the start. Their much-vaunted VDV got slaughtered in multiple arenas. They only have limited (and dwindling) numbers of their most modern tanks, and only a handful (literally, single digits) of their most modern aircraft. Sending 60's-era tanks didn't happen for the first couple of months. They lost their most modern cruiser (Moskva), and their most modern air defense systems couldn't hold Snake Island. They started off using their most advanced precision cruise missiles, and currently are using long-range anti-ship missiles to attack land targets in western Ukraine.
Granted, we *did* see a whole lot of poorly-trained, poorly-equipped troops in the early days of the war. It's possible that all the recruiting and don't-call-it-conscription are being done in order to preserve better-trained or -equipped forces in case of an attack by NATO. But nothing I've seen so far would support such a conclusion, at least on any significant scale. It's really hard to keep large numbers of modern tanks or airplanes or rocket launchers hidden.
The Russian army has been fighting with the same weapon systems we expected them to. Units identified in the field by name have been cross-referenced with their pre-war tables of organization, equipment losses, and they match. What we are seeing now after four months of attrition is older tanks coming out of storage that have been there since the end of the Cold War without the upgrades that most of the fleet received in the early 2000s and in far fewer numbers than needed to replace one for one. It might not matter since one tank is better than no tank, but it is an indication that they're running low. There are also a number of T-62s appearing in southern Ukraine which haven't been on active duty for about 15 years and have different crew and ammo requirements.
The Russian air force is another matter. They are likely holding back their better equipment for a possible NATO fight since a large portion of the fleet is simply not involved in the war. The last two pilots to be captured were also Wagner mercenaries rather than VKS pilots which could mean they're either running short, or keeping their uniformed pilots back. Many of the air-launched cruise missiles fired lately have been Kh-22 anti ship missiles which are 1) decades old and 2) designed to hit ships on the water rather than picking out one building amongst dozens so accuracy has been terrible. Again this is an indication that they're either saving the rest of their Kh-101s for a future war or they're running out.
-
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
Um, we did in fact go into Iraq and completely take over the country. What on earth are you talking about? Now, it was a terrible idea and it ended badly, but in terms of militarily taking over, we did that no problem. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was widely (including by me) expected to be a rehash of that scenario.
Imagine instead that the US had lost 25,000 or so dead and another 75,000 injured...
The peak YEAR for US military deaths in the US (2007) was 904. Russia's casualty rate per year is something on the order of 75 times that much.
Yeah, not comparable at all...
Also, for what it's worth, Russia (via proxies) already controlled most of Donesk and Luhansk before the war started. So it is essentially true that they have spent 3.5 months to go a few tens of kilometers in those areas.
That said, slow progress is still progress.
-W
No we didn't. Our goal was never to literally annex the country and make it another state.
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
The vast majority of those troops leave after their initial 1-year conscription. So twice a year you have a quarter of your unit turnover to be replaced with new untrained Soldiers. Realistically they're getting maybe 6 months of useful service out of conscripts.
Agreed. It is not a way I'd choose to organize an army.
But it does mean that the Russian military is set up to train substantially more new soldiers per year than one would otherwise guess from its size. The US armed forces include roughly 160% as many total active duty personnel as the Russian ones, but only need to train about half as many new people each year as the Russians do*. That difference is driven by longer service terms associated with being all-volunteer rather than substantially conscription driven.
*The training US soldiers get sounds like it is a lot better, and that's before you consider the benefits of continuing to improve skills and and gather more experience throughout a longer term of service.
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
The vast majority of those troops leave after their initial 1-year conscription. So twice a year you have a quarter of your unit turnover to be replaced with new untrained Soldiers. Realistically they're getting maybe 6 months of useful service out of conscripts.
Agreed. It is not a way I'd choose to organize an army.
But it does mean that the Russian military is set up to train substantially more new soldiers per year than one would otherwise guess from its size. The US armed forces include roughly 160% as many total active duty personnel as the Russian ones, but only need to train about half as many new people each year as the Russians do*. That difference is driven by longer service terms associated with being all-volunteer rather than substantially conscription driven.
*The training US soldiers get sounds like it is a lot better, and that's before you consider the benefits of continuing to improve skills and and gather more experience throughout a longer term of service.
How are the people doing the fighting being trained, i.e. the Ukrainians? There seems to be a lot of foreign training on weapons systems and for special forces. What about all of these conscripted people?
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
The vast majority of those troops leave after their initial 1-year conscription. So twice a year you have a quarter of your unit turnover to be replaced with new untrained Soldiers. Realistically they're getting maybe 6 months of useful service out of conscripts.
Agreed. It is not a way I'd choose to organize an army.
But it does mean that the Russian military is set up to train substantially more new soldiers per year than one would otherwise guess from its size. The US armed forces include roughly 160% as many total active duty personnel as the Russian ones, but only need to train about half as many new people each year as the Russians do*. That difference is driven by longer service terms associated with being all-volunteer rather than substantially conscription driven.
*The training US soldiers get sounds like it is a lot better, and that's before you consider the benefits of continuing to improve skills and gather more experience throughout a longer term of service.
Another aspect is that in the US military every new recruit goes through 4-12 months of initial training (basic training and whatever additional training for their particular job) before they even get to a unit. So, there is still a fair amount of on-the-job training by the new unit, but at least new recruits are showing up in reasonable physical condition with some training. I can complain about the quality of that training and how standards have changed over the nearly 20 years since I went through, but it's still far better than the Russians are getting. Also, you're getting people for generally 4+ years so you can invest 8-12 months in training a new recruit in something highly technical like helicopter maintenance or satellite communications as you'll still get a few years of service out of them.
-
On #4, from what I've seen (and I've been following it pretty closely), this isn't the case. Russia sent in the best they had right from the start. Their much-vaunted VDV got slaughtered in multiple arenas. They only have limited (and dwindling) numbers of their most modern tanks, and only a handful (literally, single digits) of their most modern aircraft. Sending 60's-era tanks didn't happen for the first couple of months. They lost their most modern cruiser (Moskva), and their most modern air defense systems couldn't hold Snake Island. They started off using their most advanced precision cruise missiles, and currently are using long-range anti-ship missiles to attack land targets in western Ukraine.
A BBC segment, watch and see what y'all think. Looks like Russia was sending some of its best anyway.
https://youtu.be/9jrS1xpbNFA
-
For a sense of scale: the Russian military brings in something like 130,000 new conscript troops 2x per year.
The training russian troops receive isn't the greatest, but, whatever that training is worth, their armed forces are set up to provide it to about a quarter million new people each year.
The vast majority of those troops leave after their initial 1-year conscription. So twice a year you have a quarter of your unit turnover to be replaced with new untrained Soldiers. Realistically they're getting maybe 6 months of useful service out of conscripts.
Agreed. It is not a way I'd choose to organize an army.
But it does mean that the Russian military is set up to train substantially more new soldiers per year than one would otherwise guess from its size. The US armed forces include roughly 160% as many total active duty personnel as the Russian ones, but only need to train about half as many new people each year as the Russians do*. That difference is driven by longer service terms associated with being all-volunteer rather than substantially conscription driven.
*The training US soldiers get sounds like it is a lot better, and that's before you consider the benefits of continuing to improve skills and and gather more experience throughout a longer term of service.
How are the people doing the fighting being trained, i.e. the Ukrainians? There seems to be a lot of foreign training on weapons systems and for special forces. What about all of these conscripted people?
The British Army trained 24,000 Ukrainians from 2016 up to the start of the war.
-
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
Um, we did in fact go into Iraq and completely take over the country. What on earth are you talking about? Now, it was a terrible idea and it ended badly, but in terms of militarily taking over, we did that no problem. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was widely (including by me) expected to be a rehash of that scenario.
Imagine instead that the US had lost 25,000 or so dead and another 75,000 injured...
The peak YEAR for US military deaths in the US (2007) was 904. Russia's casualty rate per year is something on the order of 75 times that much.
Yeah, not comparable at all...
Also, for what it's worth, Russia (via proxies) already controlled most of Donesk and Luhansk before the war started. So it is essentially true that they have spent 3.5 months to go a few tens of kilometers in those areas.
That said, slow progress is still progress.
-W
No we didn't. Our goal was never to literally annex the country and make it another state.
You said "take over", not "annex and make it another state".
And regardless, insomuch as I understand your point, you are saying that this war is comparable to the Iraq war. I think that's a pretty big stretch, as I pointed out using casualty numbers.
Can you state your point more clearly if I've misunderstood you?
-W
-
2. I feel that the western media has been viewing this conflict through a US-centric lens and comparing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq with the intention of completely taking over the country, instead we concentrated on strategic pinpoint attacks to take out particular military infrastructure for regime change. The russian invasion is different to me and the world hasn't seen anything like it in a long time. It's a straight up takeover. So yeah, it's to be expected that there's going to be ugly trench warfare with massive losses from artillary and bombing. The narrative that russia is losing because they didn't take over the entire country in a few weeks or whatever is way off the mark. Russia now controls a non-insignificant portion of the country in just a few months. We had 20yrs in Afghanistan and let's not talk about Iraq, and neither of those were a full out invasion.
Um, we did in fact go into Iraq and completely take over the country. What on earth are you talking about? Now, it was a terrible idea and it ended badly, but in terms of militarily taking over, we did that no problem. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was widely (including by me) expected to be a rehash of that scenario.
Imagine instead that the US had lost 25,000 or so dead and another 75,000 injured...
The peak YEAR for US military deaths in the US (2007) was 904. Russia's casualty rate per year is something on the order of 75 times that much.
Yeah, not comparable at all...
Also, for what it's worth, Russia (via proxies) already controlled most of Donesk and Luhansk before the war started. So it is essentially true that they have spent 3.5 months to go a few tens of kilometers in those areas.
That said, slow progress is still progress.
-W
No we didn't. Our goal was never to literally annex the country and make it another state.
You said "take over", not "annex and make it another state".
And regardless, insomuch as I understand your point, you are saying that this war is comparable to the Iraq war. I think that's a pretty big stretch, as I pointed out using casualty numbers.
Can you state your point more clearly if I've misunderstood you?
-W
I think you misunderstood my entire point.
-
I think you misunderstood my entire point.
Yes, that's why I asked if you could clarify.
-W
-
I think you misunderstood my entire point.
Yes, that's why I asked if you could clarify.
-W
Honestly I'm not sure I could make it any more clear than I did. Not sure if you're being purposely dense or what but I'm not going to spend any more brain bandwidth on it.
-
I guess I *think* you're arguing that Russia isn't trying/doing their best and/or is intentionally taking their time/huge casualties?
I don't know why anyone would want to prolong a war, and my presumption is that Russia sent most of their best forces and wanted to win quickly. Now they're forced to fall back on throwing infinite amounts of poorly trained troops and old equipment into the meat grinder and hope that Ukraine runs out of poorly trained troops/old junk first, while firing anti-ship missiles at apartment buildings.
If we've learned anything, it's that an actual war with NATO, Ukrainian buffer zone or not, would be over very quickly either via NATO victory or mutual nuclear armageddon. Russia might as well retire their conventional military and save their money for maintaining nukes.
-W
-
I thought Russia used the military to help with fighting wild fires, the harvest, and other things that require lots of labor? If so, then getting rid of the military would mean they'd have to pay people to do that stuff. (some sarcasm, but also some serious there)
Big Owl, I read your post as:
1. you think Russia's going to win
2. you think western media is comparing Iraq/Afghanistan to the Russia-Ukraine war, and you think that's an incorrect comparison.
3. buffer
4. Russia is taking things slow, save the good stuff for later
I disagree with you on the first point and I have no opinion on the second. I'm not watching what western media's interpretation is, so can't speak to them. I do agree that what Russia is doing (or trying to do) is different than what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ukraine's going to win. It might take a long time, there might not be much left of Ukraine, but ultimately Russia isn't going to be able to hold on to the country. There's already partisan activity happening in occupied areas, and speculation that Ukrainians in Russia are also causing some havoc.
3rd point, makes sense, but I certainly don't know what's in Putin's head. Could be wrong, could be right. As for #4, from what I've seen Russia did throw at least a good chunk of their best into the fight already. See the open source intelligence accounts on Twitter tracking confirmed destroyed equipment, and videos/pictures of the much older equipment coming out as time has gone on.
-
On the subject of Russia supposedly not yet sending their best, this YouTube video argues that there is no evidence for that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lem3enNkbV0
I'm no expert but to my layman's eyes the video looked very well researched.
I also see no reason why Russia would have been holding back its best troops or materiel. The initial invasion plan seemed to rely on overwhelming Ukraine in a lightning campaign of a few days at most. Why hold back in those circumstances? Withholding your best in that context just risks wasting the element of surprise, time, and lives. (Not that Russia much cares about the intrinsic value of human life, but all else being equal, they'd still choose whichever option doesn't squander their soldiers' lives.)
Of course, Russia is currently advancing only slowly but that appears to be because of how many casualties they have suffered and the concomitant need to pave the way for their infantry with artillery. I see no evidence for some sort of Russian master plan to suddenly overwhelm Ukraine with elite units that had been carefully held in reserve till now. Of course, if anyone else does see such evidence, I'd love to hear about it.
Oh, and for the record I didn't get big_owl's point either.
-
The only troops and equipment being held back are those protecting high value locations/people in Russia. It's highly unlikely they'll ever be sent to the front as doing so would put the people in power at risk.
-
I thought Russia used the military to help with fighting wild fires, the harvest, and other things that require lots of labor? If so, then getting rid of the military would mean they'd have to pay people to do that stuff. (some sarcasm, but also some serious there)
Big Owl, I read your post as:
1. you think Russia's going to win
2. you think western media is comparing Iraq/Afghanistan to the Russia-Ukraine war, and you think that's an incorrect comparison.
3. buffer
4. Russia is taking things slow, save the good stuff for later
I disagree with you on the first point and I have no opinion on the second. I'm not watching what western media's interpretation is, so can't speak to them. I do agree that what Russia is doing (or trying to do) is different than what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ukraine's going to win. It might take a long time, there might not be much left of Ukraine, but ultimately Russia isn't going to be able to hold on to the country. There's already partisan activity happening in occupied areas, and speculation that Ukrainians in Russia are also causing some havoc.
3rd point, makes sense, but I certainly don't know what's in Putin's head. Could be wrong, could be right. As for #4, from what I've seen Russia did throw at least a good chunk of their best into the fight already. See the open source intelligence accounts on Twitter tracking confirmed destroyed equipment, and videos/pictures of the much older equipment coming out as time has gone on.
Yes you are 100% correct regarding my viewpoint. Of course we can disagree on whether you think I'm correct, though I'm almost certain to be wrong on some of it. I realize my opinions are not very popular.
-
I don't think the Russians care about accuracy, and they obviously don't care about taking over abandoned, flattened, burned out territory. So I'm not sure the great accuracy of the various weapons the Ukrainians have will matter. The Russians will just keep sending more old junk and keep slowly advancing, unless something changes.
What exactly Russia gets out of all this I have no idea, of course.
-W
That is my thought as well. Okay, they reduce Ukraine to ruins. I'm sure there are plenty of ruined Russian cities already left over from the Soviet era. Are they seizing Ukrainian farms and wheat capability?
Do they REALLY think NATO would cross their border unprovoked?
This website has plenty of ruined Russian places detailed: https://englishrussia.com/
It's less about wheat farms (though that is very nice), it's about the 80% of Ukraines heavy industry in the Donezk+Luhansk area. Not only the capability, but also that without those parts Ukraine has a hard time surviving as a country (which is the main goal).
Primary goal of Putin was always to make Ukraine into a puppet state (or downright annex), secondary was to destabilize it so much that it sooner or later will become that.
Russia is expending enormous quantities of artillery ammunition. If they are truly breaking out their stockpiles from the 70's and 80's, and if they are getting supplies from Belarus, that tells me that they are A) running out of their own stock, B) having trouble getting it from their stockpiles to Ukraine, C) unable to produce enough, or D) all of the above.
I think you got that partly wrong.
Russia is getting Cold War area ammo out because they have so much of that stuff. It may not be meant literally, but it is described as "anough artillery shells for a hundred year long war".
Getting that now is just normal procedure for a war lasting longer than a few days.
In the rest you are right: What the Russians do have problems is getting that ammo to the front lines. And that is imho what Ukraine is aiming at: They have blasted ammo depots far in back with the HIMAR's etc. Russia has to unload it 100km or more from the trains which are supposed to be the medium which transports the ammo to the front lines.
Ukraine is trying to recreate the logistical nightmare the Russians had in the first weeks. You problably need more than 10 trucks (and personnell) to fuel a single heavy artillery if it fires continously.
Almost all wars get ended by 2 things: 1) morale 2) supplies.
My intelligence says who gives a flying fuck about HIMARS.
Your intelligence sounds like it's the same that give Putin the reports that said that the Ukrainians won't fight back.
Yeah, a hand full of HIMARs or Panzerhaubitze 2000 won't do much in a front line battle. What they can do is blowing up ammo depots and other important targets without the Russians having a chance to fire back. Which is not war deciding but certainly a felt headache. Especially if such an important target is the Snake Island.
and Russia turned out to be far more incompetent that anyone believed.
Not really. Incompetent was the belief that Ukraine would falter like a wet towel again. Which was based on "Only tell me what I want to hear" reports, which is (surprisingly?) often how autocracies stumble. (You might want to read up on the fall of East Germany if you want to have fun, on topics like painted trees and shops that were stuffed only for the one day the head of state visited. Or for that matter how Stalin's farmers fullfilled their unreachable meat quotas for a dark end story.)
Based on those intelligence reports Russia did nothing wrong in their attack planning, and don't forget that their win in Kyiev was largely a very lucky incident around a group of civilians with drones. What if one of the assassinations on the Ukranian president (I think there were 3?) in the first days had succeeded? His Charisma and media appearance certainly helped a lot. What if the 30 mile convoy would not have been stalled for days by the drone group and false intelligence they (or their comrades) gave? Or what if the Ukrainian troops had not been able to hold the Antonov airport by a hair's width until reinforcements arrived? A few hours under Russian control was all they needed to land thousands of troops. But instead one the transports was shot down and the rest turned away.
If thesy would have landed, Russia woudl have a bridgehead, the convoy would likely not have been stalled and Kyiv would have been under heavy artillery fire 2 days in the attack.
I think that right now the biggest threat to Ukraine is Western Europe getting tired of high energy prices and sending arms.
Yeah, that's the deciding factor. I would not at all be surprised if the routine maintenance of the Nordstream pipeline that starts next week will take longer than unusual because "because of sanctions we don't have spare parts to repair it".
Western politicians had a conference on rebuilding Ukraine. I found this a bit bizarre when the war is still going full throttle.
That is what the Ukrainians want though. I think this is A) for PR reasons (we will win!) and B) because it's a lot easier to get promises now than in half a year when they might have won but Europe is in a economic depression for lack of gas and the cruelty of the war is out of the public mind. Of course C) it helps to have things planned before oyu start them is also a point.
I thought Russia used the military to help with fighting wild fires, the harvest, and other things that require lots of labor? If so, then getting rid of the military would mean they'd have to pay people to do that stuff.
No. Things ust burn down in the tundra.
-
Ukraine targets Russia’s ammunition depots, undermining its artillery advantage
July 8, 2022 2:02 am
by Illia Ponomarenko
"Now that Ukraine has acquired advanced Western artillery and rocket systems, it has gradually begun a campaign to take out Russia’s key military infrastructure. Over the last four weeks, nearly 20 Russian ammunition depots in Russian-occupied Donbas and Ukraine’s south, including some of the largest, have been hit or completely destroyed."
https://kyivindependent.com/national/1234
-
Ukraine targets Russia’s ammunition depots, undermining its artillery advantage
July 8, 2022 2:02 am
by Illia Ponomarenko
"Now that Ukraine has acquired advanced Western artillery and rocket systems, it has gradually begun a campaign to take out Russia’s key military infrastructure. Over the last four weeks, nearly 20 Russian ammunition depots in Russian-occupied Donbas and Ukraine’s south, including some of the largest, have been hit or completely destroyed."
https://kyivindependent.com/national/1234
From the article:
“One must clearly understand that the Soviet Union produced munitions enough to wage a thousand years of war,” says Igal Levin, a Ukraine-born Israeli defense expert.
Wow! Millions of artillery rounds. I guess losing 27 million people in a World War leads to a certain amount of paranoia.
-
It seems to me that Ukraine should next be targeting locomotives. Russia may have millions of shells stockpiled, but if they can't move 'em....
-
It seems to me that Ukraine should next be targeting locomotives. Russia may have millions of shells stockpiled, but if they can't move 'em....
I assume in most places Russia can't get a train into Ukraine due to destroyed infrastructure. There's probably only a handful of railroads and replacing a destroyed railroad bridge is much harder than getting something that a truck can use. Trains are only going to get stuff in the general area and then it's all trucks from there. To target a locomotive with a HIMARS would take a lot of coordination with a drone providing real-time intelligence to make sure it wasn't moving.
Russia has been targeting Ukranian railroad infrastructure all throughout the country. Either the switching yards themselves, or the electrical grid that supports it. A substation is a pretty easy target to identify and hit. They know that Ukraine needs their railroads to get arms and munitions from the west.
-
It seems to me that Ukraine should next be targeting locomotives. Russia may have millions of shells stockpiled, but if they can't move 'em....
I assume in most places Russia can't get a train into Ukraine due to destroyed infrastructure. There's probably only a handful of railroads and replacing a destroyed railroad bridge is much harder than getting something that a truck can use. Trains are only going to get stuff in the general area and then it's all trucks from there. To target a locomotive with a HIMARS would take a lot of coordination with a drone providing real-time intelligence to make sure it wasn't moving.
Russia has been targeting Ukranian railroad infrastructure all throughout the country. Either the switching yards themselves, or the electrical grid that supports it. A substation is a pretty easy target to identify and hit. They know that Ukraine needs their railroads to get arms and munitions from the west.
I know nothing about artillery but couldn't they zero in on the track and pull the trigger when the locomotive reaches that spot? Or use the shoulder mounted gear that we've seen used on tanks? Who are operating the trains? Military or civilians?
-
It seems to me that Ukraine should next be targeting locomotives. Russia may have millions of shells stockpiled, but if they can't move 'em....
Russia runs on its railways, no chance anyone could make it run out of locomotives.
-
If they hit a couple of railroad cars filled with artillery shells, how big would the hole be where the track used to be?
-
It doesn't take long to fill in a hole and rebuild crater length tracks. If you're motivated enough, I'd say two days.
I'm all for hitting the locomotives. If Ukraine can destroy Russian locomotives at the speed they've been able to destroy Russian tanks it may have a significant impact on Russia's ability to wage war. But hey there's military experts in Ukraine who know this stuff a whole lot better that we do.
-
Take out the locomotive, the ensuing derailment and track damage might take a while to cleanup. Not to mention damage to the weapons riding that train. To be even more aggressive would be to attack the wreck again in mid-cleanup. Perhaps when the ammo is scattered about or perhaps easier to blow up armored vehicles that were spilled from the train causing a spreading fire to consumes many armored vehicles.
-
This site suggests that Russia has 10,000 freight locomotives. Targetting locomotives is not going to be a productive use of expensive munitions. Targetting the fuel and ammunition dumps next to the railways is a better bet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/
-
This site suggests that Russia has 10,000 freight locomotives. Targetting locomotives is not going to be a productive use of expensive munitions. Targetting the fuel and ammunition dumps next to the railways is a better bet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/
Plus, if you blow up a fuel/ammo depot, there's going to be secondary explosions. So you might get damage to the locomotives and tracks as well.
-
Russia has a literal army dedicated to just maintaining and operating its railroad infrastructure. Targeting a section of rail with a missile is an absolute waste since you're striking mostly dirt, and a few meters of metal and wood are easy to replace. Ukraine has figured out how to drop a few bridges with missiles and sabotage, but even some of these have been repaired in a matter of days. Destroying locomotives or trainloads of ammo is possible if the recon and timing works out, but it would need to be a continuous effort since the effect would only last a few days. If Ukraine can dedicate the weapons to hitting depots, locomotives, and bridges full-time, then the effects would be felt after a couple weeks as supplies dwindle.
-
This site suggests that Russia has 10,000 freight locomotives. Targetting locomotives is not going to be a productive use of expensive munitions. Targetting the fuel and ammunition dumps next to the railways is a better bet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/
Everyone also thought Russia had 10,000 tanks at the beginning of this...
-
This site suggests that Russia has 10,000 freight locomotives. Targetting locomotives is not going to be a productive use of expensive munitions. Targetting the fuel and ammunition dumps next to the railways is a better bet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/
Everyone also thought Russia had 10,000 tanks at the beginning of this...
It's all those shells that are the true target. Is their storage locations a secret. Would good warehouse fires create some real fireworks?
-
This site suggests that Russia has 10,000 freight locomotives. Targetting locomotives is not going to be a productive use of expensive munitions. Targetting the fuel and ammunition dumps next to the railways is a better bet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/
Everyone also thought Russia had 10,000 tanks at the beginning of this...
Did everyone?
This suggests 3,300 in operation at the start of the Ukraine war and many thousands more in store of variable operability.
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1546213847618437122
-
This site suggests that Russia has 10,000 freight locomotives. Targetting locomotives is not going to be a productive use of expensive munitions. Targetting the fuel and ammunition dumps next to the railways is a better bet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/
Everyone also thought Russia had 10,000 tanks at the beginning of this...
Did everyone?
This suggests 3,300 in operation at the start of the Ukraine war and many thousands more in store of variable operability.
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1546213847618437122
Wiki says they have a lot in storage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country)
I guess that could mean anything. Those thousands of tanks could be in a junkyard somewhere next to some old Lada Russian cars and one 1978 Ford Fairlane.
-
Yes you are 100% correct regarding my viewpoint. Of course we can disagree on whether you think I'm correct, though I'm almost certain to be wrong on some of it. I realize my opinions are not very popular.
Popularity doesn't matter. What mechanisms do you see Russia winning by, and what flaws do you see in others' arguments?
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
This HIMARS seems to be a game changer. If they can blow up all the large Russian ammunition from afar, the Russian tanks, and other large destructive weapons then maybe they can escort the Russians to the border and cut a deal with the separatists.
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
Don't you think that what you have been seeing the whole time is the last two weeks, and you are extrapolating the trailing 14-day average through forever, which is not a good predictive technique?
-
I guess that the best outcome for Russia is either Crimea or Donetsk. But not likely both. Maybe neither. I perceive that the important strategic battle is for the land between Crimea and the Dnipro River. It has the huge power plant at Enerhodar, the dam, the source of the Crimea water supply, and one of two (plus the only real) land route into Crimea. Also if Ukraine can extend control to the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, eventually they will develop or be given weapons which can destroy the Black Sea Fleet and the Kerch Bridge, which would be a distance of just about 180-160km depending. That would give them huge leverage, and they could insist on return of one or the other, and possibly both provinces. Expect that area to be the main area of the conflict going forward. I think Russia has in fact been making a strategic mistake by wasting so many resources the two months on a small area of land that is a shallow political goal but not a strategic goal.
Also as a general note about everything I say in this thread: I am totally speaking out of my ass, and don't have the slightest clue, which is why I have the confidence to say it. I have been motivated to post by a lot of pessimism I see here which seems to my eyes to be missing some very obvious trends. But I don't think my predictions have been bad by any means.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktJNrw6dxwo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktJNrw6dxwo)
Interview with Ukrainian officer about the state of the tank war between Ukraine and Russia.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1546124632125743104.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1546124632125743104.html)
Translated summary of key points.
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
I'm cautiously optimistic. <puts on armchair general hat> After Russia's initial objectives failed, she reconstituted her forces in the Donbass, as we all know. Since then Russia has used its advantage in manpower and equipment to make some incremental gains at high cost. Presumably, Ukraine has also suffer high losses as well. But Ukraine seems to be willing to cede land in exchange for preserving troops and equipment, essentially buying time.
To me, this seems to be a wise strategy because Ukraine is going stronger thanks to supplies of western equipment and call-ups of veterans and training of new soldiers:
Ukraine has touted plans to amass a "million-strong army" equipped with Nato weapons to fight Russian forces.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62118953
Let's take the one million number with a big grain of salt, but by end of summer Ukraine should be able to field a large number of trained and well equipped troops.
Russia on the other hand, in relying on volunteers which by all accounts are poorly trained and poorly motivated. I think it unlikely Russia will be able to increase the number of troops on the battlefield by any significant amount. Russia also seems to be running short of equipment, as witnessed by sightings of obsolete T-62 tanks and legacy APCs. Russia is starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel already, in other words.
This problem is compounded by the fact that Russia absolutely sucks at logistics and has a large shortage of trucks. It is reasonable to assume that if ammo dumps keep getting hit at something like the current rate, Russian will soon not be able to effectively supply front line troops with ammunition. If that happens, Russia could wind up losing rapidly.
-
Dumb artillery is effective when you just want semirandom destruction across a wide area and don't care if it takes awhile (and an awful lot of shells) to pound everything into progressively smaller chunks so that you eventually "capture" some scattered piles of rubble where a city used to be.
And that is what they are doing. A German military just said in an interview that Russia can and likely is getting 70s + 80s era artillery shells out of storage. And they have a lot, while Ukraine has not.
The large numbers of Russian ammo dumps which have been blown up recently should give you an indication of how effective a low-CEP round can be.
-
A while ago we were debating if a large explosion could block the canal. The most recent mega-demilitarization of the Russian army was right beside its head structure! Great test case. My guess is no, if anything it would let more water in or jam the gates in whatever position they were in. Maybe make some interesting floaties. (there are two pictures linked, even though they don't show up on my phone)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXap7RuXkAAPhv6?format=png&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXaTY_nXEAEfjp7?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
Don't you think that what you have been seeing the whole time is the last two weeks, and you are extrapolating the trailing 14-day average through forever, which is not a good predictive technique?
I guess I was wrong about the guerilla aspect compared to conventional aspect of the prolonged war with heavy losses on both sides, and the exile. Already media is talking about “fatigue” in western countries for supporting the very high weapons burn rate of an only 4 month old war, which Ukraine optimistically predicts will last several more months. This is from giving a handful of 20-30 year old technology weapons to fight 30-40 year old weapons. Not exactly a heavy lift from NATO. The civilians have not acquiesced, which is good. So not completely accurate but a similar scenario is playing out.
We should revisit this in another 3 months and hopefully I’ll be even more wrong then!
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
Don't you think that what you have been seeing the whole time is the last two weeks, and you are extrapolating the trailing 14-day average through forever, which is not a good predictive technique?
I guess I was wrong about the guerilla aspect compared to conventional aspect of the prolonged war with heavy losses on both sides, and the exile. Already media is talking about “fatigue” in western countries for supporting the very high weapons burn rate of an only 4 month old war, which Ukraine optimistically predicts will last several more months. This is from giving a handful of 20-30 year old technology weapons to fight 30-40 year old weapons. Not exactly a heavy lift from NATO. The civilians have not acquiesced, which is good. So not completely accurate but a similar scenario is playing out.
We should revisit this in another 3 months and hopefully I’ll be even more wrong then!
I'm not seeing media chat about fatigue or burn out reflected in public opinion. Public opinion is still very firmly "fuck the Russians and give Ukraine whatever they need".
-
At this point I see no other option other than a stalemate, with Ukraine losing the eastern provinces currently under Russian occupation (either formally or practically). It sets a bad precedent, and obviously a terrible result for Ukrainians, but at least the losses inflicted will make Russia reluctant to try another land-grab elsewhere. Until the west forgets and decides to buy Russian fossil fuels and minerals again because inflation.
This is likely to become a prolonged guerrilla war with heavy losses on both sides. Eventually most civilians will tire of fighting and acquiesce to Russian demands. Zelensky and his government will eventually agree to go into exile to avoid more civilian deaths. NATO will send shipments to what resistance is left for a while, but then just stop because it’s pointless.
Don't you think that what you have been seeing the whole time is the last two weeks, and you are extrapolating the trailing 14-day average through forever, which is not a good predictive technique?
I guess I was wrong about the guerilla aspect compared to conventional aspect of the prolonged war with heavy losses on both sides, and the exile. Already media is talking about “fatigue” in western countries for supporting the very high weapons burn rate of an only 4 month old war, which Ukraine optimistically predicts will last several more months. This is from giving a handful of 20-30 year old technology weapons to fight 30-40 year old weapons. Not exactly a heavy lift from NATO. The civilians have not acquiesced, which is good. So not completely accurate but a similar scenario is playing out.
We should revisit this in another 3 months and hopefully I’ll be even more wrong then!
I'm not seeing media chat about fatigue or burn out reflected in public opinion. Public opinion is still very firmly "fuck the Russians and give Ukraine whatever they need".
I think we need to differentiate between the news cycle, and "eyes" on the problem, vs material support. Ukraine is not fresh and other catastrophes etc are moving it off the headline news. But generally governments move slower., delay between agreeements and fulfillment. As long as the governments, US included still keep their promises, Ukraine should keep being supplied. Might be a different answer if you ask me next year.
-
A recent poll in Germany reveals persistent strong, and for some unexpectedly strong, support for Ukraine in the German public at 70% overall. Even the radical left supports Ukraine to some degree with 45%. And of course and expectedly, the radical right supports Putin with only 14% support for Ukraine.
Green party voters support Ukraine at 95%, far exceeding any other group. I have mentioned upthread that the strong position of the Green party in the current German government is a very lucky break for Ukraine and this is born out once again.
Now I will state again that, for political reasons, Germany cannot appear to have brought defeat to Russia and Germany will likely try to continue to appear to support Ukraine reluctantly.
If Putin sees this as a lack of resolve, he would be making a deadly mistake.
This is all excellent news for Ukraine because public support for Ukraine in the face of worsening economic conditions is what will decide the outcome of the war.
https://twitter.com/COdendahl/status/1547842955116892160
-
It needs to be seen how long that resolves survives once there is a real gas shortage.
-
It needs to be seen how long that resolves survives once there is a real gas shortage.
Maybe - Germany has some smart people. These smart people will realize that Putin is creating this problem. Will the German people slink quietly away from the source of their dilemma or will their resolve be hardened and commit to the Ukrainian cause with even more ardent fervor? If this war is unresolved as the cold weather arrives, we may find out.
-
Update on manpower issues of the Russian Federation:
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER UNITS AND BATTALIONS
Jul 16, 2022 - Press ISW
Kateryna Stepanenko with George Barros and Frederick W. Kagan
The Russian Federation has launched a large-scale drive to form volunteer battalions in the 85 “federal subjects” (or regions) that comprise the federation. Recruiting for some volunteer battalions began in June but has intensified in July, with new volunteer units being reported daily. The battalions apparently will consist of roughly 400 men each aged between 18 and 60. They will belong to various branches of service including motorized rifle, tank, and naval infantry, but also signals and logistics. Recruits are not required to have prior military service and will undergo only 30 days of training before deployment to Ukraine.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-volunteer-units-and-battalions
-
Update on manpower issues of the Russian Federation:
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER UNITS AND BATTALIONS
Jul 16, 2022 - Press ISW
Kateryna Stepanenko with George Barros and Frederick W. Kagan
The Russian Federation has launched a large-scale drive to form volunteer battalions in the 85 “federal subjects” (or regions) that comprise the federation. Recruiting for some volunteer battalions began in June but has intensified in July, with new volunteer units being reported daily. The battalions apparently will consist of roughly 400 men each aged between 18 and 60. They will belong to various branches of service including motorized rifle, tank, and naval infantry, but also signals and logistics. Recruits are not required to have prior military service and will undergo only 30 days of training before deployment to Ukraine.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-volunteer-units-and-battalions
It's a bit interesting. 85 regions X 400 men / region = 34,000 men
It's close to the losses they have incurred. Losses are actually higher but include the cannon fodder they used from the "breakaway" provinces. More meat for the grinder?
-
Some evidence that Russia's struggling to feed its artillery after HIMARS-powered attack on ammo dumps:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1548560699567542273
-
Some evidence that Russia's struggling to feed its artillery after HIMARS-powered attack on ammo dumps:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1548560699567542273
Just in time delivery on the battlefield. I dare say that will not work very good. Good!
Next target are the train lines. There are not that many, of you take them out even half of the time, that will additionally loosen the firepower.
It seems "himaring" is becoming a verb in Ukraine.
-
Just in time delivery on the battlefield. I dare say that will not work very good. Good!
Next target are the train lines. There are not that many, of you take them out even half of the time, that will additionally loosen the firepower.
It seems "himaring" is becoming a verb in Ukraine.
[/quote]
Love to see it. Plus seeing reports that Ukrainian pilots are getting trained on F-14s and F-16s, and just now that Ukraine plans to "wipe out" Russia's Black Sea fleet. i wonder if those longer-range HIMARS rockets have anything to do with that plan...
-
Some evidence that Russia's struggling to feed its artillery after HIMARS-powered attack on ammo dumps:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1548560699567542273
Just in time delivery on the battlefield. I dare say that will not work very good. Good!
Next target are the train lines. There are not that many, of you take them out even half of the time, that will additionally loosen the firepower.
It seems "himaring" is becoming a verb in Ukraine.
From what I've heard, though, Russia has a huge corps of people whose specific job is to keep the railways in operation, so hitting railroad tracks may not be as effective at bottlenecking their logistics as we would wish.
Now, derail an ammunition train somehow, and then target that same area as the Russians attempt to clean it up? That might do a better job. Or simply start targetting locomotives.
I've seen it reported that the Russians are now locating their ammo dumps outside of HIMARS range (link (https://twitter.com/UkraineNewsLive/status/1548724070694490113)), which doubles the distance their trucks have to drive in order to deliver ordnance to their artillery. That means half as many trips to the front, accelerated wear on trucks, etc. This is a Good Thing. I think I heard they also relocated their Black Sea fleet away from Sevastopol.
-
The deployment of the HIMARS might be the single most impactful change to this war so far. Russia's advance has been completely stalled by a handful of these systems.
-
Some evidence that Russia's struggling to feed its artillery after HIMARS-powered attack on ammo dumps:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1548560699567542273
Just in time delivery on the battlefield. I dare say that will not work very good. Good!
Next target are the train lines. There are not that many, of you take them out even half of the time, that will additionally loosen the firepower.
It seems "himaring" is becoming a verb in Ukraine.
From what I've heard, though, Russia has a huge corps of people whose specific job is to keep the railways in operation, so hitting railroad tracks may not be as effective at bottlenecking their logistics as we would wish.
Now, derail an ammunition train somehow, and then target that same area as the Russians attempt to clean it up? That might do a better job. Or simply start targetting locomotives.
I've seen it reported that the Russians are now locating their ammo dumps outside of HIMARS range (link (https://twitter.com/UkraineNewsLive/status/1548724070694490113)), which doubles the distance their trucks have to drive in order to deliver ordnance to their artillery. That means half as many trips to the front, accelerated wear on trucks, etc. This is a Good Thing. I think I heard they also relocated their Black Sea fleet away from Sevastopol.
I've seen a report that they will begin receiving the missiles with the longer range. Russians can run, but they can't hide. I've also seen reports that Ukrainian pilots are being trained for F-15s.
The locomotive idea may have some merit. Common sense tells me that they wouldn't build a lot more than they need. However, they could be considered like tanks and have an excess to satisfy military needs like all those tanks. If that is the case, how well maintained would the surplus locomotives be. I also don't think the productive capacity of the Russians could replace them quickly.
I found this little clip: Rebuilding a locomotive typically takes an average of nine weeks. By comparison, it only takes an average of five weeks to build a new locomotive.
They do seem to have quite a few:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/321014/locomotives-units-forecast/)
Blow them up any way.
-
I have to wonder how accurate (or relevant) those locomotive numbers are, given what we've seen about Russia's "10,000" tanks.
Do they really have a whole lot sitting in storage, ready to be deployed? I have my doubts.
I thought about the possibility of hitting the trucks, as the longer truck routes will stretch their existing trucking capacity, but I can see them simply pressing civilian vehicles into service. I suppose that drivers are harder to replace, but that would be even more true of locomotive operators.
-
I have to wonder how accurate (or relevant) those locomotive numbers are, given what we've seen about Russia's "10,000" tanks.
Do they really have a whole lot sitting in storage, ready to be deployed? I have my doubts.
I thought about the possibility of hitting the trucks, as the longer truck routes will stretch their existing trucking capacity, but I can see them simply pressing civilian vehicles into service. I suppose that drivers are harder to replace, but that would be even more true of locomotive operators.
Each time you blow one of these up, you get a little extra. It would take time to fill the crater where the road used to be. The same goes for the railroad track. I figure at least a day for repairs. Each of these days could be a day where the Ukrainians have an advantage in munitions. A truck may be able to drive around the crater, but it won't make the driver feel better about what they are doing.
-
It was bound to happen. Russia has begun shooting down its own fighter jets. 2 jets in 2 days, a remarkable achievement.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1643422/russia-ukraine-war-military-aircraft-kherson-vladimir-putin-sergei-lavrov-donbas-vn
-
It was bound to happen. Russia has begun shooting down its own fighter jets. 2 jets in 2 days, a remarkable achievement.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1643422/russia-ukraine-war-military-aircraft-kherson-vladimir-putin-sergei-lavrov-donbas-vn
I've heard they've been trying really hard to shoot down HIMARS rockets. Maybe they got a bit trigger happy/jittery/paranoid?
-
How the fvck are they planning to shoot down 20-50 rockets arriving in short succession? If their using their AA weapons to attempt that, that's hilarious waste of specialist ammo.
-
Given the choice between losing an ammo dump vs a few dozen anti-air missiles (of which I've heard they have a large stockpile, large enough that they can use them as surface-to-surface missiles), I can understand their logic.
-
I love that HIMARS has forced Russia to move their stockpiles rearward, and instead rely on their *amazing* logistics proficiency and state of the art trucks to move materials to the front.
Hopefully we see Ukraine launch an offensive this summer and take advantage of that.
-
Hopefully we see Ukraine launch an offensive this summer and take advantage of that.
There's a part of me that wants to see Ukraine annex and invade Russia.
-
Hopefully we see Ukraine launch an offensive this summer and take advantage of that.
There's a part of me that wants to see Ukraine annex and invade Russia.
THAT would be some delicious irony.
-
Hopefully we see Ukraine launch an offensive this summer and take advantage of that.
There's a part of me that wants to see Ukraine annex and invade Russia.
THAT would be some delicious irony.
I don't think they want Russia.
-
Hopefully we see Ukraine launch an offensive this summer and take advantage of that.
There's a part of me that wants to see Ukraine annex and invade Russia.
THAT would be some delicious irony.
I don't think they want Russia.
Russia might be big, but most of it is just mosquitos in the summer and bad weather in the winter.
-
Shaping the next phase of the war:
Why is Russia so vulnerable to HIMARS in Ukraine?
July 22, 2022 5:40 pm
by Illia Ponomarenko
"Using all the heavy and long-range weaponry available to it, including HIMARS, Ukraine began a campaign that has destroyed dozens of significant fuel and munition depots in occupied parts of Ukraine, jeopardizing Russian logistics, vital supplies, and artillery power.
Ukraine’s military then moved on to using rockets against Russian-controlled airfields, bridges, and transportation points.
Now, HIMARS are also directly challenging Russia's air defenses, wiping out expensive advanced radars far behind the front lines.
Contrary to its propagandistic bravado, the Russian military has appeared helpless — or at least very vulnerable — to the dozen or so U.S.-provided HIMARS striking the very essence of Russia’s military advantage over Ukraine, becoming an important factor in the war.
And as the latest month of hostilities demonstrates, there’s little Russia can do about it."
https://kyivindependent.com/national/why-is-russia-so-vulnerable-to-himars-in-ukraine
-
This is the first I've heard of HIMARS targeting anti-air radar. That's good news. With SAMs out of the picture, Ukraine's aircraft can get back in the game.
-
Good article:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-russia-foreign-soldiers-invasion-morale-us-veterans-rcna39268
-
When you're outnumbered and outgunned, you can still outsmart the enemy. Good for Ukraine, and good for whoever put the people making the smart targeting decisions in place. The article mentions 300km range missiles, I hope Ukraine gets some of them.
Everyone keeps talking about how much ammo Russia has stored away. Well, every ammo dump hit is less ammo available.
-
When you're outnumbered and outgunned, you can still outsmart the enemy. Good for Ukraine, and good for whoever put the people making the smart targeting decisions in place. The article mentions 300km range missiles, I hope Ukraine gets some of them.
Everyone keeps talking about how much ammo Russia has stored away. Well, every ammo dump hit is less ammo available.
The next step after HIMARS is the ATACMS--a 300-mile-range missile. It's a big one--only one fits in each canister that a HIMARS can launch, compared to the six 75-mile-range missiles it can currently hurl. 300 miles puts *all* Russian forces and logistics in Ukraine at risk, including the entire Crimean peninsula, the Kerch Strait bridge, the entire Sea of Azov, all occupied territories, and also a fair range into Russia itself.
Sure, Russia has boatloads of stockpiles at home. Getting those stockpiles into Ukraine, to replace the ones blown up, is going to (hopefully) be a huge challenge for Russia. I hope the US continues to supply Ukraine with as many HIMARS rockets as Ukraine can fire 'em. They're doing a lot of good.
If Ukraine can take out the ammo dump *and* the anti-air radars with HIMARS, that opens the way for them to destroy Russia's artillery with airstrikes (more efficient than HIMARS, if you can do it safely), and without artillery, Russia is in deep, deep trouble.
-
I want to see more of the Ukrainian military reach way into Russia destroying military targets with precision, not just killing civilians.
Of course Putin might just use that as an excuse to do something even more terrible. The sooner the Russians go home, the better.
-
I want to see more of the Ukrainian military reach way into Russia destroying military targets with precision, not just killing civilians.
Of course Putin might just use that as an excuse to do something even more terrible. The sooner the Russians go home, the better.
The US has basically told Ukraine that if they use HIMARS against targets in Russia, they won't get any more. Even if the targets in Russia are legitimate military targets. And even though Ukraine has hit targets in Russian territory already, with no effective response.
At this point, what else can Putin do to escalate in response, short of declaring an actual war, or lobbing an nuke?
-
I want to see more of the Ukrainian military reach way into Russia destroying military targets with precision, not just killing civilians.
Of course Putin might just use that as an excuse to do something even more terrible. The sooner the Russians go home, the better.
The US has basically told Ukraine that if they use HIMARS against targets in Russia, they won't get any more. Even if the targets in Russia are legitimate military targets. And even though Ukraine has hit targets in Russian territory already, with no effective response.
At this point, what else can Putin do to escalate in response, short of declaring an actual war, or lobbing an nuke?
I wonder about those Iranian drones.
https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/iranian-drones-uav-russia/tehran-s-drone-army (https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/iranian-drones-uav-russia/tehran-s-drone-army)
These drones sound nasty. If they can attack ships and oil refineries, they could take out a HIMARS. What can Ukraine do to counter these drones. Could their signals be jammed? Could some sort of EMP beam be sent at a drone?
Those Iranians have some nasty smiles.
The first drone really does look like a clone of US drones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_129 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_129)
I would think the drones could be controlled by Russia on their side of the border in a trailer.
From what the Wikipedia article said, Iran's production may not be that swift. It may take them a while to produce hundreds for the Russians.
-
I want to see more of the Ukrainian military reach way into Russia destroying military targets with precision, not just killing civilians.
Of course Putin might just use that as an excuse to do something even more terrible. The sooner the Russians go home, the better.
The US has basically told Ukraine that if they use HIMARS against targets in Russia, they won't get any more. Even if the targets in Russia are legitimate military targets. And even though Ukraine has hit targets in Russian territory already, with no effective response.
At this point, what else can Putin do to escalate in response, short of declaring an actual war, or lobbing an nuke?
If Ukraine retakes its territory, Russia can shell Ukraine from its side of the border, but Ukraine can't shoot back? I hope the U.S. thinks a bit more about that restriction.
Is the grain agreement between Russia & Ukraine a sign of de-escalation? It's certainly successful diplomacy, if nothing else. I suspect Russia has allies who don't care about the Ukraine war, but are angry with Russia over not receiving grain.
-
Is the grain agreement between Russia & Ukraine a sign of de-escalation? It's certainly successful diplomacy, if nothing else. I suspect Russia has allies who don't care about the Ukraine war, but are angry with Russia over not receiving grain.
If you ask me it's Russia trying to soften up anti-Russian moves in other countries. It did not work to pressure EU by withholding it, so no reason to make countries very angry for not delivering grain. Also, thanks to losing the snake Island, Russia is probably no longer able to suppress shipping effectivly.
-
Is the grain agreement between Russia & Ukraine a sign of de-escalation? It's certainly successful diplomacy, if nothing else. I suspect Russia has allies who don't care about the Ukraine war, but are angry with Russia over not receiving grain.
If you ask me it's Russia trying to soften up anti-Russian moves in other countries. It did not work to pressure EU by withholding it, so no reason to make countries very angry for not delivering grain. Also, thanks to losing the snake Island, Russia is probably no longer able to suppress shipping effectivly.
Unfortunately, Russia has already flouted the agreement by attacking the port of Odesa with missiles (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/23/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-hit-by-several-powerful-strikes-says-mayor-lithuania-lifts-kaliningrad-rail-ban-live). What's this, Russia negotiating in bad faith? Colour me surprised.
-
Is the grain agreement between Russia & Ukraine a sign of de-escalation? It's certainly successful diplomacy, if nothing else. I suspect Russia has allies who don't care about the Ukraine war, but are angry with Russia over not receiving grain.
If you ask me it's Russia trying to soften up anti-Russian moves in other countries. It did not work to pressure EU by withholding it, so no reason to make countries very angry for not delivering grain. Also, thanks to losing the snake Island, Russia is probably no longer able to suppress shipping effectivly.
Unfortunately, Russia has already flouted the agreement by attacking the port of Odesa with missiles (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jul/23/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-hit-by-several-powerful-strikes-says-mayor-lithuania-lifts-kaliningrad-rail-ban-live). What's this, Russia negotiating in bad faith? Colour me surprised.
It's a win/win for Russia: they can now export their own and Ukraine's grain through Russian ports under the agreement while effectively preventing Ukraine from exporting its grain through Ukraine ports.
I haven't found a copy of the text of the agreements but it appears that Ukraine and Russia each signed reciprocal agreements with the UN rather than with each other, with a Joint Co-ordination centre in Istanbul staffed by the UK, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine. Whether Russia gets away with its actions in bombing the grain terminal at Odesa will depend on whether there are adequate enforcement procedures in the agreements and whether the Joint Co-ordination Centre is able to use those enforcement procedures effectively. But even if there are enforcement mechanisms the UN will be under pressure from grain importing countries to allow grain exports from Russia even given their bombing of Odesa, which means that if the JCC does stop the one-sided Russian grain exports then Russia will point to the JCC as the baddie in food shortages and high food prices.
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/note-correspondents/2022-07-22/note-correspondents-today%E2%80%99s-agreements
-
Ultimately I think Ukraine will need to gain leverage over Russia to win the war, either by effectively blockading all Russian Black Sea ports, or by capturing Russian territory. Russia kidnapped millions of people, and is blockading Ukrainian ports. They will not release the people or end the blockade until forced to. I think that at some point Ukraine will either have to accept a degree of loss, or do things many "Western" countries find disagreeable such as invade Russian territory, or shoot missiles at ships trading with Russia.
-
Ultimately I think Ukraine will need to gain leverage over Russia to win the war, either by effectively blockading all Russian Black Sea ports, or by capturing Russian territory. Russia kidnapped millions of people, and is blockading Ukrainian ports. They will not release the people or end the blockade until forced to. I think that at some point Ukraine will either have to accept a degree of loss, or do things many "Western" countries find disagreeable such as invade Russian territory, or shoot missiles at ships trading with Russia.
Transmistria seems like a likely target. Russians could be expelled and the land could either be turned back to Moldova or annexed by Ukraine with Moldova's acceptance. There are a lot of Ukrainians living in Transnistria.
-
Is the grain agreement between Russia & Ukraine a sign of de-escalation?
No it's a sign of Russia being Russia. Say one thing, do the opposite. Russia breached the agreement a day after signing.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
I would count the current halving of gas through Nordstream1 as another one, maybe the biggest. His goal is to scare, and a core of this doctrine is to be uncalculatable, but I think with that step he walked over the scare line into the fait accomply territory. Now everyone will assume there will be no gas and the scare effect will be mostly gone.
We will see.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
I would count the current halving of gas through Nordstream1 as another one, maybe the biggest. His goal is to scare, and a core of this doctrine is to be uncalculatable, but I think with that step he walked over the scare line into the fait accomply territory. Now everyone will assume there will be no gas and the scare effect will be mostly gone.
We will see.
Even if he turns the gas back on 100 percent, in the long run he has lost his best customers. They will find alternatives. It won't be immediate, but it will happen.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
I would count the current halving of gas through Nordstream1 as another one, maybe the biggest. His goal is to scare, and a core of this doctrine is to be uncalculatable, but I think with that step he walked over the scare line into the fait accomply territory. Now everyone will assume there will be no gas and the scare effect will be mostly gone.
We will see.
Even if he turns the gas back on 100 percent, in the long run he has lost his best customers. They will find alternatives. It won't be immediate, but it will happen.
Yeah, but I was talking about the short run and last weak's own goals. ;) There are still people (and propaganda) saying we have to talk to Putin, he is a reliable gas supplier etc. But THAT no longer works. His atomic war scare also does not work (on most people). The brutalities have not destroyed the moral of his enemies. His most potent weapon - FUD - has been used up. That is what I was talking about.
In the long run both Putins death and no gas buying was already definite. He probably thought this attack was his last chance to start the change he wanted.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
I would count the current halving of gas through Nordstream1 as another one, maybe the biggest. His goal is to scare, and a core of this doctrine is to be uncalculatable, but I think with that step he walked over the scare line into the fait accomply territory. Now everyone will assume there will be no gas and the scare effect will be mostly gone.
We will see.
Even if he turns the gas back on 100 percent, in the long run he has lost his best customers. They will find alternatives. It won't be immediate, but it will happen.
I'm not so optimistic, at least when it comes to Germany. Their leadership has been slow-walking pretty much all of their military aid to Ukraine. Most recently, it appears they are going to give Ukraine a few dozen brand-new howitzers...which haven't been built yet, and won't be ready for delivery for several months. Rather than some that are already on hand. I wouldn't be surprised if they went right back to a dependency on Russian gas when this is all over.
-
And now there’s a video out of a Russian Chechen solder castrating a Ukrainian POW. WTF is wrong with people?
-
And now there’s a video out of a Russian Chechen solder castrating a Ukrainian POW. WTF is wrong with people?
And a POW building in separatist territory blew up. Russia claims a Ukrainian missile, but showed the same missile debris they showed in a previous missile attack as proof. Ukraine says it was an inside job to kill victims/witnesses to various crimes (which may include the mutilation you described). 50 Ukrainian prisoners dead. No known Russian prison guard injuries.
I've seen the photos of the inside of the building. Its in very good shape for allegedly being hit by a HIMARS warhead.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
I would count the current halving of gas through Nordstream1 as another one, maybe the biggest. His goal is to scare, and a core of this doctrine is to be uncalculatable, but I think with that step he walked over the scare line into the fait accomply territory. Now everyone will assume there will be no gas and the scare effect will be mostly gone.
We will see.
Even if he turns the gas back on 100 percent, in the long run he has lost his best customers. They will find alternatives. It won't be immediate, but it will happen.
I'm not so optimistic, at least when it comes to Germany. Their leadership has been slow-walking pretty much all of their military aid to Ukraine. Most recently, it appears they are going to give Ukraine a few dozen brand-new howitzers...which haven't been built yet, and won't be ready for delivery for several months. Rather than some that are already on hand. I wouldn't be surprised if they went right back to a dependency on Russian gas when this is all over.
Germany has given some stuff and more is dribbling in.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/howitzers-arrive-ukraine-first-pledged-weapons-package-germany-2022-06-21/ (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/howitzers-arrive-ukraine-first-pledged-weapons-package-germany-2022-06-21/)
-
And now there’s a video out of a Russian Chechen solder castrating a Ukrainian POW. WTF is wrong with people?
And a POW building in separatist territory blew up. Russia claims a Ukrainian missile, but showed the same missile debris they showed in a previous missile attack as proof. Ukraine says it was an inside job to kill victims/witnesses to various crimes (which may include the mutilation you described). 50 Ukrainian prisoners dead. No known Russian prison guard injuries.
I've seen the photos of the inside of the building. Its in very good shape for allegedly being hit by a HIMARS warhead.
Explosives set inside the building before the POWs were moved in is what I've seen alleged. Wagner trying to cover up their war crimes - which just means the Russian state trying to cover up its war crimes. Truly despicable, every time I think the Russians have hit a new low they go lower.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
I would count the current halving of gas through Nordstream1 as another one, maybe the biggest. His goal is to scare, and a core of this doctrine is to be uncalculatable, but I think with that step he walked over the scare line into the fait accomply territory. Now everyone will assume there will be no gas and the scare effect will be mostly gone.
We will see.
Even if he turns the gas back on 100 percent, in the long run he has lost his best customers. They will find alternatives. It won't be immediate, but it will happen.
I'm not so optimistic, at least when it comes to Germany. Their leadership has been slow-walking pretty much all of their military aid to Ukraine. Most recently, it appears they are going to give Ukraine a few dozen brand-new howitzers...which haven't been built yet, and won't be ready for delivery for several months. Rather than some that are already on hand. I wouldn't be surprised if they went right back to a dependency on Russian gas when this is all over.
Remerber the anti-air tanks which were finally delivered to Ukraine this week?
This was delayed because the (Swiss?) ammo producer didn't want to sell the ammo to a country in war (makes sense, right?)
Now they have ammo from Sweden I think but it turned out the tanks "don't accept" it. There will be a software update and tests for the ammo in a month.
-
And now there’s a video out of a Russian Chechen solder castrating a Ukrainian POW. WTF is wrong with people?
Castrated, cut-off genitals shoved in his mouth, shot, then dragged behind a vehicle while still alive.
You really don't want to look up the (apparently common) 21 roses method of Russian torture.
Those POWs were blown up by Russia to hide how much they were abused.
-
Animals.
-
And now there’s a video out of a Russian Chechen solder castrating a Ukrainian POW. WTF is wrong with people?
And a POW building in separatist territory blew up. Russia claims a Ukrainian missile, but showed the same missile debris they showed in a previous missile attack as proof. Ukraine says it was an inside job to kill victims/witnesses to various crimes (which may include the mutilation you described). 50 Ukrainian prisoners dead. No known Russian prison guard injuries.
I've seen the photos of the inside of the building. Its in very good shape for allegedly being hit by a HIMARS warhead.
Before your post, Russia had already lied continuously. Luckily, Western media thinks there were problems on both sides, and keeps repeating Russian claims. Not with context, like Russia has lied about nearly every statement it has made. Nor a refusal to quote a source that has provided nothing but lies, and won't even admit its in a war. So I can see why Russia keeps doing this - the media keep helping them.
That said, I still appreciate reading about second hand information (yours) suggesting Russia's story has too many holes in it (and not enough flattened walls).
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
What a wonderfully brutal article (after using Google Translate). The Russians not only attacked 3 of their own helicopters, they only brought down one of them. Poor friend or foe recognition meets poor aim.
-
And the Russian army have now graduated to shooting down their own helicopters. I count three own goals in about seven days.
https://m.glavcom.ua/news/okupanti-zbili-vlasniy-boyoviy-vertolit-na-hersonshchini-863434.html
What a wonderfully brutal article (after using Google Translate). The Russians not only attacked 3 of their own helicopters, they only brought down one of them. Poor friend or foe recognition meets poor aim.
Stormtroopers vs red shirts? :)
-
Probably not unrelated to Russia's actions in Ukraine, it looks as though Serbia might be trying to kick things off with Kosovo. Let's hope that if they do it's a better response from peacekeepers than last time.
https://twitter.com/NATO_KFOR/status/1553852357972316160/photo/1
-
And the Ukrainian Armed Forces have started targeting Russian trains with explosive results.
https://en.defence-ua.com/news/himars_mlrs_destroyed_russian_special_train_in_kherson_region-3738.html
-
And the Ukrainian Armed Forces have started targeting Russian trains with explosive results.
https://en.defence-ua.com/news/himars_mlrs_destroyed_russian_special_train_in_kherson_region-3738.html
I am sure that came as shocking news to the Russians. Local command probably felt like they were shelled. Hopefully their heads have exploded.
-
If indeed they took out a train (and I believe we're still waiting on confirmation/proof), that's a pretty nice score: 80 killed, 200 wounded, plus all their supplies, equipment, the train itself, plus its operators, plus the temporary loss of the railroad tracks.
I'll remain cautiously hopeful about it, though. HIMARS hits stationary targets, not mobile ones. So either Ukraine had some outstanding intelligence *and* planning to hit the train after it was loaded but before it set off, or after it had stopped but before it started unloading. Or maybe they hit the tracks in front of the train, forcing it to stop, and then hit the now-stationary train.
-
If indeed they took out a train (and I believe we're still waiting on confirmation/proof), that's a pretty nice score: 80 killed, 200 wounded, plus all their supplies, equipment, the train itself, plus its operators, plus the temporary loss of the railroad tracks.
I'll remain cautiously hopeful about it, though. HIMARS hits stationary targets, not mobile ones. So either Ukraine had some outstanding intelligence *and* planning to hit the train after it was loaded but before it set off, or after it had stopped but before it started unloading. Or maybe they hit the tracks in front of the train, forcing it to stop, and then hit the now-stationary train.
I've read that the train was on a single-track line with passing places at a station: it wouldn't have taken much in the way of local intelligence to have the co-ordinates ready in advance and then wait for news that a suitable target train was waiting at the passing place.
-
If indeed they took out a train (and I believe we're still waiting on confirmation/proof), that's a pretty nice score: 80 killed, 200 wounded, plus all their supplies, equipment, the train itself, plus its operators, plus the temporary loss of the railroad tracks.
I'll remain cautiously hopeful about it, though. HIMARS hits stationary targets, not mobile ones. So either Ukraine had some outstanding intelligence *and* planning to hit the train after it was loaded but before it set off, or after it had stopped but before it started unloading. Or maybe they hit the tracks in front of the train, forcing it to stop, and then hit the now-stationary train.
I've read that the train was on a single-track line with passing places at a station: it wouldn't have taken much in the way of local intelligence to have the co-ordinates ready in advance and then wait for news that a suitable target train was waiting at the passing place.
True, but it would have required either A) the Ukrainians to have a HIMARS on standby for that target (and therefore unavailable for other targets), or B) the train was expected, i.e. on a schedule or there was advance warning. Or the HIMARS was already in range, hitting other targets and waiting for this one to become available. In any case, this type of attack is a considerable step up from previous known attacks against fixed targets like ammo dumps and bridges.
-
If indeed they took out a train (and I believe we're still waiting on confirmation/proof), that's a pretty nice score: 80 killed, 200 wounded, plus all their supplies, equipment, the train itself, plus its operators, plus the temporary loss of the railroad tracks.
I'll remain cautiously hopeful about it, though. HIMARS hits stationary targets, not mobile ones. So either Ukraine had some outstanding intelligence *and* planning to hit the train after it was loaded but before it set off, or after it had stopped but before it started unloading. Or maybe they hit the tracks in front of the train, forcing it to stop, and then hit the now-stationary train.
I've read that the train was on a single-track line with passing places at a station: it wouldn't have taken much in the way of local intelligence to have the co-ordinates ready in advance and then wait for news that a suitable target train was waiting at the passing place.
True, but it would have required either A) the Ukrainians to have a HIMARS on standby for that target (and therefore unavailable for other targets), or B) the train was expected, i.e. on a schedule or there was advance warning. Or the HIMARS was already in range, hitting other targets and waiting for this one to become available. In any case, this type of attack is a considerable step up from previous known attacks against fixed targets like ammo dumps and bridges.
I wouldn't be at all surprised that they knew the train was coming. Maybe some of those guys in Russia that lit the mysterious fires tipped them off.
-
They knew the train was coming. There were reports of it being loaded up in Crimea hours before the strike.
-
True, but it would have required either A) the Ukrainians to have a HIMARS on standby for that target (and therefore unavailable for other targets), or B) the train was expected, i.e. on a schedule or there was advance warning. Or the HIMARS was already in range, hitting other targets and waiting for this one to become available. In any case, this type of attack is a considerable step up from previous known attacks against fixed targets like ammo dumps and bridges.
One of the most interesting things I read was about how the Ukrainians use artillery.
In all militaries there is quite a time difference between a target spotted and an artillery shell hitting it. Conventionally that is about half an hour.
But Ukrainians are using an "uber for artillery" as one soldier described it. Basically there is a list of targets and the closest free artillery gets the shot, meaning that time is down to a (very) few minutes. Also it allows for shots from different places at once, disturbing Russian counter artillery efforts.
I think that is about it, read the linked twitter thread: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/10/2097144/-Ukraine-s-Incredible-Artillery-Advantage
-
True, but it would have required either A) the Ukrainians to have a HIMARS on standby for that target (and therefore unavailable for other targets), or B) the train was expected, i.e. on a schedule or there was advance warning. Or the HIMARS was already in range, hitting other targets and waiting for this one to become available. In any case, this type of attack is a considerable step up from previous known attacks against fixed targets like ammo dumps and bridges.
One of the most interesting things I read was about how the Ukrainians use artillery.
In all militaries there is quite a time difference between a target spotted and an artillery shell hitting it. Conventionally that is about half an hour.
But Ukrainians are using an "uber for artillery" as one soldier described it. Basically there is a list of targets and the closest free artillery gets the shot, meaning that time is down to a (very) few minutes. Also it allows for shots from different places at once, disturbing Russian counter artillery efforts.
I think that is about it, read the linked twitter thread: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/10/2097144/-Ukraine-s-Incredible-Artillery-Advantage
A half hour would be an eternity for clearing fire but that's an eternal headache in the US military. Basically, before you fire you need to make sure everything is clear. Is the target actually friendly units out in front of enemy lines? Are there any aircraft in the flightpath of the artillery that could be hit (it's a real concern)? Is the target something that's protected like a school, hospital, or religious site? Has legal cleared it (there are military lawyers in command posts for this exact reason), etc.
Even a few minutes can make a difference and there's a big push to shorten the "kill chain" between the time a target is identified and when those effects (fires) can be brought to bear on it.
-
Train strike confirmed by UK ministry of defense.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1554695964899819520
-
Sounds like the Ukrainian offensive in the south (Kherson region) is well under way.
-
In theory Russia could shoot down A-10 warthogs, but in theory they could also shoot down Ka-52 helicopters. The fact they missed two of three helicopters has me wondering if they'd also miss A-10s. U.S. A-10s fly twice as fast as Russian Ka-52 helicopters, which may help. And the A-10 is much more likely to survive a direct hit, which helps.
So bringing back this idea, maybe A-10s could find some use in Ukraine. The U.S. is already providing Ukriane more military aid than any other country, and the planned aid is more than all other aid combined. So why not include some A-10s and see how they do?
Yes, the A-10 is too old, but it was also too old in Iraq & Afganistan. The U.S. still uses A-10s, which were originally designed for exactly the war Ukraine is fighting: a war of attrition with the Soviet Union (or Russia... but they seem to be acting more like the Soviet Union).
The time normally needed for artillary clearance is done automatically by the A-10 pilot. They fly so low they can hear the cheers of the friendly infantry, and are diving directly at their target when they fire. I might be recalling wrong, but I think hundreds of yards are needed to ensure missiles don't kill friendly soldiers... with an A-10 I believe it can target enemies only separated by 100 yards from friendlies.
I assume helicopters have much weaker heat signatures than a jet like the A-10. The usual flares may be more effective counter measures for a helicopter as compared to an A-10. I believe the A-10 has hundreds of flares, so it might be able to make up in numbers for that.
Anyways, maybe the U.S. should send Ukraine some A-10s. Ukraine has more pilots than planes, and Russia's aim seems to be weaker than previously thought.
-
In theory Russia could shoot down A-10 warthogs, but in theory they could also shoot down Ka-52 helicopters. The fact they missed two of three helicopters has me wondering if they'd also miss A-10s. U.S. A-10s fly twice as fast as Russian Ka-52 helicopters, which may help. And the A-10 is much more likely to survive a direct hit, which helps.
So bringing back this idea, maybe A-10s could find some use in Ukraine. The U.S. is already providing Ukriane more military aid than any other country, and the planned aid is more than all other aid combined. So why not include some A-10s and see how they do?
Yes, the A-10 is too old, but it was also too old in Iraq & Afganistan. The U.S. still uses A-10s, which were originally designed for exactly the war Ukraine is fighting: a war of attrition with the Soviet Union (or Russia... but they seem to be acting more like the Soviet Union).
The time normally needed for artillary clearance is done automatically by the A-10 pilot. They fly so low they can hear the cheers of the friendly infantry, and are diving directly at their target when they fire. I might be recalling wrong, but I think hundreds of yards are needed to ensure missiles don't kill friendly soldiers... with an A-10 I believe it can target enemies only separated by 100 yards from friendlies.
I assume helicopters have much weaker heat signatures than a jet like the A-10. The usual flares may be more effective counter measures for a helicopter as compared to an A-10. I believe the A-10 has hundreds of flares, so it might be able to make up in numbers for that.
Anyways, maybe the U.S. should send Ukraine some A-10s. Ukraine has more pilots than planes, and Russia's aim seems to be weaker than previously thought.
Sometimes - you don't know until you try.
-
The time normally needed for artillary clearance is done automatically by the A-10 pilot. They fly so low they can hear the cheers of the friendly infantry, and are diving directly at their target when they fire. I might be recalling wrong, but I think hundreds of yards are needed to ensure missiles don't kill friendly soldiers... with an A-10 I believe it can target enemies only separated by 100 yards from friendlies.
This is a function of the weapon system more than the delivery vehicle. The A-10's gun has a smaller "danger close" distance than a 2000 pound JDAM which the A-10 can also carry. The 2000 pounder requires something like 1000 meters of safety distance from friendlies regardless of whether its being dropped by an A-10, B-1, or F-16. At the low altitudes aircraft are flying in Ukraine, guns, rockets, and air to ground missiles (with much smaller safety ranges than JDAMs) are the weapons of choice.
-
I could swear that I read somewhere that the US was training Ukrainians on the A-10. Not necessarily their current crop of pilots, but new pilots, because the muscle memory was too strong to quickly retrain the experienced pilots.
Anyone see or find that?
-
There was some discussion of this, but Ukraine doesn't want the A-10 and the US doesn't want to provide them.
-
Found it. The House authorized training Ukrainian pilots. Senate likely hasn't done anything yet. And F-16s were mentioned, not A-10.
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/07/15/house-authorizes-training-for-ukrainian-pilots-to-use-us-aircraft/
-
There was some discussion of this, but Ukraine doesn't want the A-10 and the US doesn't want to provide them.
Looks like there's a little bit of progress on this front:
"Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Wednesday that some of America's aging A-10 Thunderbolt combat jets could potentially be given to Ukraine as part of continued efforts to help that country repel Russian forces."
...
"Kendall's comment about the A-10 is a notable turnaround from what he said back in March at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium, where he threw cold water on the idea of sending A-10s to Ukraine."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/07/21/air-force-open-sending-10s-ukraine-fight-against-russia.html
-
I read about that too, but I'm doubting it will happen. A-10 can take a beating, but you generally need air superiority for them to be effective.
-
Train strike confirmed by UK ministry of defense.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1554695964899819520
The "few days to repair" is likely accurate. Based on numerous sources, the Russian military has expert rail repair crews.
Unless of course Ukraine chooses to target the repair equipment and crews since they already know the exact location...
-
Train strike confirmed by UK ministry of defense.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1554695964899819520
The "few days to repair" is likely accurate. Based on numerous sources, the Russian military has expert rail repair crews.
Unless of course Ukraine chooses to target the repair equipment and crews since they already know the exact location...
Exactly. And if a single attack takes out a rail line for a day or three, you just have to hit that rail line once every few days. And there aren't *that* many rail lines.
-
Train strike confirmed by UK ministry of defense.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1554695964899819520
The "few days to repair" is likely accurate. Based on numerous sources, the Russian military has expert rail repair crews.
Unless of course Ukraine chooses to target the repair equipment and crews since they already know the exact location...
Exactly. And if a single attack takes out a rail line for a day or three, you just have to hit that rail line once every few days. And there aren't *that* many rail lines.
yes - unlike HIMARS, rail lines can't scoot.
-
Can't they wait until the expert repair crews come and then blow them up?
-
Can't they wait until the expert repair crews come and then blow them up?
How much credibility is there that the Russians will get 100,000 screaming North Koreans to help them with this war?
https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-offering-100000-troops-to-help-russia-win-ukrainian-war-state-media-505028 (https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-offering-100000-troops-to-help-russia-win-ukrainian-war-state-media-505028)
-
Saki airbase in Crimea just went boom:
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1556998625737297920
-
I watched the latest Frontline (PBS) on Ukraine.
It's not about the battles, booms, and other warporn, but about the people left behind on the ground.
Pretty devastating. And for what?
-
Saki airbase in Crimea just went boom:
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1556998625737297920
The days of the Kerch bridge from Crimea to Russia may be numbered.
That dog in the tweet had eyes that smiled.
-
There's all sorts of speculation about what caused the big badaboom. The airbase is outside the range of HIMARS, and the strike too precise to be a Ukrainian weapon. The immediate guesses were ATACMS, which the US hasn't said it has supplied yet, or sabotage/guerillas. Russian incompetence isn't seriously being discussed, since it's two ammo warehouses blowing up nearly simultaneously.
A couple days ago, the Russians posted a photo of debris from an American HARM (anti-radar missile), which came as a surprise, and the US confirmed the transfer of HARMs yesterday. So it's very possible that there are other undisclosed weapons systems deployed.
-
I watched the latest Frontline (PBS) on Ukraine.
It's not about the battles, booms, and other warporn, but about the people left behind on the ground.
Pretty devastating. And for what?
And for what, indeed.
-
There's all sorts of speculation about what caused the big badaboom. The airbase is outside the range of HIMARS, and the strike too precise to be a Ukrainian weapon. The immediate guesses were ATACMS, which the US hasn't said it has supplied yet, or sabotage/guerillas. Russian incompetence isn't seriously being discussed, since it's two ammo warehouses blowing up nearly simultaneously.
A couple days ago, the Russians posted a photo of debris from an American HARM (anti-radar missile), which came as a surprise, and the US confirmed the transfer of HARMs yesterday. So it's very possible that there are other undisclosed weapons systems deployed.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1557025471178702849 (https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1557025471178702849)
https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1557084257981550596 (https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1557084257981550596)
The damage could be catastrophic. Those explosions were 1) massive 2) spread out and 3) on an airfield with dozens of vulnerable aircraft. If you saw the damage done to the Kherson airport early in the war when it was a Russian helicopter base you know how easy it is to ruin aircraft.
Why this happened will be interesting to learn. Russia claims a workplace accident (and Ukrainian MoD is trolling them hard for the claim). It's too far away for GMLRS, but within range of ATACMS and Ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft and long-range drones if somehow the entire Russian air defense network in that area just stopped working*.
*US-made anti-radar missiles confirmed to be in use in theater.
-
And not to forget, Russian vacationers are fleeing Crimea,
and they are bringing the news home.
-
I wonder if there will be open source sat imagery tomorrow?
-
There's all sorts of speculation about what caused the big badaboom. The airbase is outside the range of HIMARS, and the strike too precise to be a Ukrainian weapon. The immediate guesses were ATACMS, which the US hasn't said it has supplied yet, or sabotage/guerillas. Russian incompetence isn't seriously being discussed, since it's two ammo warehouses blowing up nearly simultaneously.
A couple days ago, the Russians posted a photo of debris from an American HARM (anti-radar missile), which came as a surprise, and the US confirmed the transfer of HARMs yesterday. So it's very possible that there are other undisclosed weapons systems deployed.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1557025471178702849 (https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1557025471178702849)
https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1557084257981550596 (https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1557084257981550596)
The damage could be catastrophic. Those explosions were 1) massive 2) spread out and 3) on an airfield with dozens of vulnerable aircraft. If you saw the damage done to the Kherson airport early in the war when it was a Russian helicopter base you know how easy it is to ruin aircraft.
Why this happened will be interesting to learn. Russia claims a workplace accident (and Ukrainian MoD is trolling them hard for the claim). It's too far away for GMLRS, but within range of ATACMS and Ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft and long-range drones if somehow the entire Russian air defense network in that area just stopped working*.
*US-made anti-radar missiles confirmed to be in use in theater.
Obviously, there was a storm and that's why the airbase blew up.
Just ignore the clear blue skies in the videos of the explosions.
-
There's all sorts of speculation about what caused the big badaboom. The airbase is outside the range of HIMARS, and the strike too precise to be a Ukrainian weapon.
Perhaps they have gotten the Hrim-2 into production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2
-
I'm also seeing speculation that the Russian naval base at Sevastopol could be in range of an ATACM, which would impact the balance of power in the Black Sea.
-
I'm also seeing speculation that the Russian naval base at Sevastopol could be in range of an ATACM, which would impact the balance of power in the Black Sea.
I believe that Russia has already pulled all of their naval vessels out of Sevatopol, to Novorossiysk and locations on the Azov Sea, specifically because of the increasing threat from long-range precision munitions
-
I've also seen speculation that the Neptune cruise missile used to sink the Moskva could have the range (200km+) and also has a land attack mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune
If the target was the two munitions storage areas that's a pretty easy target to distinguish as they're very distinctive.
It's amazing to see how close houses are built to those storage igloos (AKA bunkers). I guess Russia and Ukraine have never heard of explosive clear zones (or don't care). The US military is very careful when siting munition storage areas to ensure that one blowing up won't set off an adjacent one, and that all of them are far away from anything else. Especially for an air base where the munitions can contain hundreds of pounds or more of high explosives. An igloo full of small arms ammunition is relatively little explosives compared to an igloo full of 500 kg bombs.
Go look at an US Base and there is a probably a road called Ammo Rd that leads to a munitions storage area well away from the flightline and any other buildings. I just looked at a random base (Dyess AFB in Texas) and the MSA is at least 800 meters from the nearest building as opposed to Novofedorivka where there are houses within 50-100 meters.
-
Yeah, an accident at 2 high security places at the same time. lol
Personally I would have thought some partisan managed to sneak in there with a mortar on a boat or whatever, but Russia saying it was an accident sounds more like they don't want to admit their air defence didn't work, so I would bet on missile attack.
-----
btw. I read Russia is putting anti-radar stuff on the big bridge to prevent another missile attack there.
Anyone knows what would happen if you throw that or alu foil from the supermarket on a radar dish - would it spark and start to burn or is the radar too weak for that?
-
The big explosions happened during the day. Something was on fire before the big explosions. And the two big explosions happened within a fraction of a second of each other. They're also really big explosions.
This makes me hypothesize a couple of scenarios:
1) special forces infiltrated (I'd guess via sea, as the air base is quite close to the water), planted timed explosives on some large munitions, planes, fuel tanks, etc, and exfiltrated before the fun began.
2) some previously-unknown-in-theater long-range, high-powered, precision missiles were able to impact in a coordinated way (but that doesn't explain the earlier fires)
3) maybe Ukraine capitalized on Russian complacency (or the Russians turning off their radar--see below) and launched a couple of HARMs from the Black Sea?
Some things I think we can rule out:
1) Ukrainian air force planes dropping bombs or firing rockets - nobody seems to have noticed any aircraft flying around
2) Special forces firing RPGs, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc. Not enough boom IMO to start something like that, and they'd have to be physically present when the booms start.
3) JDAMs or missiles fired by NATO. So far, NATO has been very careful about what aid they give.
Some other speculation I've seen:
--The recent destruction of air defenses by HARMs has caused the Russians to turn off their radars, and Ukraine capitalized on that.
--Ukraine had a long-range missile program in concert with Israel several years ago that was not renewed, due to high cost, but some missiles remain.
btw. I read Russia is putting anti-radar stuff on the big bridge to prevent another missile attack there.
Anyone knows what would happen if you throw that or alu foil from the supermarket on a radar dish - would it spark and start to burn or is the radar too weak for that?
So, the funny thing is that Russia has been putting radar reflectors near the bridge in Kherson, but the HIMARS rockets that have been hitting it are GPS-guided, not radar-guided. I don't know if the Russians are doing the same for the Kerch Strait bridge.
-
Doesn't even have to be the Ukrainian military. People loyal to Ukraine who happen to be there could decide that they're going to take action. Partisan activity is happening, there's been a few reports that I've seen (Russian puppet mayor was sent back to Russia critically ill, possibly died, etc). Of course the Ukrainian people are fighting. Heck, you could have someone who has access to the base contact the Ukrainian military and ask for instructions.
Edit:
the NYT is reporting that Ukraine says it was a combo of special ops and partisans. Grain of salt of course for propaganda, but seems reasonable.
-
The inofficial evacuation of Crimea is still ongoing:
"24 hours later, still traffic jam to leave Crimea"
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1557397898173812737
-
Well, the first satellite photos of the aftermath are in, and boy, it doesn't look good for Russia:
https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1557440576806608897?s=20&t=FoLNPmdnp5sSZn5wku-r6A (Apparently, the tweet was removed)
-
The inofficial evacuation of Crimea is still ongoing:
"24 hours later, still traffic jam to leave Crimea"
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1557397898173812737
You see, the mistake there is to have a median on the bridge. When I got stuck crossing the Volga, there was no median, so the eastbound traffic took over all of the westbound lanes except for one, and also the westbound shoulder (the eastbound shoulder was full of Muslims pulled over praying towards Mecca)
-
Well, the first satellite photos of the aftermath are in, and boy, it doesn't look good for Russia: https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1557440576806608897?s=20&t=FoLNPmdnp5sSZn5wku-r6A
https://twitter.com/wammezz/status/1557489318108733440 (https://twitter.com/wammezz/status/1557489318108733440)
Another perspective on the damage. Depending on who you ask, Russia lost 10-20 aircraft in this and an unknown number of personnel. If the plane wasn't completely destroyed, it likely sustained enough heat and shrapnel damage to render it unfit to fly.
-
Well, the first satellite photos of the aftermath are in, and boy, it doesn't look good for Russia: https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1557440576806608897?s=20&t=FoLNPmdnp5sSZn5wku-r6A
https://twitter.com/wammezz/status/1557489318108733440 (https://twitter.com/wammezz/status/1557489318108733440)
Another perspective on the damage. Depending on who you ask, Russia lost 10-20 aircraft in this and an unknown number of personnel. If the plane wasn't completely destroyed, it likely sustained enough heat and shrapnel damage to render it unfit to fly.
There's a gif of the before and after, and wow. The difference. I could see there being quite a few casualties.
-
Well, the first satellite photos of the aftermath are in, and boy, it doesn't look good for Russia: https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1557440576806608897?s=20&t=FoLNPmdnp5sSZn5wku-r6A
Twitter deleted that post.
-
Well, the first satellite photos of the aftermath are in, and boy, it doesn't look good for Russia: https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1557440576806608897?s=20&t=FoLNPmdnp5sSZn5wku-r6A
Twitter deleted that post.
Those pics were all over, you can still find them.
-
Well, the first satellite photos of the aftermath are in, and boy, it doesn't look good for Russia: https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1557440576806608897?s=20&t=FoLNPmdnp5sSZn5wku-r6A
Twitter deleted that post.
Thanks for the heads up. The Guardian has an article with a before/after slider thingamabob that makes it really easy to see the extent of the damage: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/11/russian-warplanes-destroyed-in-crimea-saky-airbase-attack-satellite-images-show (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/11/russian-warplanes-destroyed-in-crimea-saky-airbase-attack-satellite-images-show)
-
https://twitter.com/georgian_legion/status/1557485847754248192?s=20&t=3yppHZH2iP4l6yUjE7H62g
I think that might be fair warning...
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1557621932429819907
Part shooting war and part culture war...
-
https://twitter.com/georgian_legion/status/1557485847754248192?s=20&t=3yppHZH2iP4l6yUjE7H62g
I think that might be fair warning...
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1557621932429819907
Part shooting war and part culture war...
Yeah. Putin may have a troll army, but the Ukrainian army is the bigger troll ;)
-
Ukraine has had the upper hand in the court of public opinion, and on social media, from the beginning. I'm glad to see they still have it.
-
Certainly their trolling has been top notch. Someone knows their audience well.
-
So far unconfirmed reports indicate that UAF have severed the fourth and last bridge connecting the right bank of the Dniepr river in southern Ukraine to the RUAF rear; and that the RUAF command in Kherson city has fled to the left bank of the river Dniepr, leaving thousands of Russian soldiers behind who are now facing serious logistics issues.
And on another note:
Silicon Lifeline: Western Electronics at the Heart of Russia's War Machine
James Byrne, Gary Somerville, Joe Byrne, Dr Jack Watling , Nick Reynolds and Jane Baker
8 August 2022
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has not gone to plan. Launched in the expectation of a surgical occupation of Ukrainian cities, it has become a grinding attritional struggle that is rapidly degrading the Russian military. This report, which contains an examination of the components and functioning of 27 of Russia’s most modern military systems – including cruise missiles, communications systems and electronic warfare complexes – concludes that the degradation in Russian military capability could be made permanent if appropriate policies are implemented.
https://static.rusi.org/RUSI-Silicon-Lifeline-final-updated-web_0.pdf
-
Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Russians will actually damage the nuclear power plant to the point of it's becoming another Chernobyl?
I don't know the details but those headlines are worrisome.
-
Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Russians will actually damage the nuclear power plant to the point of it's becoming another Chernobyl?
I don't know the details but those headlines are worrisome.
Considering that they had people digging around Chernobyl, I think it's entirely possible that regardless of their intentions Russia could seriously screw up the plant. Out of sheer ignorance or arrogance.
-
Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Russians will actually damage the nuclear power plant to the point of it's becoming another Chernobyl?
I don't know the details but those headlines are worrisome.
Considering that they had people digging around Chernobyl, I think it's entirely possible that regardless of their intentions Russia could seriously screw up the plant. Out of sheer ignorance or arrogance.
I would think ignorance is more likely than arrogance at this point. It's not just Europe at risk, depending on the wind it could also have major consequences for Russia.
I've been told by someone who fled Russia 20 years ago that he didn't find out about Chernobyl until he moved to Europe. It's apparantly completely censored from the history books. I would think most soldiers or low-level leadership have absolutely no idea how dangerous nuclear power plants can be. I've read reports about how some Russian soldiers were completely surprised to experience radition sickness after walking around in the Chernobyl area.
Obviously Putin remembers Chernobyl, and so do the old generals he surrounds himself with, but I suppose it's not easy to get the information to the troops in the area in a way that doesn't undermine you and while trying to make sure that information doesn't become publicly known. Obviously the easiest way would just be to order all troops away from the Zaporizja plant area, but it's in a very strategic location so that would be risky from their perspective too.
-
Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Russians will actually damage the nuclear power plant to the point of it's becoming another Chernobyl?
I don't know the details but those headlines are worrisome.
I know of two families who have stayed in Ukraine so far but are now hoping to leave because of what the Russians are doing, and may do, at Zaporizhzhi nuclear plant and the potential effects on their children's health. So Ukrainians who have so far stayed and dealt with the effects of the war are taking the possibility for nuclear disaster very seriously indeed.
-
Just from the looks of the buildings, the reactors look rather robust. However, does anyone know if the spent fuel pools are like American plants? The spent fuel sits in a pool under 40 ft of very clear water. The spent fuel is very "hot" in a radiologic sense. It emits a nice blue glow that can be seen in the water. The spent fuel does not receive the concrete barrier that the reactor has. An explosion could create a "dirty" bomb and spread contamination.
Given how the Russians act around these nuke plants, maybe it was smoking that knocked out their Crimea base.
-
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-88-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine
Update 88 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine August 6, 2022
125/2022 -- document number.
Vienna, Austria
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi today issued a statement expressing his grave concern about Friday’s shelling at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and again stressing the crucial importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) being able to send a mission of nuclear safety, security and safeguards experts to the site as soon as possible.
Ukraine informed the IAEA that the shelling had damaged the plant’s external power supply system but that two power lines remained operational, the Director General said. It had also triggered the emergency protection system of one of the plant’s three operating reactors. This unit was disconnected from the grid as a result of Friday’s events, Ukraine said.
Ukraine also informed the IAEA that there had been no damage to the reactors themselves, no radiological release and no reports of injuries. However, it said a nitrogen-oxygen station, which supports plant operations, and an auxiliary building were damaged. Firefighters had quickly extinguished a fire at the nitrogen-oxygen station, but it still needs to be repaired, Ukraine said. The IAEA has also received information about shelling near the spent fuel storage facility.
On Saturday morning, two of the ZNPP’s six units were operating and the radiation situation was normal, Ukraine told the IAEA.
Based on the limited information available, Director General Grossi said IAEA experts had made a preliminary assessment that the current nuclear safety and security situation at the ZNPP seemed stable, with no immediate threat to nuclear safety.
The IAEA will continue to closely monitor the evolution of the situation, the progress of repairs and any nuclear safety implications at the site, he said.
The Director General said Friday’s events had breached several of the seven indispensable nuclear safety and security pillars that he outlined at the beginning of the conflict, in particular:
Pillar 1 (Physical integrity): Any military activity – such as shelling – within, or in the vicinity of, a nuclear facility has the potential to cause an Unacceptable Radiological Consequence.
Pillar 2 (All safety and security systems and equipment must be functional at all times): As a result of the shelling, emergency protection was activated at one of the units, diesel generators were set in operation, and the nitrogen-oxygen station and an auxiliary building were damaged.
Pillar 3 (Operating Staff): This recent activity further increases the stress of the operational team.
Pillar 4 (Power supply): This has been compromised as a result of damage to the external power supply system.
Pillar 6 (Radiation monitoring and Emergency Preparedness and Response arrangements): In the current status of the site, this recent shelling further jeopardizes the already compromised EPR arrangements and capabilities to respond. However, the radiation monitoring system is still operational.
In his statement, Director General Grossi said any military action jeopardizing the safety of the ZNPP – Europe’s largest such plant – was completely unacceptable and must be avoided.
The IAEA has not been able to visit the Russian-occupied facility in Ukraine's south since before the conflict began more than five months ago.
Director General Grossi said he would continue his efforts to send an IAEA mission to the site, stressing that this would help to stabilise the nuclear safety and security situation there.
In relation to safeguards, the IAEA is continuing to receive remote safeguards data from the four operational NPPs, but it is still experiencing a partial loss of safeguards data transfer from the Chornobyl NPP, the Director General said.
Ukraine also informed the IAEA today that ten of the country’s 15 nuclear energy reactors are currently connected to the grid, including two at the ZNPP, three at the Rivne NPP, three at the South Ukraine NPP, and two at the Khmelnytskyy NPP.
-----------------------------end official statement ------
markbike528CBX says:
The fact that 2 plants are operating is surprising to me. But it also indicates that safety systems are still powered, unlike at Fukushima, where all the backup-safety diesel generators of reactors 1,2,3 and 4 were taken out by the tsunami.
To answer pecunia's question on concrete thickness, in VVER's on one side the Spent Fuel Pool is protected by the reactor, on other side by meters of concrete, both of the fuel pool structure and other reactor hall areas.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/030/28030674.pdf -- I would note that this analysis includes "hot" ie very fresh Fuel Assemblies.
The fuel in Zaporizha's fuel pool is likely to be no newer than Februrary 24th, so 6 months. It makes a big difference in heat and radiation when the fuel has time to cool off.
As long as you can keep water (of any quality) in the fuel pool, then no releases are likely.
-
Saw this article about partisans in Ukraine. Very interesting, there were pretty serious preparations prior to the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/world/europe/ukraine-partisans-insurgency-russia.html
ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine — They sneak down darkened alleys to set explosives. They identify Russian targets for Ukrainian artillery and long-range rockets provided by the United States. They blow up rail lines and assassinate officials they consider collaborators with the Russians.
Slipping back and forth across the front lines, the guerrilla fighters are known in Ukraine as partisans, and in recent weeks they have taken an ever more prominent role in the war, rattling Russian forces by helping deliver humiliating blows in occupied areas they thought were safe.
Increasingly, Ukraine is taking the fight against Russian forces into Russian-controlled areas, whether with elite military units, like the one credited on Tuesday with a huge explosion at a Russian ammunition depot in the occupied Crimean Peninsula, or an underground network of the guerrillas.
Last week, Ukrainian officials said, the partisans had a hand in a successful strike on a Russian air base, also in Crimea, which Moscow annexed eight years ago. It destroyed eight fighter jets.
“The goal is to show the occupiers that they are not at home, that they should not settle in, that they should not sleep comfortably,” said one guerrilla fighter, who spoke on condition that, for security reasons, he only be identified by his code name, Svarog, after a pagan Slavic god of fire.
In recent days the Ukrainian military made Svarog and several other of the operatives available for interviews in person or online, hoping to highlight the partisans’ widening threat to Russian forces and signal to Western donors that Ukraine is successfully rallying local resources in the war, now nearly six months old. A senior Ukrainian military official familiar with the program also described the workings of the resistance.
Their accounts of attacks could not be verified completely but aligned with reports in the Ukrainian media and with descriptions from Ukrainians who had recently fled Russian-occupied areas.
Svarog and I met over lemonade and cheese pastries at a Georgian restaurant in Zaporizhzhia, a city under Ukrainian control about 65 miles north of the occupied town of Melitopol.
He spoke with intimate knowledge of partisan activities, providing a rare glimpse into one of the most hidden aspects of the war.
The Ukrainian military began training partisans in the months before the invasion, as Russia massed troops near the borders. The effort has paid off in recent weeks as Ukrainian forces are pressing a counteroffensive in the south, although Russian forces, with far greater advantages in heavy weapons, still surround Ukraine from the east and north.
Ukrainian officials warned on Tuesday of the threat of a potential Russian attack from Belarus, noting a buildup of missile systems there, and said Russian forces were expending tens of thousands of rounds a day as they shelled hundreds of defensive positions in eastern and southern Ukraine.
With little movement of the front lines, insurgent activity is now intensifying, as the fighters strike stealthily in environs they know intimately, using car bombs, booby traps and targeted killings with pistols — and then blending into the local population.
Before the war, Svarog occasionally joined weekend training with Right Sector and National Corps, a branch of the Azov movement, both of which are aligned with paramilitary units in Ukraine. They were just two of dozens of organizations running military training for civilians throughout Ukraine during the eight-year war with Russian-backed separatists.
Svarog said he was among the trainees in these public programs. Behind the scenes, Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces were forming a more structured, and secret, program that included instruction on sabotage, explosives and stashing weapon caches in anticipation of Russia’s attack.
After the invasion, Svarog said, he was directed to a storage shed outside Melitopol, where he found slabs of high explosives, detonators, Kalashnikov rifles, a grenade launcher and two pistols equipped with silencers.
Melitopol, the southern Ukrainian town where Svarog operates, has since emerged as a center of the resistance. He recounted the careful casing of targets, followed by attacks.
By Saturday, partisans had struck with explosives seven days in a row, according to the town’s exiled mayor, Ivan Fedorov, who boasted of the achievement to Ukrainian media as part of the more public embrace of partisan operations by officials.
The attacks have been going on for several months. This spring, Svarog said, he and several members of the cell in Melitopol sneaked through the town at night to booby-trap a car in the parking lot of a Russian-controlled police station.
Carrying wire cutters, tape and fishing line, the fighters moved through courtyards and back alleys to avoid Russian checkpoints.
They first cut an electrical wire, blacking out a streetlight, then dashed quickly into the darkness where they planted a bomb, wrapped in tape with the sticky side facing outward, into a wheel well. The fishing line was taped both to the inside of the wheel and to a detonator, rigging the bomb to explode when the wheel turned.
“Anybody who would drive that car would be a traitor,” Svarog said. “Nobody there is keeping public order.” The bomb killed one police officer and wounded another.
In a strike last week, he said, his cell booby-trapped the car of Oleg Shostak, a Ukrainian who had joined the Russian political party United Russia in Melitopol. The insurgents targeted him because they suspected him of tailoring propaganda to appeal to local residents.
Svarog, who said he did not take part in this particular mission, said his team placed a bomb under the driver’s seat, rigged to explode when the engine started.
Mr. Shostak was wounded in the explosion but survived, said Mr. Fedorov, the exiled mayor. The attack was separately reported by Ukrainian authorities and described by displaced people leaving Melitopol through a checkpoint to Ukrainian territory on Sunday.
Whether targeted people survive or die in the attacks, partisans say, is less important than the signal sent with each strike: You are never safe.
Under a Ukrainian law passed by Parliament last year, the military’s Special Operations Forces are authorized to train, arm and pay secret combatants fighting on Ukrainian territory in time of war. In the law, they are called “community volunteers.”
The partisans say they are civilians and the legal basis for their activity is therefore regulated under the Ukrainian law, not the laws of war that prohibit, for example, a soldier from targeting a civilian official.
But under international law civilians become combatants when they start taking part in hostilities. The partisans work for the government, even the military, and whether the murky area they inhabit does in fact fall under international law — and whether their activities violate those rules — is a matter for debate.
Not all their activities are violent. Separately, two partisans operating in occupied southeastern Ukraine described a branch of the underground called Yellow Ribbon, which posts leaflets and spray paints graffiti.
The bases on Ukrainian territory where operatives are trained are moved constantly to avoid discovery, according to a senior Ukrainian military official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military information.
Each operative has a different a role to play, the official said: scouting a target, gathering intelligence on a target’s movements, and carrying out an attack. Individual cells are kept separate and do not know one another, lest a detained partisan reveal identities under interrogation.
Two entities within the military are responsible for overseeing operations behind enemy lines, the official said: the military intelligence service, known as HUR, and Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces. An interagency task force oversees operations of both the intelligence agency and Special Operations Forces branches of the underground, what is known as the Resistance Movement, or Rukh Oporu in Ukrainian.
The official described a poisoning in the Zaporizhzhia region that killed around 15 Russian soldiers and the sabotage of a grain elevator, in the Kherson region, that prevented Russian forces from stealing 60,000 tons of grain. Neither operation could be independently verified.
Partisans were also behind an explosion on Saturday that disabled a railroad bridge connecting Melitopol to Crimea, halting the supply of military equipment coming into the Zaporizhzhia region.
The partisans are searching for those they consider traitors, too.
The Ukrainian underground in occupied territory considers police officers, municipal and regional government employees and teachers who agree to work under the Russian educational curriculum as collaborators, according to Svarog and another partisan using the nickname Viking. They said they did not see doctors, firefighters and employees of utility companies as traitors.
Teachers are a focus now, with schools scheduled to open in September.
“The Russians want to teach by their program, not the truth,” Viking said. “A child is vulnerable to propaganda and if raised in this program, will become an idiot like the Russians,” he said. “A teacher who agrees to teach by the Russian program is a collaborator.”
Partisans will not attack teachers, he said, but have sought to humiliate them through leaflets they often post on utility poles with dark warnings for collaborators, as part of their psychological operations.
One went up recently, he said, with the names and photographs of principals planning to open schools in September.
It said: “For collaborating with the Russians, there will be payback.”
-
Hopefully the conventional war will push back Russians before the guerillas get out of hand.
-
According to friends more knowledgeable than me, Russia is rumored to prepare a false flag attach on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, perhaps already tomorrow. One of the strong indications are postings by the Russian embassy in Stockholm on twitter. See attached screenshot.
Similar posts are posted on other Russian embassy accounts as well.
-
Big day for the defenders in Ukraine.
• Explosions at munitions depot, Timonovo, Belgorod, Russia
• Fire/explosions at Stary Oskol Airfield, Belgorod, Russia
• Explosions in Nova Kakhovka, Kherson, Ukraine
• Explosions/UAV shot down near Belbek airport, Crimea, Ukraine
• Air defence activity near Kerch strait, Crimea, Ukraine
Just one of these hits would be a significant milestone for the Ukraine armed Forces.
-
Someone over at The War Zone posted satellite photos of the ammo dump at Belgorod before the strike. It is (or was) HUGE. I'm looking forward to seeing before-and-after photos.
-
I don't understand why Russia's high tech air force is so impotent during this invasion.
-
I don't understand why Russia's high tech air force is so impotent during this invasion.
Ukraine has robust anti-aircraft systems that can target aircraft at higher elevations and the US and others have provided MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense) such as Stinger missiles which work at lower elevations.
Ukraine doesn't have stealth aircraft, so they are just as vulnerable to a modern surface to air missiles (SAM) as any other aircraft.
This is why the Russians have resorted to launching unguided rockets from attack helicopters on ballistic arcs instead of using them as designed in a direct fire attack mode from relatively close range. It lets them stay miles away from Ukrainians with MANPADs.
-
I don't understand why Russia's high tech air force is so impotent during this invasion.
The had an opportunity to crush most of Ukraine's air force and air defenses in the first couple days. For reasons we can only guess they made a token effort. Once Ukraine got some breathing room and replacement equipment (and Russia retreating in the north) they were able to establish a capable air defense network that covered most of the front line, and increasingly able to defend their cities from cruise missiles. Most of Ukraine's strategic and tactical air defense equipment is Russian in origin. It's about to augmented by NATO-compatible missile systems.
The VKS* (Russian air force) does not have the training or equipment to take modern enemy air defenses head-on. Up until a month ago neither did Ukraine. Both air forces settled for a stalemate where planes from both sides wouldn't venture very far past the front line, and then only flying at low level to do rocket attacks. Higher-altitude bombing has been out of the question. Between the GMLRS and anti-radar missiles that Ukraine has been employing, it appears that the air defenses in the south are being dismantled piece by piece.
Russia still possesses a lot of air defense equipment (hundreds of strategic and mobile launchers); however, we're seeing Ukraine gradually push their aircraft deeper over the lines and in greater numbers. We're also going to see them firing more NATO weaponry from their aircraft at some point.
Also, it's not really that high-tech of an air force. It's better than most and is the 4th largest in the world (after the US Air Force, US Navy, and US Army), but it has relied on a handful of modern aircraft and a very small bench of qualified pilots to do the lion's share of the work. Both of which have sustained serious losses over the past six months.
-
The Ukrainians have made good use of the drones even composing a tune for the Bayraktar. Putin got off his keester a few weeks ago and paid his Iranian friends a visit. He is supposed to be getting a lot of drones from iran. I've seen nothing from anyone anticipating the effects of these drones and further what defenses the Ukrainians will have against them. Anybody know?
-
According to friends more knowledgeable than me, Russia is rumored to prepare a false flag attach on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, perhaps already tomorrow. One of the strong indications are postings by the Russian embassy in Stockholm on twitter. See attached screenshot.
Similar posts are posted on other Russian embassy accounts as well.
Yes, the Russians were saying Ukraine will make a false flag operation or something like that.
Meanwhile on twitter you can see a video allegedly with Russian ammunition inside the power plant (generator hall etc) and Z-Trucks bringing stuff.
-
Looks like Ukraine crashed a UAV onto the roof of the Black Sea Fleet headquarters building in Sevastopol. Minimal damage, but the message was sent.
Even if this was a shoot-down, it made it all the way to its target from Ukrainian territory and landed/crashed/fell right on top of it.
https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1560883505911005185?t=hKDoMzr3Ll6vkI7s0dvgVg&s=19 (https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1560883505911005185?t=hKDoMzr3Ll6vkI7s0dvgVg&s=19)
-
I knew Dugin was behind this plot to invade Ukraine as I mentioned some months ago in earlier post in this thread. Smelled of him.. all the "There is no such thing as FACT" philosophy crap.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daria-dugina-alexander-dugin-russia-world-ukraine-explosiong-death_n_6301f6cfe4b035629bfbbe7c
Steve Bannon, Trump's former advisor, loves Dugin and Julius Evola.
-
...
Steve Bannon, Trump's former advisor, loves Dugin and Julius Evola.
Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin, the father of Daria Dugina who was killed in the attack that likely was targeting him, is an important and particularly odious ideologue respected in Christian Nationalist circles, although Dugin does not use the term Christian Nationalism (AFAIK) which seems to be adapted for consumption by US Christians in order to obfuscate the roots of the cult.
From Wikipedia:
According to Marlene Laruelle, Dugin's adherence to the Old Believers allows him to stand between Paganism and Orthodox Christianity without formally adopting either of them. His choice is not paradoxical, since, according to him—in the wake of René Guénon—Russian Orthodoxy and especially the Old Believers have preserved an esoteric and initiatory character which was utterly lost in Western Christianity. As such, the Russian Orthodox tradition may be merged with Neopaganism and may host "Neopaganism's nationalist force, which anchors it in the Russian soil, and separates it from the two other Christian confessions"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Daria Dugina also was no slouch in promoting Greater Russian fascism and genocide in Ukraine.
Here is a recent clip from Russian TV:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1561381788211036165
-
Sounds like a great karmic justice... Its a shame it didn't get Aleksandr Dugin too.
The murders and misery those two are partly responsible for...
-
I don't think it's right to kill noncombatants with car bombs - but I surely will not cry about those two. Somewhen I watched 10 minutes with father and also seen that video before and I was close to vomiting.
That agressiveness alone - how can the Russians watch that without feeling sick? (Well, a lot of Trump rallies are nearly that bad, not to mention past events, so maye I should not point out nationalities)
I find it funny that in that linked video she speaks of the unity in Ukraine that has been lost, while it is Ukrain's unity that makes this war a nightmare for the Russian army.
-
On one hand the Dugins might be non-combatants. I don't want any non-combatants faced with violence.
On the other hand, they have actively and publicly called for war and that inevitably leads to Ukrainian deaths. And massive destruction of Ukraine.
People might call civilian deaths from war "collateral deaths" but it is just murder... Those civilians would not be dead except for Putin and his team of murderers.
-
I don't think it's right to kill noncombatants with car bombs - but I surely will not cry about those two. Somewhen I watched 10 minutes with father and also seen that video before and I was close to vomiting.
That agressiveness alone - how can the Russians watch that without feeling sick? (Well, a lot of Trump rallies are nearly that bad, not to mention past events, so maye I should not point out nationalities)
I find it funny that in that linked video she speaks of the unity in Ukraine that has been lost, while it is Ukrain's unity that makes this war a nightmare for the Russian army.
Russians seem really good at saying black is white and up is down. Maybe, it's the language.
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
In the legal sense, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant#Status_of_combatants
Everthing else would be -oops - bloody messy. For example there is the argumentation that by sending weapons to Ukraine, you advance and enable fighting. Are you a combatant if you send a gun to Ukraine?
-
Daria Dugina also was no slouch in promoting Greater Russian fascism and genocide in Ukraine.
Here is a recent clip from Russian TV:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1561381788211036165
Ain't karma a bitch.
"Chat shit, get banged." what Jamie Vardy says.
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
If you have wide access to the public and you are calling for war then I think a person loses their non-combatant status.
If Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene riles up conservative voters who then take up arms against their neighbors and coworkers - I think Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene is then partly responsible for the ensuing disaster and murders.
If they continued to inflame the situation and call for more violence then I would hope somebody might take them off of the air in some capacity.
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
If you have wide access to the public and you are calling for war then I think a person loses their non-combatant status.
If Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene riles up conservative voters who then take up arms against their neighbors and coworkers - I think Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene is then partly responsible for the ensuing disaster and murders.
If they continued to inflame the situation and call for more violence then I would hope somebody might take them off of the air in some capacity.
Well - That's a gnarly can of worms. Guys in charge could shut down folks free speech by saying they were a combatant or even worse do like they do in Russia and take them out. I guess this is one of those grey area things.
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
If you have wide access to the public and you are calling for war then I think a person loses their non-combatant status.
If Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene riles up conservative voters who then take up arms against their neighbors and coworkers - I think Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene is then partly responsible for the ensuing disaster and murders.
If they continued to inflame the situation and call for more violence then I would hope somebody might take them off of the air in some capacity.
This is ridiculous; by this logic, someone maybe should go out and target Ken Pollack (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_M._Pollack") with a car bomb. Or maybe the US should bomb Germany for its ongoing purchases of Russian gas, which is helping fund its invasion?
Not to mention Dugin's influence in Russia is often overstated, while his daughter was barely a blip.
-
It seemed the Dugins were good at promoting other people’s sons being used to fuel a fire. Surprise! that fire burnt them. Don’t play with fire.
We like to pretend that wars have rules, but that is not really true. Civilian collateral damage is a mainstay of modern war due to the firepower involved. Anyone who promotes invasion of another country will ultimately be at risk of the consequences. we can imagine a “courteous” war being fought, but that is looking at the world with rose-tinted glasses. Better to not start a fight.
It would’ve been better that they were “extradited” to Ukraine for a trial, though. Revenge killings aren’t going to help their cause.
-
I don't think it's right to kill noncombatants with car bombs - but I surely will not cry about those two. Somewhen I watched 10 minutes with father and also seen that video before and I was close to vomiting.
The issue of non combatants doesn't really apply here. Russian agents killing Russian citizens is an entirely separate issue that occurs even in non war time.
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
If you have wide access to the public and you are calling for war then I think a person loses their non-combatant status.
If Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene riles up conservative voters who then take up arms against their neighbors and coworkers - I think Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene is then partly responsible for the ensuing disaster and murders.
If they continued to inflame the situation and call for more violence then I would hope somebody might take them off of the air in some capacity.
This is ridiculous; by this logic, someone maybe should go out and target Ken Pollack (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_M._Pollack") with a car bomb. Or maybe the US should bomb Germany for its ongoing purchases of Russian gas, which is helping fund its invasion?
Not to mention Dugin's influence in Russia is often overstated, while his daughter was barely a blip.
I think people like Pollack take a risk of someone from a targeted country coming after them. I wonder if it keeps him awake at night.
Edit: Dugin seems more like a TC / MTG hack that is firmly rooted in rumor and BS than an intelligence analyst that presumably relies on facts like Pollack. Hacks are very dangerous b/c they make up shit that gets the under-educated all riled up. Its interesting when karma and consequence comes to visit a hack. See Alex Jones for a recent example on this side of the ocean.
-
How do you define noncombatants?
If you're picking up a weapon and shooting people, you're a combatant. That's pretty clear.
If you're not picking up a weapon, but you are active in other ways that advance or enable the fighting, are you really a noncombatant?
If you have wide access to the public and you are calling for war then I think a person loses their non-combatant status.
If Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene riles up conservative voters who then take up arms against their neighbors and coworkers - I think Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene is then partly responsible for the ensuing disaster and murders.
If they continued to inflame the situation and call for more violence then I would hope somebody might take them off of the air in some capacity.
This is ridiculous; by this logic, someone maybe should go out and target Ken Pollack (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_M._Pollack") with a car bomb. Or maybe the US should bomb Germany for its ongoing purchases of Russian gas, which is helping fund its invasion?
Not to mention Dugin's influence in Russia is often overstated, while his daughter was barely a blip.
I think people like Pollack take a risk of someone from a targeted country coming after them. I wonder if it keeps him awake at night.
Edit: Dugin seems more like a TC / MTG hack that is firmly rooted in rumor and BS than an intelligence analyst that presumably relies on facts like Pollack. Hacks are very dangerous b/c they make up shit that gets the under-educated all riled up. Its interesting when karma and consequence comes to visit a hack. See Alex Jones for a recent example on this side of the ocean.
This is actually a funny comment because what you're doing is judging Pollack--a Westerner--from a Western perspective, then judging Dugin--a non-Westerner--from a Western perspective. A lot of what Dugin has written has resonated in Russia and outside of it precisely because it doesn't follow the strict Western analytical framework that Dugin at one point labeled "liberal totalitarianism" (and which is an important motivating factor behind Dugin's The Fourth Political Theory). Pollack, in your view, played by the warmongering rules (set by whom?) by relying on "facts" (like WMDs!), but facts alone don't constitute any sort of argument; i.e., the Is/Ought problem. Meanwhile, Dugin doesn't play by these same rules by instead appealing to quasi-religious notions of national spirit and Dasein that make more sense in certain non-Western frames of reference. If we decide both are wrong (for different reasons), is being wrong a crime? And if it is, given the weighty matters involved, then why should the two men be treated differently?
Note that I'm not arguing that Dugin is right about Ukraine; rather I'm pointing out that it's far more instructive to interpret his views in the proper context. It's the same problem Stephen Bannon had in the US where he was caricatured before he was understood by the Smug Class (I don't know if Bannon will ever be relevant again, but some of the motivating factors behind him are and will be; this PBS Frontline interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0) provides an excellent overview of Bannonism).
-
Dasein is a German word that means "being there" or "presence", and is often translated into English with the word "existence". It is a fundamental concept in the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings.
Dasein sounds like it could be likened in Midwestern parlance as the concept of BS. On the other hand, it could be linked to chi.
-
Looks the special operation needs fresh blood.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1562805942562852865
Putin signs decree to expand Russian armed forces to 2 million.
The decree increases the armed forces by 137,000 personnel, Russian state news agency Ria Novosti reported.
Not artillery rain, but human wave is next tactic.
-
With what people? They were having trouble meeting their conscription quotas.
-
With what people? They were having trouble meeting their conscription quotas.
I wondered that too - maybe mercenaries?
-
With what people? They were having trouble meeting their conscription quotas.
I wondered that too - maybe mercenaries?
There are always youngsters from the poor Eastern minorities that will go after a bit of fame and three times the average income of their home town.
-
With what people? They were having trouble meeting their conscription quotas.
I wondered that too - maybe mercenaries?
There are always youngsters from the poor Eastern minorities that will go after a bit of fame and three times the average income of their home town.
And the news is that North Korea is willing to provide labor. The inexpensive North Korean labor would fill some jobs of young Russians. Their choices would be limited and joining the military would be an option.
-
I also heard that they were letting prisoners out of jail and sending them into battle.
-
With what people? They were having trouble meeting their conscription quotas.
I wondered that too - maybe mercenaries?
There are always youngsters from the poor Eastern minorities that will go after a bit of fame and three times the average income of their home town.
The "volunteer battalions" being formed are mostly men in their 40s and 50s. The younger crowd who could be enticed to enlist have already signed up, and its still not enough to replace losses let alone grow by another 140k.
-
Reports this morning of a Ukraine offensive kicking off in the Kherson region. As in, troops actually advancing, taking territory, Russian troops falling back, etc.
If it turns into a rout, the Dnieper river (and its lack of bridges) is gonna make things awful dicey for the Russians.
-
Reports this morning of a Ukraine offensive kicking off in the Kherson region. As in, troops actually advancing, taking territory, Russian troops falling back, etc.
If it turns into a rout, the Dnieper river (and its lack of bridges) is gonna make things awful dicey for the Russians.
Fingers crossed for Ukraine. Hope they can kick the orcs off their land.
-
Reports this morning of a Ukraine offensive kicking off in the Kherson region. As in, troops actually advancing, taking territory, Russian troops falling back, etc.
If it turns into a rout, the Dnieper river (and its lack of bridges) is gonna make things awful dicey for the Russians.
Fingers crossed for Ukraine. Hope they can kick the orcs off their land.
I'd like to see Ukraine annex an area of Russia for use as a demilitarized zone in the future.
-
I'd like to see Ukraine annex an area of Russia for use as a demilitarized zone in the future.
Agreed! All the ways Putin and his people would spin that though...
-
I'd like to see Ukraine annex an area of Russia for use as a demilitarized zone in the future.
Agreed! All the ways Putin and his people would spin that though...
I think we can all stop caring about how Putin is going to lie about outcomes. It'll happen no matter what ends up taking place. Actually losing territory when invading another country though might be a good deterrent against future aggression.
-
Reports this morning of a Ukraine offensive kicking off in the Kherson region. As in, troops actually advancing, taking territory, Russian troops falling back, etc.
If it turns into a rout, the Dnieper river (and its lack of bridges) is gonna make things awful dicey for the Russians.
Fingers crossed for Ukraine. Hope they can kick the orcs off their land.
I'd like to see Ukraine annex an area of Russia for use as a demilitarized zone in the future.
Won't happen.
A) It would overextend Ukrainian forces, they can't hold that area for any long time (3km is not enough with normal artillery ranges in the 20s km and range artillery 40+)
B) It would put current Ukrainian advantages against them as disadvantages (like supply lines, local support)
C) The support in the West for regaining their territory is big, gaining more not so much
D) Russian military doctrine. They might actually really use nukes.
-
Reports this morning of a Ukraine offensive kicking off in the Kherson region. As in, troops actually advancing, taking territory, Russian troops falling back, etc.
If it turns into a rout, the Dnieper river (and its lack of bridges) is gonna make things awful dicey for the Russians.
Fingers crossed for Ukraine. Hope they can kick the orcs off their land.
I'd like to see Ukraine annex an area of Russia for use as a demilitarized zone in the future.
Won't happen.
A) It would overextend Ukrainian forces, they can't hold that area for any long time (3km is not enough with normal artillery ranges in the 20s km and range artillery 40+)
B) It would put current Ukrainian advantages against them as disadvantages (like supply lines, local support)
C) The support in the West for regaining their territory is big, gaining more not so much
D) Russian military doctrine. They might actually really use nukes.
It would give the liar Putin the excuse for full military mobilization and could actually rouse sentiment in the heavily propagandized Russian populace. There have been reports that sentiment does not currently favor the "special military operation."
-
yeah ukraine invading russia is probably close to 0%. Wasn't there a bunch of agreements about not using the western weapons to attack russia territory, only for defense/taking back their territory? Ukraine can reclaim donbass and crimea and will have to stop there. There's enough examples throughout history that should deter any ukrainian leadership ideas on invading russia.
-
Any chance the UN security council would send in peace keepers to protect any or all of Ukraine? Similar to Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
-
Any chance the UN security council would send in peace keepers to protect any or all of Ukraine? Similar to Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
When Russia holds a veto? Nope, no chance.
Although, by the time this is all over, Russia may be the party requiring protection, given their losses in Ukraine to this point.
-
Any chance the UN security council would send in peace keepers to protect any or all of Ukraine? Similar to Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Putin would have to agree. He might, as 1) from his point of view a UN peacekeeping force would be preferable to a NATO one, and 2) he could spin it to the Russian people as being there to keep the bloodthirsty Ukrainians from waging war on Russians.
-
Any chance the UN security council would send in peace keepers to protect any or all of Ukraine? Similar to Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Putin would have to agree. He might, as 1) from his point of view a UN peacekeeping force would be preferable to a NATO one, and 2) he could spin it to the Russian people as being there to keep the bloodthirsty Ukrainians from waging war on Russians.
And even if he did not need to agree, nobody is going to put blue helmets against such a big army. It may not be as strong as everybody thought, but it still in the TOP 10. I don't see any country putting thousands of troops (and billions of dollar) into this in the middle of all the shit this year. Corona is still bringing hospitals on the border of collapse, there is of course the war and the biggest heat events so far are also destroying power and food production on a big scale. Have you looked to China and Pakistan for example?
But relax, it's going to be one of the best summers of the future.
-
I think the whole mess in Ukraine and Russia should put the world on notice that we need to get off gas & oil ASAP. The world was already heading in that direction, hopefully this supercharges those changes.
-
I think the whole mess in Ukraine and Russia should put the world on notice that we need to get off gas & oil ASAP. The world was already heading in that direction, hopefully this supercharges those changes.
I don't know that it's "oil and gas" per se, but perhaps "oil and gas from nations with a tendency towards un-neighborly behavior." The US, Mexico, and Canada seem to get along pretty well.
-
I think the whole mess in Ukraine and Russia should put the world on notice that we need to get off gas & oil ASAP. The world was already heading in that direction, hopefully this supercharges those changes.
I don't know that it's "oil and gas" per se, but perhaps "oil and gas from nations with a tendency towards un-neighborly behavior." The US, Mexico, and Canada seem to get along pretty well.
Some don't believe the global warming thing will bite many where it hurts. Lots of smart scientists do and they spend all their time studying it. So, what did Lennstar say about this Summer? "But relax, it's going to be one of the best summers of the future."
It kind of reminds me of the guy sitting on a tree limb and happily sawing the part towards the tree away.
This war may be a good time to get serious about global warming.
-
I don't know that it's "oil and gas" per se, but perhaps "oil and gas from nations with a tendency towards un-neighborly behavior." The US, Mexico, and Canada seem to get along pretty well.
If I'm not mistaken, the US, Canada, and Mexico are all net exporters. The problem is that oil is fungible and oil prices are set on a world market. So any disruption in the world's oil supply causes prices to spike everywhere, including the US and Canada. And we know from past recent history, oil shocks can either directly cause or partly cause recessions. If you figure in the lost economic output from these recessions, it is very expensive indeed to be dependent on fossil fuels. To that end, we've parked our military in the Middle East for decades hoping to keep oil flowing smoothly, with arguable success and enormous cost. But it is very clear our economic well being means not being dependent on fossil fuels. If it were up to me, I would quadruple down on the Green New Deal. It is much cheaper than that status quo.
-
I think the whole mess in Ukraine and Russia should put the world on notice that we need to get off gas & oil ASAP. The world was already heading in that direction, hopefully this supercharges those changes.
I don't think that will happen. The US's response was to release petroleum from the stockpile to lower prices (because the most important midterm elections in the history of the universe are coming up?), while Germany--having otherwise committed geopolitical suicide (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/20/germany-nuclear-power-energy-weapons-nato-russia-ukraine-war-energy-crisis-greens/)--is going back to coal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/01/germany-coal-energy-climate/). My prediction is that there will be potentially grand-sounding legislation, but it will be little more than a thousand of incoherent subsidies that don't add up to much in terms of shifting price signals. Other strategies, like carbon capture, are also targets of psychotic hysteria (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/29/germany-carbon-capture). Recall also during COVID that in Europe, the most climate-conscious region, airlines were flying empty flights (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/airlines-flying-near-empty-ghost-flights-to-retain-eu-airport-slots) because of rules around airport gate allocations. Everyone is deranged and confused, and no one wants higher prices.
-
So far it appears that a handful of villages have been liberated (locations both Ukrainian and Russian sources agree on). The bridges across the river are still being hit, probably in an effort to slow down reinforcement or escape. Unconfirmed report that the barge that has been used in lieu of the bridge may have also been damaged. The reporting is rather chaotic right now, but Russian sources reported seeing Ukrainian armor in the lead of at least one of the attacks which hasn't happened since April. It's night time now, so the next thing to watch for is if either side brought night-fighting capabilities with them and if Ukraine can sustain this attack around the clock. On top of this offensive, there are reports that Ukraine HIMAR'd a yacht club full of Russian officers.
-
I think part of the Ukrainian tactics is to make the bridges passable only on foot, forcing the Russians to abandon their equipment. The traffic jam at any remaining Dnieper River crossings could be a sight to behold. Ukraine has gained great advantage by prioritizing Russian vehicles, particularly armored ones over the last 6 months.
I've heard that the West has been supplying night vision equipment to Ukraine ever since the 2014 invasion of Crimea, and that Ukraine, in particular their special forces, have a whole lot more of it than the frontline Russian troops.
-
I've heard that the West has been supplying night vision equipment to Ukraine ever since the 2014 invasion of Crimea, and that Ukraine, in particular their special forces, have a whole lot more of it than the frontline Russian troops.
Ukraine's special operations forces are very well equipped; however, they're probably short 100,000 NVGs for the rest of their army. It's a critical and expensive piece of kit.
-
Judging by where the fights seem to happen, I would guess that the Ukrainians are trying to push the Russians at least across the Dnipr and on the other side get an attack going to Mariupol.
If they succeed the supply efforts for the Russians in the South would be in even greater distress, making it maybe possible to rush at least to the Crimea borders, herding Russian soldiers there maybe even without heavy equipment, which could be reused by Ukrainian reserve troops.
That Russians Shoigu called the offensive an utter failure makes hope, since he of course is lying.
-
Judging by where the fights seem to happen, I would guess that the Ukrainians are trying to push the Russians at least across the Dnipr and on the other side get an attack going to Mariupol.
If they succeed the supply efforts for the Russians in the South would be in even greater distress, making it maybe possible to rush at least to the Crimea borders, herding Russian soldiers there maybe even without heavy equipment, which could be reused by Ukrainian reserve troops.
That Russians Shoigu called the offensive an utter failure makes hope, since he of course is lying.
Part of Ukraine's strategy so far has been making the bridges across the Dnipr at Kherson unusable. If they can take the region up the river they're unlikely to cross it themselves. Shifting everything to the Zap region for a later showdown would probably be the next phase.
-
New headline: "Head of Russian oil giant Lukoil dies after falling from hospital window, reports state media"
The chairman of Russian oil and gas giant Lukoil — which spoke out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine — has died after falling out of a hospital window, state news agencies RIA Novosti and TASS reported Thursday.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-09-01-22/
-
People who speak out against Putin have historically been quite unlucky in Russia.
-
I am fully convinced the window is a sort of meme in the FSB. Like the "heroic thiefs" would leave a card with their name before they steal something, the FSB will make their customers leave through the window.
-
I am fully convinced the window is a sort of meme in the FSB. Like the "heroic thiefs" would leave a card with their name before they steal something, the FSB will make their customers leave through the window.
Given a choice, I'd take the window over the polonium poisoning.
-
I am fully convinced the window is a sort of meme in the FSB. Like the "heroic thiefs" would leave a card with their name before they steal something, the FSB will make their customers leave through the window.
Given a choice, I'd take the window over the polonium poisoning.
Do they take requests now?
-
I'd guess that Ukraine is succeeding, given the Oryx list losses over the past week are predominantly Russian, and most Russian losses are likely not public yet. If Ukraine were failing the list would be full of Ukrainian losses just like when the Russian invasion failed in March the list filled with Russian losses.
I think it is stupid that Russia is trying to hold Kherson. It is such an obviously losing position, and has no strategic value I can think of since they weren't able to advance farther. It is the last serious remnant of their failed February stupidity. You can basically read the sad stories of the Russian survivors now: "the river was low and warm when our unit entered the city across a large bridge in the sunshine. When we left, it was on a barely floating wooden table, the water was deep fast and cold, and the snowflakes were heavier than the shells that were falling all around our unit which already had only 20% of its men surviving." Do Russians not read? Cause anyone who has read anything would have known that sentence would emerge two months ago. I think their strategist slept through Strategy 101 in addition to reading anything.
Consider a popular children's book Mossflower, second in Brian Jacques Redwall series. Weasels and wildcats occupied the forest years ago, introducing a reign of terror. After a summer and spring of irregular warfare, the mice and moles drive them back to their stronghold on the banks of the river. A conversation of European climate and its effects on river flow in different seasons ensues, and then the mice and moles systematically destroy the supplies and fortifications of the weasels and wildcats first with flooding, and then with long range artillery supplied by a foreigner. Eventually the demoralized wildcats and weasels abandon their armor and float across the river on overturned tables and shutters and are easily killed or captured, with many drowning. So am I saying the Russians demonstrate a much poorer understanding of strategy than is conveyed in popular children's books? Yes, I am definitely saying exactly that.
-
I'd guess that Ukraine is succeeding, given the Oryx list losses over the past week are predominantly Russian, and most Russian losses are likely not public yet. If Ukraine were failing the list would be full of Ukrainian losses just like when the Russian invasion failed in March the list filled with Russian losses.
I think it is stupid that Russia is trying to hold Kherson. It is such an obviously losing position, and has no strategic value I can think of since they weren't able to advance farther. It is the last serious remnant of their failed February stupidity. You can basically read the sad stories of the Russian survivors now: "the river was low and warm when our unit entered the city across a large bridge in the sunshine. When we left, it was on a barely floating wooden table, the water was deep fast and cold, and the snowflakes were heavier than the shells that were falling all around our unit which already had only 20% of its men surviving." Do Russians not read? Cause anyone who has read anything would have known that sentence would emerge two months ago. I think their strategist slept through Strategy 101 in addition to reading anything.
Consider a popular children's book Mossflower, second in Brian Jacques Redwall series. Weasels and wildcats occupied the forest years ago, introducing a reign of terror. After a summer and spring of irregular warfare, the mice and moles drive them back to their stronghold on the banks of the river. A conversation of European climate and its effects on river flow in different seasons ensues, and then the mice and moles systematically destroy the supplies and fortifications of the weasels and wildcats first with flooding, and then with long range artillery supplied by a foreigner. Eventually the demoralized wildcats and weasels abandon their armor and float across the river on overturned tables and shutters and are easily killed or captured, with many drowning. So am I saying the Russians demonstrate a much poorer understanding of strategy than is conveyed in popular children's books? Yes, I am definitely saying exactly that.
Is there a possibility that they could simply surrender? It has been reported that their top leaders have left the area. I would think that if the scenario is as you describe, they would quickly realize they have been abandoned.
-
Surender is possible and there's at least one confirmed act of surender from the Kherson offensive so far. There may be some reluctance for Russian forces to surender as they are well aware how Russia treats POWs and might incorrectly assume Ukraine would treat them the same way.
-
Or worse, if you think of the propaganda they have been fed.
But you really have "popular" children's books which depict real war? Where are you? Russia or USA?
-
In Estonian book stores, which have a wide selection of books in both Estonian and Russian (almost a quarter of the inhabitants speak Russian as their native language), I’ve been amazed to see the topics of picture books for small children: The Estonian ones have the usual animals, fire engines and other vehicles, famous landmarks from across the world, etc. The Russian ones have these, and also whole books just on tanks or guns! It starts early.
-
Or worse, if you think of the propaganda they have been fed.
But you really have "popular" children's books which depict real war? Where are you? Russia or USA?
US, author was British, here it is on German ;)
https://www.amazon.de/Brian-Jacques/dp/3570260224/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2H0B6K3NP19IC&keywords=Kotir%2C+die+Burg+des+Schreckens&qid=1662277105&sprefix=kotir+die+burg+des+schreckens%2Caps%2C530&sr=8-1
Did any of my child hood books not depict war is the real question. I think maybe 25% did not. Lord of the Rings, Star Trek novels, golden compass, Harry Potter, basically war mostly. For non fiction I enjoyed ready about castles and wars.
-
Or worse, if you think of the propaganda they have been fed.
But you really have "popular" children's books which depict real war? Where are you? Russia or USA?
Here in the Netherlands, I think very few books I read were not about WWII. Maybe the youngest generation is no longer reading war books, WWII is obviously very long ago for them, but in the 90s almost all popular books were about the German occupation. It didn't feel like it was that long ago because it was all our grandparents talked about as well.
-
Or worse, if you think of the propaganda they have been fed.
But you really have "popular" children's books which depict real war? Where are you? Russia or USA?
US, author was British, here it is on German ;)
https://www.amazon.de/Brian-Jacques/dp/3570260224/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2H0B6K3NP19IC&keywords=Kotir%2C+die+Burg+des+Schreckens&qid=1662277105&sprefix=kotir+die+burg+des+schreckens%2Caps%2C530&sr=8-1
Did any of my child hood books not depict war is the real question. I think maybe 25% did not. Lord of the Rings, Star Trek novels, golden compass, Harry Potter, basically war mostly. For non fiction I enjoyed ready about castles and wars.
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
-
Or worse, if you think of the propaganda they have been fed.
But you really have "popular" children's books which depict real war? Where are you? Russia or USA?
US, author was British, here it is on German ;)
https://www.amazon.de/Brian-Jacques/dp/3570260224/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2H0B6K3NP19IC&keywords=Kotir%2C+die+Burg+des+Schreckens&qid=1662277105&sprefix=kotir+die+burg+des+schreckens%2Caps%2C530&sr=8-1
Did any of my child hood books not depict war is the real question. I think maybe 25% did not. Lord of the Rings, Star Trek novels, golden compass, Harry Potter, basically war mostly. For non fiction I enjoyed ready about castles and wars.
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
I read Mossflower in elementary school. Third grade. I read ALL of Brian Jacques books as a kid. My mother was quite tired of me reading those books, over and over again. The series was quite popular. Most of them involved war or conflict in some way. "Redwall" was a full on siege of a peaceful settlement.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
-
Also, Harry Potter is like the definition of children’s books. The fact that a whole bunch of grown ups also read them doesn’t change that.
-
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Either I have a problem with English, or singel digit age means under ten, so 8 and 9 would be spot on. (Though I would put the border at puberty, so roughly 12)
And Harry is a bit too dark for single digits??
-
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Either I have a problem with English, or singel digit age means under ten, so 8 and 9 would be spot on. (Though I would put the border at puberty, so roughly 12)
And Harry is a bit too dark for single digits??
I read Harry Potter to a 6 year old because she loved it and would get anyone she could to read it to her. I was around 16 at that time and hadn't read it previously at that point.
Your view of children and their interests is skewed for some reason. Either that or you haven't read any of these books and therefore are going on what others have said. As much as war and conflict is present in the Redwall series, it's not bloody or traumatic.
-
I read Mossflower in elementary school. Third grade. I read ALL of Brian Jacques books as a kid. My mother was quite tired of me reading those books, over and over again. The series was quite popular. Most of them involved war or conflict in some way. "Redwall" was a full on siege of a peaceful settlement.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Yup me too. Read every book in the series that had been published again and again from 8-11, then I found The Lord of the Rings and there was no going back.
I think the Mossflower war is actually a pretty in-depth examination of a situation which is very close to what is actually happening in Ukraine in nearly every aspect. An evil army occupying an area followed by years of plundering resulting in deep poverty, guerilla and irregular war, spies and double agents, theories of supply chain disruption, baddies discussing whether to win by burning the whole forest down, mercenaries private military companies, strategies of driving out an invader with better hardware, effects of low morale, etc. The attack on Kotir matches very closely the string of events leading to the attack on Kherson, even down to the season.
-
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Either I have a problem with English, or singel digit age means under ten, so 8 and 9 would be spot on. (Though I would put the border at puberty, so roughly 12)
And Harry is a bit too dark for single digits??
I read Harry Potter to a 6 year old because she loved it and would get anyone she could to read it to her. I was around 16 at that time and hadn't read it previously at that point.
Your view of children and their interests is skewed for some reason. Either that or you haven't read any of these books and therefore are going on what others have said. As much as war and conflict is present in the Redwall series, it's not bloody or traumatic.
Oh, I know there are kids who like it when it gets really bloody. And I didn't read Potter, only watched the films once... was not my alley.
But generally parents don't want their children reading those books (at young age). And if I look at lists "from 10 years" the closest seems to be book 6 from the "Scary Harry" series, which is a comedy, so not dark in actuality.
Maybe that's one of those US / Germany differences.
-
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Either I have a problem with English, or singel digit age means under ten, so 8 and 9 would be spot on. (Though I would put the border at puberty, so roughly 12)
And Harry is a bit too dark for single digits??
I read Harry Potter to a 6 year old because she loved it and would get anyone she could to read it to her. I was around 16 at that time and hadn't read it previously at that point.
Your view of children and their interests is skewed for some reason. Either that or you haven't read any of these books and therefore are going on what others have said. As much as war and conflict is present in the Redwall series, it's not bloody or traumatic.
Oh, I know there are kids who like it when it gets really bloody. And I didn't read Potter, only watched the films once... was not my alley.
But generally parents don't want their children reading those books (at young age). And if I look at lists "from 10 years" the closest seems to be book 6 from the "Scary Harry" series, which is a comedy, so not dark in actuality.
Maybe that's one of those US / Germany differences.
I actually read HP when I was in highschool (wasn't published yet when I was a kid). I thought it was a bit too childish at that point. There wasn't loads of violence in the book as far as I remember, I've only seen one or two of the films. Not more violent than the Grimm Brothers and we read those stories to 4 year olds.
What did you read as a child? Maybe I've heard of some of the books.
One of the most popular children's books in the Dutch language, Oorlogswinter by Jan Terlouw, features a scene where the main character's dad is murdered in public by nazi's as a revenge attack for a resistance action the the protagonist, a kid, was a part of. That's a shocking scene but it's not more shocking than what we teach kids in history class or the stories that we heard at home. I've not heard of parents not wanting their child to read that book because it's too violent.
-
https://twitter.com/pauljawin/status/1566769592835399680?s=21&t=_l338wLIJASbp18Zhezi9g (https://twitter.com/pauljawin/status/1566769592835399680?s=21&t=_l338wLIJASbp18Zhezi9g)
Captured weapons from the first few days of the Kherson offensive.
Northeastern front line has moved from Vysokopillya to Novovoskresens'ke over the course of two days. Pro-Russian Telegram accounts complaining about loss of front line communications and coordination for artillery support.
-
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Either I have a problem with English, or singel digit age means under ten, so 8 and 9 would be spot on. (Though I would put the border at puberty, so roughly 12)
And Harry is a bit too dark for single digits??
I read Harry Potter to a 6 year old because she loved it and would get anyone she could to read it to her. I was around 16 at that time and hadn't read it previously at that point.
Your view of children and their interests is skewed for some reason. Either that or you haven't read any of these books and therefore are going on what others have said. As much as war and conflict is present in the Redwall series, it's not bloody or traumatic.
Oh, I know there are kids who like it when it gets really bloody. And I didn't read Potter, only watched the films once... was not my alley.
But generally parents don't want their children reading those books (at young age). And if I look at lists "from 10 years" the closest seems to be book 6 from the "Scary Harry" series, which is a comedy, so not dark in actuality.
Maybe that's one of those US / Germany differences.
I find it amusing that all the parents who gasped and didn't want their innocent children reading these books are also the parents who have teen and young adult children that are riddled with anxiety and depression, sinking under the weight of even partial independence. I can't speak for Germany, but I'm really quite worried about a significant chunk of the teens and early to mid 20s people that I see.
However, I'm going to have to dig out my copy of Mossflower and reread it. Redwall too probably. It's been quite a while since I read them.
-
Same! I wonder how they hold up now that I'm an adult. I used to read anything war-related I could get my hands on as a child, including Brian Jacques' books.
Oorlogswinter didn't leave much of an impression on me when I read it way back when. The plot Imma described didn't really ring a bell even though I've read the book. A few children's books that I do remember were Thea Beckman Hundred Years' War trilogy (Flemish runaway girl and later her offspring get caught up in the horrors of a bloody medieval war between England and France) and Boris by Jaap ter Haar, about a 12-year-old living through the siege of Leningrad in World War II. I think these were written for children of about ten years old and up, so arguably not quite little children, but still.
Okay, not what I consider children's books ;) I was thinking of books for ages in single digits.
Not sure why you're not considering an 8 or 9 year old to not be a child.
Either I have a problem with English, or singel digit age means under ten, so 8 and 9 would be spot on. (Though I would put the border at puberty, so roughly 12)
And Harry is a bit too dark for single digits??
I read Harry Potter to a 6 year old because she loved it and would get anyone she could to read it to her. I was around 16 at that time and hadn't read it previously at that point.
Your view of children and their interests is skewed for some reason. Either that or you haven't read any of these books and therefore are going on what others have said. As much as war and conflict is present in the Redwall series, it's not bloody or traumatic.
Oh, I know there are kids who like it when it gets really bloody. And I didn't read Potter, only watched the films once... was not my alley.
But generally parents don't want their children reading those books (at young age). And if I look at lists "from 10 years" the closest seems to be book 6 from the "Scary Harry" series, which is a comedy, so not dark in actuality.
Maybe that's one of those US / Germany differences.
Interestingly, it seems like the worse gun violence in the US gets, the more parents are trying to shelter their children from depictions of violence. Wasn't there a story about children facing expulsion from school for making finger guns somewhere? Probably an outlier but interesting nonetheless. Making finger guns and playing cowboys and Indians (as it was called then) was standard fare for children's play when I was six years old.
-
What did you read as a child? Maybe I've heard of some of the books.
Strangely enough, I can't remember. I can tell you I jumped right over fairy tales and Grimm etc. Later on I got faszinated by super novas and all that other really big stuff out there. Read all the fantasy and SF stuff I could find (still not changed much). And I would carry a full backpack from the library every month.
sinking under the weight of even partial independence.
And here I thought that was because they are no allowed to leave home without parents, lest they be killed by cars, that getting in a tree is too dangerous and so on.
Northeastern front line has moved from Vysokopillya to Novovoskresens'ke over the course of two days. Pro-Russian Telegram accounts complaining about loss of front line communications and coordination for artillery support.
Sounds like they are too afraid of using unencrypted cell phones now. I am not complaining.
btw. Putin finally announced that there will be no gas anymore and... we against the west, glory and victory
For me that looks like he has run out of options.
-
Same! I wonder how they hold up now that I'm an adult. I used to read anything war-related I could get my hands on as a child, including Brian Jacques' books.
Oorlogswinter didn't leave much of an impression on me when I read it way back when. The plot Imma described didn't really ring a bell even though I've read the book. A few children's books that I do remember were Thea Beckman Hundred Years' War trilogy (Flemish runaway girl and later her offspring get caught up in the horrors of a bloody medieval war between England and France) and Boris by Jaap ter Haar, about a 12-year-old living through the siege of Leningrad in World War II. I think these were written for children of about ten years old and up, so arguably not quite little children, but still.
I read all of those, too! I think I've read almost every book by Thea Beckman and own most. I was a frugal girl even as a kid, I would spend my pocketmoney buying the books the library no longer wanted (at 1 Dutch guilder each.... that was a long time ago!). I own Boris too, it didn't appeal to me at the time, the reading level printed on the cover is AVI-7 which is indeed for kids around 10 years old. Most of Thea Beckman's books were a bit more complicated but I remember reading those in primary school, not in secondary school. I stopped reading children's novels around the time I went to secondary school.
Another favourite at the time was Evert Hartman, who among others wrote a novel from the perspective of a teenager from a nazi-supporting family and also a book about a primary school class being taken hostage by terrorists (which is a thing that happened here a couple of years before that book was written).
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
I'm guessing there are long term alternate energy plans in the works as well.
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
Yes, that is one half of the reason why the gas prices are so high at the moment. Everyone was scrambling to get the gas needed for winter. German gas storages are filled more(!) than ususal at this time. That was publicized 2(?) days before the sudden short maintenance was announced which lowered gas supply again. And at the end of those 3 days... Putin finally admitted what everyone was assuming anyway.
The other half are the French Nuclear Power Plants. Germany has to burn gas to produce the energy the French use more than they can produce.
I think as the West could not believe Putin would really attack, Putin also did not believe the West could really do this amount of sanction for any longer time. Quite the irony.
For the next years Liquid Gas will come from Canada for example. I highly doubt we will ever see the amount flowing through the Russian pipelines as it has before, and possibly none in 10 years. "The Russians will come!" was a terror scream for decades, and it has now be revitalized, especially in the former USSR states.
Even if Putin still wins militarily, he already lost economically. "But gas was always flowing" was the only thing that kept the addicts in Europe to him. Now the only threat left is atomic bombs, and he already tried that with no big results.
-
Same! I wonder how they hold up now that I'm an adult. I used to read anything war-related I could get my hands on as a child, including Brian Jacques' books.
Oorlogswinter didn't leave much of an impression on me when I read it way back when. The plot Imma described didn't really ring a bell even though I've read the book. A few children's books that I do remember were Thea Beckman Hundred Years' War trilogy (Flemish runaway girl and later her offspring get caught up in the horrors of a bloody medieval war between England and France) and Boris by Jaap ter Haar, about a 12-year-old living through the siege of Leningrad in World War II. I think these were written for children of about ten years old and up, so arguably not quite little children, but still.
I read all of those, too! I think I've read almost every book by Thea Beckman and own most. I was a frugal girl even as a kid, I would spend my pocketmoney buying the books the library no longer wanted (at 1 Dutch guilder each.... that was a long time ago!). I own Boris too, it didn't appeal to me at the time, the reading level printed on the cover is AVI-7 which is indeed for kids around 10 years old. Most of Thea Beckman's books were a bit more complicated but I remember reading those in primary school, not in secondary school. I stopped reading children's novels around the time I went to secondary school.
Another favourite at the time was Evert Hartman, who among others wrote a novel from the perspective of a teenager from a nazi-supporting family and also a book about a primary school class being taken hostage by terrorists (which is a thing that happened here a couple of years before that book was written).
American kids would benefit from reading some of those books just for the historical context. I have always enjoyed reading about history. I was close to my grandfather during my middle school years and he had participated in WWII. I wanted to understand the war so I was reading about it in middle school. What eluded me for a long time was WHY people sided with the Nazis and against the Jews. Heck, I'm still working on that somewhat. The books I read just weren't giving the cultural background I wanted.
Sounds like the books you mentioned might have provided some of that context.
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
I'm guessing there are long term alternate energy plans in the works as well.
I saw that the French are restarting all their nuclear power stations, even mothballed ones, by winter.
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
Yes, that is one half of the reason why the gas prices are so high at the moment. Everyone was scrambling to get the gas needed for winter. German gas storages are filled more(!) than ususal at this time. That was publicized 2(?) days before the sudden short maintenance was announced which lowered gas supply again. And at the end of those 3 days... Putin finally admitted what everyone was assuming anyway.
The other half are the French Nuclear Power Plants. Germany has to burn gas to produce the energy the French use more than they can produce.
I think as the West could not believe Putin would really attack, Putin also did not believe the West could really do this amount of sanction for any longer time. Quite the irony.
For the next years Liquid Gas will come from Canada for example. I highly doubt we will ever see the amount flowing through the Russian pipelines as it has before, and possibly none in 10 years. "The Russians will come!" was a terror scream for decades, and it has now be revitalized, especially in the former USSR states.
Even if Putin still wins militarily, he already lost economically. "But gas was always flowing" was the only thing that kept the addicts in Europe to him. Now the only threat left is atomic bombs, and he already tried that with no big results.
It looks like your LNG will come from the US. Apparently, Canada does not have the big LNG facilities. They are building one, but it's on the opposite side of the continent so should serve the Asian market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_Canada)
Of course, some of the LNG sent from the US could come from Canada.
I am sure selling gas to Europe will drive up the cost of Winter heating. It will be no where near as bad as Europe is experiencing. This is OK if it stops Putin.
The higher price of natural gas should prompt a stronger interest in reliable emission free energy. I predict a resurgence in Nukes.
The higher price should also prompt the exploration for new sources of natural gas.
In 4-5 years, Europe will probably have forgotten that Russia was once a large gas supplier OR Russia will get their act together and begin to behave like a civilized nation.
-
Same! I wonder how they hold up now that I'm an adult. I used to read anything war-related I could get my hands on as a child, including Brian Jacques' books.
Oorlogswinter didn't leave much of an impression on me when I read it way back when. The plot Imma described didn't really ring a bell even though I've read the book. A few children's books that I do remember were Thea Beckman Hundred Years' War trilogy (Flemish runaway girl and later her offspring get caught up in the horrors of a bloody medieval war between England and France) and Boris by Jaap ter Haar, about a 12-year-old living through the siege of Leningrad in World War II. I think these were written for children of about ten years old and up, so arguably not quite little children, but still.
I read all of those, too! I think I've read almost every book by Thea Beckman and own most. I was a frugal girl even as a kid, I would spend my pocketmoney buying the books the library no longer wanted (at 1 Dutch guilder each.... that was a long time ago!). I own Boris too, it didn't appeal to me at the time, the reading level printed on the cover is AVI-7 which is indeed for kids around 10 years old. Most of Thea Beckman's books were a bit more complicated but I remember reading those in primary school, not in secondary school. I stopped reading children's novels around the time I went to secondary school.
Another favourite at the time was Evert Hartman, who among others wrote a novel from the perspective of a teenager from a nazi-supporting family and also a book about a primary school class being taken hostage by terrorists (which is a thing that happened here a couple of years before that book was written).
American kids would benefit from reading some of those books just for the historical context. I have always enjoyed reading about history. I was close to my grandfather during my middle school years and he had participated in WWII. I wanted to understand the war so I was reading about it in middle school. What eluded me for a long time was WHY people sided with the Nazis and against the Jews. Heck, I'm still working on that somewhat. The books I read just weren't giving the cultural background I wanted.
Sounds like the books you mentioned might have provided some of that context.
Yes, they would have provided that context! And some of them have probably been translated into English as well.
For me, it was never very hard to imagine why people sided with the nazi's. My grandparents lived through that time as well and I was close to them. We talked a lot about WWII. You have to keep in mind that in the 30s, the whole world was in deep economic trouble. It was way worse than what we were going through now and the governments were failing harder than our current ones. Most countries had thriving nazi parties / movements, it wasn't just a thing in Germany. It's hard to believe now but nazi's were considered cool and intellectual in those days - the uniforms, the songs, the radical new ideas and science (it's hard to imagine now but eugenics was seen as modern science in those days). It was a meritocratic organization, a hardworking lower class man could rise up through the ranks within the party. In my country they gained quite some support among mostly the lower middle classes and farmers. Antisemitism wasn't their main selling point at that time - even though the leaders of the party of course had always been deeply antisemitic, that wasn't true for all of their supporters. They had no idea about the Holocaust. They wanted Volkswagens and cool clothes with skulls on them.
When Germany eventually invaded in 1940, the first period wasn't that bad. The Germans saw the Dutch as their racial equals and treated us quite nicely. For many people, the occupation at first was little more than a change of government and they sort of tolerated the nazi's. Many people didn't really agree with the deportation of Jews, but thought "well, what can you do about it?". And it was dangerous to speak out. One of my grandparents, their family never supported the nazi's, but they shared a house with a family who were active Party members (their sons all died in Russia) so they couldn't speak out. One of my other grandparents was a fairly passive member of the resistance - they allowed some people to hide on their farm, it was arranged by a cousin who was eventually killed for their resistance membership. The third grandparent ran a soup kitchen - the soup kitchen provided much needed food to the inhabitants but it was paid for by the German occupiers. Were they collaborating by accepting a job that was paid for by Germans? Perhaps, but otherwise a lot of people might have starved. None of them supported the nazi's but as you can see they all handled the situation differently.
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
I'm guessing there are long term alternate energy plans in the works as well.
I saw that the French are restarting all their nuclear power stations, even mothballed ones, by winter.
Energy independence (or at least, moving in the direction of...) that comes with zero carbon/greenhouse gas emitted? Win-win!
-
It seems like Putin waited too long to play the shutting-off-the-gas card. To me, it appears that once the first interruption happened, Europe wisely assumed that a full shutoff was in the cards, so they've been stockpiling in anticipation.
You mean the maintenance problem that will go away as soon as Europe drops the sanctions?
-
So in addition to Russian defenses in Kherson Oblast falling apart, Ukraine launched an attack in the east near Izyum. Size and scope not yet known, but allegedly they've taken two or three villages in the last 18 hours with little resistance. It's smelling like the frontline in that region is very thin. We'll see in a few days what kind of defense Russia puts together.
https://twitter.com/militarylandnet/status/1567167772727169025?s=21&t=V1XLln3HqkfmP0W1f9JkUQ (https://twitter.com/militarylandnet/status/1567167772727169025?s=21&t=V1XLln3HqkfmP0W1f9JkUQ)
https://twitter.com/Bazinga00264477/status/1567069067441278977 (https://twitter.com/Bazinga00264477/status/1567069067441278977)
https://twitter.com/zcjbrooker/status/1567169045895462913?s=21&t=CtT28NyIx3Aan3q8OqsozA (https://twitter.com/zcjbrooker/status/1567169045895462913?s=21&t=CtT28NyIx3Aan3q8OqsozA)
-
Thanks, pecunia. I'd wondered about the comment on natural gas coming from canada when I didn't know about any export terminals that could serve the Canada/Europe route, but I didn't have the time to dig into looking into it in more detail.
Natural gas really doesn't ship well. I hope we (North America) ship Europe all the gas that the CNG terminal infrastructure on both continents will allow and am happy to pay higher prices/keep the thermostat lower as a result.
-
ANYway... I think it is interesting that Lennstar asked what kind of children's books I read, but nobody tried to refute that the leaders of the Russian special military operation show less ability at strategic thought than a children's book :D
-
I don't even blame them (much).
As far as we can tell, they started the war based on wrong intelligence about the resistance capacities and were also damn unlucky. On top of being told to do that in a "diplomatic" way.
Now they are stuck in a situation where the personal available cannot be sufficient, the support for the enemy is far heavier than thought (both in Ukraine and outside help) and they are still pressed to show results.
Any sensible general would have already pushed for peace talks long ago. Problem is that sensible generals have been fired or are sensibly keeping their mouth shut.
It is the same problem in all autocracies. You only go up the ladder if you agree to the boss, if you tell him you are more intelligent than he is, you are a threat to him and you go down the window.
-----
I still think it's possible that in a few weeks the resistance in the south might crumble so much that Ukraine can push to crimea.
The Ukrainians aren't under pressure to be fast. (Quite contrary, that might put Putin into actually mobilizing his country officially.) A village here, a small town there - it adds up. And costs a lot less lives than a rushed offensive so many seemed to have expected. And then, one time nobody can predict, the defense might simply crash like a house of cards with 3 cards removed.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-ukraine-war-recruits-volunteers-long-vacations-peskov-1740159
Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged that Russians who volunteer to fight in Ukraine will be guaranteed long vacations and job security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently said.
The promise of eternal sleep.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/7/7366424/
Quote from Putin: "I am sure that the Russian Federation has lost nothing since 24 February, but the main achievement is the strengthening of our sovereignty.
Russia is a sovereign state, and we will always protect our national interests by pursuing an independent policy."
Russian soldiers' lives lost means nothing to the rulers.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-ukraine-war-recruits-volunteers-long-vacations-peskov-1740159
Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged that Russians who volunteer to fight in Ukraine will be guaranteed long vacations and job security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently said.
The promise of eternal sleep.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/7/7366424/
Quote from Putin: "I am sure that the Russian Federation has lost nothing since 24 February, but the main achievement is the strengthening of our sovereignty.
Russia is a sovereign state, and we will always protect our national interests by pursuing an independent policy."
Russian soldiers' lives lost means nothing to the rulers.
Given how often the current personnel aren't getting their promised paychecks, it'll be interesting to see how many people take Putin's offer.
-
Given how often the current personnel aren't getting their promised paychecks, it'll be interesting to see how many people take Putin's offer.
That's only because the devilish nazi postal service in Ukraine who sabotage the freedom force!
-
Looks like the Special Military Operation is running into some issues with disorderly retreats by RU at least in some spots - but no worries, it´s just a Special Military Panic:
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict
Viewer discretion advised (RU POW´s faces are seen in some of the visual material as well as dead and injured RU soldiers)
-
Sounds like the ruskies are getting absolutely routed in a few areas near Izyum. There is no way they can keep sustaining losses this big for much longer, unless they fully mobilize at home with forced conscription, etc...which I think Putin vowed he would not do.
I've seen some (very graphic) videos of russians attempting a river crossing with pontoon bridges, only to get ambushed.
-
New videos? Or the ones from several month ago from a river curve getting shelled.
This war is a bit like those "teen gets bullied, meets destined grand master of whatever and slowly beats back the bullies" movies. I hope it really end that way! Unlikely it will end this year though.
Looks like the Special Military Operation is running into some issues with disorderly retreats by RU at least in some spots - but no worries, it´s just a Special Military Panic:
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict
Viewer discretion advised (RU POW´s faces are seen in some of the visual material as well as dead and injured RU soldiers)
I can't see it without giving my date of birth (any 5 year old could do that??) which also would mean targeted advertising.
Such a coupling is illegal, but who cares, right? Not the Irish data protection office with their one half day employee (I think it's full time sicne last year though) that has to control all those multinational megacorps.
-
Presumably from within the last week. It appeared they were hastily moving east/south across the river due to the Ukrainian push.
Anyone follow malcontent news? They seem pretty invested into the conflict, and from what I can tell, they do their research and make it a point to note if things are still unconfirmed.
-
Presumably from within the last week. It appeared they were hastily moving east/south across the river due to the Ukrainian push.
Anyone follow malcontent news? They seem pretty invested into the conflict, and from what I can tell, they do their research and make it a point to note if things are still unconfirmed.
I'm on Discord with one of their analysts every few hours.
Not much new from Kherson today, but Ukrainian units confirmed as far northeast as Borivske and possibly within sight of the Oskil river.
-
Lieutenant General Andrei Sychevoi, General in command RU’s “West” Group (Kharkiv, Izium area) was apparently captured yesterday. He would be the highest ranking officer captured so far and his capture would be a serious blow to the RU effort in the area.
(https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1568035564452024321/photo/1)
-
(https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1568035564452024321/photo/1)
Not the same guy. The general is completely bald on top.
Ukrainian units confirmed to have reached the river and the outskirts of Kupyansk. Russian forces in Izyum appear to be fixed in place from southern attacks. Saw photos and videos of enough captured equipment to outfit a couple mechanized battalions to include mobile SAMs, C2 vehicles, and a counterbattery radar.
-
(https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1568035564452024321/photo/1)
Not the same guy. The general is completely bald on top.
Ukrainian units confirmed to have reached the river and the outskirts of Kupyansk. Russian forces in Izyum appear to be fixed in place from southern attacks. Saw photos and videos of enough captured equipment to outfit a couple mechanized battalions to include mobile SAMs, C2 vehicles, and a counterbattery radar.
Too bad - but it probably doesn´t make much of a difference at this point.
-
(https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1568035564452024321/photo/1)
Not the same guy. The general is completely bald on top.
Ukrainian units confirmed to have reached the river and the outskirts of Kupyansk. Russian forces in Izyum appear to be fixed in place from southern attacks. Saw photos and videos of enough captured equipment to outfit a couple mechanized battalions to include mobile SAMs, C2 vehicles, and a counterbattery radar.
Too bad - but it probably doesn´t make much of a difference at this point.
A Lieutenant Colonel taken prisoner is nothing to sneeze at. Probably still the highest ranking POW yet.
-
If it's the real Western Commander it's the highest Russian POW since WWII (they said).
-
RU defensive lines are collapsing at a rate and scale that are likely experienced as potentially regime destabilizing by the Kremlin.
-
I'm seeing reports that Ukraine is in Kupyansk and controls the whole west bank of that river all the way down to the outskirts of Izyum. Certainly Russia's supply lines to Izyum are cut, and they're running out of exit routes--they only have an escape to the southeast, from what I've heard, and that window may be closing.
-
Russia is getting stomped. I had expected something like this to happen back in March, but they managed to retreat in fairly good order back then. I guess Russian minds were still fresh in March, but the existential futility of the war is finally starting to sink in. I expect Ukraine to have taken back essentially the whole country before next summer, so things are just getting started. This will be repeated again and again over much larger areas in the coming months.
If Ukraine also wants to seize the Russian Black Sea Coast to protect Ukrainian speakers, create a NovoUkraine, and defend against Russian expansion that is fine with me.
-
I'm seeing reports that Ukraine is in Kupyansk and controls the whole west bank of that river all the way down to the outskirts of Izyum. Certainly Russia's supply lines to Izyum are cut, and they're running out of exit routes--they only have an escape to the southeast, from what I've heard, and that window may be closing.
Liveuamap is showing Izyum in Ukrainian control, along with the ~3km East of Izyum all the way to the river.
-
Russia is getting stomped. I had expected something like this to happen back in March, but they managed to retreat in fairly good order back then. I guess Russian minds were still fresh in March, but the existential futility of the war is finally starting to sink in. I expect Ukraine to have taken back essentially the whole country before next summer, so things are just getting started. This will be repeated again and again over much larger areas in the coming months.
If Ukraine also wants to seize the Russian Black Sea Coast to protect Ukrainian speakers, create a NovoUkraine, and defend against Russian expansion that is fine with me.
I just loved the phrase, "The existential futility of the war is finally starting to sink in."
The Russians are sending another batch of old equipment to the war. They are pulling in the dregs of their society. They give their allied soldiers from the breakaway republics rifles of WW1 vintage, body armor and helmets that can not stop bullets and do not pay the men. The training of troops is little to non existent. Some are said to be simply seized from the streets and sent to the front lines. North Korea is said to becoming their weapons supplier. Are they becoming a ragtag army?
-
I'm seeing reports that Ukraine is in Kupyansk and controls the whole west bank of that river all the way down to the outskirts of Izyum. Certainly Russia's supply lines to Izyum are cut, and they're running out of exit routes--they only have an escape to the southeast, from what I've heard, and that window may be closing.
Liveuamap is showing Izyum in Ukrainian control, along with the ~3km East of Izyum all the way to the river.
It's chaos right now. Ukrainian troops are moving so quickly that nobody knows where the front is anymore. Ukraine is staying tight-lipped about their positions and mentioned a media blackout, but Russian Telegram channels are talking about Izyum and Lyman having fallen, evacuating Vovchansk and Svatove, and worried that Ukraine is coming for Sev-Don next. Russian troops and administrators are clogging the border crossings to get out. Arestovich (shit talker that he is) quipped last night that they're taking more prisoners than they know what to do with. Don't get your hopes up that the entire 1st Guards Tank Army surrendered, but I've seen enough POW capture videos this weekend to equal about 150 prisoners.
Russia has lost a brigade's worth of equipment either captured intact or destroyed (just in photos). Not just tanks and IFVs, but radars, radio trucks, mobile SAMs, and mountains of supplies.
Up to 5000 sq km recaptured and setting the clock back to late March in this sector. This offensive started on Monday.
-
For all the folks waiting for the Hollywood movie version of war... you got it, I think. The last 2 days have been... crazy.
I thought the "don't send slaves to fight free people" slogan was corny, but I guess maybe it's appropriate here.
-W
-
I hear Russia is now the biggest material supplier to Ukraine with the latest push to Izyum...only half joking. The apparent huge numbers of captured/abandoned equipment, if true, is mind boggling.
-
Accordin to some Twitter sources, Putin is in Sochi and has just cancelled a meeting with military leaders.
https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1569001649766793216
Edit: Putin has a bunker in Sochi and bunkers tend to be windowless. Make of that what you want...
-
I hear Russia is now the biggest material supplier to Ukraine with the latest push to Izyum...only half joking. The apparent huge numbers of captured/abandoned equipment, if true, is mind boggling.
Always was. 1500 vehicles captured by Ukraine - before this weekend.
https://twitter.com/arslon_xudosi/status/1568876740088315906?s=46&t=LQK7kGCADtcbIXv2dzHSrA (https://twitter.com/arslon_xudosi/status/1568876740088315906?s=46&t=LQK7kGCADtcbIXv2dzHSrA)
https://twitter.com/livfaustdiejung/status/1568726055120420865?s=21&t=wTN_vegIs9h4aY4mgUJXmA (https://twitter.com/livfaustdiejung/status/1568726055120420865?s=21&t=wTN_vegIs9h4aY4mgUJXmA)
Russia's withdrawal from Izyum filmed by drone a couple days ago. No armored vehicles in the convoy.
https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1568910178556280835?s=21&t=wrrxG6PpQMoaRi6BCAM2GQ (https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1568910178556280835?s=21&t=wrrxG6PpQMoaRi6BCAM2GQ)
-
RU defensive lines are collapsing at a rate and scale that are likely experienced as potentially regime destabilizing by the Kremlin.
"Moscow Municipal Lawmakers Demand Putin's Resignation"
Naturally they were summoned to the police station.
"Municipal deputies in the Moscow district of Lomonosovsky on Sept. 8 posted an appeal on the district's website where they claimed that Putin's "outdated" views have thrown Russia back into the Cold War era. The local deputies said the war has forced many smart people to leave Russia, adding that it has now hindered the country from developing.
"The rhetoric that you and your subordinates are using has been riddled with intolerance and aggression for a long time, which in the end effectively threw our country back into the Cold War era. Russia has again begun to be feared and hated, we again threaten the whole world with nuclear weapons," the appeal read.
"In connection with the foregoing, we ask you to relieve yourself of your post due to the fact that your views, your management model are hopelessly outdated and hinder the development of Russia and its human potential," it stated."
https://www.ibtimes.com/moscow-lawmakers-demand-putin-resign-over-hopelessly-outdated-views-that-hinder-russias-growth-3611697
"A similar appeal was made earlier last week when municipal deputies from the Smolninsky District Council in St. Petersburg, Putin's hometown, issued a statement calling on the State Duma to remove the president from power. The deputies also urged the Russian parliament to charge Putin with treason over his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, leading to a massive loss of life and hindering the growth of the national economy."
-
There was another mysterious death of a high level crony. And I've seen articles reporting that there's criticism of Putin within Russia for opening a giant ferris wheel while their army was getting their assk kicked in Ukraine.
Anyone else think of "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"? I expect that we're watching the downfall of Putin. May he fall hard.
-
There was another mysterious death of a high level crony. And I've seen articles reporting that there's criticism of Putin within Russia for opening a giant ferris wheel while their army was getting their assk kicked in Ukraine.
Anyone else think of "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"? I expect that we're watching the downfall of Putin. May he fall hard.
I wonder if he will have the sense to vacate the country before they come for him with the pitchforks. However, it seems like he doesn't have too many places he could go to.
-
There was another mysterious death of a high level crony. And I've seen articles reporting that there's criticism of Putin within Russia for opening a giant ferris wheel while their army was getting their assk kicked in Ukraine.
Anyone else think of "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"? I expect that we're watching the downfall of Putin. May he fall hard.
Agree on the sentiments.
However I’d like to remind everyone that Czar Nicholas II, who was on nobody’s list as the sharpest tool in the shed, survived losing a war to the then 3d world Japan. He then made it 2/3ds the way through WWI.
Stalin survived failing terribly in 1941 , although that was a clear defensive war at that point.
Hitler had to take himself out in the bunker, with the Soviets just blocks away.
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
-
People like Putin don't just retire...
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
What I hear is that he has enemies within Russia, people whose families want revenge from previous actions of his, and his life would likely be very short if he fell from power. No need for pesky courts.
-
Maybe Trump can offer him some advice.
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
What I hear is that he has enemies within Russia, people whose families want revenge from previous actions of his, and his life would likely be very short if he fell from power. No need for pesky courts.
maybe he will fall from hospital window. tragic accident it will be.
-
One of the neat things about liberating 8000 sq km of your homeland in a five day blitz. People live there. Like your mother.
https://twitter.com/jabuttee/status/1569777597197815808 (https://twitter.com/jabuttee/status/1569777597197815808)
-
The failings of the Russian army have started to create a power vacuum in central Asia, It has been said. People are less afraid of the Russians. And just the past few days, new fighting have erupted between Azerbaijan (Muslim, supported by Turkey) and Armenia (Christian, supported by Russia).
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/armenias-pm-says-49-soldiers-died-in-clashes-with-azerbaijan.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Armenia%E2%80%93Azerbaijan_border_crisis
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
It would be *very* difficult. Russia is basically a mafia state. Once you're involved in the power structure, you don't get out.
All those oligarchs falling out of windows and off boats? They have families. And there are other oligarchs who would prefer not to fall out of a window in the future. Plenty of motive to ensure that Putin can't make a comeback.
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
It would be *very* difficult. Russia is basically a mafia state. Once you're involved in the power structure, you don't get out.
All those oligarchs falling out of windows and off boats? They have families. And there are other oligarchs who would prefer not to fall out of a window in the future. Plenty of motive to ensure that Putin can't make a comeback.
Historically, dictators don't really have great retirement plans.
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
What I hear is that he has enemies within Russia, people whose families want revenge from previous actions of his, and his life would likely be very short if he fell from power. No need for pesky courts.
maybe he will fall from hospital window. tragic accident it will be.
Nah, he will fall out of a bunker window.
-
A Ukrainian perspective on recent events:
How Ukraine’s counteroffensive will affect Russia’s army, future of the war
September 14, 2022 9:20 pm
by Andriy Zagorodnyuk
It is hard to overestimate the importance of events at the front line in the past several days. Information about Ukrainian forces defeating Russian forces has spread all across the world.
We are in particular talking about the frantic withdrawal of the Russian units, the panic among its personnel, the lack of intention to show any resistance at the front line and the rapid advance of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stretching dozens of kilometers.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive has ultimately ruined the image of the Russian army as strong and capable of creating a serious, immediate threat to the democratic world.
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/andriy-zagorodnyuk-how-ukraines-counteroffensive-will-affect-russias-army-future-of-the-war
-
A Ukrainian perspective on recent events:
How Ukraine’s counteroffensive will affect Russia’s army, future of the war
September 14, 2022 9:20 pm
by Andriy Zagorodnyuk
It is hard to overestimate the importance of events at the front line in the past several days. Information about Ukrainian forces defeating Russian forces has spread all across the world.
We are in particular talking about the frantic withdrawal of the Russian units, the panic among its personnel, the lack of intention to show any resistance at the front line and the rapid advance of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stretching dozens of kilometers.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive has ultimately ruined the image of the Russian army as strong and capable of creating a serious, immediate threat to the democratic world.
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/andriy-zagorodnyuk-how-ukraines-counteroffensive-will-affect-russias-army-future-of-the-war
Years ago when I was a kid teachers tried to tell us how a command economy just didn't work. That article certainly gives the impression that the Russian military is still stuck in the same mold as the old command economy of the Soviet Union. I hope what he said is true.
-
But could Putin retire without consequences or will they come after him for something such as treason?
It would be *very* difficult. Russia is basically a mafia state. Once you're involved in the power structure, you don't get out.
All those oligarchs falling out of windows and off boats? They have families. And there are other oligarchs who would prefer not to fall out of a window in the future. Plenty of motive to ensure that Putin can't make a comeback.
Historically, dictators don't really have great retirement plans.
Actually a surprising number of dictators have done well in retirement. You just have to flee the country. Here's a few dozen examples (https://www.upf.edu/documents/2873379/2873034/Dictator_JOP_OnlineAppendix.pdf/c85a98c1-df8f-4735-9695-2adf44ff596a) (unfortunately as a PDF, I couldn't find another source).
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
-
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
I don't know Indian history, but I am simple minded. I have long observed that if England wants to fight France, it allies with Germany. If France wants to fight Germany it allies with Russia. So I assume that China is the biggest threat to India, and so Russia is India's natural ally. Happy to hear deeper reasons though :)
-
Years ago when I was a kid teachers tried to tell us how a command economy just didn't work. That article certainly gives the impression that the Russian military is still stuck in the same mold as the old command economy of the Soviet Union. I hope what he said is true.
More importantly, the Russian army is stuck in a deepshit loop of corruption and abuse.
If a huge part of your potential soldiers pay several month-incomes to not get into the army (before the war), it tells you all you need to know about morale. The soldiers still in there are so poor they steal washing machines after all.
If equipment does not even start because generals have pocketed years of maintenance, it tells you all you need to know about reliability.
Having a big army that is not good at fighting (against another army) is normal in a dictatorship, not least because a competent army is a thread to the leader. But the Russians have a big load of past bad baggage with them too.
On the other side the Ukrainians may lack in equipment, but what they have works and their morale is sky high, with a competent leadership who is not in there just for grabs.
That is the base for the saying that a dictatorship never wins against a democracy. It's wrong, they often do, but they generally lose if the fight is not over in the first attack, because they can't really increase their fighting power (it risks their leader's survivial) while democracies will double down as much as needed.
Read the book in my sig, it's there for a reason.
-
Nah, he will fall out of a bunker window.
More subtle than Apartheid, where a prisoner's suicide might involve a dozen stab wounds in the back.
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
I don't know Indian history, but I am simple minded. I have long observed that if England wants to fight France, it allies with Germany. If France wants to fight Germany it allies with Russia. So I assume that China is the biggest threat to India, and so Russia is India's natural ally. Happy to hear deeper reasons though :)
Chinese soldiers killed a number of Indian soldiers over territorial disputes a few years back. Which is a clean representation of how India views China: as a threat.
China and the Soviet Union were allies, which is now China and Russia - allied again. I think that relationship goes much deeper than India's ties to Russia. The way Russia imprisons and removes opposition parties from their elections is closer to how China deals with dissent than India, which is the largest democracy in the world. China's economic strength is far ahead of India, which is another reason Russia would prefer ties with China over India.
If China helps Russia with military aid, there's a risk of sanctions by the U.S. and Europe. That could harm China's economy and push unemployment up right before the Communist Party Congress in October. Given the importance of that event, I doubt China risks it. I expect empty reassurances on the Russia-China alliance, and nothing risky by China. Since most TV stations are playing up the meeting between Xi and Putin, it will be interesting to see if they were wrong to emphasize it.
-
Nah, he will fall out of a bunker window.
More subtle than Apartheid, where a prisoner's suicide might involve a dozen stab wounds in the back.
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
I don't know Indian history, but I am simple minded. I have long observed that if England wants to fight France, it allies with Germany. If France wants to fight Germany it allies with Russia. So I assume that China is the biggest threat to India, and so Russia is India's natural ally. Happy to hear deeper reasons though :)
Chinese soldiers killed a number of Indian soldiers over territorial disputes a few years back. Which is a clean representation of how India views China: as a threat.
China and the Soviet Union were allies, which is now China and Russia - allied again. I think that relationship goes much deeper than India's ties to Russia. The way Russia imprisons and removes opposition parties from their elections is closer to how China deals with dissent than India, which is the largest democracy in the world. China's economic strength is far ahead of India, which is another reason Russia would prefer ties with China over India.
If China helps Russia with military aid, there's a risk of sanctions by the U.S. and Europe. That could harm China's economy and push unemployment up right before the Communist Party Congress in October. Given the importance of that event, I doubt China risks it. I expect empty reassurances on the Russia-China alliance, and nothing risky by China. Since most TV stations are playing up the meeting between Xi and Putin, it will be interesting to see if they were wrong to emphasize it.
China is in the catbird's seat in regards to Russia. Russia needs China more than China needs Russia. Russia needs to sell it's raw materials. China and India may be almost their only customers. They get a good discount. Russia needs everything as the world has cut it off. China will be happy to take Russia's oil money reserve. Why should China risk anything for Russia? There is little to be gained.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html
Can't see how long Putin can keep this war going.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html
Can't see how long Putin can keep this war going.
Have you seen the US current account deficit?
https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/us-international-transactions-fourth-quarter-and-year-2021
Updates to Third-Quarter 2021 International Transactions Accounts Balances
Billions of dollars, seasonally adjusted
Preliminary estimate Revised estimate
Current-account balance −214.8 −219.9
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
-
Mass graves uncovered in Izyum. Press tour of the city planned for tomorrow. Whatever you remember from Bucha and Irpin, 10x that.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html
Can't see how long Putin can keep this war going.
Have you seen the US current account deficit?
https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/us-international-transactions-fourth-quarter-and-year-2021
Updates to Third-Quarter 2021 International Transactions Accounts Balances
Billions of dollars, seasonally adjusted
Preliminary estimate Revised estimate
Current-account balance −214.8 −219.9
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
Sorry, but Russia is in no position to effectively deal with a rapidly rising current account deficit, primarily because of their lack of credit worthiness which is based on expected future revenues.
These revenues would have to be in foreign currencies like $$ or euros and that prospect is not good, to put it mildly.
And Russia can only print rubles - good luck with serving foreign debt with that.
The US is in an entirely different position.
-
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
Buying US debt is very popular around the world. Buying Russian is debt is less so, and in western markets might not even be possible right now.
-
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
Buying US debt is very popular around the world. Buying Russian is debt is less so, and in western markets might not even be possible right now.
Far too understated! The US dollar has surged against major currencies because everyone wants dollars. Between the EU desperate for oil & gas, and preferring U.S. Treasuries, the US dollar has surged. Simplest evidence is roughly 1 USD == 1 Euro.
Mass graves uncovered in Izyum. Press tour of the city planned for tomorrow. Whatever you remember from Bucha and Irpin, 10x that.
At present, 458 civilians were murdered in Butcha while a mass grave in Izium contains 440 graves. They could find others, but I haven't heard of thousands killed as yet. President Zelensky seemed to view Izium as similar to Butcha when he compared the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-zelenskyy-says-mass-grave-found-in-izium/a-63144572
-
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html
Can't see how long Putin can keep this war going.
Have you seen the US current account deficit?
https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/us-international-transactions-fourth-quarter-and-year-2021
Updates to Third-Quarter 2021 International Transactions Accounts Balances
Billions of dollars, seasonally adjusted
Preliminary estimate Revised estimate
Current-account balance −214.8 −219.9
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
As many have said already.
The US has unlimited credit. Putin is running out of money to finance this war.
-
Russia-China-India make an interesting threesome.
Lots of screwing and making up. I'm sure the Kama Sutra has a chapter on this. ;p
On a serious note, a very interesting dynamic. The Indian military has bought MiGs and Sukhoi's over the years, plus French hardware, and American/British too. Reading the Wikipedia entry, there's so much from Russia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft)
India's current position is to get cheap oil from Russia for fuel and chemical industries. Profit before ethics. Capitalism, bitches!
-
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
Buying US debt is very popular around the world. Buying Russian is debt is less so, and in western markets might not even be possible right now.
Far too understated! The US dollar has surged against major currencies because everyone wants dollars. Between the EU desperate for oil & gas, and preferring U.S. Treasuries, the US dollar has surged. Simplest evidence is roughly 1 USD == 1 Euro.
Mass graves uncovered in Izyum. Press tour of the city planned for tomorrow. Whatever you remember from Bucha and Irpin, 10x that.
At present, 458 civilians were murdered in Butcha while a mass grave in Izium contains 440 graves. They could find others, but I haven't heard of thousands killed as yet. President Zelensky seemed to view Izium as similar to Butcha when he compared the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-zelenskyy-says-mass-grave-found-in-izium/a-63144572
The more I'm seeing about the grave site it might not be so bad - as in it might be a legitimate cemetery. That said, other graves in recently liberated territory show signs of torture/murder and locals have mentioned facilities used for torture. I think this is going to be a theme in every city that gets reclaimed, especially in the south.
-
Thoughts on Russia versus China.
I've seen people speculate that fear of antagonizing "western" countries drives China's reluctance to aid Russia too much. China recently has equaled or surpassed Russia in every way, so they have little to gain except cheap resources. I will offer my opinion, though, that a large part of China's reluctance comes from the Chinese concept of "saving face" which I think is underestimated in "western" countries. Basically, a big reason that China doesn't support Russia more is that Russia is just too embarrassing. No Chinese official at any rank could be seen supporting their shenanigans or reporting it to the population or their superiors as something to get behind. Originally China was more supportive. Then Russia did a bunch of bad deeds. Ok whatever who doesn't do a little torture and murder...maybe? But the all time champion of the tank turret toss was filmed by a Chinese film crew; a Russian tank in a secure area. Now that is hard to explain to a domestic audience: are we associating with a loser? Then Moskva sank, and the Russians got their asses beat all over the countryside. It's really too much for a self respecting Chinese to support.
Anyone who thinks China might be a great power, and has taken a bus from Harbin to Vladivostok, would think that Russia does not appear to be a great power. I did so and laughed that Russia might be a great power for years. Around 2018 seemingly knowledgeable people who had been influenced by Russian propaganda (ignorant losers such as Michael Kofman) finally persuaded me that perhaps Russia had turned itself around in spite of their drunken ignorance and underdeveloped poverty. Nope, turns out I was right. And it is no surprise. While I talk crap about China, there is no doubt that they have launched a truly impressive program to develop infrastructure and education even (and especially) in poor and rural areas. While it is not always all it is cracked up to be (lots of face saving!) it is still far more substantial in every way than Russia. Russians mostly seem to have a living standard similar to maybe 1930 in the US (there were some very poor people in the US back then), but a lot drunker and less educated. Only a few cities, like Moscow and St Petersburg, seem to have risen to the level of an average Western city.
-
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
I don't know Indian history, but I am simple minded. I have long observed that if England wants to fight France, it allies with Germany. If France wants to fight Germany it allies with Russia. So I assume that China is the biggest threat to India, and so Russia is India's natural ally. Happy to hear deeper reasons though :)
India and the Soviet Union were aligned during the cold war while the USA was aligned with Pakistan. Particularly during the split between Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 1970s, India felt like the whole world was against it (and interpreted the USA as threatening them with nuclear strikes), except the Soviet Union.
There is a deep well of gratitude towards Russia among many folks who grew up in India that I had no idea existed the invasion of Ukraine lead to many more conversations with Indian co-workers about geopolitics.
-
The failings of the Russian army have started to create a power vacuum in central Asia, It has been said. People are less afraid of the Russians. And just the past few days, new fighting have erupted between Azerbaijan (Muslim, supported by Turkey) and Armenia (Christian, supported by Russia).
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/armenias-pm-says-49-soldiers-died-in-clashes-with-azerbaijan.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Armenia%E2%80%93Azerbaijan_border_crisis
And now shelling between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/kyrgyzstan-tajikistan-border-boils-1-killed-2-injured-in-fresh-conflict/articleshow/94204562.cms
Power vacuum in central Asia.
-
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
I don't know Indian history, but I am simple minded. I have long observed that if England wants to fight France, it allies with Germany. If France wants to fight Germany it allies with Russia. So I assume that China is the biggest threat to India, and so Russia is India's natural ally. Happy to hear deeper reasons though :)
India and the Soviet Union were aligned during the cold war while the USA was aligned with Pakistan. Particularly during the split between Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 1970s, India felt like the whole world was against it (and interpreted the USA as threatening them with nuclear strikes), except the Soviet Union.
There is a deep well of gratitude towards Russia among many folks who grew up in India that I had no idea existed the invasion of Ukraine lead to many more conversations with Indian co-workers about geopolitics.
Odd, I took a class on international relations and learned that India had mostly been neutral, seeking benefits from both sides. No mention of a Russian lean. It does seem that the US has sought close ties with Pakistan, which I never understood.
-
Another question: I see a lot about how lend-lease will be starting which will have a big effect, but I can't figure out what or how. What capabilities will it provide that would not otherwise be available? How would it change what's happening now?
-
Odd, I took a class on international relations and learned that India had mostly been neutral, seeking benefits from both sides. No mention of a Russian lean. It does seem that the US has sought close ties with Pakistan, which I never understood.
It was mostly to keep Pakistan out of the Soviet sphere of influence.
-
Russia-China-India make an interesting threesome.
Lots of screwing and making up. I'm sure the Kama Sutra has a chapter on this. ;p
On a serious note, a very interesting dynamic. The Indian military has bought MiGs and Sukhoi's over the years, plus French hardware, and American/British too. Reading the Wikipedia entry, there's so much from Russia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft)
India's current position is to get cheap oil from Russia for fuel and chemical industries. Profit before ethics. Capitalism, bitches!
That has nothing to do with capitalism! (Well, it has but..) Why should India side in a conflict between Russia (they probably don't like much) and The West (they don't like much either)?
Most of the world has not declared any sanctions because for most of the world this is a fight between Russia and the western countries, it has nothing to do with them and losing business would be bad.
-
I expect empty reassurances on the Russia-China alliance, and nothing risky by China. Since most TV stations are playing up the meeting between Xi and Putin, it will be interesting to see if they were wrong to emphasize it.
I thought so - the media overemphasized a non-event. No military aid, just "concerns".
"Putin says Xi has questions and concerns on Ukraine"
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-xi-set-meet-thursday-samarkand-2022-09-15/
-
It's harder to envision where Putin could go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia? India? India is surprisingly* pro-Russian.
*Surprisingly for someone who learned world history in US public schools. If you know Indian history it makes much more sense.
I don't know Indian history, but I am simple minded. I have long observed that if England wants to fight France, it allies with Germany. If France wants to fight Germany it allies with Russia. So I assume that China is the biggest threat to India, and so Russia is India's natural ally. Happy to hear deeper reasons though :)
India and the Soviet Union were aligned during the cold war while the USA was aligned with Pakistan. Particularly during the split between Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 1970s, India felt like the whole world was against it (and interpreted the USA as threatening them with nuclear strikes), except the Soviet Union.
There is a deep well of gratitude towards Russia among many folks who grew up in India that I had no idea existed the invasion of Ukraine lead to many more conversations with Indian co-workers about geopolitics.
Odd, I took a class on international relations and learned that India had mostly been neutral, seeking benefits from both sides. No mention of a Russian lean. It does seem that the US has sought close ties with Pakistan, which I never understood.
Your teacher was probably focusing on the earlier part of the cold war (pre-1970s). India was indeed a leader of the Non-Aligned movement.
However, from the 1970s onward the Soviet Union provided a lot of direct aid and moral support to India in the context of India's long running conflicts with both Pakistan (supported by the USA) and China (the country Nixon convinced to pull away from the Soviet sphere of influence and start to experiment with free market capitalism).
This isn't particularly well written but it was the best short piece I could find on some of the history involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship_and_Cooperation
-
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
Buying US debt is very popular around the world. Buying Russian is debt is less so, and in western markets might not even be possible right now.
Far too understated! The US dollar has surged against major currencies because everyone wants dollars. Between the EU desperate for oil & gas, and preferring U.S. Treasuries, the US dollar has surged. Simplest evidence is roughly 1 USD == 1 Euro.
My badly made point was that isolation, sanctions and the like are unlikely to cause regime change or destabilization, or even greatly hinder a war economy.
example in 1944, after 5 years of total war, the German military production reached it's highest levels.
More planes tanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II in 1944 than ever.
GDP in the German Reich (Germany, Austria mostly) was at a maximum in 1944.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
I'm certain that Germany was suffering under sanctions and moral disapproval by that time. As well as bombs, cannon fire and bullets .
Don't think that anyone was loaning Germany money at the time.
I was/am responding to the notion that mere economics _will_ cause some sort of collapse.
I agree with Jack0Life in that I don't see how Putin could carry on, but I'm not a dictator with the power of money printing and the state security apparatus.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html
Can't see how long Putin can keep this war going.
Snippped .....
Sorry, but Russia is in no position to effectively deal with a rapidly rising current account deficit, primarily because of their lack of credit worthiness which is based on expected future revenues.
These revenues would have to be in foreign currencies like $$ or euros and that prospect is not good, to put it mildly.
And Russia can only print rubles - good luck with serving foreign debt with that.
The US is in an entirely different position.
-
We (the USA) have been doing this for decades. Not saying it is a good thing, just that it can be blown off by printing money, selling at a loss to generate revenue etc, throwing creditors out windows etc.
Buying US debt is very popular around the world. Buying Russian is debt is less so, and in western markets might not even be possible right now.
Far too understated! The US dollar has surged against major currencies because everyone wants dollars. Between the EU desperate for oil & gas, and preferring U.S. Treasuries, the US dollar has surged. Simplest evidence is roughly 1 USD == 1 Euro.
My badly made point was that isolation, sanctions and the like are unlikely to cause regime change or destabilization, or even greatly hinder a war economy.
example in 1944, after 5 years of total war, the German military production reached it's highest levels.
More planes tanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II in 1944 than ever.
GDP in the German Reich (Germany, Austria mostly) was at a maximum in 1944.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
I'm certain that Germany was suffering under sanctions and moral disapproval by that time. As well as bombs, cannon fire and bullets .
Don't think that anyone was loaning Germany money at the time.
I was/am responding to the notion that mere economics _will_ cause some sort of collapse.
I agree with Jack0Life in that I don't see how Putin could carry on, but I'm not a dictator with the power of money printing and the state security apparatus.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html
Can't see how long Putin can keep this war going.
Snippped .....
Sorry, but Russia is in no position to effectively deal with a rapidly rising current account deficit, primarily because of their lack of credit worthiness which is based on expected future revenues.
These revenues would have to be in foreign currencies like $$ or euros and that prospect is not good, to put it mildly.
And Russia can only print rubles - good luck with serving foreign debt with that.
The US is in an entirely different position.
By 1944 Germany had added the resources of the whole of central and eastern Europe, including a lot of slave labour, as compared to 1939.
Putin doesn't have any extra land or resources. It does have some more people, illegally cleansed from occupied parts of Ukraine. What is doesn't have access to, and can't replace, is western technology. Right now it's trying to scrounge up weaponry from Iran and North Korea, which tells you where it is on armaments, and Russian vehicle production and railways maintenance has fallen off a cliff because of sanctions.
-
Will economic sanctions lead to regime changes? Not on their own. They might add a little fuel to the fire, but the fire is going to be based on cultural, behavioral, and societal factors. I do remember reading that various people who know a lot more than I do about Russia expected the shit to hit the fan this autumn. Well, it's September and it looks like the shit may well be starting to fly. Slow burns take time before they explode, if they do.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Ukraine has at least considered timing their counteroffensive to help push that slow burn into a firestorm. As much as Ukraine isn't Russian, they share a lot of history and so I'd expect that Ukraine's leadership has a decent idea of what the Russian people might do in various situations. Like the Russian army getting creamed.
-
Will economic sanctions lead to regime changes? Not on their own. They might add a little fuel to the fire, but the fire is going to be based on cultural, behavioral, and societal factors. I do remember reading that various people who know a lot more than I do about Russia expected the shit to hit the fan this autumn. Well, it's September and it looks like the shit may well be starting to fly. Slow burns take time before they explode, if they do.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Ukraine has at least considered timing their counteroffensive to help push that slow burn into a firestorm. As much as Ukraine isn't Russian, they share a lot of history and so I'd expect that Ukraine's leadership has a decent idea of what the Russian people might do in various situations. Like the Russian army getting creamed.
Zelensky is a Russian speaker. He is apparently an excellent orator being a former actor. Does he ever make speeches directly addressing the Russian people? Certainly, his speeches would not be heard over Russian TV, but I would think they would be directly disseminated to a lot of people. I would think his speeches could raise a lot of questions in the minds of Russians.
-
Will economic sanctions lead to regime changes? Not on their own. They might add a little fuel to the fire, but the fire is going to be based on cultural, behavioral, and societal factors. I do remember reading that various people who know a lot more than I do about Russia expected the shit to hit the fan this autumn. Well, it's September and it looks like the shit may well be starting to fly. Slow burns take time before they explode, if they do.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Ukraine has at least considered timing their counteroffensive to help push that slow burn into a firestorm. As much as Ukraine isn't Russian, they share a lot of history and so I'd expect that Ukraine's leadership has a decent idea of what the Russian people might do in various situations. Like the Russian army getting creamed.
Zelensky is a Russian speaker. He is apparently an excellent orator being a former actor. Does he ever make speeches directly addressing the Russian people? Certainly, his speeches would not be heard over Russian TV, but I would think they would be directly disseminated to a lot of people. I would think his speeches could raise a lot of questions in the minds of Russians.
I don't know about recently, but earlier this year he did have several speeches which addressed the Russian people directly. Distribution to his target audience I don't know of course. And from the videos and speeches that I've watched, I judge him to be a good speaker.
-
In my view, the restrictions placed on Russia do not rise to the level of being called sanctions. Actually, I hope Zelensky makes a similar point, so that the world knows how much money is still flowing into Russia.
"In the first 100 days of the war, Russia earned a record 93 billion euros in revenue by exporting oil, gas and coal"
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/russia-sanctions-ukraine-slow-economic-pain/index.html
Europe requires years to extract itself from Russian energy. And Russia has found partners in China, India and even Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is essentially laundering Russian crude oil by displacing some internal use of its own oil. The US initially expected Russia's GDP would fall by 15%, but the impact is probably closer to 4%.
If you follow the money, and not what politicians say, you'd conclude Germany is supporting Russia far more than Ukraine. Their aid to Ukraine since the war began is less than what Germany sent Russia in March after the invasion (mostly buying natural gas).
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-germany-484fdfeecf86483356f5f003b77e30da
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/media-information/2022/ukraine-support-tracker-newly-committed-aid-for-ukraine-drops-to-almost-zero/
-
Just looking at dollar (or worde Rubel) does not tell you the story. The income is so high because the prices have risen so much.
The point is: What is Russia going to buy with it, except Iranian and North Korean weapons?
What Russia needs is high tech, and that they don't get. That's why their cars now come without airbags. That's why their western planes are not flying much and their Russian planes with lower safety requirements.
Russias factories have always had high stocks because that's not the first time anything disrupted supply heavily. But storages will run empty.
If you want to know where the sanctions hit, look a the numbers the Russian ministries are no longer publicising. That amount has steadily risen.
Russia is going back to the 80s.
But will that mean Putin will be austed? Unlikely. But even if, the replacement will likely not be better.
Russia is one of those countries under the curse of ressources.
-
In my view, the restrictions placed on Russia do not rise to the level of being called sanctions. Actually, I hope Zelensky makes a similar point, so that the world knows how much money is still flowing into Russia.
"In the first 100 days of the war, Russia earned a record 93 billion euros in revenue by exporting oil, gas and coal"
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/russia-sanctions-ukraine-slow-economic-pain/index.html
Europe requires years to extract itself from Russian energy. And Russia has found partners in China, India and even Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is essentially laundering Russian crude oil by displacing some internal use of its own oil. The US initially expected Russia's GDP would fall by 15%, but the impact is probably closer to 4%.
If you follow the money, and not what politicians say, you'd conclude Germany is supporting Russia far more than Ukraine. Their aid to Ukraine since the war began is less than what Germany sent Russia in March after the invasion (mostly buying natural gas).
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-germany-484fdfeecf86483356f5f003b77e30da
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/media-information/2022/ukraine-support-tracker-newly-committed-aid-for-ukraine-drops-to-almost-zero/
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
-
In my view, the restrictions placed on Russia do not rise to the level of being called sanctions. Actually, I hope Zelensky makes a similar point, so that the world knows how much money is still flowing into Russia.
"In the first 100 days of the war, Russia earned a record 93 billion euros in revenue by exporting oil, gas and coal"
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/russia-sanctions-ukraine-slow-economic-pain/index.html
Europe requires years to extract itself from Russian energy. And Russia has found partners in China, India and even Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is essentially laundering Russian crude oil by displacing some internal use of its own oil. The US initially expected Russia's GDP would fall by 15%, but the impact is probably closer to 4%.
If you follow the money, and not what politicians say, you'd conclude Germany is supporting Russia far more than Ukraine. Their aid to Ukraine since the war began is less than what Germany sent Russia in March after the invasion (mostly buying natural gas).
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-germany-484fdfeecf86483356f5f003b77e30da
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/media-information/2022/ukraine-support-tracker-newly-committed-aid-for-ukraine-drops-to-almost-zero/
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
Yeah, they're attitude....hasn't aged well.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNZVkADXMAET6Jf.jpg)
-
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
That's because it was so blatently a sales pitch for his overflowing fracking stuff (Fracking had flooded the market and was operating at a loss), that everyone rolled their eyes at it.
May I quote Trump too, from the G20 meeting a year later, speaking about Putin?
He is a great guy. I think we had a really good meeting. I think he is a good person, we started discussing trade. I think we should have trade between Russia and USA, two great countries. We had a great meeting yesterday. He is a terrific person. Thank you very much.
-
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
That's because it was so blatently a sales pitch for his overflowing fracking stuff (Fracking had flooded the market and was operating at a loss), that everyone rolled their eyes at it.
Seems like Germany is now buying US fracking gas anyway ....
There is a general EU issue on handling energy (strategically).
Still, I hope Ukraine will be able to regain their country. But it feels like a proxy war to me where the "old hegemon" (US + its Europesn allies) is being challenged by contenders.
Overall outcome still uncertain. Interesting times, indeed.
I just feel sorry for all who are being sucked into this clusterf**k.
-
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
That's because it was so blatently a sales pitch for his overflowing fracking stuff (Fracking had flooded the market and was operating at a loss), that everyone rolled their eyes at it.
May I quote Trump too, from the G20 meeting a year later, speaking about Putin?
He is a great guy. I think we had a really good meeting. I think he is a good person, we started discussing trade. I think we should have trade between Russia and USA, two great countries. We had a great meeting yesterday. He is a terrific person. Thank you very much.
Yeh - Putin ought to like him very much. trump sure does have a high opinion of Mr. Putin. The world is kind of down on Putin right now because he is an alleged war criminal. Yet Trump sticks by him.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923 (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923)
-
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
That's because it was so blatently a sales pitch for his overflowing fracking stuff (Fracking had flooded the market and was operating at a loss), that everyone rolled their eyes at it.
Seems like Germany is now buying US fracking gas anyway ....
There is a general EU issue on handling energy (strategically).
Still, I hope Ukraine will be able to regain their country. But it feels like a proxy war to me where the "old hegemon" (US + its Europesn allies) is being challenged by contenders.
Overall outcome still uncertain. Interesting times, indeed.
I just feel sorry for all who are being sucked into this clusterf**k.
Proxy war? Old hegemon? Russia had hegemony over that part of the world for hundreds of years, this is Russia falling apart. Conflict is flaring throughout the ancient Russian Empire as they are no longer strong enough to suppress it. I would not even call it a proxy war, maybe "War of Ukrainian Independence from Russian Influence." I think right through 2014 (or even 2022) most people in the US, even highly knowledgeable people, thought Ukraine and Russia were so buddy-buddy that there was no point in trying to pry them apart. There is now a minor component of proxy war, but that was not how it was through 2022-02. Further, "proxy" implies that only the US and Russia and other "great powers" have agency, and all others are just pawns, which I reject.
Who is being sucked in? Ukrainians who were sitting around minding their own business, or Russians who went there on purpose?
-
Proxy war? Old hegemon? ... There is now a minor component of proxy war, but that was not how it was through 2022-02. Further, "proxy" implies that only the US and Russia and other "great powers" have agency, and all others are just pawns, which I reject.
Who is being sucked in? Ukrainians who were sitting around minding their own business, or Russians who went there on purpose?
I didn't mean to trigger an argument but Ukraine had been turning towards the West, and I don't think Russia (meaning Russian government) wouldn't have taken military action if it did not consider the West (= US + allies) as weak. So, yes, I consider it a challenge to the hegemonial structure determined by the West. As for "agency": agency without power is pretty pointless. Without power, you ARE only a pawn imo. Central Europe is full of such experiences going back centuries.
Who got "sucked in"?
- Ukrainians, who have to defend themselves against Russian aggression
- Russians who are spun a tale of liberation of their brothers
The only beneficiaries are outside parties who make money from the conflict.
I suggest to read up on the 30-years war in central Europe and Germany (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) which was largely driven by external powers for European hegemony, if you don't consider this Ukrainian war a clusterf**k of silimar potential.
-
In my view, the restrictions placed on Russia do not rise to the level of being called sanctions. Actually, I hope Zelensky makes a similar point, so that the world knows how much money is still flowing into Russia.
"In the first 100 days of the war, Russia earned a record 93 billion euros in revenue by exporting oil, gas and coal"
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/russia-sanctions-ukraine-slow-economic-pain/index.html
Europe requires years to extract itself from Russian energy. And Russia has found partners in China, India and even Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is essentially laundering Russian crude oil by displacing some internal use of its own oil. The US initially expected Russia's GDP would fall by 15%, but the impact is probably closer to 4%.
If you follow the money, and not what politicians say, you'd conclude Germany is supporting Russia far more than Ukraine. Their aid to Ukraine since the war began is less than what Germany sent Russia in March after the invasion (mostly buying natural gas).
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-germany-484fdfeecf86483356f5f003b77e30da
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/media-information/2022/ukraine-support-tracker-newly-committed-aid-for-ukraine-drops-to-almost-zero/
Energy prices are falling, Europe is buying a lot less Russian energy than a few months ago, and China and India are buying Russian oil at a 30-50% discount. Sanctions and the changes in energy exports aren't going to cause a Russian collapse, but it's starting to hurt. The extra money they made on high natural gas prices is already spent. They're looking at budget cuts next year and future earnings aren't looking any better.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget-hole/index.html)
-
Proxy war? Old hegemon? ... There is now a minor component of proxy war, but that was not how it was through 2022-02. Further, "proxy" implies that only the US and Russia and other "great powers" have agency, and all others are just pawns, which I reject.
Who is being sucked in? Ukrainians who were sitting around minding their own business, or Russians who went there on purpose?
I didn't mean to trigger an argument but Ukraine had been turning towards the West, and I don't think Russia (meaning Russian government) wouldn't have taken military action if it did not consider the West (= US + allies) as weak. So, yes, I consider it a challenge to the hegemonial structure determined by the West. As for "agency": agency without power is pretty pointless. Without power, you ARE only a pawn imo. Central Europe is full of such experiences going back centuries.
Who got "sucked in"?
- Ukrainians, who have to defend themselves against Russian aggression
- Russians who are spun a tale of liberation of their brothers
The only beneficiaries are outside parties who make money from the conflict.
I suggest to read up on the 30-years war in central Europe and Germany (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War) which was largely driven by external powers for European hegemony, if you don't consider this Ukrainian war a clusterf**k of silimar potential.
Regardless of what Putin considered, the actual dynamic has been Russian weakness. The Russian empire was at one point very large, IMO mostly because they industrialized and went around fighting nomads with bows, but at that time empire was the best socioeconomic system. However European-origin countries at that time developed capitalism and then democracy, which was a better system than empire. The Russians couldn't keep up, and abandoned empire for communism. Communism was very effective and possibly up to the standards capitalist countries of around 1850, allowing Russia to shortly reconquer most of its lost empire by 1950. However it was not up to the growing democratic-capitalist system, and fell apart after 1990. Since then the former client states have been fleeing every which way for a better system. Under Putin, Russia did not adopt the new western system, or even the new-fangled Chinese system, and reverted back to the old empire model, which has predictably failed. And it shows: rebellions and wars have been happening around Russia's near abroad as Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine try to break away. Armenia and Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and others are flying out of orbit, and it is not because of Western weakness.
Oftentimes it is not possible to know who is strong without testing. History is full of minnows that became sharks. I think Ukraine would eventually have won anyway (probably within 3-5 years), but with weapons much faster. Why not allow them agency? Or all the other countries you discount?
I don't see anyone sucked in, only willing and unwilling participants, and I don't have sympathy for the willing ones regardless of their excuses and sad stories.
I don't see any parallels with the 30-years war except in the most general sense.
-
Putin critic Bill Browder was interviewed by CNBC recently about Putin. He says oligarchs in Russia are under Putin's thumb, will not overthrow him. Mr Browder said Russians can tolerate war crimes by their military. What they can't tolerate is weakness. So the big threat to Putin is losing ground in Donbas and Crimea, which makes Putin look weak. If Russia loses that territory entirely, the Russian people will see Putin as a weak leader. Mr Browder also claimed if Putin is removed from power, he's as good as dead.
From that I gather Russia is desperate to hold Donbas and Crimea. The gains elsewhere are welcome, but Ukraine's big test remains those two regions. Russian desperation should ramp up as Ukraine makes gains there.
President Biden has a theory that full NATO involvement with Ukraine would cause a dangerous esacalation. He's refusing to send long range missiles to Ukraine to avoid an escalation. This could also be a veiled warning - Russia better not escalate or long range missles could be sent to Ukraine.
-
Russia certainly thinks Europe is weak. Gayropa, as they call it, has fallen to rotten morals and it is Russias duty to safe the Ukrainian brother from it. And if half of the Ukrainians will be killed during it because they have been infected by the weakness - so be it, it's worth it!
-
Russia certainly thinks Europe is weak. Gayropa, as they call it, has fallen to rotten morals
That's ironic coming from a country where it is standard practice to anally rape new soldiers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina
-
Even the (Very Bad) Orange Man warned in 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE) about German dependence on Russia (iirc, he was mocked by the Germans and much of MSM at the time).
That's because it was so blatently a sales pitch for his overflowing fracking stuff (Fracking had flooded the market and was operating at a loss), that everyone rolled their eyes at it.
May I quote Trump too, from the G20 meeting a year later, speaking about Putin?
He is a great guy. I think we had a really good meeting. I think he is a good person, we started discussing trade. I think we should have trade between Russia and USA, two great countries. We had a great meeting yesterday. He is a terrific person. Thank you very much.
Yeh - Putin ought to like him very much. trump sure does have a high opinion of Mr. Putin. The world is kind of down on Putin right now because he is an alleged war criminal. Yet Trump sticks by him.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923 (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923)
I got a giggle at the end of the video where Trump talked about the importance of having elections free of interference from other governments. After the Mueller report showed that his campaign team and family arranged to meet with Russian operatives with the goal of interfering in US elections.
-
Russia certainly thinks Europe is weak. Gayropa, as they call it, has fallen to rotten morals
That's ironic coming from a country where it is standard practice to anally rape new soldiers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina
I'm not sure anal rape counts as a gay action. Isn't rape typically more a power thing than sexual preference?
-
I got a giggle at the end of the video where Trump talked about the importance of having elections free of interference from other governments. After the Mueller report showed that his campaign team and family arranged to meet with Russian operatives with the goal of interfering in US elections.
Totally off topic, but you do know that the whole "Russia collusion" narrative was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, right? It was opposition research that used a bunch of rumors and self-referential sources to convince the FBI and the media that there was something to it - which many of them were all too happy to believe. Like any good smear campaign, it's a bell that can't be unrung.
-
Russia certainly thinks Europe is weak. Gayropa, as they call it, has fallen to rotten morals
That's ironic coming from a country where it is standard practice to anally rape new soldiers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina
I'm not sure anal rape counts as a gay action. Isn't rape typically more a power thing than sexual preference?
I don't think crossing your fingers and saying "It's not gay!" or whatever mental state really changes the fact you have a guy jamming his penis in another guy's anus until he ejaculates.
-
"Russia collusion"
Yea, let's try not to go down the Breitbart rabbit hole. There were plenty of ties between Trump and Russia.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-business-financial-ties-2018-11
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-organization-putin-penthouse-trump-tower-moscow-2018-11
-
"Russia collusion"
Yea, let's try not to go down the Breitbart rabbit hole. There were plenty of ties between Trump and Russia.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-business-financial-ties-2018-11
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-organization-putin-penthouse-trump-tower-moscow-2018-11
It´s been going on for a really long time and that Trump never had to answer for anything he did during all those years might also explain why he now believes that he is untouchable:
When Trump is finally revealed as an agent of foreign governments will America wake up?
Thom Hartmann
September 17, 2022
It’s time to tell the truth about Trump: he’s been an agent of organized crime and foreign governments for decades. And he’s continuing his work for Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and MBS — undermining Americans’ faith in democracy — to this day.
Czechoslovakia’s Státní bezpečnost (StB) first started paying attention to Trump back in 1977, as documented by the German newspaper Bild when the StB’s files were declassified, because Trump married Czech model Ivana Zelnickova, his first wife, recently buried on his golf course in New Jersey.
Czechoslovakia at that time was part of the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, and Ivana and her family had been raised as good communists. Now that a Czech citizen was married into a wealthy and prominent American family, the StB saw an opportunity and started tracking Trump virtually from his engagement.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-foreign-agent/?fbclid=IwAR1pet8xOoEDsHsfF2cQZL72DkuTeG-d9RjFB6Pfcyn_BKjil5vnVoJkYkQ
-
I got a giggle at the end of the video where Trump talked about the importance of having elections free of interference from other governments. After the Mueller report showed that his campaign team and family arranged to meet with Russian operatives with the goal of interfering in US elections.
Totally off topic, but you do know that the whole "Russia collusion" narrative was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, right? It was opposition research that used a bunch of rumors and self-referential sources to convince the FBI and the media that there was something to it - which many of them were all too happy to believe. Like any good smear campaign, it's a bell that can't be unrung.
I'd strongly encourage you to read Volume I of the Mueller report (you can get it here - https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download (https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download)). It wasn't written by the Clinton campaign and did not use rumors or self-referential sources. It very clearly documents 170 contacts between the Trump and Trump campaign associates and Russian nationals.
To give an example of the type of contacts, this includes a meeting scheduled by the Trump campaign (Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort) with Russian agents (Azerbaijani-Russian oligarchs Aras and Emin Agalarov, Russian counterintelligence officer Rinat Akhmetshin, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya) . These agents communicated with Don Jr pretty clearly about their intent by email while setting the meeting up:
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia[a] met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/donald-trumps-jrs-email-exchange/533244/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/donald-trumps-jrs-email-exchange/533244/)
The Muller report also shows:
- Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.
- Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.
- The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort/Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.
- The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.
- Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.
- Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in a member of his campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.
- The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.
- Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.
- During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. Kushner suggested this in order to speak with Russian Generals. Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.
- During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.
So I'd say that there is rather ample evidence supporting Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, and that someone claiming this was a smear campaign really needs to read the information publicly available from Mueller's investigation.
Mueller didn't ever claim that there was no collusion.
The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.
We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.
- https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/ (https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/)
-
The failings of the Russian army have started to create a power vacuum in central Asia, It has been said. People are less afraid of the Russians. And just the past few days, new fighting have erupted between Azerbaijan (Muslim, supported by Turkey) and Armenia (Christian, supported by Russia).
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/armenias-pm-says-49-soldiers-died-in-clashes-with-azerbaijan.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Armenia%E2%80%93Azerbaijan_border_crisis
And now shelling between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/kyrgyzstan-tajikistan-border-boils-1-killed-2-injured-in-fresh-conflict/articleshow/94204562.cms
Power vacuum in central Asia.
More here (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-russian-empire-is-collapsing-like-its-soviet-predecessor/) about the broader pattern of regional destabilization. China is increasingly playing in central Asia as well, which could lead to increased friction with Russia--though the recent Putin/Xi meeting, according to those who claim to be able to read between the lines, prominently featured Putin's supplication to Xi.
-
I don't think crossing your fingers and saying "It's not gay!" or whatever mental state really changes the fact you have a guy jamming his penis in another guy's anus until he ejaculates.
[/quote]
There are always things like mop handles. I seem to remember a police department that was in hot water for abusing their inmates in similar ways?
-
The failings of the Russian army have started to create a power vacuum in central Asia, It has been said. People are less afraid of the Russians. And just the past few days, new fighting have erupted between Azerbaijan (Muslim, supported by Turkey) and Armenia (Christian, supported by Russia).
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/armenias-pm-says-49-soldiers-died-in-clashes-with-azerbaijan.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Armenia%E2%80%93Azerbaijan_border_crisis
And now shelling between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/kyrgyzstan-tajikistan-border-boils-1-killed-2-injured-in-fresh-conflict/articleshow/94204562.cms
Power vacuum in central Asia.
More here (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-russian-empire-is-collapsing-like-its-soviet-predecessor/) about the broader pattern of regional destabilization. China is increasingly playing in central Asia as well, which could lead to increased friction with Russia--though the recent Putin/Xi meeting, according to those who claim to be able to read between the lines, prominently featured Putin's supplication to Xi.
Thanks. That article also brought up the Moldova / Transnistria situation. Not a lot of news from that corner of the world in my normal channels, but my acquaintance who stems from there is frustrated that his father believes Russian rumors of partisan attacks and don't get the hell out of there.
Another friend from Bulgaria said that the people in Bulgaria are very split into pro-Russian and anti-Russian politically and the anti-Russian people are the ones who are moving abroad if they can.
My third friend that speaks of such things is trying to convince me and some others to join him for a trip to Lviv to enjoy good restaurants at low prices and thus also support the Ukrainian economy with our hard currencies. I'm not really sure that I dare go there yet. But perhaps I'll at least go to Warsaw soon, the polish economy is also affected by this.
-
Another update from the The Kyiv Independent:
Retired US General Ben Hodges: ‘We’ve reached irreversible momentum for Ukraine’
September 19, 2022 11:33 pm
by Olga Rudenko
Ben Hodges: The only way it can end is for Ukraine to regain total sovereignty over everything, including Crimea and Donbas, for the 1 million plus Ukrainians who were deported by Russia to be accounted for and all of them brought back. And then, the war crimes — that process will happen.
But I think that the United States will establish a much better bilateral relationship, a normal bilateral relationship with Ukraine, but with a large military cooperation component to it. I don't know exactly what that will look like. But I can imagine that there will be some sort of relationship like we have with Israel, for example.
https://kyivindependent.com/national/retired-us-general-if-russia-used-nuclear-weapon-in-ukraine-us-would-have-to-get-directly-involved?fbclid=IwAR0X4fop261_1OkApkOgDJ8PiEizGZzchHc-yJIK_p7Im74pTg9wOfwTzHo
-
My third friend that speaks of such things is trying to convince me and some others to join him for a trip to Lviv to enjoy good restaurants at low prices and thus also support the Ukrainian economy with our hard currencies. I'm not really sure that I dare go there yet. But perhaps I'll at least go to Warsaw soon, the polish economy is also affected by this.
Just send cash to those places. Make pre-paid reservations and stay home.
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Are you trying to besmirch the fair nature of Russian held elections? Next you'll be telling me the Russian state conducted a multi-year doping program to help their athletes cheat in the Olympics . . .
According to the Russian and supervised referendum, Crimea voted to be Russian overwhelmingly - 96.77%. Given these numbers we can expect that Ukranian forces will have quite a battle on their hands against the people of Crimea should they attempt to retake this land. :P
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Are you trying to besmirch the fair nature of Russian held elections? Next you'll be telling me the Russian state conducted a multi-year doping program to help their athletes cheat in the Olympics . . .
According to the Russian and supervised referendum, Crimea voted to be Russian overwhelmingly - 96.77%. Given these numbers we can expect that Ukranian forces will have quite a battle on their hands against the people of Crimea should they attempt to retake this land. :P
It's nothing but propaganda to justify a full mobilisation of russia. It's for internal propaganda purposes.
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Are you trying to besmirch the fair nature of Russian held elections? Next you'll be telling me the Russian state conducted a multi-year doping program to help their athletes cheat in the Olympics . . .
According to the Russian and supervised referendum, Crimea voted to be Russian overwhelmingly - 96.77%. Given these numbers we can expect that Ukranian forces will have quite a battle on their hands against the people of Crimea should they attempt to retake this land. :P
It's nothing but propaganda to justify a full mobilisation of russia. It's for internal propaganda purposes.
I wonder if it will work. Russians have had generations of leaders lying to them. Would it be enough for 18 year old Ivan to feel the need to fight his cousins in Ukraine? Russians aren't dumb. Maybe they will make good money if they fight, most will realize you can't spend it if you are dead.
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Cheaper to relocate those Russian supporting Ukrainians to Russia than starting a war.
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Cheaper to relocate those Russian supporting Ukrainians to Russia than starting a war.
That only gets you the people, not the land. Russia doesn't seem to care about the people, at least based on how they're treating their troops.
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Are you trying to besmirch the fair nature of Russian held elections? Next you'll be telling me the Russian state conducted a multi-year doping program to help their athletes cheat in the Olympics . . .
According to the Russian and supervised referendum, Crimea voted to be Russian overwhelmingly - 96.77%. Given these numbers we can expect that Ukranian forces will have quite a battle on their hands against the people of Crimea should they attempt to retake this land. :P
It's nothing but propaganda to justify a full mobilisation of russia. It's for internal propaganda purposes.
I wonder if it will work. Russians have had generations of leaders lying to them. Would it be enough for 18 year old Ivan to feel the need to fight his cousins in Ukraine? Russians aren't dumb. Maybe they will make good money if they fight, most will realize you can't spend it if you are dead.
Proceedings indicate that most Russians are indeed dumb enough to believe what Putin tells them.
But then, many US people believe Trump is a good president and that his election was stolen.
And in Germany many believe that homeopathic water has a huge effect when you spray it on suger and none when it is dropped in waste water.
-
My mind nearly exploded when someone explained the 'science' of homeopathy to me.
"So there's this energy, right? And it remains in water. And the more water you add, the more powerful the energy gets. So you take something bad or poisonous, and then dilute it away until there's virtually none of it left. And it becomes an incredibly powerful cure."
"Since the Earth is a closed system where water is endlessly recycled, doesn't that make every drop of water the most powerful homeopathic cure ever then?"
"No, only the stuff they charge money for."
:S
-
I wonder if it will work. Russians have had generations of leaders lying to them. Would it be enough for 18 year old Ivan to feel the need to fight his cousins in Ukraine? Russians aren't dumb. Maybe they will make good money if they fight, most will realize you can't spend it if you are dead.
As I understand it, the war has broad popular support in Russia. However, part of that is because they are mostly sending poor, ethnic minorities to do the fighting. If the children of the monied elites had to go fight, the perception might change.
I'm not sure if a full mobilization is even possible. Most or all of the officers and NCOs are currently fighting in Ukraine. Who would train up and lead the new soldiers?
-
My mind nearly exploded when someone explained the 'science' of homeopathy to me.
"So there's this energy, right? And it remains in water. And the more water you add, the more powerful the energy gets. So you take something bad or poisonous, and then dilute it away until there's virtually none of it left. And it becomes an incredibly powerful cure."
"Since the Earth is a closed system where water is endlessly recycled, doesn't that make every drop of water the most powerful homeopathic cure ever then?"
"No, only the stuff they charge money for."
:S
You forgot the shaking! The shaking! You have to shake it or the water does not remember that it should remember the properties of Stuff A! (but not Stuff B, C or D for that matter. How water knows what you mean....)
Oh, and legally you are not allowed to sell bottled water with globuli. But it's no problem to put stuff that you have diluted 1:1000000 on sugar pills and put those into the bottled water that you sell.
There was a funny show about that just a few days ago, but I guess it won't get English subtitles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK5BZdnqMDU
Also in a "reputable" homeopathic science magazine they had several studies showing the danger of homepathic water in nature (like fish having lower reproduciton rates) and warned about it, but somehow the producing companies totally ignore that highly potentiated danger and do not even react if asked what they do with the medicinal waste.
-
Here's a video of Putin's speech rousing the people for his draft. Once again when he talks black becomes white and up becomes down. You are thrown into an alternate reality without Carlos Castaneda's jimsonweed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8)
Will Russians finally react as Putin wants them to kill their relatives?
-
Russia is looking at holding elections in the breakaway provinces as an "opportunity" to join Russia. How should the Ukrainians and the world react to these elections?
In my opinion, they will be bogus. Dictators hold these elections and then tell the world, "See people voted." If the vote happens to not go the way they want by some miracle, they ignore it.
Cheaper to relocate those Russian supporting Ukrainians to Russia than starting a war.
That only gets you the people, not the land. Russia doesn't seem to care about the people, at least based on how they're treating their troops.
True... You're reminding me to pay attention to their actions, not their words...
-
And in Germany many believe that homeopathic water has a huge effect when you spray it on suger and none when it is dropped in waste water.
Thanks - now I have something to read about on my lunch break. Whole new topic to be skeptical of. ;)
-
Here's a video of Putin's speech rousing the people for his draft. Once again when he talks black becomes white and up becomes down. You are thrown into an alternate reality without Carlos Castaneda's jimsonweed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8)
Will Russians finally react as Putin wants them to kill their relatives?
Putin is just completely insane.
What's the point of mobilizing 300,000+ men and sending them off to die ??
It's clearly since the war that Russian weaponry are inferior to what the US is sending. They can't compete.
I guess Putin is clueless about the advance weapons being produced these days.
-
It's clearly since the war that Russian weaponry are inferior to what the US is sending. They can't compete.
I guess Putin is clueless about the advance weapons being produced these days.
Russia and Ukraine are some of the top weapon exporters of the world. For many decades now top military powers including China and India have been producing weapons with technology derived from Russian armaments.
After the failure of Russian military tactics and armaments, war in Ukraine is a major wake up call to all major military powers.
-
And in Germany many believe that homeopathic water has a huge effect when you spray it on suger and none when it is dropped in waste water.
Thanks - now I have something to read about on my lunch break. Whole new topic to be skeptical of. ;)
Oh, you will have a lot of fun with that, if you want to dig deep!
Here's a video of Putin's speech rousing the people for his draft. Once again when he talks black becomes white and up becomes down. You are thrown into an alternate reality without Carlos Castaneda's jimsonweed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8)
Will Russians finally react as Putin wants them to kill their relatives?
Looking at the borders, yes, it seems all the "eligible" (and relativly wealthy) Russians are fleeing the country. Some airplane routes already cost 5 times as much, and cars at borders go for miles.
-
Wasn't the Kremlin claiming they've only lost around ~6000 soldiers in Ukraine since February? Yet they need to mobilize 300k more...hmmm...almost like the truth is between the lines or something.
-
Wasn't the Kremlin claiming they've only lost around ~6000 soldiers in Ukraine since February? Yet they need to mobilize 300k more...hmmm...almost like the truth is between the lines or something.
The truth is whatever they need it to be today.
-
Here's a video of Putin's speech rousing the people for his draft. Once again when he talks black becomes white and up becomes down. You are thrown into an alternate reality without Carlos Castaneda's jimsonweed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNbUVpeay8)
Will Russians finally react as Putin wants them to kill their relatives?
Putin is just completely insane.
What's the point of mobilizing 300,000+ men and sending them off to die ??
It's clearly since the war that Russian weaponry are inferior to what the US is sending. They can't compete.
I guess Putin is clueless about the advance weapons being produced these days.
Putin is not insane, and actually, I think everything he has done so far has been perfectly rational (which is not the same thing as correct). It is unlikely Putin can survive a decisive loss in Ukraine, so he has to do something to not appear powerless in the face of Ukrainian advances. If that costs 300,000 or even 10 million lives, so be it.
-
ISW doesn't think partial mobilization is going to be a cure-all for Russia.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-21
I guess we'll see what happens. If Russia just throws thousands more ill trained, ill equipped and ill motivated troops at Ukraine, I doubt that's going to be effective. If this manages to cause dissention and unrest in Russia, Putin may really regret it. If he's still alive to regret it that is.
-
ISW doesn't think partial mobilization is going to be a cure-all for Russia.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-21
I guess we'll see what happens. If Russia just throws thousands more ill trained, ill equipped and ill motivated troops at Ukraine, I doubt that's going to be effective. If this manages to cause dissention and unrest in Russia, Putin may really regret it. If he's still alive to regret it that is.
Yeah, this is a desperate move. He lost his last pressure against the West when he shut down the gas completely. But a thread only works if the target thinks it can avoid it. By that time everyone was convinced he will stop the gas whatever happens because the end would be either that or not supplying anything to Ukraine.
The only thing he can do now is somehow win with the miliary he can scrape together. You can also see his desperation by resurfacing of the atomic bomb threats.
From all what I have read that mobilisation will not help much. Surely it will help booster man numbers, so partisans (which have been quite active) might have a harder time and such big surprise pushes as in the last 2 weeks will be less likely - but as others pointed out, soldiers who have negative morale and are lacking supplies will not put up a real fight. Not to mention that they don't have current training while the Ukrainian reserves have.
And I can't see that supply situation getting better in the winter.
-
Another, similar perspective from Gen Hertling:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1572571676524838915.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1572571676524838915.html)
tl;dr: Russian army training was terrible before this war, and with so many losses among what little NCO corps they had, it's even worse now.
-
These guys got a lesson regarding the relationship of the fascist state and its subjects - even hollering on the street in support of the government is suspicious activity because it shows political engagement which is strongly discouraged in the established fascist state. Funny this:
Russian men who backed Putin left in shock after being forcefully taken away by military
A video has emerged in which Russian men who backed President Vladimir Putin's mobilisation move were seen forcefully being taken away by military.
Three Russian men who backed President Vladimir Putin's mobilisation move ended in disbelief after they were forcefully taken away as conscripts. A video of three Russian men who came out in support of Putin`s mobilisation and to condemn the people protesting against it being forcefully taken away by the military has surfaced on social media.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/russian-men-backed-putin-forcefully-taken-away-military-video-2003190-2022-09-22?utm_source=rss
-
Putin has effectively created a pre-revolutionary situation to be exploited:
Day 210, September 21. Summary of Arestovych and Feygin daily broadcast.
Posted on 22 September 2022
in Arestovych Broadcasts, Video
by WarTranslated
The way to collapse the Russian system and hinder mobilisation is mass protests. Arestovich also calls for mutinies of Russian units. Russia and the whole world will stand behind the first regiment to mutiny. The government cannot mobilise and give weapons to a protesting mass.
https://wartranslated.com/day-210-september-21-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/
-
Putin has painted himself into a corner unless he has a sudden reversal of fortune in Ukraine. I fear that he may resort to nukes if enouhg Ukranian forces mass in a location that they could be used effectively against them, or there is an alternate strategic location to strike. I honestly don't know what a response to that action would look like.
-
Putin has painted himself into a corner unless he has a sudden reversal of fortune in Ukraine. I fear that he may resort to nukes if enough Ukranian forces mass in a location that they could be used effectively against them, or there is an alternate strategic location to strike. I honestly don't know what a response to that action would look like.
The utility of a tactical nuclear strike is pretty limited. If we were talking Cold War era with hundreds of tanks or armored vehicles and thousands of troops massed together at some chokepoint or at some salient then perhaps it could have been effective. But with precision guided weapons and a lot lower density on the battlefield it just doesn't make sense. A tactical nuke might kill most everyone within a mile or so but that would mean Russian troops would need to pull back from the front to avoid being killed as well. Then there's the problem of trying to push through a nuclear blast zone where there will be rubble, fallen trees, destroyed bridges, etc. - not something they can easily push through. Even if they do, it would require a massive logistical effort to keep any sort of breakthrough supplied and moving. Building that up would be easily detected by US intelligence and passed on to Ukraine who can then target any sort of supply build up with HIMARS.
A strategic nuclear strike on something like a city would not only risk a general nuclear war between Russia and the west but would make Russia even more of a pariah in the eyes of the world. It would also do little but harden the resolve of Ukraine and the west against Russia. I don't see Ukraine deciding to capitulate if a city was destroyed since they've already lost several cities (albeit with hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties instead of tens or hundreds of thousands).
-
A tactical nuclear strike would probably destabilize Russia more quickly than anything else could at this point.
-
Another, similar perspective from Gen Hertling:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1572571676524838915.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1572571676524838915.html)
tl;dr: Russian army training was terrible before this war, and with so many losses among what little NCO corps they had, it's even worse now.
So before this mobilization, there was also talk about Putin pulling old equipment out of munitions storage. The example often given was the use of T-61 tanks which are supposedly very outdated. The guns given to the separatist soldiers were shown to be Mosin rifles which happen to be rifles used by the old Russian Empire. There have been elaborate descriptions of military equipment being blown up. This includes many fuel trucks.
Can Russia supply the newly recruited men with adequate equipment? Is their manufacturing capability adequate to produce what their soldiers need? Even when the war was going well for Russia, Russians traded some of what was issued to them for better Ukrainian gear.
So they are sending poorly equipped, poorly trained older men to a war that they don't want to fight. I guess it makes as much sense as most wars.
-
If Russia nukes the Ukraine, would the west look the other way . . . or would there be retaliatory nuclear strikes?
If two sides are nuclear armed and only one of them is willing to use their arms then they have all the power. That makes me feel that an attack in Ukraine would lead to one in Russia. Which would probably lead to some sort of retaliation back.
I guess my hope would be that Russian nuclear military might is similarly withered as their ground troops.
-
I could see the west avoiding retaliating with nuclear weapons to to prevent an escalation to WWIII. What I don't know is how they would manage Russia b/c Russia would need to be tamed before any cities further west face the same fate. No fly zone? Precision bombing with conventional weapons? Bombing Red Square into rubble?
A while back we were talking about this fellow and his daughter getting blown up in his SUV:
https://wartranslated.com/aleksandr-dugin-in-his-article-calls-for-mobilisation-of-the-whole-russia-to-fight-the-antichrist-western-world/
I feel like if a person steps out on the public world stage and speaks such inflammatory things then they are officially combatants and face whatever consequences come with that.
https://wartranslated.com/day-210-september-21-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/
The last section speaks of Russia's difficulties even outfitting existing personnel with modern weapons. That even outfitting 15K soldiers may be impossible. 300K new soldiers with a week's basic training? Seems very foolhardy.
-
If Russia nukes the Ukraine, would the west look the other way . . . or would there be retaliatory nuclear strikes?
If two sides are nuclear armed and only one of them is willing to use their arms then they have all the power. That makes me feel that an attack in Ukraine would lead to one in Russia. Which would probably lead to some sort of retaliation back.
I guess my hope would be that Russian nuclear military might is similarly withered as their ground troops.
Many of their nuclear warheads aere junk and the delivery systems are in no better shape.
Attacks on cities make little strategic sense and tactical nuclear attacks are extremely limited in usefulness on the battlefield, as has been stated above, and there is no way a disorganized military could take advantage of a strike anyway.
While there is a possibility of a nuclear strike by Russia, it would not lead to the end of the world but to a US response that would end the Putin regime right there.
In my opinion, the greatest danger of a Russian nuclear intervention would be the power vacuum following the elimination of the Russian Federation's power at a moments notice. That said, the Russian Federation will not survive this war but its demise should preferably be in slow motion to prevent power vacuums that might prove destabilizing for players bigger than Russia.
-
These guys got a lesson regarding the relationship of the fascist state and its subjects - even hollering on the street in support of the government is suspicious activity because it shows political engagement which is strongly discouraged in the established fascist state. Funny this:
Russian men who backed Putin left in shock after being forcefully taken away by military
A video has emerged in which Russian men who backed President Vladimir Putin's mobilisation move were seen forcefully being taken away by military.
Three Russian men who backed President Vladimir Putin's mobilisation move ended in disbelief after they were forcefully taken away as conscripts. A video of three Russian men who came out in support of Putin`s mobilisation and to condemn the people protesting against it being forcefully taken away by the military has surfaced on social media.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/russian-men-backed-putin-forcefully-taken-away-military-video-2003190-2022-09-22?utm_source=rss
Yeah I don't think that's what's happening here. The police are dragging some loud drunks off the street maybe, but that's not a forced mobilization in the video.
-
The utility of a tactical nuclear strike is pretty limited. If we were talking Cold War era with hundreds of tanks or armored vehicles and thousands of troops massed together at some chokepoint or at some salient then perhaps it could have been effective. But with precision guided weapons and a lot lower density on the battlefield it just doesn't make sense. A tactical nuke might kill most everyone within a mile or so but that would mean Russian troops would need to pull back from the front to avoid being killed as well.
If anything, a chemical or biological attack from Russia would be better suited for this situation and would not draw quite the same international response as a nuclear attack.
-
These guys got a lesson regarding the relationship of the fascist state and its subjects - even hollering on the street in support of the government is suspicious activity because it shows political engagement which is strongly discouraged in the established fascist state. Funny this:
Russian men who backed Putin left in shock after being forcefully taken away by military
A video has emerged in which Russian men who backed President Vladimir Putin's mobilisation move were seen forcefully being taken away by military.
Three Russian men who backed President Vladimir Putin's mobilisation move ended in disbelief after they were forcefully taken away as conscripts. A video of three Russian men who came out in support of Putin`s mobilisation and to condemn the people protesting against it being forcefully taken away by the military has surfaced on social media.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/russian-men-backed-putin-forcefully-taken-away-military-video-2003190-2022-09-22?utm_source=rss
Yeah I don't think that's what's happening here. The police are dragging some loud drunks off the street maybe, but that's not a forced mobilization in the video.
Probably, but it does make the point that it does not pay to cheer on the fascist state in a hilarious way.
In the real world, the mobilization for the trip to the slaughterhouse looks more like this:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1573050840772136960
-
Can Russia supply the newly recruited men with adequate equipment? Is their manufacturing capability adequate to produce what their soldiers need? Even when the war was going well for Russia, Russians traded some of what was issued to them for better Ukrainian gear.
No. They do not have adequate modern equipment or supplies for these conscripts, nor the capability to build most modern equipment including things like the cassette wheel bearings for trains, or high strength steel for artillery barrels. Can they build some stuff? Sure. Think 1970s vintage.
Plus they already grabbed a large portion of their training cadre and shipped them off to the meat grinder.
In other news: Ukraine Ministry of Defense dropped a new video - well worth watching, it's under a minute.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/xl4s62/ukrainian_mod_just_dropped_new_gem/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3[/quote]
-
Putin has painted himself into a corner unless he has a sudden reversal of fortune in Ukraine. I fear that he may resort to nukes if enouhg Ukranian forces mass in a location that they could be used effectively against them, or there is an alternate strategic location to strike. I honestly don't know what a response to that action would look like.
Yeah I've been thinking a lot on how the world will response on a nuclear attack.
I honestly don't think the world will use nuclear arsenal back as this will escalate quicky.
As someone else said, retaliation maybe just normal weaponry but if NATO get onboard, Russia could be taken out fairly quickly.
I wonder what if the world offer a huge reward(like $1 billion) for Putin's head, would anyone close to him want to take him out. I mean the whole shebang. Huge reward, payable to family if you die. Full amnesty. whenever you want to live. This is of course after he decide to use nukes.
-
Probably, but it does make the point that it does not pay to cheer on the fascist state in a hilarious way.
In the real world, the mobilization for the trip to the slaughterhouse looks more like this:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1573050840772136960
Conan would approve. The lamentations of their women have already started. I couldn't help but feel sorry for them while watching that.
-
Putin has painted himself into a corner unless he has a sudden reversal of fortune in Ukraine. I fear that he may resort to nukes if enouhg Ukranian forces mass in a location that they could be used effectively against them, or there is an alternate strategic location to strike. I honestly don't know what a response to that action would look like.
Yeah I've been thinking a lot on how the world will response on a nuclear attack.
I honestly don't think the world will use nuclear arsenal back as this will escalate quicky.
As someone else said, retaliation maybe just normal weaponry but if NATO get onboard, Russia could be taken out fairly quickly.
I wonder what if the world offer a huge reward(like $1 billion) for Putin's head, would anyone close to him want to take him out. I mean the whole shebang. Huge reward, payable to family if you die. Full amnesty. whenever you want to live. This is of course after he decide to use nukes.
This is probably the 12-year-old in me, but I'm hoping the US has a submarine shadowing every sub and deployed surface ship Russia has, plus target coordinates for every military base, factory, and depot, and if Putin detonates a nuke, the rest of Russia's military just goes *poof* in a matter of hours.
-
Last night's news said that men arrested for protests are being handed draft papers at the police station. I can go back and find the video if you like.
-
Putin has painted himself into a corner unless he has a sudden reversal of fortune in Ukraine. I fear that he may resort to nukes if enouhg Ukranian forces mass in a location that they could be used effectively against them, or there is an alternate strategic location to strike. I honestly don't know what a response to that action would look like.
Yeah I've been thinking a lot on how the world will response on a nuclear attack.
I honestly don't think the world will use nuclear arsenal back as this will escalate quicky.
As someone else said, retaliation maybe just normal weaponry but if NATO get onboard, Russia could be taken out fairly quickly.
I wonder what if the world offer a huge reward(like $1 billion) for Putin's head, would anyone close to him want to take him out. I mean the whole shebang. Huge reward, payable to family if you die. Full amnesty. whenever you want to live. This is of course after he decide to use nukes.
This is probably the 12-year-old in me, but I'm hoping the US has a submarine shadowing every sub and deployed surface ship Russia has, plus target coordinates for every military base, factory, and depot, and if Putin detonates a nuke, the rest of Russia's military just goes *poof* in a matter of hours.
Let's start with a certain little datcha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin%27s_Palace) on the Black Sea coast.
-
Seems there is a secret (7) part in the mobilization that means that 1,2 million could be mobilized, not the 300K that were announced. (And also seems students etc. without any training at all are getting conscripted.)
The only thing I can imagine those would be of use its to to backpack transport food for the guys actually fighting.
Also earlier on twitter I made a half-joke about how soldiers with gun will make sure you vote in the referendum and that the vote is not accidentally put in the wrong place.
Looks like reality got the joke on me here. It get's noting of someone puts a "no" down. (Well, hard to say how much is true on that.)
But the best thing today is that Ukraine wins this weeks PR battle, too! And by what a margin, if you look at moscow...
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/xl4s62/ukrainian_mod_just_dropped_new_gem/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
-
Putin has painted himself into a corner unless he has a sudden reversal of fortune in Ukraine. I fear that he may resort to nukes if enouhg Ukranian forces mass in a location that they could be used effectively against them, or there is an alternate strategic location to strike. I honestly don't know what a response to that action would look like.
Yeah I've been thinking a lot on how the world will response on a nuclear attack.
I honestly don't think the world will use nuclear arsenal back as this will escalate quicky.
As someone else said, retaliation maybe just normal weaponry but if NATO get onboard, Russia could be taken out fairly quickly.
I wonder what if the world offer a huge reward(like $1 billion) for Putin's head, would anyone close to him want to take him out. I mean the whole shebang. Huge reward, payable to family if you die. Full amnesty. whenever you want to live. This is of course after he decide to use nukes.
This is probably the 12-year-old in me, but I'm hoping the US has a submarine shadowing every sub and deployed surface ship Russia has, plus target coordinates for every military base, factory, and depot, and if Putin detonates a nuke, the rest of Russia's military just goes *poof* in a matter of hours.
That's the 12 yr old part of me too.
If he decided to use nukes, the US/NATO has his coordinates and just fire a nuke and kill him. YES a lot of innocent lives will be lost but we all know this can't be escalated.
-
This is probably the 12-year-old in me, but I'm hoping the US has a submarine shadowing every sub and deployed surface ship Russia has, plus target coordinates for every military base, factory, and depot, and if Putin detonates a nuke, the rest of Russia's military just goes *poof* in a matter of hours.
The U.S. submarine force started doing this in the 1940s with diesel boats and Regulus missiles.
Today we're doing it with the world's best submarines, crews, and weapons (I might be biased) and we're joined by the Air Force & Space Force. We'll keep doing it.
More importantly, the Russians are keenly aware of this mutual assured destruction strategy and its targeting tactics.
Almost all of their government understands the consequences of first use.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/us/politics/putin-ukraine.html
NYT reporting that Putin is getting involved in strategy again/still/more. The military wants to pull back, Putin said no. It doesn't seem like a good idea for someone who doesn't have the training in military strategy to set military strategy.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/us/politics/putin-ukraine.html
NYT reporting that Putin is getting involved in strategy again/still/more. The military wants to pull back, Putin said no. It doesn't seem like a good idea for someone who doesn't have the training in military strategy to set military strategy.
The China/India reception has been rather bleak for Putin, so it is surprising the betting markets (such that they are allowed to exist) don't calculate more short-term risk for Putin. The mobilization is a decision sharply in the direction of the nationalist hard-liners, which is consistent with Putin's refusal to retrench to allow for any strategic retreats. My current assessment is the probability of a coup against Putin is undervalued, but if he can survive the next few weeks without a significant military setback, he will survive the year, at least. That is probably why he is calling the shots right now.
-
On a more light-hearted note:
Referendum for all Russians: do you want to join Holland? | De Avondshow met Arjen Lubach (S2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVv3ofeBnME)
-
Just watching the interview with Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor. They have private direct exchanges with high level Russia military people and have been told several times that if Putin uses nuke(s), the retaliation will be catastrophic.
-
"Just watching the interview with Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor. They have private direct exchanges with high level Russia military people and have been told several times that if Putin uses nuke(s), the retaliation will be catastrophic. "
That's the strength/insanity of nuclear deterrence. What it means is that if you make the decision to use a nuke, you should logically use ALL of your nukes IMMEDIATELY, in the hopes of eliminating your opponents' ability to respond. Conversely, if you see a single nuke launch, you logically should launch ALL IMMEDIATELY because the rest are coming and you want to get them before they eliminate your ability to respond.
And so the world ends when one asshole decides he'd rather destroy the world than lose face. Does anyone imagine that Hitler would have chosen not to use nukes if he had them?
-
This is probably the 12-year-old in me, but I'm hoping the US has a submarine shadowing every sub and deployed surface ship Russia has, plus target coordinates for every military base, factory, and depot, and if Putin detonates a nuke, the rest of Russia's military just goes *poof* in a matter of hours.
My inner 12 year old has had similar fantasies.
Unfortunately (assuming we used nukes on all that stuff) we'd have solved one climate crisis but created another of the opposite sort.
-W
-
That is our plan, and given the poor condition of Russia’s submarine fleet, probably feasible. Unfortunately taking out the ICBMs in particular would require nuclear weapons. The fallout would be monstrous, and make China along with parts of other former Soviet republics very unhappy collateral casualties. The humanitarian damage and civilians injured would easily top 100 million, not including the tens of millions dead.
I think in terms of conventional war and Putin’s meddling in strategy: we’re in the next act of the James Bond movie where the supervillain yells at his henchmen and incompetently micromanages their final demise. I do stand by prior predictions that this will take longer than Ukrainians can hold out, and ultimately an armistice line will be negotiated at roughly current positions.
-
That is our plan, and given the poor condition of Russia’s submarine fleet, probably feasible. Unfortunately taking out the ICBMs in particular would require nuclear weapons. The fallout would be monstrous, and make China along with parts of other former Soviet republics very unhappy collateral casualties. The humanitarian damage and civilians injured would easily top 100 million, not including the tens of millions dead.
I think in terms of conventional war and Putin’s meddling in strategy: we’re in the next act of the James Bond movie where the supervillain yells at his henchmen and incompetently micromanages their final demise. I do stand by prior predictions that this will take longer than Ukrainians can hold out, and ultimately an armistice line will be negotiated at roughly current positions.
It just wouldn't seem right for Russia to get that land. It would be as though Putin ultimately won. He doesn't care about his dead Russian soldiers. Does Karma apply to entire countries?
-
That is our plan, and given the poor condition of Russia’s submarine fleet, probably feasible. Unfortunately taking out the ICBMs in particular would require nuclear weapons. The fallout would be monstrous, and make China along with parts of other former Soviet republics very unhappy collateral casualties. The humanitarian damage and civilians injured would easily top 100 million, not including the tens of millions dead.
I think in terms of conventional war and Putin’s meddling in strategy: we’re in the next act of the James Bond movie where the supervillain yells at his henchmen and incompetently micromanages their final demise. I do stand by prior predictions that this will take longer than Ukrainians can hold out, and ultimately an armistice line will be negotiated at roughly current positions.
Current positions haven't been real static lately, though. It might be me reading too much Trent Talenko, but I've gone (over the last 7 months) from "Russia will roll over them, that's a bummer," to "Oh hey, they'll keep Kiev," to "well shit, Russia is actually losing," to "Russia is totally f'd."
My point is that everyone (myself included) seems to have consistently overestimated Russia. Their professional military is in shreds now and Ukraine is better armed/trained by the day. If they're really lucky they can hold on until winter when their new recruits arrive to... freeze to death?
My predictions are worth exactly what you just paid for them, of course.
-W
-
That is our plan, and given the poor condition of Russia’s submarine fleet, probably feasible. Unfortunately taking out the ICBMs in particular would require nuclear weapons. The fallout would be monstrous, and make China along with parts of other former Soviet republics very unhappy collateral casualties. The humanitarian damage and civilians injured would easily top 100 million, not including the tens of millions dead.
I think in terms of conventional war and Putin’s meddling in strategy: we’re in the next act of the James Bond movie where the supervillain yells at his henchmen and incompetently micromanages their final demise. I do stand by prior predictions that this will take longer than Ukrainians can hold out, and ultimately an armistice line will be negotiated at roughly current positions.
It just wouldn't seem right for Russia to get that land. It would be as though Putin ultimately won. He doesn't care about his dead Russian soldiers. Does Karma apply to entire countries?
I wish, at least to their governments (and fraction of population supporting this stupidity). It is concerning that Ukraine has made little progress in Kherson (southern front) after speeding across the relatively less occupied northern front. Reports suggest this is because the south is being defended by the brunt of Russia's regular army, such as it remains; the north was defended by irregulars and conscripts. This lack of reinforcements to the north suggests that Putin is obsessed with holding the southern part of the occupied territories, and would basically destroy everything within it before letting go.
With ~300k conscripts being sent to reinforce these positions, I will be surprised if Ukraine can over-run the area without a large-scale slaughter of Russian forces or retreat/surrender of conscripts. The former depends on a even stronger influx of long-range weapons to Ukraine (to push the line rather than just maintain it and disrupt Russian logistics), which has not been forthcoming even after their successful push in the north.
If they don't have these weapons, the question becomes what do the Russian conscripts fear more: being shot for desertion / retreating versus being shot or captured by Ukrainian forces? I don't know that they will be able to organize an effective coupe from the front lines, and it seems that a large fraction of Russian civilians (conscripts or not) are unwilling to stage a revolt either.
It worth reviewing maps from these think thanks (which do a good job of scraping data from social media and official reports)
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
https://www.csis.org/analysis/mapping-ukraines-military-advances
Especially note the latter's front line markings from June versus September along the south - basically no progress either way. This is oddly reminiscent of WWI (especially given the significant reliance on artillery rather than tanks or airpower for both sides). I do agree that Russia is eventually screwed, but that can be a very long eventually. Unless the West provides Ukraine with air superiority (which they've refused to do to avoid provoking Russia), they'll continue firing at each other with artillery +/- drones for years to come.
-
My point is that everyone (myself included) seems to have consistently overestimated Russia. Their professional military is in shreds now and Ukraine is better armed/trained by the day. If they're really lucky they can hold on until winter when their new recruits arrive to... freeze to death?
According to the Ukrainians the Russians are sending their recruits directly to the front without training. It makes sense, since Putin fears any more advancement and trainers are all on the front, on the other hand, in the long term that makes it even worse - if that is true, of course. Would be the perfect propaganda to incite more resistance.
-
That is our plan, and given the poor condition of Russia’s submarine fleet, probably feasible. Unfortunately taking out the ICBMs in particular would require nuclear weapons. The fallout would be monstrous, and make China along with parts of other former Soviet republics very unhappy collateral casualties. The humanitarian damage and civilians injured would easily top 100 million, not including the tens of millions dead.
I think in terms of conventional war and Putin’s meddling in strategy: we’re in the next act of the James Bond movie where the supervillain yells at his henchmen and incompetently micromanages their final demise. I do stand by prior predictions that this will take longer than Ukrainians can hold out, and ultimately an armistice line will be negotiated at roughly current positions.
It just wouldn't seem right for Russia to get that land. It would be as though Putin ultimately won. He doesn't care about his dead Russian soldiers. Does Karma apply to entire countries?
I wish, at least to their governments (and fraction of population supporting this stupidity). It is concerning that Ukraine has made little progress in Kherson (southern front) after speeding across the relatively less occupied northern front. Reports suggest this is because the south is being defended by the brunt of Russia's regular army, such as it remains; the north was defended by irregulars and conscripts. This lack of reinforcements to the north suggests that Putin is obsessed with holding the southern part of the occupied territories, and would basically destroy everything within it before letting go.
...
Especially note the latter's front line markings from June versus September along the south - basically no progress either way. This is oddly reminiscent of WWI (especially given the significant reliance on artillery rather than tanks or airpower for both sides). I do agree that Russia is eventually screwed, but that can be a very long eventually. Unless the West provides Ukraine with air superiority (which they've refused to do to avoid provoking Russia), they'll continue firing at each other with artillery +/- drones for years to come.
You're right that the lines haven't moved much. Given the fact that the ground there is pretty level, it's difficult to make progress. That said, some things *have* changed: specifically, Russia's logistics have gotten significantly worse in the south, thanks to HIMARS. While Ukraine has been very tight-lipped about their own losses, Russia *is* taking a lot of losses on the southern front. Perhaps not enough to allow a Ukrainian breakthrough, but enough that Russia has had to strip their northern front in order to hold Kherson.
The presence of HIMARS, plus Russia's lack of an equivalent, is huge. It means Ukraine can station their supplies closer to the front lines, while Russia has to keep theirs much further back. It gives Ukraine a whole lot more targets to hit. The fact that we've seen HIMARS recently used against Russian front-line trenches is telling--it means Ukraine can afford to spend valuable, expensive missiles on lower-value targets. So either Russia has moved the higher-value targets further away from the front, or Ukraine lacks intelligence on their location, or Ukraine just ran out of ammo dumps to blow up.
-
That is our plan, and given the poor condition of Russia’s submarine fleet, probably feasible. Unfortunately taking out the ICBMs in particular would require nuclear weapons. The fallout would be monstrous, and make China along with parts of other former Soviet republics very unhappy collateral casualties. The humanitarian damage and civilians injured would easily top 100 million, not including the tens of millions dead.
I think in terms of conventional war and Putin’s meddling in strategy: we’re in the next act of the James Bond movie where the supervillain yells at his henchmen and incompetently micromanages their final demise. I do stand by prior predictions that this will take longer than Ukrainians can hold out, and ultimately an armistice line will be negotiated at roughly current positions.
It just wouldn't seem right for Russia to get that land. It would be as though Putin ultimately won. He doesn't care about his dead Russian soldiers. Does Karma apply to entire countries?
I wish, at least to their governments (and fraction of population supporting this stupidity). It is concerning that Ukraine has made little progress in Kherson (southern front) after speeding across the relatively less occupied northern front. Reports suggest this is because the south is being defended by the brunt of Russia's regular army, such as it remains; the north was defended by irregulars and conscripts. This lack of reinforcements to the north suggests that Putin is obsessed with holding the southern part of the occupied territories, and would basically destroy everything within it before letting go.
...
Especially note the latter's front line markings from June versus September along the south - basically no progress either way. This is oddly reminiscent of WWI (especially given the significant reliance on artillery rather than tanks or airpower for both sides). I do agree that Russia is eventually screwed, but that can be a very long eventually. Unless the West provides Ukraine with air superiority (which they've refused to do to avoid provoking Russia), they'll continue firing at each other with artillery +/- drones for years to come.
You're right that the lines haven't moved much. Given the fact that the ground there is pretty level, it's difficult to make progress. That said, some things *have* changed: specifically, Russia's logistics have gotten significantly worse in the south, thanks to HIMARS. While Ukraine has been very tight-lipped about their own losses, Russia *is* taking a lot of losses on the southern front. Perhaps not enough to allow a Ukrainian breakthrough, but enough that Russia has had to strip their northern front in order to hold Kherson.
The presence of HIMARS, plus Russia's lack of an equivalent, is huge. It means Ukraine can station their supplies closer to the front lines, while Russia has to keep theirs much further back. It gives Ukraine a whole lot more targets to hit. The fact that we've seen HIMARS recently used against Russian front-line trenches is telling--it means Ukraine can afford to spend valuable, expensive missiles on lower-value targets. So either Russia has moved the higher-value targets further away from the front, or Ukraine lacks intelligence on their location, or Ukraine just ran out of ammo dumps to blow up.
I kind of wonder with them trapped in Kherson West of the river if this is a little like shooting the chickens in a henhouse. The Russians have no where to hide. They can just slowly pick them off as the Russians run out of ammunition. Why rush in?
-
That is also an important point I read at one commentor. The Russians where so friendly to obliege the Ukrainians in relocating a lot of troops into a hard to supply position from which they can't really retreat without getting a heavy blow.
So there are a lot of troops pinned down in a location where it's easy to destroy their supply convois and where they can't do a successful attack nor retreat.
Why wasting your troops attacking that position? Just let time wear them down and destroy more of Russian supply capability, all teh while you are taking back areas in another part of the country.
Speaking of which there seems to be another deep attack in the North of that important railway town from last week.
-
I have also heard a concept put forward that there is beneift in not routing Russia quickly from Ukraine (being able to actually do that is a separate question) because a fast, total rout would be so destabilizing to Putin that he may be more likely to use nukes. A slow grind may be a less volatile way to have Russia lose. I don't have the background to know if this is valid, but it seems that the risk of instability in Russia is a real one based on the somewhat unprecedented response to the recent mobilization/conscription effort.
-
That is also an important point I read at one commentor. The Russians where so friendly to obliege the Ukrainians in relocating a lot of troops into a hard to supply position from which they can't really retreat without getting a heavy blow.
So there are a lot of troops pinned down in a location where it's easy to destroy their supply convois and where they can't do a successful attack nor retreat.
Why wasting your troops attacking that position? Just let time wear them down and destroy more of Russian supply capability, all teh while you are taking back areas in another part of the country.
Speaking of which there seems to be another deep attack in the North of that important railway town from last week.
This is exactly what I would have said. The Russians in Kherson are militarily ineffective for any purpose except occupying Kherson, and it takes all of them and a lot of supplies to just barely do it. There is no strategic objective on that side of the river: no power plants, canal controls, Crimea bridges, nothing worth big losses to retake. In fact, retaking Kherson might actually do the Russians a favor: they would finally have a defensible perimeter and reasonable supply routes for the first time in the war. Plus, Chernobaivka airport is the gift that keeps on giving, why would anyone take that away? I wouldn't really expect a big push there at a minimum until everything is about ready to fall apart, possibly when the weather starts to get bad and Russian supplies are strained to breaking.
-
This is exactly what I would have said. The Russians in Kherson are militarily ineffective for any purpose except occupying Kherson, and it takes all of them and a lot of supplies to just barely do it. There is no strategic objective on that side of the river: no power plants, canal controls, Crimea bridges, nothing worth big losses to retake. In fact, retaking Kherson might actually do the Russians a favor: they would finally have a defensible perimeter and reasonable supply routes for the first time in the war. Plus, Chernobaivka airport is the gift that keeps on giving, why would anyone take that away? I wouldn't really expect a big push there at a minimum until everything is about ready to fall apart, possibly when the weather starts to get bad and Russian supplies are strained to breaking.
There is some evidence Russian commanders would like to withdraw from Kherson, but have been blocked by Putin.
WASHINGTON — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has thrust himself more directly into strategic planning for the war in Ukraine in recent weeks, American officials said, including rejecting requests from his commanders on the ground that they be allowed to retreat from the vital southern city of Kherson.
A withdrawal from Kherson would allow the Russian military to pull back across the Dnipro River in an orderly way, preserving its equipment and saving the lives of soldiers.
But such a retreat would be another humiliating public acknowledgment of Mr. Putin’s failure in the war, and would hand a second major victory to Ukraine in one month. Kherson was the first major city to fall to the Russians in the initial invasion, and remains the only regional capital under Moscow’s control. Retaking it would be a major accomplishment for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/us/politics/putin-ukraine.html
-
Sorry if this repeats something from upthread.
Apparently, the problems of Ukraine have left Putin's govt in enough disarray that when he scheduled a big speech - the one in which he eventually announced the "partial mobilization" - he no showed and did the speech the next morning instead. Author in the Atlantic points out that if Biden did that he'd be described as having an administration in chaos; same should apply to Russia. Author asserts that all signs point to increasing desperation in RU, an accelerating implosion.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/putin-speech-delay-ukraine-world-leaders/671495/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220926&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily
-
Have the Nord Stream gas pipeline sabotage made US news yet? Here it's front page news including emergency government meetings and safety zones for naval traffic.
A friend in Germany talked about anti-inflation demonstrations there yesterday including banners calling for an "end the war on Russia" and to take Nord Stream 2 into production ASAP. We might se more of that during the winter.
-
Have the Nord Stream gas pipeline sabotage made US news yet? Here it's front page news including emergency government meetings and safety zones for naval traffic.
A friend in Germany talked about anti-inflation demonstrations there yesterday including banners calling for an "end the war on Russia" and to take Nord Stream 2 into production ASAP. We might se more of that during the winter.
Are you referring to Russia's "maintenance" shutdown, or was there actual sabotage on top of that?
-
Have the Nord Stream gas pipeline sabotage made US news yet? Here it's front page news including emergency government meetings and safety zones for naval traffic.
A friend in Germany talked about anti-inflation demonstrations there yesterday including banners calling for an "end the war on Russia" and to take Nord Stream 2 into production ASAP. We might se more of that during the winter.
Are you referring to Russia's "maintenance" shutdown, or was there actual sabotage on top of that?
There are three major leaks that appeared in the pipelines yesterday, two in Nord Stream 1 and one in Nord Stream 2. The pipelines were not in active use but still contained a lot of gas.
Some info here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63044747
The BBC article says "cause unknown" but everything points to man made leaks.
A picture of the water surface above one of the leaks can be seen here:
https://www.forsvaret.dk/en/news/2022/gas-leak-in-the-baltic-sea/
-
Have the Nord Stream gas pipeline sabotage made US news yet? Here it's front page news including emergency government meetings and safety zones for naval traffic.
A friend in Germany talked about anti-inflation demonstrations there yesterday including banners calling for an "end the war on Russia" and to take Nord Stream 2 into production ASAP. We might se more of that during the winter.
Are you referring to Russia's "maintenance" shutdown, or was there actual sabotage on top of that?
There are three major leaks that appeared in the pipelines yesterday, two in Nord Stream 1 and one in Nord Stream 2. The pipelines were not in active use but still contained a lot of gas.
Some info here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63044747
The BBC article says "cause unknown" but everything points to man made leaks.
A picture of the water surface above one of the leaks can be seen here:
https://www.forsvaret.dk/en/news/2022/gas-leak-in-the-baltic-sea/
I don't think it would be the Ukrainians. Could it be some sort of bizarre false flag operation by the Russians? They want Europe to fell the cold this Winter. Some of the stuff they do seems bizarre. the world is punishing them and they are striking back.
-
Seismic sensors in Sweden and Denmark have confirmed that there have been decent sized explosions in that part of the ocean:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/svt-avslojar-tva-explosioner-intill-nord-stream
(i tried linking to the page translated by Google but the links got messed up. Try yourself at https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=sv&op=websites if you're curious about the text).
-
Meanwhile in Russia...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/xov88y/russian_mobilized_men_are_asked_to_buy_pads_and/
...soldiers are asked to bring their own gear. What a shambles.
-
Have the Nord Stream gas pipeline sabotage made US news yet? Here it's front page news including emergency government meetings and safety zones for naval traffic.
A friend in Germany talked about anti-inflation demonstrations there yesterday including banners calling for an "end the war on Russia" and to take Nord Stream 2 into production ASAP. We might se more of that during the winter.
Postillon (reliable news on the internet since 1845): Greta Thunberg back from diving holiday!
https://twitter.com/Der_Postillon/status/1574777122631073793?s=20&t=G9sALDrjquR1z6bI_MAjmQ
And for the stuff the Russian recruits should bring, it's allegedly this:
https://twitter.com/AntonDykyi/status/1572897467783589888?s=20&t=OcGBePPrmC4b12OYMfEQig
-
Meanwhile in Russia...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/xov88y/russian_mobilized_men_are_asked_to_buy_pads_and/
...soldiers are asked to bring their own gear. What a shambles.
This is going to be a disaster. The Russians are sending undertrained or even untrained men into combat with no equipment except presumably weapons. And just before winter as well. This cannot end well.
-
What's the weather like in Ukraine? Where I am, we're apparently having an early fall (40s overnight a few days this week!). If winter comes early, anyone unprepared is going to have a very hard time. General Winter has been the death of more than one military action.
-
Meanwhile in Russia...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/xov88y/russian_mobilized_men_are_asked_to_buy_pads_and/
...soldiers are asked to bring their own gear. What a shambles.
This is going to be a disaster. The Russians are sending undertrained or even untrained men into combat with no equipment except presumably weapons. And just before winter as well. This cannot end well.
I seem to remember something similar going on in one of America's recent wars.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/feb/04/hillary-clinton/50000-started-war-without-body-armor/ (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/feb/04/hillary-clinton/50000-started-war-without-body-armor/)
-
What's the weather like in Ukraine? Where I am, we're apparently having an early fall (40s overnight a few days this week!). If winter comes early, anyone unprepared is going to have a very hard time. General Winter has been the death of more than one military action.
Looks like frequent drizzle/rain. Lows in the 40s(F) starts in about a week.
-
I wish, at least to their governments (and fraction of population supporting this stupidity). It is concerning that Ukraine has made little progress in Kherson (southern front) after speeding across the relatively less occupied northern front. Reports suggest this is because the south is being defended by the brunt of Russia's regular army, such as it remains; the north was defended by irregulars and conscripts. This lack of reinforcements to the north suggests that Putin is obsessed with holding the southern part of the occupied territories, and would basically destroy everything within it before letting go.
Makes a lot of sense to me. In the North, Ukraine showed they could punch through the defensive line and then just tear through very lightly defended rear areas. Remaining pieces of the original defensive line get surrounded and defeated, or scurry away leaving heavy equipment behind for Ukraine to capture and reuse.
Kherson is more heavily defended, better trained - and there's not really a lightly defended rear area because Dnipro river. The Ukrainians have done a masterful job with damaging the main bridge back to the rest of the Russian Army. Intact enough to walk across, it's too damaged for any heavy vehicles. This puts the Russians in a real Catch-22. Can't bring much in the way of supplies to Kherson, so they're burning through what they have. Even if Putin allowed a retreat - they're walking. They have to leave behind all their tanks, APCs, trucks, air defense, artillery, etc. Basically anything bigger than what a guy can carry. Keep the Russians pinned down in Kherson and let their combat capability wither.
In the meantime, keep pushing in the North where it's much easier to regain territory.
-
*snicker* - "Green track suit" is on the list!
-
Has anyone claimed responsibility for blowing up the pipeline yet? I've seen nothing.
I can't fathom why anyone would, except maybe an environmental terrorist group? But then surely they'd claim it?
I know Russia make bizarre moves but why would they break it when they control the taps? Are they worried someone will invade and turn it back on again?
-
Meanwhile in Russia...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/xov88y/russian_mobilized_men_are_asked_to_buy_pads_and/
...soldiers are asked to bring their own gear. What a shambles.
This is going to be a disaster. The Russians are sending undertrained or even untrained men into combat with no equipment except presumably weapons. And just before winter as well. This cannot end well.
Read that Russia is sending farmers to front lines.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/farmers-among-russians-drafted-into-military-putin-says-2022-09-27/
They're shafted if they send their people who grow their grain.
Not only do they lose skilled talent and farm labor, they end up potentially with less supply, driving up prices, esp. vodka.
Putinomics!
-
Read that Russia is sending farmers to front lines.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/farmers-among-russians-drafted-into-military-putin-says-2022-09-27/
They're shafted if they send their people who grow their grain.
Not only do they lose skilled talent and farm labor, they end up potentially with less supply, driving up prices, esp. vodka.
Putinomics!
They're sending surgeons to the front lines as basic conscripts. Not even to a field hospital. Give 'em a rusty AK and point 'em at Ukraine.
-
Read that Russia is sending farmers to front lines.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/farmers-among-russians-drafted-into-military-putin-says-2022-09-27/
They're shafted if they send their people who grow their grain.
Not only do they lose skilled talent and farm labor, they end up potentially with less supply, driving up prices, esp. vodka.
Putinomics!
Russia was, until this past year, a major exporter of wheat to the rest of the world. Given the increasing sanctions they seem to be facing it wouldn't surprise me if they're facing the prospect of producing more wheat their their domestic market requires and have nothing to do with the surplus. Farmers may be one of the occupations than the russian economy is in a better position to spare than most at the moment.
-
Has anyone claimed responsibility for blowing up the pipeline yet? I've seen nothing.
I can't fathom why anyone would, except maybe an environmental terrorist group? But then surely they'd claim it?
I know Russia make bizarre moves but why would they break it when they control the taps? Are they worried someone will invade and turn it back on again?
Was wondering about two things:
That long border Ukraine shares with Russian, what keeps that from being a long battle front forever?
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
-
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
The depth would make it hard to impossible to use just human divers so yes, a manned submarine or some sort of drone-like thing would probably be used. There are "tether-free" versions that can operate without that umbilical cable and partially autonomous. The one made close to me that I know of is called "Saab Sabertooth (https://www.saab.com/products/sabertooth)" but I assume there are more manufacturers in all relevant countries. Also remember that the explosives could have been placed there weeks or months ahead of time.
It is not that uncommon with media reports of Russian planes or ships to make strange maneuvers in the Baltic Sea region without explaining themselves. Already in the year before the invasion on Feb 24, there was as much activity of this sort here as in the height of the cold war.
Not to speak of all the cables on the ocean bed there, both electrical power and internet/telecom communication cables might already be prepared for a similar fate by the same actor.
Norway has also reported increased drone activity among their pipelines and oil/gas platforms recently.
-
Has anyone claimed responsibility for blowing up the pipeline yet? I've seen nothing.
I can't fathom why anyone would, except maybe an environmental terrorist group? But then surely they'd claim it?
I know Russia make bizarre moves but why would they break it when they control the taps? Are they worried someone will invade and turn it back on again?
Was wondering about two things:
That long border Ukraine shares with Russian, what keeps that from being a long battle front forever?
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
Are those big underwater pipes magnetic? I do believe electromagnets would work fine underwater if kept dry. How close would you have to be underwater with a big bang? It seems like you would hear the sound of a magnetic bomb contacting a pipe. The timer could be set and you would be long gone. But - I only watch movies. It's a lot easier to destroy stuff than to build it.
-
If you had access to the pipe on dry land, couldn't you just send something through the pipe?
-
If you had access to the pipe on dry land, couldn't you just send something through the pipe?
Yep, that's totally doable. A few years back I interviewed for a company that builds robots specifically designed to crawl through these oil and gas pipes to look for leaks - https://www.pipetelone.com/ (https://www.pipetelone.com/). You would just need to buy one (or something like it) and strap a bomb on it's back.
-
Who might benefit from the pipelines' destruction? Perhaps a petroleum company, an arms provider, a country in competition with the EU, etc.?
This war is terrible in so many ways, but it likely benefits certain nations and/or industries. Bombs are relatively inexpensive and wouldn't be too difficult to deploy from a fishing boat on a dark night. I wouldn't imagine much identifying info can be obtained from an underwater explosion.
-
Who might benefit from the pipelines' destruction? Perhaps a petroleum company, an arms provider, a country in competition with the EU, etc.?
This war is terrible in so many ways, but it likely benefits certain nations and/or industries. Bombs are relatively inexpensive and wouldn't be too difficult to deploy from a fishing boat on a dark night. I wouldn't imagine much identifying info can be obtained from an underwater explosion.
Cui bono - who benefits?
US - Ensures Germany can't get cold feet and start importing Russian gas this winter - thus propping up Russia.
Russia - Let's them blame the US/west (this is already the Russian spin) and since Germany wasn't buying the gas anyways it doesn't hurt them in the short term (though long-term if seawater floods into the pipe and it's not fixed it could become unusable).
Ukraine - Similar motivation to the US
There are other possible players, but this was almost certainly carried out by a nation-state. The US and Russia certainly have the capability to remotely deploy a bomb next to a fixed pipeline from a submarine or surface vessel. Some business or non-state actor is possible - but not likely. The kind of stuff happens in movies, but not so much in real life.
-
Russian trolls have been out in force blaming the US. So definitely Russia did it. They could have sent a bomb through the pipes, there are all sorts of videoing and cutting and grinding and repair tools I have used on water and sewer pipes, and I'm sure there are welders and others, a bomb could easily be carried in by something similar for that size of steel pipe. But it wasn't, it was dropped or carried from the water side to increase plausible deniability for the masses and to send a message to smarter people that "hey this could have been any type of subsea infrastructure, it was just our defunct gas line this first time, but the next one might be your active gas line, or maybe a vital fiber cable? Be afraid!".
-
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
The depth would make it hard to impossible to use just human divers so yes,
Nah. It's not possible for casual recreational divers to go down 75 meters safely, but there are thousands of technical divers who could do it easily. The equipment is readily available as well. I'm not a technical diver, but was reading their discussions - the consensus estimate was if they kept bottom time to 30 minutes or less there wouldn't even be significant decompression issues.
Another reason for Russia to do it: Gazprom was facing some rather stiff contractual nonperformance penalties for failing to ship gas. Russia's excuses for shutting down NS1 have gotten increasingly thin. Now they can go "Those nasty Westerners made us stop! We don't have to pay penalties!"
-
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
The depth would make it hard to impossible to use just human divers so yes,
Nah. It's not possible for casual recreational divers to go down 75 meters safely, but there are thousands of technical divers who could do it easily. The equipment is readily available as well. I'm not a technical diver, but was reading their discussions - the consensus estimate was if they kept bottom time to 30 minutes or less there wouldn't even be significant decompression issues.
Another reason for Russia to do it: Gazprom was facing some rather stiff contractual nonperformance penalties for failing to ship gas. Russia's excuses for shutting down NS1 have gotten increasingly thin. Now they can go "Those nasty Westerners made us stop! We don't have to pay penalties!"
It seems rather exotic to open a pipe filled with methane and then sending a robot through. You would need access to some sort of air lock to put the robot into the pipe. Nobody has mentioned an organization like Greenpeace. Some of these organizations really want to hasten the move to renewables whether they are fully practical or not.
-
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
The depth would make it hard to impossible to use just human divers so yes,
Nah. It's not possible for casual recreational divers to go down 75 meters safely, but there are thousands of technical divers who could do it easily. The equipment is readily available as well. I'm not a technical diver, but was reading their discussions - the consensus estimate was if they kept bottom time to 30 minutes or less there wouldn't even be significant decompression issues.
Another reason for Russia to do it: Gazprom was facing some rather stiff contractual nonperformance penalties for failing to ship gas. Russia's excuses for shutting down NS1 have gotten increasingly thin. Now they can go "Those nasty Westerners made us stop! We don't have to pay penalties!"
It seems rather exotic to open a pipe filled with methane and then sending a robot through. You would need access to some sort of air lock to put the robot into the pipe. Nobody has mentioned an organization like Greenpeace. Some of these organizations really want to hasten the move to renewables whether they are fully practical or not.
Are we getting closer and closer to Canada now? Trudeau probably has both the means and the motives - I've heard he dislikes pipelines. Let's bring back the "Blame Canada" song from South Park. ;)
Joking aside:
We're now up to four different leaks by according to Swedish media. One leak in each pipeline a bit to the north, and one leak in each pipeline about 7 km south of the first ones. The detonations in the north and south sites were hours apart. Current estimates guess that the gas flow will be low enough for closer examinations on Sunday.
And everything I read here is that the experts all points to Russia as the most probable culprit, but without being able to say why. On the other hand, Russia has been the arch enemy of Sweden for 800 years or so, so we like to blame them for everything.
-
I was an exchange student for a year in France many years ago and I had a friend there on the same program from Russia to France. He was a great guy, taught me how to roll and smoke my own cigarettes, drink vodka, etc... Sadly we lost touch when we went back to our own countries.
I think of guys like him when I hear about the conscription and untrained men being forced to go to the front lines. I wish there was something that could be done, some way of letting these guys know they don't have to fight, that there are ways of killing your officers, surrender and perhaps get on a track to citizenship in another European country...or at least wait things out 'til Putin is dispatched like Romanovs.
I know this is naďve and not really thought out very well. But I just think of the human lives and human potential being wasted by this madness. I pray for peace.
-
It seems rather exotic to open a pipe filled with methane and then sending a robot through. You would need access to some sort of air lock to put the robot into the pipe. Nobody has mentioned an organization like Greenpeace. Some of these organizations really want to hasten the move to renewables whether they are fully practical or not.
Actually, every pipeline has exactly that sort of "air lock." It's called a pig launcher (at the end where you put the robot in) and a pig catcher (at the end where you take it out. The "robot" is called a pig, naturally, supposedly because it makes squealing sounds as it goes through the pipeline. Pigs are used for all sorts of purposes--some are highly instrumented and inspect the inside of the pipeline as they are pushed along. Some are used when transitioning from one fluid in a pipeline to another, for example if you're switching from gasoline to diesel, you put a pig in to keep the streams from mixing.
-
If you consider the internal power struggles among the Russina oligarchs, it would make sense for Putin to blow up the pipe lines. Now there is no immidiate monetary reward in a coup; You can't just open the gas pipe the next day and be flooded with money. And if you look at the number of oligarchs falling out of windows, it is clear that there are a lot of internal power struggles in Russia.
No way this is Greenpeace or other environmentalists. The methane emissions from these few explosions almost equal the total annual emissions from Denmark. We are reaching several tipping points, and methane is extremely strong as a greenhouse gas if you look at it in a short time perspective; 84 times CO2 in a 20 year perspective.
-Or, forget it. We are talking about Greenpeace; the organization which destroyed the traditional, and quite sustainable, Inuit seal skin industry, and helped revitalize Faroese and Norwegian whaling by their completely inept protest campaigns. Sure. They would do something as stupid as this.
Nah. Still think it is the Russians. They are crazy.
-
Pipelines: how would you attack them? Does it require a submarine? An underwater drone usually has an umbilical cable for power and communications.
The depth would make it hard to impossible to use just human divers so yes,
Nah. It's not possible for casual recreational divers to go down 75 meters safely, but there are thousands of technical divers who could do it easily. The equipment is readily available as well. I'm not a technical diver, but was reading their discussions - the consensus estimate was if they kept bottom time to 30 minutes or less there wouldn't even be significant decompression issues.
Another reason for Russia to do it: Gazprom was facing some rather stiff contractual nonperformance penalties for failing to ship gas. Russia's excuses for shutting down NS1 have gotten increasingly thin. Now they can go "Those nasty Westerners made us stop! We don't have to pay penalties!"
It seems rather exotic to open a pipe filled with methane and then sending a robot through. You would need access to some sort of air lock to put the robot into the pipe. Nobody has mentioned an organization like Greenpeace. Some of these organizations really want to hasten the move to renewables whether they are fully practical or not.
Robot? Where do you get that?
Technical diver goes down with bomb. Tuck bomb next to pipeline, either set timer or plan on remote detonation. Go back up. Done.
-
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/speculating-on-nord-stream
This is a subscription site, but the gist of the article is that Russia is almost certainly the culprit. This drives up the price of natural gas which benefits Russia - while still leaving the possibility for them to export gas via these pipelines in the future as one is still undamaged.
There are actually 4 pipelines. Nord Stream 1 has two parallel pipelines - both were damaged - and Nord Stream 2 has two parallel pipelines - only one was damaged. These pipelines are about 1.5" thick steel encased in concrete. So, it would require some type of bomb to get through that. Not just a diver with a cutting torch (who would of course get blown up if they cut into a pipeline still filled with natural gas).
Whoever destroyed these either intentionally left one pipeline intact as a possible bargaining chip "sure Germany, we can still provide some natural gas." or there was a problem with the operation to sabotage all 4 and only 3 were done successfully. I'm sure there will be an investigation and finding an unexploded bomb on the 4th line would be pretty incriminating.
-
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/speculating-on-nord-stream
This is a subscription site, but the gist of the article is that Russia is almost certainly the culprit. This drives up the price of natural gas which benefits Russia - while still leaving the possibility for them to export gas via these pipelines in the future as one is still undamaged.
There are actually 4 pipelines. Nord Stream 1 has two parallel pipelines - both were damaged - and Nord Stream 2 has two parallel pipelines - only one was damaged. These pipelines are about 1.5" thick steel encased in concrete. So, it would require some type of bomb to get through that. Not just a diver with a cutting torch (who would of course get blown up if they cut into a pipeline still filled with natural gas).
Whoever destroyed these either intentionally left one pipeline intact as a possible bargaining chip "sure Germany, we can still provide some natural gas." or there was a problem with the operation to sabotage all 4 and only 3 were done successfully. I'm sure there will be an investigation and finding an unexploded bomb on the 4th line would be pretty incriminating.
I don't follow that explanation, since Russia already had the ability to turn on and off gas supplies to Europe. Destroying the pipeline gives them fewer options in the future, which limits their strategies.
What gaja said makes far more sense--that this was a move to shift the internal Russian incentives around supporting or defecting away from the current regime.
-
Maybe already answered, but are both of the pipelines now shout down on the producing end?
The news was showing huge billowing eruptions of gas in the Baltic. Was that eruption just existing gas in the pipeline which is taking forever to bubble out, with ocean water rushing into the pipe?
Of course the news didn't answer my question, which everyone has.
One would hope the pipelines have been shut off somewhere before they enter the Baltic, and all that beautiful natural gas is not being wasted.
But then there was Saddam Hussein torching his oil fields for months and months, right?
Thanks
-
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/speculating-on-nord-stream
This is a subscription site, but the gist of the article is that Russia is almost certainly the culprit. This drives up the price of natural gas which benefits Russia - while still leaving the possibility for them to export gas via these pipelines in the future as one is still undamaged.
There are actually 4 pipelines. Nord Stream 1 has two parallel pipelines - both were damaged - and Nord Stream 2 has two parallel pipelines - only one was damaged. These pipelines are about 1.5" thick steel encased in concrete. So, it would require some type of bomb to get through that. Not just a diver with a cutting torch (who would of course get blown up if they cut into a pipeline still filled with natural gas).
Whoever destroyed these either intentionally left one pipeline intact as a possible bargaining chip "sure Germany, we can still provide some natural gas." or there was a problem with the operation to sabotage all 4 and only 3 were done successfully. I'm sure there will be an investigation and finding an unexploded bomb on the 4th line would be pretty incriminating.
I don't follow that explanation, since Russia already had the ability to turn on and off gas supplies to Europe. Destroying the pipeline gives them fewer options in the future, which limits their strategies.
What gaja said makes far more sense--that this was a move to shift the internal Russian incentives around supporting or defecting away from the current regime.
Blown up pipeline also gets them out of "failure to deliver" contract penalty clauses. Russia was already pushing into very thin excuses for not supplying gas per contract.
-
There are actually 4 pipelines. Nord Stream 1 has two parallel pipelines - both were damaged - and Nord Stream 2 has two parallel pipelines - only one was damaged. These pipelines are about 1.5" thick steel encased in concrete. So, it would require some type of bomb to get through that. Not just a diver with a cutting torch (who would of course get blown up if they cut into a pipeline still filled with natural gas).
Without oxygen, the natural gas in a pipeline won't ignite. The diver's safe.
-
Russian soldiers brought referendums to several regions in Ukraine. The choices were:
(A) join Russia
(B) one of the soldiers should shoot me
Most of the surviving voters picked (A). Those picking (B) were unavailable for comment.
-
Maybe already answered, but are both of the pipelines now shout down on the producing end?
The news was showing huge billowing eruptions of gas in the Baltic. Was that eruption just existing gas in the pipeline which is taking forever to bubble out, with ocean water rushing into the pipe?
Of course the news didn't answer my question, which everyone has.
One would hope the pipelines have been shut off somewhere before they enter the Baltic, and all that beautiful natural gas is not being wasted.
But then there was Saddam Hussein torching his oil fields for months and months, right?
Thanks
Both were shut off prior to this, the bubbling is the residual within the pipe itself
-
And everything I read here is that the experts all points to Russia as the most probable culprit, but without being able to say why.
1) Signal: Nice other pipelines and cables you have here. Would be a pity if something happened to them.
2) Nordstream 2 (the one closed down half a year ago) is still intact. But if Germany wants gas through that...
3) as mentioned, contract penalties.
I wonder why everyone is suprised now. Destroying pipelines is a standard scenario for war times - even I know that and I never was in any army. The sea pipelines are an especially worthwhile target since they are so fucking hard to repair/replace.
------
Putin is now in a position where he can only make "stupid" moves. At the moment he is putting out every thread he can get his hands on in a try to make weak western governments go back with their help through "we will freeze!" public pressure, "he will use atomic bombs" etc.
Thing is, he might. Because it's likely his life depends on it, so outside a total global destruction, he will do whatever is needed for his survival.
I know I do it far too often, but I want to point out the book in my signature.
-
Putin is now in a position where he can only make "stupid" moves. At the moment he is putting out every thread he can get his hands on in a try to make weak western governments go back with their help through "we will freeze!" public pressure, "he will use atomic bombs" etc.
If this is the case, he overestimates the average person. We can't plan ahead enough to prevent getting hit by credit card fines-- we can't even get it together to wear masks during a pandemic, or fight climate change even when we're flooded every other year, or stop drinking or smoking-- what makes him think that the average voter in a Western country would get off their butts to pressure governments about high gas prices that are going to happen, or worry about atomic bombing that has never happened before in their country?
I guess I could see people beginning to agitate about a month after it gets really cold and gas bills arrive...
-
Putin is now in a position where he can only make "stupid" moves. At the moment he is putting out every thread he can get his hands on in a try to make weak western governments go back with their help through "we will freeze!" public pressure, "he will use atomic bombs" etc.
If this is the case, he overestimates the average person. We can't plan ahead enough to prevent getting hit by credit card fines-- we can't even get it together to wear masks during a pandemic, or fight climate change even when we're flooded every other year, or stop drinking or smoking-- what makes him think that the average voter in a Western country would get off their butts to pressure governments about high gas prices that are going to happen, or worry about atomic bombing that has never happened before in their country?
I guess I could see people beginning to agitate about a month after it gets really cold and gas bills arrive...
Adequate PR needs to be kept up to ensure the people blame Putin. It's kind of abstract for many of them. If Putin's actions are not pointed out to them, their blame will fall upon a more local source. To be honest with you, I do expect price gouging in addition to the "normal" price hikes.
-
There are actually 4 pipelines. Nord Stream 1 has two parallel pipelines - both were damaged - and Nord Stream 2 has two parallel pipelines - only one was damaged. These pipelines are about 1.5" thick steel encased in concrete. So, it would require some type of bomb to get through that. Not just a diver with a cutting torch (who would of course get blown up if they cut into a pipeline still filled with natural gas).
Without oxygen, the natural gas in a pipeline won't ignite. The diver's safe.
Good point. I'm not sure what the pressure is like inside those pipes but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be using a cutting torch on a pipeline filled with explosive gas - even leaving aside the possible explosion aspect I'm sure having all that gas come out (and seawater try to go back in) would make for a dangerous situation.
-
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/speculating-on-nord-stream
This is a subscription site, but the gist of the article is that Russia is almost certainly the culprit. This drives up the price of natural gas which benefits Russia - while still leaving the possibility for them to export gas via these pipelines in the future as one is still undamaged.
There are actually 4 pipelines. Nord Stream 1 has two parallel pipelines - both were damaged - and Nord Stream 2 has two parallel pipelines - only one was damaged. These pipelines are about 1.5" thick steel encased in concrete. So, it would require some type of bomb to get through that. Not just a diver with a cutting torch (who would of course get blown up if they cut into a pipeline still filled with natural gas).
Whoever destroyed these either intentionally left one pipeline intact as a possible bargaining chip "sure Germany, we can still provide some natural gas." or there was a problem with the operation to sabotage all 4 and only 3 were done successfully. I'm sure there will be an investigation and finding an unexploded bomb on the 4th line would be pretty incriminating.
I don't follow that explanation, since Russia already had the ability to turn on and off gas supplies to Europe. Destroying the pipeline gives them fewer options in the future, which limits their strategies.
What gaja said makes far more sense--that this was a move to shift the internal Russian incentives around supporting or defecting away from the current regime.
Here's a quote from the article I linked to.
"Why would Russia blow up its own pipelines? To demonstrate to Europe that its sanctions aren’t working, and that the Kremlin is serious about shifting its energy exports to Asia and dumping the European market – while, conveniently, leaving one connection open in case Europe changes course."
Leaving the single pipeline untouched may have been unintended though.
Norway just opened up a new underwater natural gas pipeline to Poland this week. Blowing up Nord Stream shows Europe that Russia could just as easily do that to any other pipelines.
-
Putin is now in a position where he can only make "stupid" moves. At the moment he is putting out every thread he can get his hands on in a try to make weak western governments go back with their help through "we will freeze!" public pressure, "he will use atomic bombs" etc.
If this is the case, he overestimates the average person. We can't plan ahead enough to prevent getting hit by credit card fines-- we can't even get it together to wear masks during a pandemic, or fight climate change even when we're flooded every other year, or stop drinking or smoking-- what makes him think that the average voter in a Western country would get off their butts to pressure governments about high gas prices that are going to happen, or worry about atomic bombing that has never happened before in their country?
I guess I could see people beginning to agitate about a month after it gets really cold and gas bills arrive...
I gues you are from the US?
I can assure you people here in Germany are VERY concerned about gas prices. And the older generations grew up with the knowledge that their homes would be the center of any war between East and West, including the atomice one.
Of course media pushing this up is part of the process. (Including predictions from several sides that the gas prices might result in a "revolution" if we get a cold winter.)
There are also theories that there is an agreement that Putin does nothing to other countries as long as NATO does not send battle tanks (so far none have been given to Ukraine, despite Ukraine asking about once per week to give them e.g. the 40 Leopard I standing ready at the producer)
Demands to also send tanks have been increasing a lot since the successful attack, so the pipelines could have been a counterpressure. - Everything completely speculation though.
-
Putin is now in a position where he can only make "stupid" moves. At the moment he is putting out every thread he can get his hands on in a try to make weak western governments go back with their help through "we will freeze!" public pressure, "he will use atomic bombs" etc.
If this is the case, he overestimates the average person. We can't plan ahead enough to prevent getting hit by credit card fines-- we can't even get it together to wear masks during a pandemic, or fight climate change even when we're flooded every other year, or stop drinking or smoking-- what makes him think that the average voter in a Western country would get off their butts to pressure governments about high gas prices that are going to happen, or worry about atomic bombing that has never happened before in their country?
I guess I could see people beginning to agitate about a month after it gets really cold and gas bills arrive...
I gues you are from the US?
I can assure you people here in Germany are VERY concerned about gas prices. And the older generations grew up with the knowledge that their homes would be the center of any war between East and West, including the atomice one.
Of course media pushing this up is part of the process. (Including predictions from several sides that the gas prices might result in a "revolution" if we get a cold winter.)
There are also theories that there is an agreement that Putin does nothing to other countries as long as NATO does not send battle tanks (so far none have been given to Ukraine, despite Ukraine asking about once per week to give them e.g. the 40 Leopard I standing ready at the producer)
Demands to also send tanks have been increasing a lot since the successful attack, so the pipelines could have been a counterpressure. - Everything completely speculation though.
I believe Poland is supplying tanks to Ukraine. They will be replaced by South Korean tanks.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/04/26/poland-confirms-t-72-tank-delivery-to-ukraine-with-challenger-2-tanks-to-fill-gap/ (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/04/26/poland-confirms-t-72-tank-delivery-to-ukraine-with-challenger-2-tanks-to-fill-gap/)
The US does not supply Abrams tanks due to the sophisticated support network required. That may change. There is something to be said for the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid)
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a41298207/western-tanks-could-be-sent-to-ukraine/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a41298207/western-tanks-could-be-sent-to-ukraine/)
Germany has long been known as a manufacturer of excellent armaments. German tanks supplied to Ukraine could make a real difference.
The sooner this war ends and Ukraine reclaims it's territory then the sooner Ukrainian gas can be sent to Germany.
-
Looks like an important part of the Russian defensive lines and logistics is in the process of collapsing after the encirclement of Lyman.
So we get to celebrate annexation of Ukrainian lands on the same day as we celebrate the de-annexation of Ukrainian lands.
I´m sure Putin appreciates the Ukrainian efforts to highlight the occasion.
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1575584971569258497/photo/1
-
Russian soldiers brought referendums to several regions in Ukraine. The choices were:
(A) join Russia
(B) one of the soldiers should shoot me
Most of the surviving voters picked (A). Those picking (B) were unavailable for comment.
The referendums turned out to be a sad joke. Russia published photos of soldiers going door to door with ballots, election workers counting blank ballots, and the final results changing several times. Putin is expected to declare the occupied areas part of Russia in the next day or so. Whether that actually means anything has some folks nervous.
Looks like an important part of the Russian defensive lines and logistics is in the process of collapsing after the encirclement of Lyman.
So we get to celebrate annexation of Ukrainian lands on the same day as we celebrate the de-annexation of Ukrainian lands.
I´m sure Putin appreciates the Ukrainian efforts to highlight the occasion.
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1575584971569258497/photo/1
Ukrainian and Russian sources both agree Lyman is almost completely encircled. Just how many troops are trapped and how long it'll take to kill or capture them is not known, but when its secure the weather and poorly-equipped Russians stand between Ukraine and the Luhansk border.
-
Another calamity for Putin in the domestic propaganda space:
Putin Suffers Most Humiliating Ukraine Defeat Yet
THAT’S AWKWARD
Thousands of Russian troops may be trapped after a rapid-fire Ukrainian counter-attack fought to encircle key strategic city on the very day Putin claims to be annexing it.
Published Sep. 30, 2022 8:28AM ET
Moscow planned to celebrated the annexation of huge swathes of Eastern Ukraine Friday but Putin’s party was wrecked by a lightning counter-attack that may have trapped thousands of his men in a key city supposedly now part of Russia.
Ukrainian sources claimed that the strategic city of Lyman, which has served as a Russian military hub in Donetsk, has been encircled and supply lines cut. “Lyman! The operation to encircle the Russian group is at the stage of completion,” said Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksiy Goncharenko on Friday. The claim could not be independently verified but, if confirmed, it would be one of the most serious Russian military losses of the war so far.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-suffers-most-humiliating-ukraine-defeat-yet-around-key-city-of-lyman-in-donetsk?ref=home
-
Looks like Putin did not mention nukes explicitly in his annexation fantasy speech.
Maybe it did occur to them that a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine would technically mean that Russia is using nuclear weapons to address a domestic situation, which the war against Ukraine is in their fantasy.
But then, in a world where an American president instigates a violent attack on the legislative branch, attacking a perceived domestic enemy with nuclear weapons on what one perceives ones own soil doesn´t seem to be that much out of line.
-
Looks like Ukraine just received a new type of warhead suitable for soft targets like mass mobilized conscripts. Poor chaps need to be told about that:
Ukraine received new rockets for HIMARS/M270- here we can see a pod of M30A1 guided rockets.
M30A1 differs from previously seen M31A1/A2 by an alternative warhead with 182000 preformed spheroid steel/tungsten fragments and is designed to be used against soft targets.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1575843498217144321/photo/1
-
Another calamity for Putin in the domestic propaganda space:
And not just a propaganda calamity. By design, Russian military logistics relies heavily on rail. Lyman is a rail hub, and therefore an important logistic center for the Russians. Losing Lyman makes everything more complicated for them. If Lyman gets cut off like most analysts are indicating will happen soon, Ukraine could capture substantial amounts of Russian equipment and ammunition.
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
In part, yes. But it's also a country full of natural resources.
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
In part, yes. But it's also a country full of natural resources.
Australia is another country that makes big bucks from natural resources, but they still do the Democracy thing.
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
In part, yes. But it's also a country full of natural resources.
Australia is another country that makes big bucks from natural resources, but they still do the Democracy thing.
Previously colonised by Britain is a reasonable indicator of democracy, and none of the British invasions of Russia worked well enough for that.
(Yes, I know. Colonialisation bad.)
-
...
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
The Russian Federation's political system is imperial authoritarianism, and if that sounds old fashioned it does so because it is a legacy dating back to tzarist times.
In a nutshell, it is political repression domestically, aggression directed at neighbors and perceived competitors, treatment of federation members other than Russia proper as colonies, and massive corruption as a means of governing.
Top all of that off with a heavy dose of paranoia and general grievance, and you are closer in understanding the Russian Federation and why getting rid of Putin falls way short of a lasting solution that must include the end of Russian imperial authoritarianism.
-
"Why does one save for retirement? In essence, Scott said, it’s because you want to have the same standard of living when you’re not working as you did while you were working."
The easiest way to have a consistent standard of living is to never get in the habit of wasting money. There's no reason to consume more just because you have the money to do so. That also allows you to retire much earlier.
-
"Why does one save for retirement? In essence, Scott said, it’s because you want to have the same standard of living when you’re not working as you did while you were working."
The easiest way to have a consistent standard of living is to never get in the habit of wasting money. There's no reason to consume more just because you have the money to do so. That also allows you to retire much earlier.
I think you may have responded in a thread other than the one you intended...
-
Russian soldiers brought referendums to several regions in Ukraine. The choices were:
(A) join Russia
(B) one of the soldiers should shoot me
Most of the surviving voters picked (A). Those picking (B) were unavailable for comment.
The referendums turned out to be a sad joke. Russia published photos of soldiers going door to door with ballots, election workers counting blank ballots, and the final results changing several times. Putin is expected to declare the occupied areas part of Russia in the next day or so. Whether that actually means anything has some folks nervous.
Every news channel carried that story earlier today - he's announced it. I kept changing the channels, because it's bullshit. But the media love to eat that up, playing right into Putin's desire to get his message out.
A former oligarch who is now Putin's #1 enemy said Putin wants to stay alive. If Putin loses power, he's dead. The biggest fear for Putin is appearing weak by losing the areas Russia invaded. Putin will get more desperate the more territory he loses.
I think the U.S. should have fighters and longer range missiles ready for Ukraine. If Russia's methods cross a red line, the faster the response the better.
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
The Russian Federation's political system is imperial authoritarianism, and if that sounds old fashioned it does so because it is a legacy dating back to tzarist times.
In a nutshell, it is political repression domestically, aggression directed at neighbors and perceived competitors, treatment of federation members other than Russia proper as colonies, and massive corruption as a means of governing.
Top all of that off with a heavy dose of paranoia and general grievance, and you are closer in understanding the Russian Federation and why getting rid of Putin falls way short of a lasting solution that must include the end of Russian imperial authoritarianism.
I was going to write, but @PeteD01 said it better than I could!
There's some cultural pride in things like toughness, elite culture, religious value in some quarters. But the system historically has been closer to empire mediated by mafia rule than to a democracy. Even its populist (specifically communist) revolution had leaders and cadres that seized control, rather than a broad popular uprising, I think.
In any case after the communist collapse, control by force with a fig leaf of modern trappings - a modernized corrupt mafia, if you will - proved dominant in conditions of chaos because the joint traditions of capitalism by the small folk and democracy by the small folk were absent. Similarly the institutions that keep capitalism in check, like accounting standards and SEC and so on, were weak to nonexistent. So bringing order out of chaos by strength was a respectable pattern when Putin took charge.
TL;DR - It's institutions (or lack thereof) as well as culture.
-
"Why does one save for retirement? In essence, Scott said, it’s because you want to have the same standard of living when you’re not working as you did while you were working."
The easiest way to have a consistent standard of living is to never get in the habit of wasting money. There's no reason to consume more just because you have the money to do so. That also allows you to retire much earlier.
I think you may have responded in a thread other than the one you intended...
TAB FAILURE!
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
The Russian Federation's political system is imperial authoritarianism, and if that sounds old fashioned it does so because it is a legacy dating back to tzarist times.
In a nutshell, it is political repression domestically, aggression directed at neighbors and perceived competitors, treatment of federation members other than Russia proper as colonies, and massive corruption as a means of governing.
Top all of that off with a heavy dose of paranoia and general grievance, and you are closer in understanding the Russian Federation and why getting rid of Putin falls way short of a lasting solution that must include the end of Russian imperial authoritarianism.
I was going to write, but @PeteD01 said it better than I could!
There's some cultural pride in things like toughness, elite culture, religious value in some quarters. But the system historically has been closer to empire mediated by mafia rule than to a democracy. Even its populist (specifically communist) revolution had leaders and cadres that seized control, rather than a broad popular uprising, I think.
In any case after the communist collapse, control by force with a fig leaf of modern trappings - a modernized corrupt mafia, if you will - proved dominant in conditions of chaos because the joint traditions of capitalism by the small folk and democracy by the small folk were absent. Similarly the institutions that keep capitalism in check, like accounting standards and SEC and so on, were weak to nonexistent. So bringing order out of chaos by strength was a respectable pattern when Putin took charge.
TL;DR - It's institutions (or lack thereof) as well as culture.
Back in the early 1990s I was at a meeting with the then Russian Minister for the Environment. I explained how part of the UK law on environmental protection worked, and was asked in return "but what stops the government from just changing its mind and not doing that?" He had no concept of the idea that a government could be subject to the laws made by Parliament and that independent courts of law would enforce those laws against the government. It just wasn't part of his education, his experience or his world view. There was just a complete failure on either of our parts to understand the system the other worked in. Nothing on that has changed in Russia, sadly any change there has been is UK politicians drifting away from wanting to follow the rule of law.
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
The Russian Federation's political system is imperial authoritarianism, and if that sounds old fashioned it does so because it is a legacy dating back to tzarist times.
In a nutshell, it is political repression domestically, aggression directed at neighbors and perceived competitors, treatment of federation members other than Russia proper as colonies, and massive corruption as a means of governing.
Top all of that off with a heavy dose of paranoia and general grievance, and you are closer in understanding the Russian Federation and why getting rid of Putin falls way short of a lasting solution that must include the end of Russian imperial authoritarianism.
I was going to write, but @PeteD01 said it better than I could!
There's some cultural pride in things like toughness, elite culture, religious value in some quarters. But the system historically has been closer to empire mediated by mafia rule than to a democracy. Even its populist (specifically communist) revolution had leaders and cadres that seized control, rather than a broad popular uprising, I think.
In any case after the communist collapse, control by force with a fig leaf of modern trappings - a modernized corrupt mafia, if you will - proved dominant in conditions of chaos because the joint traditions of capitalism by the small folk and democracy by the small folk were absent. Similarly the institutions that keep capitalism in check, like accounting standards and SEC and so on, were weak to nonexistent. So bringing order out of chaos by strength was a respectable pattern when Putin took charge.
TL;DR - It's institutions (or lack thereof) as well as culture.
Back in the early 1990s I was at a meeting with the then Russian Minister for the Environment. I explained how part of the UK law on environmental protection worked, and was asked in return "but what stops the government from just changing its mind and not doing that?" He had no concept of the idea that a government could be subject to the laws made by Parliament and that independent courts of law would enforce those laws against the government. It just wasn't part of his education, his experience or his world view. There was just a complete failure on either of our parts to understand the system the other worked in. Nothing on that has changed in Russia, sadly any change there has been is UK politicians drifting away from wanting to follow the rule of law.
OK - So Ukraine shares a lot of culture with the Russians. In fact they have a lot of Russians living in Ukraine. Yet, they seem hell bent on establishing a working Democracy like most of the folks in Europe have. Then there is Poland and the Baltic states. They too are widely into the Democracy thing. These countries were exposed to Russian thinking for hundreds of years. It's been a virtual mind meld. How come they have been able to think outside the box whereas the folks in Moscow still seem to want a government like in the days of the Romanovs?
Also - What's with their two headed mutant chicken?
-
All those states were vassals of the Russian empire. Hence an interest in avoiding being ruled by an imperium again. I think you over-estimate their similarities.
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
The Russian Federation's political system is imperial authoritarianism, and if that sounds old fashioned it does so because it is a legacy dating back to tzarist times.
In a nutshell, it is political repression domestically, aggression directed at neighbors and perceived competitors, treatment of federation members other than Russia proper as colonies, and massive corruption as a means of governing.
Top all of that off with a heavy dose of paranoia and general grievance, and you are closer in understanding the Russian Federation and why getting rid of Putin falls way short of a lasting solution that must include the end of Russian imperial authoritarianism.
I was going to write, but @PeteD01 said it better than I could!
There's some cultural pride in things like toughness, elite culture, religious value in some quarters. But the system historically has been closer to empire mediated by mafia rule than to a democracy. Even its populist (specifically communist) revolution had leaders and cadres that seized control, rather than a broad popular uprising, I think.
In any case after the communist collapse, control by force with a fig leaf of modern trappings - a modernized corrupt mafia, if you will - proved dominant in conditions of chaos because the joint traditions of capitalism by the small folk and democracy by the small folk were absent. Similarly the institutions that keep capitalism in check, like accounting standards and SEC and so on, were weak to nonexistent. So bringing order out of chaos by strength was a respectable pattern when Putin took charge.
TL;DR - It's institutions (or lack thereof) as well as culture.
Back in the early 1990s I was at a meeting with the then Russian Minister for the Environment. I explained how part of the UK law on environmental protection worked, and was asked in return "but what stops the government from just changing its mind and not doing that?" He had no concept of the idea that a government could be subject to the laws made by Parliament and that independent courts of law would enforce those laws against the government. It just wasn't part of his education, his experience or his world view. There was just a complete failure on either of our parts to understand the system the other worked in. Nothing on that has changed in Russia, sadly any change there has been is UK politicians drifting away from wanting to follow the rule of law.
OK - So Ukraine shares a lot of culture with the Russians. In fact they have a lot of Russians living in Ukraine. Yet, they seem hell bent on establishing a working Democracy like most of the folks in Europe have. Then there is Poland and the Baltic states. They too are widely into the Democracy thing. These countries were exposed to Russian thinking for hundreds of years. It's been a virtual mind meld. How come they have been able to think outside the box whereas the folks in Moscow still seem to want a government like in the days of the Romanovs?
Also - What's with their two headed mutant chicken?
It's simple; unlike much of eastern Europe, Russia is culturally essentially a Mongol Khanate. Russia is not westernized and never meaningfully experienced the Renaissance (this (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/splayed-out-before-you/msg1709443/#msg1709443) was my travelogue from my last visit in 2017).
-
Also - What's with their two headed mutant chicken?
Call back to imperial Rome/Byzantium. "Czar" is a Russian version of "Caesar."
-
OK - So Ukraine shares a lot of culture with the Russians. In fact they have a lot of Russians living in Ukraine. Yet, they seem hell bent on establishing a working Democracy like most of the folks in Europe have. Then there is Poland and the Baltic states. They too are widely into the Democracy thing. These countries were exposed to Russian thinking for hundreds of years. It's been a virtual mind meld. How come they have been able to think outside the box whereas the folks in Moscow still seem to want a government like in the days of the Romanovs?
Great answers already!
Poland and the Baltic states were exposed to imperial Russian thinking, but they also had their own societies, especially in Poland's case. Each has its own language, cultural history with a mere overlay of Russian invasion. Bear in mind Russia had serfs for centuries longer than the West. It was much slower to develop native power centers/ institutions/ etc. between king and commoner.
Poland and Lithuania by contrast were actually a breeding ground for a remarkably vibrant early form of widespread democracy in 1500s through 1700s. To us now "elected kings" and a large class of voting "nobles" (the day's equivalent of, say, software devs and McDonald's managers and owners of small apartment complexes?) seem weird but at the time it was a much wider distribution of power than divine right of kings, a big turnaround where power flowed up rather than down. The great democracy of Britain, progenitor of mighty USA, arguably arrived at a similar point (Parliament in charge, choosing the king - the "Glorious Revolution") later than Poland by about 130 years. A few generations later Casimir Pulaski, the father of American cavalry, brought that tradition of martial democratic horse ridin' nobles from its home in Poland to support the US colonies' revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland#Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution#Assessment_and_historiography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski
PS. "Seem to want" and "want" are two different things. "Seem" is in the eye of the beholder. My impression of Russia, partly from personal but limited reports through a friend, is plenty of Russians want some satisfying form of democracy. They just don't have a visible option for it right now. Nor have experience of it working.
-
OK - So Ukraine shares a lot of culture with the Russians. In fact they have a lot of Russians living in Ukraine. Yet, they seem hell bent on establishing a working Democracy like most of the folks in Europe have. Then there is Poland and the Baltic states. They too are widely into the Democracy thing. These countries were exposed to Russian thinking for hundreds of years. It's been a virtual mind meld. How come they have been able to think outside the box whereas the folks in Moscow still seem to want a government like in the days of the Romanovs?
Great answers already!
Poland and the Baltic states were exposed to imperial Russian thinking, but they also had their own societies, especially in Poland's case. Each has its own language, cultural history with a mere overlay of Russian invasion. Bear in mind Russia had serfs for centuries longer than the West. It was much slower to develop native power centers/ institutions/ etc. between king and commoner.
Poland and Lithuania by contrast were actually a breeding ground for a remarkably vibrant early form of widespread democracy in 1500s through 1700s. To us now "elected kings" and a large class of voting "nobles" (the day's equivalent of, say, software devs and McDonald's managers and owners of small apartment complexes?) seem weird but at the time it was a much wider distribution of power than divine right of kings, a big turnaround where power flowed up rather than down. The great democracy of Britain, progenitor of mighty USA, arguably arrived at a similar point (Parliament in charge, choosing the king - the "Glorious Revolution") later than Poland by about 130 years. A few generations later Casimir Pulaski, the father of American cavalry, brought that tradition of martial democratic horse ridin' nobles from its home in Poland to support the US colonies' revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland#Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution#Assessment_and_historiography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski
PS. "Seem to want" and "want" are two different things. "Seem" is in the eye of the beholder. My impression of Russia, partly from personal but limited reports through a friend, is plenty of Russians want some satisfying form of democracy. They just don't have a visible option for it right now. Nor have experience of it working.
Politicians quite naturally tend to emphasise the "elections" part of democracy, and that emphasis passes down into general discourse. Just as important or even more important than choosing who leads a country is determining whether or not that person complies with the law. (When you hear the phrase "the rule of law" it doesn't just mean the general population being subject to laws fairly made and enforced, it means the rulers also being subject to those laws and ruling in compliance with the law rather than their whim.) Elections help massively with the rule of law for many reasons, from leaders not being in power too long to subvert the law to knowing that when they leave power they will need the protection of the law. But if rulers, elected or not, do not have to comply with the law then they are effectively dictators ruling by whim and by force.
The big thing that made England a democracy long before the Glorious Revolution in 1688 was Magna Carta in 1215, the document which forced the King and his advisers to comply with those rights, and with enforcement of those rights through independent courts of law. If the King can only act in accordance with the law and the law will be enforced by the courts then it matters much less that he is not elected, because the benefits of having an elected leader are being provided through the law, and the leader, even if unelected, has to behave more like an elected leader than a dictator.
Whoever rules Russia will do so as a dictator, whether it is Putin or not, because they don't have the rule of law and there is no practical or political way of changing that at the moment.
(The rule of law is in trouble in the USA at the moment. Look to your own house on this, America.)
-
Has there ever been a war where the a country captures so much supplies from their bully?
Russia is supplying the Ukrainian war on Russia.
Also: what is unique about Russia? It seems like they can't move their society beyond being governed by dictators. Is it a cultural defect that favors bullies and the ignorant?
In part, yes. But it's also a country full of natural resources.
Australia is another country that makes big bucks from natural resources, but they still do the Democracy thing.
Of course this was a statistical argument. And as others pointed out, Australia was a colony of a democracy when founded and released as a democracy.
It's relativly easy to keep being one, but hard to change into a democracy. And for resources-dependend countries it's far harder.
-
Looks like Ukraine just received a new type of warhead suitable for soft targets like mass mobilized conscripts. Poor chaps need to be told about that:
Ukraine received new rockets for HIMARS/M270- here we can see a pod of M30A1 guided rockets.
M30A1 differs from previously seen M31A1/A2 by an alternative warhead with 182000 preformed spheroid steel/tungsten fragments and is designed to be used against soft targets.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1575843498217144321/photo/1
Any non-armored vehicle (say, fuel trucks) will be trashed by the M30A1. Maybe even lightly armored vehicles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yC4QAl5In8
-
Putin is now in a position where he can only make "stupid" moves. At the moment he is putting out every thread he can get his hands on in a try to make weak western governments go back with their help through "we will freeze!" public pressure, "he will use atomic bombs" etc.
If this is the case, he overestimates the average person. We can't plan ahead enough to prevent getting hit by credit card fines-- we can't even get it together to wear masks during a pandemic, or fight climate change even when we're flooded every other year, or stop drinking or smoking-- what makes him think that the average voter in a Western country would get off their butts to pressure governments about high gas prices that are going to happen, or worry about atomic bombing that has never happened before in their country?
I guess I could see people beginning to agitate about a month after it gets really cold and gas bills arrive...
I gues you are from the US?
I can assure you people here in Germany are VERY concerned about gas prices. And the older generations grew up with the knowledge that their homes would be the center of any war between East and West, including the atomice one.
Of course media pushing this up is part of the process. (Including predictions from several sides that the gas prices might result in a "revolution" if we get a cold winter.)
There are also theories that there is an agreement that Putin does nothing to other countries as long as NATO does not send battle tanks (so far none have been given to Ukraine, despite Ukraine asking about once per week to give them e.g. the 40 Leopard I standing ready at the producer)
Demands to also send tanks have been increasing a lot since the successful attack, so the pipelines could have been a counterpressure. - Everything completely speculation though.
Can confirm it's the same in NL. The average monthly energy payment is about five times as high as it was last year. We went from €75 to around €350. We are a rich but very frugal small household. We have friends with kids who are facing energy bills higher than their mortgage even though their consumption is not excessive (all the family members wash frequently but they don't spend half an hour in the shower, they don't have a heated pool or six freezers). We can afford it but food, gas and energy bills have become so high that many on a low-income can no longer afford them. There's a huge demand on food banks, everyone is angry, inflation is 17%, everyone hates the government. This feels way worse than anything related to Covid.
-
It seems like Russia might be in the upswing of a smile curve of failure. A smile curve applies to fragile systems, for example a car or a human. Most deaths or failures occur at the beginning, and are covered by lemon laws, warranties, and increased attention of doctors and governments. Then there is a period where the occurrence of breakdowns/deaths is very low, for example the lowest death rate for humans is after about 10 years old and cars about 4 years old. Finally, age starts to weigh, and failures/deaths increase until every one is dead. The Russian equipment losses per day started off astronomically, but then the stupidest plans and people died, and their losses declined to a low of about 13 per day by the end of August. Since then they have been increasing again. This could be a sign that Russia is in terminal failure mode, and the end of the smile will increase until they are gone. I have seen but cannot find charts from the beginning of the invasion, but here is one which covers recent weeks: https://twitter.com/alfabetaceta5/status/1576333733979824129/photo/1
The implication is that Ukraine is not in an equipment loss upswing, indicating that Ukraine is a resilient (or even anti-fragile, meaning it becomes stronger with stress) system, while Russia is a fragile system which is unable to regenerate or improve itself.
The question is, is Russia's mobilization going to help? In the medium term no (anti-fragile vs fragile leads to an obvious outcome) but in the short term it depends on what their mode of failure will be. As an example of modes of failure, take a high retaining wall which holds back a large amount of soil. It could fail by overturning, or settling, or sliding, or rotational failure, or others. Stacking a big pile of rocks along its foot will help prevent rotational failure and sliding, won't help overturning much, and will make settlement worse. Will legions of untrained light infantry help mitigate whatever Russia's failure mode would be? I have read that lack of infantry has been a Russian weak point, but I have also read that poor logistics and lack of training are weak points, and obviously any sort of strategy or tactics or planning is a weak point, which mobilization will not help, so I surmise that mobilization will not substantially delay Russia's failure.
While I am making bold predictions, I think Ukraine's winter offensive will be across the Dnipro reservoir. They are supposed to be receiving a bunch of bridges and boats and air defence systems between now and December, and it is the obvious weak point in Russian lines. They will wait for a series of cloudy/foggy days, and boom. (I keep making bold predictions and they keep being right, so might as well go all in.)
Longstanding side note: Russia and France and Netherlands and like 5 other countries badly need a redesigned flag. Three red white and blue stripes: not very original!
-
Longstanding side note: Russia and France and Netherlands and like 5 other countries badly need a redesigned flag. Three red white and blue stripes: not very original!
I've always felt countries whose flags have been around since the age of sail get a pass on creative flag design. A small handful of primary colors that are easy to distinguish at a distance, even after different amounts of weathering and fading and with both the flag and the lookout being tossed about by waves, arranged in different orders and/or rotated between horizontal and vertical was definitely the way to go back then.
Is it a coincidence that Nebraska, the only triply land-locked state in the nation, has what is largely regarded as one of the worst designed flags ever? Almost certainly, yes, it is a coincidence. But still a fun bit of trivia to bring up in this context.
-
Longstanding side note: Russia and France and Netherlands and like 5 other countries badly need a redesigned flag. Three red white and blue stripes: not very original!
I've always felt countries whose flags have been around since the age of sail get a pass on creative flag design. A small handful of primary colors that are easy to distinguish at a distance, even after different amounts of weathering and fading and with both the flag and the lookout being tossed about by waves, arranged in different orders and/or rotated between horizontal and vertical was definitely the way to go back then.
Is it a coincidence that Nebraska, the only triply land-locked state in the nation, has what is largely regarded as one of the worst designed flags ever? Almost certainly, yes, it is a coincidence. But still a fun bit of trivia to bring up in this context.
Some counterpoints: the Luxembourg flag fades into one of those (France?). Russia and Ukraine both had the chance to redesign their flags after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I never mistook the even simpler Ukrainian flag. Maritime signals are full of distinctive pennants that don't resemble any of the above.
-
Can confirm it's the same in NL. The average monthly energy payment is about five times as high as it was last year. We went from €75 to around €350. We are a rich but very frugal small household. We have friends with kids who are facing energy bills higher than their mortgage even though their consumption is not excessive (all the family members wash frequently but they don't spend half an hour in the shower, they don't have a heated pool or six freezers). We can afford it but food, gas and energy bills have become so high that many on a low-income can no longer afford them. There's a huge demand on food banks, everyone is angry, inflation is 17%, everyone hates the government. This feels way worse than anything related to Covid.
Have you seen a urban / rural split in these effects? When I travelled through NL this past summer I saw all those red scarves on car mirrors up on the rural northwest, which I took to be a protest against the government.
In my country, it seems that rural and suburban people are hit much harder than those of us who live in apartments in the city. A large part of this is naturally energy prices, as people in their own houses are hit directly by the heating costs, while a rented apartment (and with the form of almost-rent control we have here) makes the price hikes slower. Add the increased need of cars outside of the city to that and it's amplified.
This seems to have amplified the city vs country side-difference in voting in our recent government elections, and strengthening an urban-left and rural-right trend in the political landscape. This is kind of new here, it used to be more economical divides and not geographical.
I've not yet heard any pro-Russian sentiments in any of the major political parties (as in "seats in the parliament") though. Some of the far left have had a peace-focus that can be seen as a giving a pro-Russian stance in the next level of analysis, but no-one says "Yay Putin!" out loud at least. To say "Boo NATO! Boo USA!" is more common, but again mainly on the political extremes.
And in more pipeline related news, we've started seeing information that Swedish warships was present near the sabotage sites in the days before the detonations. The Navy declines to comment if there is any connection or if they had any intelligence about the sabotage.
Another try with Google Translate to a Swedish source: https://www-svt-se.translate.goog/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-marinens-fartyg-i-omradet-inte-ett-sammantraffande?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
-
Some counterpoints: the Luxembourg flag fades into one of those (France?). Russia and Ukraine both had the chance to redesign their flags after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I never mistook the even simpler Ukrainian flag. Maritime signals are full of distinctive pennants that don't resemble any of the above.
For the record it's the Netherlands' flag that fades into (https://i.redd.it/vryr6r5e4dv21.png) Luxembourg's flag. There have been instances of foreign countries mistakenly hoisting Luxembourg's flag at sporting events attended by Dutch athletes or even when hosting the Dutch monarch. Embarassing, but understandable given the similarity.
Can confirm it's the same in NL. The average monthly energy payment is about five times as high as it was last year. We went from €75 to around €350. We are a rich but very frugal small household. We have friends with kids who are facing energy bills higher than their mortgage even though their consumption is not excessive (all the family members wash frequently but they don't spend half an hour in the shower, they don't have a heated pool or six freezers). We can afford it but food, gas and energy bills have become so high that many on a low-income can no longer afford them. There's a huge demand on food banks, everyone is angry, inflation is 17%, everyone hates the government. This feels way worse than anything related to Covid.
Have you seen a urban / rural split in these effects? When I travelled through NL this past summer I saw all those red scarves on car mirrors up on the rural northwest, which I took to be a protest against the government.
In my country, it seems that rural and suburban people are hit much harder than those of us who live in apartments in the city. A large part of this is naturally energy prices, as people in their own houses are hit directly by the heating costs, while a rented apartment (and with the form of almost-rent control we have here) makes the price hikes slower. Add the increased need of cars outside of the city to that and it's amplified.
This seems to have amplified the city vs country side-difference in voting in our recent government elections, and strengthening an urban-left and rural-right trend in the political landscape. This is kind of new here, it used to be more economical divides and not geographical.
I've not yet heard any pro-Russian sentiments in any of the major political parties (as in "seats in the parliament") though. Some of the far left have had a peace-focus that can be seen as a giving a pro-Russian stance in the next level of analysis, but no-one says "Yay Putin!" out loud at least. To say "Boo NATO! Boo USA!" is more common, but again mainly on the political extremes.
There is definitely an urban/rural split in Dutch politics, but it's not related to rising energy prices.
In terms of energy prices there is widespread support for subsidising the energy consumption of those hit the hardest, who were overwhelmingly struggling to begin with. The split, if any, is between the coalition parties and the opposition parties, with the latter criticising the former for taking too little action too late. At the risk of overgeneralising I'd say the coalition is more centrist whereas the opposition represents the more extreme (but not necessarily extremist!) ends of the political spectrum.
The urban/rural split has different causes. For a long time there has been growing discontent in rural areas about a wide range of topics. Public services such as public transportation in rural areas has been lagging behind those in urban areas or even deteriorated. Desirable and well-paying jobs are far more common in the cities than in the country. Many rural areas have been seeing an outflux of people, especially the young, the highly educated and women. The demographic make-up of some rural areas has consequently been trending toward older people and men with low levels of education. Due to the demographic and economic decline, businesses have been withdrawing from the smallest villages especially, so gone are the days that each village had its own bank, supermarket etc. Rural areas have also tended to hold more conservative views on gay, trans and animal rights, racism, immigration and so on and have complained about progressive cultural norms being imposed on them by city-based lawmakers and activists. Parties on the fringes of the political spectrum get an outsized part of their support from such areas.
I should stress by the way that the urban/rural split in the Netherlands is only a matter of relative deprivation. Dutch rural areas are still far more desirable to live in than, say, rural areas in Russia. Given the Netherlands' population density, 'rural' areas in the Dutch context are also far denser and better connected than those in France or Germany, let alone the US or Russia.
The simmering resentment that has been building up in rural areas for years came to a head with the 'nitrogen crisis'. The Netherlands as a whole has been emitting far too much nitrogen to meet environmental standards for decades. Many ecosystems are threatened as a result. Dutch politicians have been neglecting to deal with this for decades because it would bring them into conflict with strong vested interests and jeopardise their re-election. As a result of environmentalist organisations successfully suing the government and the EU ending certain emission exemptions, Dutch politicians have now finally been forced to take action. Their proposed policies have targeted Dutch farmers because the agricultural sector's nitrogen emissions are disproportionately high relative to its share of GDP. Other major emitters, like heavy industry and transportation, have so far not been targeted. This has generated a great deal of unrest and protests in rural areas, some of which you saw during your visit. It's a double tragedy because the nitrogen crisis need never have become a crisis if it had been tackled earlier and because the belated government response has, in my view, been badly mismanaged.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Mr FrugalNL
-
Id' say it's the same in all countries. And the more you depend on fossil fuels (travel by car, heating a single family house, fertilizer) they harder you are hit - and not the first time.
Looking at Russia it seems like the new recruits will be too late to the party. Which is why some of them have already been sent to the front, some even without any prior training. But well, they are mostly Asien minorities, so literally the unimportant.
-
Id' say it's the same in all countries. And the more you depend on fossil fuels (travel by car, heating a single family house, fertilizer) they harder you are hit - and not the first time.
Not quite sure about that - other than agreeing that there is a fundamental distrust of the rural and peripheral regions towards urban "zeitgeist".
In terms of crisis resilience, I consider rural regions way better prepared to deal with energy and supply chain issues. People in the rural regions got space, storage, equipment and know-how. And at least in CEE, but I would also think in Scandinavia, many who work in the cities still got families and dachas/cabins out in the sticks.
And before it gets too far off-topic: Russia will use whatever leverage to destabilize the EU. As mentioned before, while Putin may want to fulfill his imperial dreams in Ukraine, his due belief in the weakness if the "decadent" west will ensure that he would love to see its collapse in Europe.
-
Looks like Russian defensive lines north of Kherson are collapsing:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1576606681865150464
https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1576611568942387200
-
Looks like Russian defensive lines north of Kherson are collapsing:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1576606681865150464
https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1576611568942387200
Damn, you were faster ^^
If the Russian propagandists were already confused how to spin the North, I wonder how they do the South where the army actually is.
Another big area ruse by the Russian army? They want the Ukrainians take everything back, overstretch and then roll them?
-
Another big area ruse by the Russian army? They want the Ukrainians take everything back, overstretch and then roll them?
Not sure if you are serious, but that is way way beyond Russian operational capabilities.
-
The question is, is Russia's mobilization going to help? In the medium term no (anti-fragile vs fragile leads to an obvious outcome) but in the short term it depends on what their mode of failure will be. As an example of modes of failure, take a high retaining wall which holds back a large amount of soil. It could fail by overturning, or settling, or sliding, or rotational failure, or others. Stacking a big pile of rocks along its foot will help prevent rotational failure and sliding, won't help overturning much, and will make settlement worse. Will legions of untrained light infantry help mitigate whatever Russia's failure mode would be? I have read that lack of infantry has been a Russian weak point, but I have also read that poor logistics and lack of training are weak points, and obviously any sort of strategy or tactics or planning is a weak point, which mobilization will not help, so I surmise that mobilization will not substantially delay Russia's failure.
I think mobilization with hasten Russia's failure. As I understand it, the old Soviet system maintained skeleton units with officers and NCOs, but almost no enlisted men. The idea was that in the event of mass conscription, the draftees could be plugged immediately into an existing unit and get trained up there. So Russia lacks big military training facilities like we have in the west. But Russia also did not maintain the skeleton units. So there is no real way the conscripts can be trained up until they join their units, many of which are deployed on the front lines.
There are many examples throughout history--the Mongols are a good example--where a well-trained, sophisticated military can defeat a numerically superior force. The Russians are straight up bad at combined arms. Ukraine is pretty good and getting better. We've seen twice, maybe three times now, that once the Russian lines start to break, they break all at once and can't recover.
What I *think* is going to happen, is we'll so more and more of these incidents where after a period of hard fighting the Russians will break and retreat in poor order. Putting masses of under trained, under equipped troops on the front lines will very likely exacerbate that problem.
-
The question is, is Russia's mobilization going to help? In the medium term no (anti-fragile vs fragile leads to an obvious outcome) but in the short term it depends on what their mode of failure will be. As an example of modes of failure, take a high retaining wall which holds back a large amount of soil. It could fail by overturning, or settling, or sliding, or rotational failure, or others. Stacking a big pile of rocks along its foot will help prevent rotational failure and sliding, won't help overturning much, and will make settlement worse. Will legions of untrained light infantry help mitigate whatever Russia's failure mode would be? I have read that lack of infantry has been a Russian weak point, but I have also read that poor logistics and lack of training are weak points, and obviously any sort of strategy or tactics or planning is a weak point, which mobilization will not help, so I surmise that mobilization will not substantially delay Russia's failure.
I think mobilization with hasten Russia's failure. As I understand it, the old Soviet system maintained skeleton units with officers and NCOs, but almost no enlisted men. The idea was that in the event of mass conscription, the draftees could be plugged immediately into an existing unit and get trained up there. So Russia lacks big military training facilities like we have in the west. But Russia also did not maintain the skeleton units. So there is no real way the conscripts can be trained up until they join their units, many of which are deployed on the front lines.
There are many examples throughout history--the Mongols are a good example--where a well-trained, sophisticated military can defeat a numerically superior force. The Russians are straight up bad at combined arms. Ukraine is pretty good and getting better. We've seen twice, maybe three times now, that once the Russian lines start to break, they break all at once and can't recover.
What I *think* is going to happen, is we'll so more and more of these incidents where after a period of hard fighting the Russians will break and retreat in poor order. Putting masses of under trained, under equipped troops on the front lines will very likely exacerbate that problem.
Speaking of breaking.... I'm seeing all sorts of things saying that Russian lines are collapsing at Kherson.
-
And it sounds like Ukraine is continuing to push northeast from Lyman, toward the road between Kreminna and Svatove. That road represents the only good support/logistics line for Kreminna.
-
Russia wanted to do a lot of finding out... using this method: https://youtube.com/shorts/EYEDD2l0YUw
Winter is coming. Logistics is key. At this point, how much will Ukraine recapture of their lands before deep winter sets in? A lot, or a fuck ton?
-
Russia wanted to do a lot of finding out... using this method: https://youtube.com/shorts/EYEDD2l0YUw
Winter is coming. Logistics is key. At this point, how much will Ukraine recapture of their lands before deep winter sets in? A lot, or a fuck ton?
Actually, the onset of winter won't stop military action. If anything, the fall rains and mud will slow things down, until the temperature drops enough that the ground freezes and vehicles can go off road again.
There are reports now that 1.5 million uniforms went "missing" from Russian stocks. More likely, they never existed anywhere but on paper. In the meantime, NATO countries are stockpiling Ukraine with all sorts of the best winter gear. And I've heard stories that Russian conscripts are being instructed to bring all their own equipment. Winter is shaping up to be brutal on the Russian armed forces.
-
For descriptions of winter war in this part of the world, the book "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor might be worth a read. It is however not a fun read in any way.
-
Russia wanted to do a lot of finding out... using this method: https://youtube.com/shorts/EYEDD2l0YUw
Winter is coming. Logistics is key. At this point, how much will Ukraine recapture of their lands before deep winter sets in? A lot, or a fuck ton?
Actually, the onset of winter won't stop military action. If anything, the fall rains and mud will slow things down, until the temperature drops enough that the ground freezes and vehicles can go off road again.
There are reports now that 1.5 million uniforms went "missing" from Russian stocks. More likely, they never existed anywhere but on paper. In the meantime, NATO countries are stockpiling Ukraine with all sorts of the best winter gear. And I've heard stories that Russian conscripts are being instructed to bring all their own equipment. Winter is shaping up to be brutal on the Russian armed forces.
Also agreed. Along with mud, I'd think changing weather would make things hard: dry --> mud --> frozen solid --> mud would make planning even a short offensive difficult because enemy capabilities could be unpredictable. But pure freezing winter seems unpleasant but not an impediment. Based on what I've seen, winter will be a disaster for Russia in the field.
-
It appears that RU has ordered a large scale retreat in northern Kherson - although rumor has it that it might be too late for an orderly withdrawal from an already collapsing RU defensive line in Kherson.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1577281549908602882
-
I've heard it said that conducting an orderly retreat is one of the most difficult actions in war.
-
I've heard it said that conducting an orderly retreat is one of the most difficult actions in war.
Nichts ist schwerer als der Rückzug aus einer unhaltbaren Position. - Clausewitz
Nothing is harder than the retreat from an undefensible position.
-
Not sure if anyone has posted any of the 1420 interviews on here, but this one was especially bleak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mtXdGgnkc). Enjoy!
-
I doubt that data is available, but updated demographic projections for Russia might be interesting. Russia started the war with a demographic decline in its future. Since then, they've had hundreds of thousands of people flee Russia, plus tens of thousands of soldiers die, and now they've got more people (mostly men) fleeing conscription. At what point does it move the needle on the demographics? Yes, Russia started with 144+ million people, but they were already facing an aging population and low birthrate, killing off (or driving off) the men who would father the next generation is not going to help.
Then there's economic impacts of all these people fleeing or dying, and those who will survive but be disabled.
-
Not sure if anyone has posted any of the 1420 interviews on here, but this one was especially bleak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mtXdGgnkc). Enjoy!
I think that makes sense. He's interviewing all older people. Old Russians don't know shit about getting around Russian internet censors. They get all their news from the TV, which Putin has an iron fist of control on. When you only present one argument to people, that's what people are going to believe is the truth.
-
Not sure if anyone has posted any of the 1420 interviews on here, but this one was especially bleak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mtXdGgnkc). Enjoy!
That was not easy to watch.
-
Not sure if anyone has posted any of the 1420 interviews on here, but this one was especially bleak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mtXdGgnkc). Enjoy!
I think that makes sense. He's interviewing all older people. Old Russians don't know shit about getting around Russian internet censors. They get all their news from the TV, which Putin has an iron fist of control on. When you only present one argument to people, that's what people are going to believe is the truth.
It sort of reminded me a bit of the stuff you saw on TV for the Bush-Cheney war with Iraq. You may recall there was a lot of patriotic fervor at that time. I had a conversation with a guy who watched a lot of TV and told me that the folks over there wanted to come here and take away our freedoms. After a little thought I told him that it looks like a lot of work to go half way around the world to take away freedoms from people they didn't know. The guy told me, "I guess I never thought about it that way." These older Russians fit the same mold.
If Ukraine comes out on top, a gentle re-education should be in the peace treaty.
-
Hopefully most of the Russian troops will starve or have such severe frostbite they can’t fire their weapons. From what I’ve read, most civilians have left those areas. Thus starting a fire for warmth will lead to a volley of mortars. Options then are to starve, freeze, or surrender. Choice is theirs, and there is always a choice.
-
When you realize that the Russian soldiers' families are being incentivized by/compensated for the loss of their men with the gift of a goat, sheep, or even 5kg of fish (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7d80a500-440b-11ed-abc9-d0d53e948d21?shareToken=6d30077b4f624fcae9aa70964b00fe9d) it is sad. From Putin's perspective it's a win-win to bleed off the young men from these impoverished and potentially disloyal areas, and throw them into a foreign war.
-
When you realize that the Russian soldiers' families are being incentivized by/compensated for the loss of their men with the gift of a goat, sheep, or even 5kg of fish (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7d80a500-440b-11ed-abc9-d0d53e948d21?shareToken=6d30077b4f624fcae9aa70964b00fe9d) it is sad. From Putin's perspective it's a win-win to bleed off the young men from these impoverished and potentially disloyal areas, and throw them into a foreign war.
It's nearly like they were Afghan civilians killed by the US! At least those got money and could decide if they want to buy a goat or fish!
------
Another article stating what many have said earlier, that the Ukrainians didn't push as much as they have could in the south since their main goal there is to whittle down the enemy.
https://kyivindependent.com/national/russian-forces-cling-to-kherson-against-military-logic-trapped-by-kremlins-annexation-claims
To put it in culinary terms: The Ukrainians have pushed the Russian cheese into the soft hands of the Dnipr and applying the grater to it after making a lot of holes into the cheese.
-
A reporter asked a Ukrainian soldier about the Russian mobilization of 300k troops. He replied something like "our machine gunners can kill 5 or 50 Russian soldiers, it won't make them tired".
I see a lot of posturing from Russia right now, and not a lot of results. Moving nukes around... showing videos of new soldiers being trained... claiming regions as their own. All distractions from losing ground.
Is there a website tracking square kilometers occupied by Russians (in Ukraine / Crimea)? It would make an interesting countdown timer.
-
A reporter asked a Ukrainian soldier about the Russian mobilization of 300k troops. He replied something like "our machine gunners can kill 5 or 50 Russian soldiers, it won't make them tired".
I see a lot of posturing from Russia right now, and not a lot of results. Moving nukes around... showing videos of new soldiers being trained... claiming regions as their own. All distractions from losing ground.
Is there a website tracking square kilometers occupied by Russians (in Ukraine / Crimea)? It would make an interesting countdown timer.
I think the posturing is to keep the support of their own population, it's not for us.
-
A reporter asked a Ukrainian soldier about the Russian mobilization of 300k troops. He replied something like "our machine gunners can kill 5 or 50 Russian soldiers, it won't make them tired".
I see a lot of posturing from Russia right now, and not a lot of results. Moving nukes around... showing videos of new soldiers being trained... claiming regions as their own. All distractions from losing ground.
Is there a website tracking square kilometers occupied by Russians (in Ukraine / Crimea)? It would make an interesting countdown timer.
I think the posturing is to keep the support of their own population, it's not for us.
It's a bit of both. Moving nukes around is an attempt to scare Ukraine's allies, and test their resolve. I don't think Russians care much about nuclear missles being moved around.
Putin got what he wanted with those fake annexations - breaking news on every TV station. He succeeded in spreading doubt, catching the imagination of Elon Musk. Mr Musk thinks regions of Ukraine should vote on joining Russia, but this time with international observers. Hey, maybe we should do the same for nationalizing Tesla's factories? After all, who cares about the rule of law compared to the results of a poll?
-
There are rumors that RU is trying hard to evacuate their wounded and that at least one school has been appropriated to shelter 200+ patients because existing facilities are overwhelmed.
I can see a problem here. I really can´t think of anything worse for morale than to be surrounded by the injured and dying and their desperation and with no one to get them out of sight (I know it sounds callous, but when it comes to morale, they need to at least get them out of sight and give the appearance that they are taken care of.).
In any case, there are rumors and some visual evidence for a mass casualty event affecting RU forces in Ukraine.
-
When I was a kid I remember reading how the Nazis pulled gold from the teeth of those in the concentration camps. They also used human skin to make lamp shades and stuff. It looks like the "Z" Nazis are following in their footsteps.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war)
-
Good read:
How does the Russo-Ukrainian War end?
Sometimes you change the subject, and sometimes the subject changes you
The earth has moved under Putin's feet. His political career has been based on using controlled media to transform foreign policy into soothing spectacle. In other words: regime survival has depended upon two premises: what happens on television is more important than what happens in reality; and what happens abroad is more important than what happens at home. It seems to me that these premises no longer hold. With mobilization, the distinction between at home and abroad has been broken; with lost battles, the distinction between television and reality has been weakened. Reality is starting to matter more than television, and Russia will start to matter more than Ukraine.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/how-does-the-russo-ukrainian-war?utm_campaign=auto_share
-
When I was a kid I remember reading how the Nazis pulled gold from the teeth of those in the concentration camps. They also used human skin to make lamp shades and stuff. It looks like the "Z" Nazis are following in their footsteps.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war)
Fortunatelly not quite as bad as that.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1577937869691387904/photo/2
Lots of war crimes by the Russians are well evidenced, just not the teeth part of this one.
-
When I was a kid I remember reading how the Nazis pulled gold from the teeth of those in the concentration camps. They also used human skin to make lamp shades and stuff. It looks like the "Z" Nazis are following in their footsteps.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war)
Fortunatelly not quite as bad as that.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1577937869691387904/photo/2
Lots of war crimes by the Russians are well evidenced, just not the teeth part of this one.
First, never trust BILD.
Second: How do they know it's a real dentist and that he really "collected" hundreds of gold teeth (why did the owners not take them? They are worth an Ukrainian's week of earning!)?
Third: The tweet actually does not state that those are the dentist's teeth. They only look alike. The BILD tweet could be totally bullshit or totally right and the teeth could still be left from Russians taking them out of tortured Ukranians.
(Just saying that as a media exercise, I don't state any thruth here.)
-
When I was a kid I remember reading how the Nazis pulled gold from the teeth of those in the concentration camps. They also used human skin to make lamp shades and stuff. It looks like the "Z" Nazis are following in their footsteps.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war)
Fortunatelly not quite as bad as that.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1577937869691387904/photo/2
Lots of war crimes by the Russians are well evidenced, just not the teeth part of this one.
First, never trust BILD.
Second: How do they know it's a real dentist and that he really "collected" hundreds of gold teeth (why did the owners not take them? They are worth an Ukrainian's week of earning!)?
Third: The tweet actually does not state that those are the dentist's teeth. They only look alike. The BILD tweet could be totally bullshit or totally right and the teeth could still be left from Russians taking them out of tortured Ukranians.
(Just saying that as a media exercise, I don't state any thruth here.)
I'm not convinced it was fake. I had gold removed from my teeth and the dentist gave it to me as there was some worth. This story seems to match the circumstantial evidence of matching other actions by Russians such as the mass graves, torture and bombing hospitals.
-
When I was a kid I remember reading how the Nazis pulled gold from the teeth of those in the concentration camps. They also used human skin to make lamp shades and stuff. It looks like the "Z" Nazis are following in their footsteps.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/gold-teeth-pulled-ukraine-russia-war)
Fortunatelly not quite as bad as that.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1577937869691387904/photo/2
Lots of war crimes by the Russians are well evidenced, just not the teeth part of this one.
I agree with LennStar, something doesn't smell right on both sides of the reporting here. First, how many people had gold teeth? Nazis murdered millions to get their dental gold - but the Russians managed to get a entire boxful in a few months of occupation of an area where most of the civilians had already fled? Where did they find that many people with that many gold teeth/dentures? And then the dentist claim - what dentist just has a pile of gold teeth/dentures sitting in their office, ready to be stolen? I don't know if that stuff is typically given back to the owner or just the value of the gold deducted from the cost of the tooth extraction, but leaving it around (instead of melting it down so it can be reused) seems very bizarre. It's not like you can plug a used gold tooth into someone else's mouth, afaik.
I totally believe Ukraine when they say Russians are committing war crimes and torturing people - there's too much evidence not to believe them. But this story is strange and hard to believe.
-
Did the Russians torture tens or hundreds of people and extract hundreds of gold crowns (those didn't all come out of just a handful of people) or did they loot a dentist's office (or multiple ones) where a dentist had kept old crowns because they contained valuable gold?
In the case of the former there are either mass graves somewhere with a bunch of bodies missing teeth or local residents who could come forward and show where their gold crowns were torn out.
There doesn't appear to be broken pieces of tooth on any of those crowns/fillings which would probably occur if they were using pliers to just rip them out of people's mouths. So, it's probably the latter and this was some dentist's retirement savings that was stolen. That doesn't mean the Russians weren't torturing people; but they probably weren't going straight Nazi and ripping gold teeth out of people's mouths.
I'm reminded of a story my former co-worker told me. His grandfather used to have a jewelry business and they would save and collect the small scraps of gold and silver they generated to eventually sell. Turns out grandpa had just kept them in 5-gallon buckets in his shed when the business closed down instead of selling them to some refiner. Maybe he considered them an investment, maybe he forgot about them, who knows. So, there was literally tens of thousands of dollars of gold sitting in a bucket for years out in a shed that wasn't discovered until after he died, and his grandson was going through the shed.
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Russians are taking teeth. I would also be equally unsurprised if Ukrainian forces are doing the same to Russians.
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
Japanese soldiers were no saints in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in just China's capital, let alone various neighboring countries. Nazis kept 19 of 20 POWs alive... Japanese soldiers, only 4 of 5. But oh man do they love to play the victim card for a war they started!
Which brings me to nuclear weapons that Russia is threatening to use. I can't predict Putin, as I thought international pressure was good enough to keep him from invaliding in Feb. But if I had nuclear and chemical weapons, I would get everyone riled up about nuclear weapons... and then use nerve agents instead. Most media discussions ignore the chemical threat, so it might come as a relief that Russia isn't using nuclear weapons. I can't predict Putin, but he has set things up for using chemical weapons and getting away with it.
-
The problem of chemical weapons is that they are hard to handle, especially on a big scale. That's why nobody used it since WWI in any big fight, only here and there as terror, aimed as much (if not more) against civilians than soldiers.
They might have been used when sieging big cities, but on a rolling retreat fight (positivly put) they are less useful than normal bullets/grenades. The last that Putin needs is his fresh conscripts phoning home "We don't even have weapon training, now three died because they don't know how to handle the chemical weapons they gave us!"
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
Japanese soldiers were no saints in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in just China's capital, let alone various neighboring countries. Nazis kept 19 of 20 POWs alive... Japanese soldiers, only 4 of 5. But oh man do they love to play the victim card for a war they started!
My point wasn't to deify the Japanese or vilify the allies. Generally, in WWII I think that the allies were on the right side and the Japanese were responsible for some pretty horrific actions through WWII . . . everything from a whole military run rape system of 'comfort women' to vivisection on prisoners and really awful human experimentation. But during fighting bad stuff happens all the time from all participants in war. Sometimes we pretend that the bad stuff isn't perpetrated by the 'good' guys. History doesn't support that rose coloured glasses argument though.
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
Japanese soldiers were no saints in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in just China's capital, let alone various neighboring countries. Nazis kept 19 of 20 POWs alive... Japanese soldiers, only 4 of 5. But oh man do they love to play the victim card for a war they started!
My point wasn't to deify the Japanese or vilify the allies. Generally, in WWII I think that the allies were on the right side and the Japanese were responsible for some pretty horrific actions through WWII . . . everything from a whole military run rape system of 'comfort women' to vivisection on prisoners and really awful human experimentation. But during fighting bad stuff happens all the time from all participants in war. Sometimes we pretend that the bad stuff isn't perpetrated by the 'good' guys. History doesn't support that rose coloured glasses argument though.
Which brings us back to the history of how both the Russians and Germans treated Ukraine in the last century... especially Russia under Lenin and then Stalin. Holy fuck is it systematic and horrifying.
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
Japanese soldiers were no saints in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in just China's capital, let alone various neighboring countries. Nazis kept 19 of 20 POWs alive... Japanese soldiers, only 4 of 5. But oh man do they love to play the victim card for a war they started!
My point wasn't to deify the Japanese or vilify the allies. Generally, in WWII I think that the allies were on the right side and the Japanese were responsible for some pretty horrific actions through WWII . . . everything from a whole military run rape system of 'comfort women' to vivisection on prisoners and really awful human experimentation. But during fighting bad stuff happens all the time from all participants in war. Sometimes we pretend that the bad stuff isn't perpetrated by the 'good' guys. History doesn't support that rose coloured glasses argument though.
And the only bad thing I've ever heard about Canadians is mistreating natives at boarding schools. I guess they can us What about isms.
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
Japanese soldiers were no saints in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in just China's capital, let alone various neighboring countries. Nazis kept 19 of 20 POWs alive... Japanese soldiers, only 4 of 5. But oh man do they love to play the victim card for a war they started!
My point wasn't to deify the Japanese or vilify the allies. Generally, in WWII I think that the allies were on the right side and the Japanese were responsible for some pretty horrific actions through WWII . . . everything from a whole military run rape system of 'comfort women' to vivisection on prisoners and really awful human experimentation. But during fighting bad stuff happens all the time from all participants in war. Sometimes we pretend that the bad stuff isn't perpetrated by the 'good' guys. History doesn't support that rose coloured glasses argument though.
And the only bad thing I've ever heard about Canadians is mistreating natives at boarding schools. I guess they can us What about isms.
It wasn't just mistreating, that's a pretty big understatement for the horrors of the 60s scoop and residential schools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop
https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/#:~:text=The%20residential%20school%20system%20officially,to%20speak%20their%20own%20languages.
-
We're all talking like the Nazis were the only ones doing this in WWII. It was common practice among allied soldiers . . . and was caught on camera. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/03/humanities.highereducation)
https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/ (https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/05/04/the-horrific-american-war-crimes-against-wwii-japan/)
War crimes are only for losers of battles.
Japanese soldiers were no saints in WWII, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in just China's capital, let alone various neighboring countries. Nazis kept 19 of 20 POWs alive... Japanese soldiers, only 4 of 5. But oh man do they love to play the victim card for a war they started!
My point wasn't to deify the Japanese or vilify the allies. Generally, in WWII I think that the allies were on the right side and the Japanese were responsible for some pretty horrific actions through WWII . . . everything from a whole military run rape system of 'comfort women' to vivisection on prisoners and really awful human experimentation. But during fighting bad stuff happens all the time from all participants in war. Sometimes we pretend that the bad stuff isn't perpetrated by the 'good' guys. History doesn't support that rose coloured glasses argument though.
And the only bad thing I've ever heard about Canadians is mistreating natives at boarding schools. I guess they can us What about isms.
It wasn't just mistreating, that's a pretty big understatement for the horrors of the 60s scoop and residential schools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop
https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/#:~:text=The%20residential%20school%20system%20officially,to%20speak%20their%20own%20languages.
Yep. Not minimal at all. We sent police to native people's doors to take away their children, then horribly abused the kids (killing quite a few of them in the process). The residential school system was a concerted attempt at eradicating native culture. It has caused generational problems with drug/alcohol abuse, completely broke the traditional native family structure, and has more or less fucked things up for a whole generation of people in Canada.
-
Kerch Bridge is on fire (https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/10/08/powerful-explosion-at-kerch-bridge-connecting-occupied-crimea-with-russia-media/), looks like a freight train is involved.
Edit: looks like the roadway is destroyed and the rail connection is sagging (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1578605334062473216)
-
Closer picture of the road part:
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1578618064219688960
-
Closer picture of the road part:
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1578618064219688960
I'm fairly convinced from the lack of damage on the upper surface of the road that it was the boat you briefly see at 0:03 in this video directly under the bridge right at the moment of the explosion:
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578632595633758208
-
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578637477807783936 (https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578637477807783936) Daylight footage with the train fire put out. Westbound road is gone, eastbound has a buckled section. Rail line probably needs to be inspected for any heat damage.
-
Closer picture of the road part:
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1578618064219688960
I'm fairly convinced from the lack of damage on the upper surface of the road that it was the boat you briefly see at 0:03 in this video directly under the bridge right at the moment of the explosion:
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578632595633758208
Definitely looks like the explosion startet with the boat. wow! Partisan work I guess.
I am actually a bit envious. Not many people get to blow up one of the biggest bridges in the world.
-
I have little doubt that the Kerch railway bridge is severely structurally weakened by the fuel fire. If the fire that is seen on the picture burned for any extended period of time that is:
(https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1578604034281205760/photo/1)
-
Here is eyewitness video footage of the same section showing that the fire was left to burn at high intensity due to high winds while enveloping the span:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1578658526066462720
-
Putin´s birthday cake:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeiyLetXkAIzfo_?format=png&name=900x900)
-
Here is eyewitness video footage of the same section showing that the fire was left to burn at high intensity due to high winds while enveloping the span:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1578658526066462720
Happy Birthday Mr. Putin.
-
I have little doubt that the Kerch railway bridge is severely structurally weakened by the fuel fire. If the fire that is seen on the picture burned for any extended period of time that is:
(https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1578604034281205760/photo/1)
Russia is claiming that rail traffic over the bridge will start again this evening. I'll believe it when I see it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-63183783
-
I have little doubt that the Kerch railway bridge is severely structurally weakened by the fuel fire. If the fire that is seen on the picture burned for any extended period of time that is:
(https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1578604034281205760/photo/1)
Russia is claiming that rail traffic over the bridge will start again this evening. I'll believe it when I see it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-63183783
They also said it was a tanker car that blew up.
Even if the train bridge is still operational, and even if they repair the one road section, even if the explosion has no material effect on Russia's logistics, this is an astounding event.
I'd put it on the same level with the Dolittle raid from WWII.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
-
Current Russian narrative is that the 18-wheeler is the source and is somehow the fault of Ukraine. Like everything else that has mysteriously caught fire in Russia, they're going to try to juggle "enemy action" and "gross incompetence" since the truck originated from the Russian side of the bridge and went through an inspection before being allowed on.
-
Well, well, the empire isn´t doing so well these days:
A Distracted Russia Is Losing Its Grip on Its Old Soviet Sphere
Russia’s domination of Central Asia and the Caucasus region is unraveling as the Kremlin focuses on the war in Ukraine — and border violence is flaring.
With the Kremlin distracted by its flagging war more than 1,500 miles away in Ukraine, Russia’s dominium over its old Soviet empire shows signs of unraveling. Moscow has lost its aura and its grip, creating a disorderly vacuum that previously obedient former Soviet satraps, as well as China, are moving to fill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/asia/russia-putin-soviet.html
-
Well, well, the empire isn´t doing so well these days:
A Distracted Russia Is Losing Its Grip on Its Old Soviet Sphere
Russia’s domination of Central Asia and the Caucasus region is unraveling as the Kremlin focuses on the war in Ukraine — and border violence is flaring.
With the Kremlin distracted by its flagging war more than 1,500 miles away in Ukraine, Russia’s dominium over its old Soviet empire shows signs of unraveling. Moscow has lost its aura and its grip, creating a disorderly vacuum that previously obedient former Soviet satraps, as well as China, are moving to fill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/asia/russia-putin-soviet.html
Who is number 3?
With the lackluster performance of the Russian military, I've seen articles that it is no longer the number 3 military force in the world.
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan?
-
Here is eyewitness video footage of the same section showing that the fire was left to burn at high intensity due to high winds while enveloping the span:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1578658526066462720
Happy Birthday Mr. Putin.
I am not pleased to find that I share a birthday with that maniac.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
-
Longstanding side note: Russia and France and Netherlands and like 5 other countries badly need a redesigned flag. Three red white and blue stripes: not very original!
I've always felt countries whose flags have been around since the age of sail get a pass on creative flag design. A small handful of primary colors that are easy to distinguish at a distance, even after different amounts of weathering and fading and with both the flag and the lookout being tossed about by waves, arranged in different orders and/or rotated between horizontal and vertical was definitely the way to go back then.
Is it a coincidence that Nebraska, the only triply land-locked state in the nation, has what is largely regarded as one of the worst designed flags ever? Almost certainly, yes, it is a coincidence. But still a fun bit of trivia to bring up in this context.
Yet while Maryland has a flag which breaks nearly every rule of good flag design, they ended up with an awesome and easily recognizable flag.
-
I have little doubt that the Kerch railway bridge is severely structurally weakened by the fuel fire. If the fire that is seen on the picture burned for any extended period of time that is:
(https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1578604034281205760/photo/1)
Russia is claiming that rail traffic over the bridge will start again this evening. I'll believe it when I see it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-63183783
Hehehe - Russia claims alot of things on a regular basis.
-
Here is eyewitness video footage of the same section showing that the fire was left to burn at high intensity due to high winds while enveloping the span:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1578658526066462720
Happy Birthday Mr. Putin.
I am not pleased to find that I share a birthday with that maniac.
Well, I hope you had a better birthday than the Russian manic.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
-
Here is eyewitness video footage of the same section showing that the fire was left to burn at high intensity due to high winds while enveloping the span:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1578658526066462720
Happy Birthday Mr. Putin.
I am not pleased to find that I share a birthday with that maniac.
Well, I hope you had a better birthday than the Russian manic.
Unfortunately, not really. I've got a cat who's unexpectedly flipping into hospice and I'm pretty down. But thank you for the thought.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
-
Well, well, the empire isn´t doing so well these days:
A Distracted Russia Is Losing Its Grip on Its Old Soviet Sphere
Russia’s domination of Central Asia and the Caucasus region is unraveling as the Kremlin focuses on the war in Ukraine — and border violence is flaring.
With the Kremlin distracted by its flagging war more than 1,500 miles away in Ukraine, Russia’s dominium over its old Soviet empire shows signs of unraveling. Moscow has lost its aura and its grip, creating a disorderly vacuum that previously obedient former Soviet satraps, as well as China, are moving to fill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/asia/russia-putin-soviet.html
Who is number 3?
With the lackluster performance of the Russian military, I've seen articles that it is no longer the number 3 military force in the world.
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan?
Ukraine of course.
There seems to be some sort of riot in Moscow, with militaries being arrested by police. Fist sign of the inside collapse?
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
And there is also the effect of heat on the concrete itself and we know that the temperature in some areas was well above the critical temperature (deformed steel).
We also know that there were high winds creating a furnace effect that is clearly seen on videos and stills and that definitely increased temperature in certain areas.
We know that the fire was left to burn out and that took several hours. Damage to the concrete and steel is determined by exposure time and temperature and given that there was a furnace effect, it must be assumed that extreme temperatures might have developed in spots.
Given all that, it looks to me that the affected spans must be assumed to be structurally unsound.
The Kerch railway bridge has two tracks but they are laid on single spans so the structural problems affect both tracks.
All that said, even assuming that the railway bridge is brought back into service, the attack has revealed that the entire RU operation in southern Ukraine is critically dependent on the Kerch railway bridge: there really is no way to get sufficient supplies to RU forces with the Kerch bridge out of service.
The Kerch bridge attack is a truly catastrophic event for RU that upended the propaganda space by unequivocally demonstrating RU weakness and that massively interferes with the RU effort in southern Ukraine.
-
And now this. I had not seen this yet: water appears to have been dumped on the hot bridge using helicopters. So they thought shock cooling the mess is a good idea. Reminds me of that UA soldier who said: "We are lucky that they are so f*cking stupid" - I got nothing to add to that:
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1579160189160157184/photo/1
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
Some updates here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M40w0iO16dc). The "reopening" of the rail track is mentioned, with the video of a single 15 car train (unloaded, presumably) appearing to be legit. It's clear if this happened in the US or Europe, the tracks would be closed for weeks just for inspections, but the Russians may feel various forms of pressure to be far less risk-averse in this situation.
-
Putin accuses Ukraine of “terrorism” for the strike on the Crimea bridge.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63195504 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63195504)
I burst out laughing when I read that. The hypocrisy is mind blowing. Unbelievable.
-
Putin accuses Ukraine of “terrorism” for the strike on the Crimea bridge.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63195504 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63195504)
I burst out laughing when I read that. The hypocrisy is mind blowing. Unbelievable.
Man, I was just about to post this. It's laughable.
You figure these people would have some type of common sensibility.
You've been firing missiles into civilian buildings since the beginning of the war. Putin get's a bit of his own medicines and start crying "terrorisms".
Putin can't win this war. It's impossible at this point as long as Ukraine gets support from the US and NATO.
The only thing Putin has left is to threaten "nuclear" over and over.
I truly hope he will not resort to firing one but if he ever does, it's really over for Russia. I mean the amount of power the US and NATO have in retaliations will be shock and awe.
Russia can't even defeat a small country like Ukraine, how on earth can it withstand the US and NATO ??
-
While I am making bold predictions, I think Ukraine's winter offensive will be across the Dnipro reservoir. They are supposed to be receiving a bunch of bridges and boats and air defence systems between now and December, and it is the obvious weak point in Russian lines. They will wait for a series of cloudy/foggy days, and boom. (I keep making bold predictions and they keep being right, so might as well go all in.)
I'll double down until events prove me wrong. Kherson (city) must still be occupied when this happens as a distraction. If Kherson is recaptured first then it will be too obvious what the next move will be, which will make it harder. I thought this since July, when they were advertising a Kherson offensive and I thought "that doesn't make much sense." The recapture of the northern part of the province (NW of the river) was to take a narrower crossing. Yes they could co through Zaporizhzhia area, but that will be heavily defended and is to be avoided.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
Some updates here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M40w0iO16dc). The "reopening" of the rail track is mentioned, with the video of a single 15 car train (unloaded, presumably) appearing to be legit. It's clear if this happened in the US or Europe, the tracks would be closed for weeks just for inspections, but the Russians may feel various forms of pressure to be far less risk-averse in this situation.
As of Sunday morning US time, the burned oil cars were forklifted off the rail, and no other trains have crossed since that test case yesterday.
-
I give it a 50/50 whether the rail bridge will still be usable. Actually I lean toward it still being usable in some capacity. The bridge was fully loaded when the fire occurred and yet didn't collapse, so that is a good sign it retains at least some structural integrity. For an example of a steel structure which lost integrity under load see the World Trade Center. I am unable to determine offhandedly from the photos if it suffered severe damage, I can certainly see cosmetic damage but I can't tell about the structural elements. Steel is a very resilient material, the most resilient of all civil engineering materials. It is also very predictable, which is actually its main selling point aside from cost. You know if it is going to fail because there will be groaning and necking, and it is possible to determine if it left its elastic strain zone. If the fire caused the steel to lose 75% of its strength, and it had a factor of safety of 4, then nothing happened although its lifecycle was probably reduced from 100 million train loadings to 1 or 10 million train loadings. If the steel didn't get hot enough to become fully molten, then its crystal structure didn't change. Yes temperature differentials are bad, but in a military operation the bridge can be operated at a much lower margin of safety than in peace time and still be considered acceptable.
The rail bridge appears to be steel beams on reinforced concrete columns. I doubt the columns were impacted much but who knows. IMO the weak point is likely to be the connection between the beams and columns but who knows.
Fun fact for the road bridge: reinforced concrete beams are only economical for spans up to about 20ft / 6m maximum. After that they must be prestressed. Pre-tensioned precast spans are typical up to the longest transportable length which is about 58 ft / 18m. Beyond that they must be post-tensioned cast-in-place, although anything shorter can be pre- or post-tensioned or precast if it makes sense for the design.
-
You've been firing missiles into civilian buildings since the beginning of the war. Putin get's a bit of his own medicines and start crying "terrorisms".
Russia can't even defeat a small country like Ukraine
Ukraine is I think the biggest country in Europe (if you don't count Russia as Europe of course) with the biggest army - before the war.
And Russia never did never shoot at civilians, didn't you hear that in all the TV shows in Russia?!?
-
You've been firing missiles into civilian buildings since the beginning of the war. Putin get's a bit of his own medicines and start crying "terrorisms".
Russia can't even defeat a small country like Ukraine
Ukraine is I think the biggest country in Europe (if you don't count Russia as Europe of course) with the biggest army - before the war.
And Russia never did never shoot at civilians, didn't you hear that in all the TV shows in Russia?!?
Big in territory, not so big in population (44 million before the war, below Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain).
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
And there is also the effect of heat on the concrete itself and we know that the temperature in some areas was well above the critical temperature (deformed steel).
We also know that there were high winds creating a furnace effect that is clearly seen on videos and stills and that definitely increased temperature in certain areas.
We know that the fire was left to burn out and that took several hours. Damage to the concrete and steel is determined by exposure time and temperature and given that there was a furnace effect, it must be assumed that extreme temperatures might have developed in spots.
Given all that, it looks to me that the affected spans must be assumed to be structurally unsound.
The Kerch railway bridge has two tracks but they are layed on single spans so the structural problems affect both tracks.
All that said, even assuming that the railway bridge is brought back into service, the attack has revealed that the entire RU operation in southern Ukraine is critically dependent on the Kerch railway bridge: there really is no way to get sufficient supplies to RU forces with the Kerch bridge out of service.
The Kerch bridge attack is a truly catastrophic event for RU that upended the propaganda space by unequivocally demonstrating RU weakness and that massively interferes with the RU effort in southern Ukraine.
Does Russia not have an amphibious Navy? I know that is slower than multiple trains per day but still...
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
And there is also the effect of heat on the concrete itself and we know that the temperature in some areas was well above the critical temperature (deformed steel).
We also know that there were high winds creating a furnace effect that is clearly seen on videos and stills and that definitely increased temperature in certain areas.
We know that the fire was left to burn out and that took several hours. Damage to the concrete and steel is determined by exposure time and temperature and given that there was a furnace effect, it must be assumed that extreme temperatures might have developed in spots.
Given all that, it looks to me that the affected spans must be assumed to be structurally unsound.
The Kerch railway bridge has two tracks but they are layed on single spans so the structural problems affect both tracks.
All that said, even assuming that the railway bridge is brought back into service, the attack has revealed that the entire RU operation in southern Ukraine is critically dependent on the Kerch railway bridge: there really is no way to get sufficient supplies to RU forces with the Kerch bridge out of service.
The Kerch bridge attack is a truly catastrophic event for RU that upended the propaganda space by unequivocally demonstrating RU weakness and that massively interferes with the RU effort in southern Ukraine.
Does Russia not have an amphibious Navy? I know that is slower than multiple trains per day but still...
I guess if you live in the middle of North America the logistical challenges of moving vast amounts of heavy and/or dangerous cargo on a short sea crossing, in shallow waters with inadequate port facilities and looming bad weather, and without the right vessels immediately available in the location, might not be immediately obvious.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
And there is also the effect of heat on the concrete itself and we know that the temperature in some areas was well above the critical temperature (deformed steel).
We also know that there were high winds creating a furnace effect that is clearly seen on videos and stills and that definitely increased temperature in certain areas.
We know that the fire was left to burn out and that took several hours. Damage to the concrete and steel is determined by exposure time and temperature and given that there was a furnace effect, it must be assumed that extreme temperatures might have developed in spots.
Given all that, it looks to me that the affected spans must be assumed to be structurally unsound.
The Kerch railway bridge has two tracks but they are layed on single spans so the structural problems affect both tracks.
All that said, even assuming that the railway bridge is brought back into service, the attack has revealed that the entire RU operation in southern Ukraine is critically dependent on the Kerch railway bridge: there really is no way to get sufficient supplies to RU forces with the Kerch bridge out of service.
The Kerch bridge attack is a truly catastrophic event for RU that upended the propaganda space by unequivocally demonstrating RU weakness and that massively interferes with the RU effort in southern Ukraine.
Does Russia not have an amphibious Navy? I know that is slower than multiple trains per day but still...
I guess if you live in the middle of North America the logistical challenges of moving vast amounts of heavy and/or dangerous cargo on a short sea crossing, in shallow waters with inadequate port facilities and looming bad weather, and without the right vessels immediately available in the location, might not be immediately obvious.
Given Russia's previous decisions in this whole war, I do not place the chances of them attempting ship or barge transportation at zero.
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
And there is also the effect of heat on the concrete itself and we know that the temperature in some areas was well above the critical temperature (deformed steel).
We also know that there were high winds creating a furnace effect that is clearly seen on videos and stills and that definitely increased temperature in certain areas.
We know that the fire was left to burn out and that took several hours. Damage to the concrete and steel is determined by exposure time and temperature and given that there was a furnace effect, it must be assumed that extreme temperatures might have developed in spots.
Given all that, it looks to me that the affected spans must be assumed to be structurally unsound.
The Kerch railway bridge has two tracks but they are layed on single spans so the structural problems affect both tracks.
All that said, even assuming that the railway bridge is brought back into service, the attack has revealed that the entire RU operation in southern Ukraine is critically dependent on the Kerch railway bridge: there really is no way to get sufficient supplies to RU forces with the Kerch bridge out of service.
The Kerch bridge attack is a truly catastrophic event for RU that upended the propaganda space by unequivocally demonstrating RU weakness and that massively interferes with the RU effort in southern Ukraine.
Does Russia not have an amphibious Navy? I know that is slower than multiple trains per day but still...
I guess if you live in the middle of North America the logistical challenges of moving vast amounts of heavy and/or dangerous cargo on a short sea crossing, in shallow waters with inadequate port facilities and looming bad weather, and without the right vessels immediately available in the location, might not be immediately obvious.
The Great Lakes are in the middle of North America. (Well sort of)
-
I was a sailor on USN "dock landing ship". I know what our Navy is capable of. Just curious if the Russians have these capabilities in 2022?
We could move large quantities of personnel and material on one ship. Multiply that by 5 or 6 ships working continuously and big things were possible.
I assume since the Russians are fighting a war, they wouldn't want to pause their war efforts to rebuild that bridge. Admittedly the amount of ineptitude they have demonstrated this year might prove shallow water operations like this difficult to complete safely...
-
Latest bridge damage:
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA)
-
The revenge attacks on Ukraine are telling. They serve little strategic purpose other than to make the citizens scared again. They don't appear to have appreciably knocked out infrastructure. This appears to have been in part to appease the hardliners who didn't like the war coming home to them (on a pretty legitimate supply line target). The combination of a new commander for the "special military operation" who is known for his brutality and whiffs of russian troops headed to barracks in Belarus makes me wonder if we will see a change in Russian tactics soon. An assault from the north from Belarus to Kiev would likely slow advances in the SE.
I know that the Russian descriptions of the bridge attack as terrorism are for his domestic audience, but it is still galling-- especially given the indiscriminate attacks on civilians as reprisal.
-
Latest bridge damage:
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA)
Interesting. The deformed rails and axles are seen right were the furnace/blowtorch effect, seen in the footage from the fire, would be expected to be: between the underside of the car and above the rails. There might be some ugly problems lurking there.
-
I was a sailor on USN "dock landing ship". I know what our Navy is capable of. Just curious if the Russians have these capabilities in 2022?
We could move large quantities of personnel and material on one ship. Multiply that by 5 or 6 ships working continuously and big things were possible.
I assume since the Russians are fighting a war, they wouldn't want to pause their war efforts to rebuild that bridge. Admittedly the amount of ineptitude they have demonstrated this year might prove shallow water operations like this difficult to complete safely...
The Russians can't move any military ships into the Black Sea, Turkey won't let them, so they can use only what was already in the Black Sea before the war started. They can't gear up for a Kerch Straight military ferry system.
-
Latest bridge damage:
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA)
Interesting. The deformed rails and axles are seen right were the furnace/blowtorch effect, seen in the footage from the fire, would be expected to be: between the underside of the car and above the rails. There might be some ugly problems lurking there.
The surviving section of road bridge doesn't look too clever either.
-
Latest bridge damage:
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA)
Interesting. The deformed rails and axles are seen right were the furnace/blowtorch effect, seen in the footage from the fire, would be expected to be: between the underside of the car and above the rails. There might be some ugly problems lurking there.
The surviving section of road bridge doesn't look too clever either.
And the steel of at least one undercarriage has clearly melted, indicating 2200+ degrees Fahrenheit for an extended period of time in that particular area.
-
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (reply below that showing construction) This looks like a steel bridge to me. Saw lots or people on twitter talking about concrete damage but the concrete is just the piers. The structural parts aren’t visible in most damage videos or a far away and low quality. However they are well below the rail and the most import part the beams are far below. It did not collapse when it was weakest during the inferno when it had a train on it albeit empty, and whatever strength the steel has after cooling it is 100% certain to be a lot more than when it was hot. It held up an empty train when hot, it can maybe hold a full train when cool. So I still give it 50/50 at useable, and higher odds at being useable with limited capacity or reduced service life. If it was prestressed concrete it would be worse because the single narrow steel cables would be both fragile and very hard to inspect.
It would be nice if Ukraine had a way to retaliate against submarines and long range bombers.
-
So the experts believe that the bridge is compromised to some degree requiring either time consuming repairs or reduced load after temporary repairs.
RU cannot afford to close the railway bridge for an extended period of time so they will have to deal with decreased capacity which may of may not be sufficient to support RU military operations in southern Ukraine.
Time will tell and RU being RU, they might just try to run what they need instead of what the bridge can take...
Crimean Bridge blast: experts assess the damage
Published: October 10, 2022 2.51am EDT
The remaining road bridge has re-opened to car-only traffic. This may be reasonable, as the weight added by the cars is negligible compared to the weight of the bridge itself – and the political decision-making around acceptable levels of safety seems out of the ordinary.
Cranes have been shown lifting the fuel tanker wagon wreckage off the Crimea-bound rail line. It remains to be seen how the steel girders will perform under train travel. It is likely the trains will be instructed to go slow to reduce vibratory effects, and that wagons will not be fully-loaded.
Under normal circumstances, the blast and damage we have seen would result in an extended closure and repair works. Clearly, however, the circumstances are far from normal.
https://theconversation.com/crimean-bridge-blast-experts-assess-the-damage-192161
-
The revenge attacks on Ukraine are telling. They serve little strategic purpose other than to make the citizens scared again. They don't appear to have appreciably knocked out infrastructure. This appears to have been in part to appease the hardliners who didn't like the war coming home to them (on a pretty legitimate supply line target). The combination of a new commander for the "special military operation" who is known for his brutality and whiffs of russian troops headed to barracks in Belarus makes me wonder if we will see a change in Russian tactics soon. An assault from the north from Belarus to Kiev would likely slow advances in the SE.
I know that the Russian descriptions of the bridge attack as terrorism are for his domestic audience, but it is still galling-- especially given the indiscriminate attacks on civilians as reprisal.
I am hoping that Ukraine has put some effort and time into shoring up defenses on the Belarussian border. It isn't like an attack from there would be a surprise, since it has already happened once. I also suspect they have fairly detailed intelligence on where Russian troops are at any given time.
-
I was a sailor on USN "dock landing ship". I know what our Navy is capable of. Just curious if the Russians have these capabilities in 2022?
We could move large quantities of personnel and material on one ship. Multiply that by 5 or 6 ships working continuously and big things were possible.
I assume since the Russians are fighting a war, they wouldn't want to pause their war efforts to rebuild that bridge. Admittedly the amount of ineptitude they have demonstrated this year might prove shallow water operations like this difficult to complete safely...
The Russians can't move any military ships into the Black Sea, Turkey won't let them, so they can use only what was already in the Black Sea before the war started. They can't gear up for a Kerch Straight military ferry system.
Cool. Thanks. Makes sense.
-
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (reply below that showing construction) This looks like a steel bridge to me. Saw lots or people on twitter talking about concrete damage but the concrete is just the piers. The structural parts aren’t visible in most damage videos or a far away and low quality. However they are well below the rail and the most import part the beams are far below. It did not collapse when it was weakest during the inferno when it had a train on it albeit empty, and whatever strength the steel has after cooling it is 100% certain to be a lot more than when it was hot. It held up an empty train when hot, it can maybe hold a full train when cool.
Yep. They likely need to just replace the rail, ties and ballast. If the steel girder didn't yield at the hottest, it effectively regains its strength when cooled (possibly with some ductility changes, which is not likely to cause a problem for years, if ever.)
-
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (reply below that showing construction) This looks like a steel bridge to me. Saw lots or people on twitter talking about concrete damage but the concrete is just the piers. The structural parts aren’t visible in most damage videos or a far away and low quality. However they are well below the rail and the most import part the beams are far below. It did not collapse when it was weakest during the inferno when it had a train on it albeit empty, and whatever strength the steel has after cooling it is 100% certain to be a lot more than when it was hot. It held up an empty train when hot, it can maybe hold a full train when cool.
Yep. They likely need to just replace the rail, ties and ballast. If the steel girder didn't yield at the hottest, it effectively regains its strength when cooled (possibly with some ductility changes, which is not likely to cause a problem for years, if ever.)
I don't have the Tweet to share, but I saw somebody (maybe Russian government) estimate 1-2 months to repair the track. I don't know if that's just the melted rails, or if that includes any damage to the superstructure.
-
Good signs (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/10/europe/russia-ukraine-strikes-crimea-bridge-analysis-cmd-intl/index.html) regarding nuclear escalation:
“In terms of the further act of terrorism on the territory of Russia, the Russian reply will be harsh and will be corresponding to the level of threat to the Russian Federation, have no doubt about it.”
The brash chatter about nuclear weapons has died down and now the talk is about proportionality. The rather conventional response against Ukraine following the Kerch bridge incident are another sign of a lack of willingness to meaningfully escalate.
There are also suggestions (https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-open-putin-meeting-biden-g20-lavrov-says-2022-10-11/) that the Kremlin is interested in opening negotiations, though the terms are unlikely to be of interest to Ukraine (there is some discussion in the article on how the US State Department doesn't find these overtures authentic, but really, what is to be gained by Russia by even suggesting this right now?).
This piece (https://snyder.substack.com/p/how-does-the-russo-ukrainian-war) gives the view that the main players in Russia are perhaps near the point of withdrawing to defend their own bases of power, suggesting the domestic situation is now becoming a far more important consideration than the adventurism in Ukraine.
Galeev's recent posts have been far less impressive than his earlier stuff for setting historical and cultural context, but this one is very well done (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1579124072390463488.html), with some gory speculative details as well. A funny way of telling Musk to stay in his own lane, as well as emphasizing his earlier points about the pathological deficiencies of mafia-states.
The weight of evidence suggests rapidly growing weakness from Russia, but many have gone bankrupt attempting Kremlinology.
-
I don't have the Tweet to share, but I saw somebody (maybe Russian government) estimate 1-2 months to repair the track. I don't know if that's just the melted rails, or if that includes any damage to the superstructure.
Ukraine could tie up alot of resources waiting about 2 months and then attacking it again...
-
Has Ukraine claimed responsibility for the bridge explosion? Perhaps it was partisans from within Russia [wink].
-
Has Ukraine claimed responsibility for the bridge explosion? Perhaps it was partisans from within Russia [wink].
Well, the Russians are simultaneously blaming the Ukrainians and they've also arrested a number of Russians for the destruction of the bridge.
-
Has Ukraine claimed responsibility for the bridge explosion? Perhaps it was partisans from within Russia [wink].
Well, the Russians are simultaneously blaming the Ukrainians and they've also arrested a number of Russians for the destruction of the bridge.
Plus they completely faked the "Ukrainian" passport of a supposed accomplice. Like literally swiped it off Wikipedia, photo-shopped the pic and name along with some supposed blood discoloration - left the ID numbers exactly the same.
-
Has Ukraine claimed responsibility for the bridge explosion? Perhaps it was partisans from within Russia [wink].
Well, the Russians are simultaneously blaming the Ukrainians and they've also arrested a number of Russians for the destruction of the bridge.
Plus they completely faked the "Ukrainian" passport of a supposed accomplice. Like literally swiped it off Wikipedia, photo-shopped the pic and name along with some supposed blood discoloration - left the ID numbers exactly the same.
Actually it looks like the Russian troll bots fell for a 4chan trolling, because that guy looks like Sam Hyde.
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
Belarus doesn't have nuclear weapons, nothing to stop Nato or some of its component countries from sorting the problem out if it invades Ukraine.
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
Belarus doesn't have nuclear weapons, nothing to stop Nato or some of its component countries from sorting the problem out if it invades Ukraine.
I do believe the Russians have put nukes there and there are supposed to be a buttload of Russian soldiers on their soil.
-
Has Ukraine claimed responsibility for the bridge explosion? Perhaps it was partisans from within Russia [wink].
I read an account that was very specific about how the explosives were loaded on 22 pallets, shipped through Bulgaria, Armenia, and Georgia before crossing into Russia. Then apparently loaded on a truck driven by someone who didn't know they were carrying a giant bomb and it was remotely detonated on the bridge when it passed next to the train. The train had apparently been hacked to stop right at a specific location where there were also hundreds of pounds of explosives on the railroad tracks.
It all sounds way too specific for Russia have put together in a matter of days from actual investigation. So, unless they really did capture some people involved and detailed plans it sounds like a deliberate leak by Russian security services while they try to figure out what actually happened.
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
Belarus doesn't have nuclear weapons, nothing to stop Nato or some of its component countries from sorting the problem out if it invades Ukraine.
I do believe the Russians have put nukes there and there are supposed to be a buttload of Russian soldiers on their soil.
From what I've read, for Belarus it sounds like the bigger threat is from inside, not NATO. Lukashenko is widely hated by his own country and he knows it - if he lets a significant part of his military (which is tiny relative to Ukraine or Russia) head into Ukraine to help Russia, it's very likely a large chunk of country might just try to depose him while he's 'distracted'.
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
Belarus doesn't have nuclear weapons, nothing to stop Nato or some of its component countries from sorting the problem out if it invades Ukraine.
I do believe the Russians have put nukes there and there are supposed to be a buttload of Russian soldiers on their soil.
From what I've read, for Belarus it sounds like the bigger threat is from inside, not NATO. Lukashenko is widely hated by his own country and he knows it - if he lets a significant part of his military (which is tiny relative to Ukraine or Russia) head into Ukraine to help Russia, it's very likely a large chunk of country might just try to depose him while he's 'distracted'.
The Russians even published a picture of a different truck. And the ID card they "found" is the photoshopped Wikipedia version - but with a person known to be trolled on those things, so likely the Russian bots were trolled into that one.
I agree with Belrus. There are already (if you believe Ukraine) thousands of Belrussians fighting in their army and anti-Russian sabotage is widespread. Sending even half his army would likely end Lukashenko. If he sends the loyal half, the remainder will revolt, if he sends the unloyal half, they might say hallo to their comrades in Ukraine and come back united.
A rock and a hard place indeed.
-
I don't think NATO would invade belarus unless one of the NATO countries were also invaded or attacked in some way. It's a defensive alliance.
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
Belarus doesn't have nuclear weapons, nothing to stop Nato or some of its component countries from sorting the problem out if it invades Ukraine.
Belarus is part of the Union State with Russia and an attack by NATO would trigger their military alliance, which is very similar to NATO's Article 5.
-
If Belarus attacks Ukraine, what stops Ukraine from invading Belarus and kicking their government out of power? I don't think Belarus can risk it - they need their guns at home, pointed at their own population.
"According to numerous publications, the suppression of the 2020 Belarusian protests was accompanied by extreme police violence, and systematic violation of human rights throughout stages of the detention process"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Belarusian_protests#Human_rights_issues
"In terms of vocabulary, the Ukrainian language is the closest to Belarusian (16% of difference), and the Russian language to Bulgarian (27% of difference)."
https://www.ukrainianlessons.com/ukrainian-and-russian-languages/
Belarus doesn't have nuclear weapons, nothing to stop Nato or some of its component countries from sorting the problem out if it invades Ukraine.
Belarus is part of the Union State with Russia and an attack by NATO would trigger their military alliance, which is very similar to NATO's Article 5.
Russia is doing squat right now about the unrest happening in the eastern eastern regions and China is apparently horning in. Just because technically an alliance is triggered doesn't mean you have the capacity to do anything about it, and it seems possible that's that case.
-
… the explosives were loaded on 22 pallets, shipped through Bulgaria, Armenia, and Georgia before crossing into Russia...
I read that, too. I was struck by the nonsense of the countries. So explosives originated in Bulgaria, magically jumped across Turkey to Armenia, a landlocked country in the Caucasus, then Georgia, Russia, and on to Crimea. I guess that airfreight is possible, but it seems improbable and subject to more scrutiny.
That said, someone should smuggle more high explosives out of Bulgaria and into Armenia, through Georgia, and then blow up something else.
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
-
… the explosives were loaded on 22 pallets, shipped through Bulgaria, Armenia, and Georgia before crossing into Russia...
I read that, too. I was struck by the nonsense of the countries. So explosives originated in Bulgaria, magically jumped across Turkey to Armenia, a landlocked country in the Caucasus, then Georgia, Russia, and on to Crimea. I guess that airfreight is possible, but it seems improbable and subject to more scrutiny.
That said, someone should smuggle more high explosives out of Bulgaria and into Armenia, through Georgia, and then blow up something else.
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
The problem is that they've been lied to so much that when they get to hell, they'll think it's heaven.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
-
I know you’re kidding, but it’s not funny. It just makes me sad.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
Stealing children from families is a heinous act, and it's important to remember the answer to the question "What kind of evil culture does [that]" is: far too many, including my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/native-american-children-endured-brutal-treatment-in-u-s-boarding-schools-federal-report-shows/2022/05#:~:text=Tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20Native,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Interior%20found.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
Stealing children from families is a heinous act, and it's important to remember the answer to the question "What kind of evil culture does [that]" is: far too many, including my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/native-american-children-endured-brutal-treatment-in-u-s-boarding-schools-federal-report-shows/2022/05#:~:text=Tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20Native,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Interior%20found.
I'm racking my brains to think of any time in history that it has been proven to be a good idea.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
This has been going on since March when Russia offered the first "humanitarian corridors" out of Mariupol. Of course these were one-way tickets to disappear in Russia. Within a couple weeks, members of the Duma were openly discussing how best to transform these children into Russians. Mass deportations with the intent of erasing a cultural identity is one of the definitions of genocide.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
Stealing children from families is a heinous act, and it's important to remember the answer to the question "What kind of evil culture does [that]" is: far too many, including my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/native-american-children-endured-brutal-treatment-in-u-s-boarding-schools-federal-report-shows/2022/05#:~:text=Tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20Native,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Interior%20found.
I'm racking my brains to think of any time in history that it has been proven to be a good idea.
Stealing kids was the only bad thing I could come up with that the Canadians did a few posts back. I mentioned they sent Native kids to school. Looks like the Russians are outdoing them.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
Stealing children from families is a heinous act, and it's important to remember the answer to the question "What kind of evil culture does [that]" is: far too many, including my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/native-american-children-endured-brutal-treatment-in-u-s-boarding-schools-federal-report-shows/2022/05#:~:text=Tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20Native,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Interior%20found.
I'm racking my brains to think of any time in history that it has been proven to be a good idea.
Stealing kids was the only bad thing I could come up with that the Canadians did a few posts back. I mentioned they sent Native kids to school. Looks like the Russians are outdoing them.
They weren't simply stolen, many of the kids were killed and pretty much all were horribly abused. These schools had so many dead kids that they have mass unmarked gravesites that are being uncovered with hundreds of children in them, the estimates are 3,000-6000+ dead children. Do not try to minimize how awful that is, it was straight up genocide funded and supported by the canadian government and the catholic church. They killed these kids and just dumped them in the ground. Instead, educate yourself on the horrors of Canada's residential school system and donate to support survivors, and educate others so the same thing doesn't happen again. This wasn't in the 1800s, the last residential school closed in 1997!
Bodies, unmarked graves, and potential burial sites have been identified near residential school sites across Canada since the 1970s, mainly using ground-penetrating radar. To date, the sites of unmarked graves are estimated to hold the remains of more than 1,900 previously unaccounted individuals, mostly children. However, across the entire residential school system, the number of identifiable children who are documented as having died while in their custody is over 4,100 individuals; the fourth volume of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada "identified 3,200 deaths on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Register of Confirmed Deaths of Named Residential School Students and the Register of Confirmed Deaths of Unnamed Residential School Students".[5] The issue of unmarked graves gained renewed attention after an anthropologist detected ground disturbances on radar at Kamloops Indian Residential School in May 2021, and concluded that these were 215 "probable burials" (this number was later revised to 200).[6][7] Several similar announcements followed over the ensuing months, leading to commemorations and protests, as well as leading to a series of arsons against Christian buildings and the 2022 "penitential" visit to Canada by Pope Francis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
Stealing children from families is a heinous act, and it's important to remember the answer to the question "What kind of evil culture does [that]" is: far too many, including my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/native-american-children-endured-brutal-treatment-in-u-s-boarding-schools-federal-report-shows/2022/05#:~:text=Tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20Native,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Interior%20found.
I'm racking my brains to think of any time in history that it has been proven to be a good idea.
Stealing kids was the only bad thing I could come up with that the Canadians did a few posts back. I mentioned they sent Native kids to school. Looks like the Russians are outdoing them.
They weren't simply stolen, many of the kids were killed and pretty much all were horribly abused. These schools had so many dead kids that they have mass unmarked gravesites that are being uncovered with hundreds of children in them, the estimates are 3,000-6000+ dead children. Do not try to minimize how awful that is, it was straight up genocide funded and supported by the canadian government and the catholic church. They killed these kids and just dumped them in the ground. Instead, educate yourself on the horrors of Canada's residential school system and donate to support survivors, and educate others so the same thing doesn't happen again. This wasn't in the 1800s, the last residential school closed in 1997!
Bodies, unmarked graves, and potential burial sites have been identified near residential school sites across Canada since the 1970s, mainly using ground-penetrating radar. To date, the sites of unmarked graves are estimated to hold the remains of more than 1,900 previously unaccounted individuals, mostly children. However, across the entire residential school system, the number of identifiable children who are documented as having died while in their custody is over 4,100 individuals; the fourth volume of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada "identified 3,200 deaths on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Register of Confirmed Deaths of Named Residential School Students and the Register of Confirmed Deaths of Unnamed Residential School Students".[5] The issue of unmarked graves gained renewed attention after an anthropologist detected ground disturbances on radar at Kamloops Indian Residential School in May 2021, and concluded that these were 215 "probable burials" (this number was later revised to 200).[6][7] Several similar announcements followed over the ensuing months, leading to commemorations and protests, as well as leading to a series of arsons against Christian buildings and the 2022 "penitential" visit to Canada by Pope Francis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites
It cannot be overstated how bad the residential school system was in Canada. The abuse and horrors endured at these schools didn't just hurt a whole generation of native people, but it ended up causing all sorts of problems for their kids too. It damaged their ability to reintegrate with their communities, radically spiked drug and alcohol use, engendered a (well earned) distrust of government officials . . . the list goes on and on.
-
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
No, no, you are wrong! Those innocent children (and often their mothers, thousands fo them dispersed all over Russia) are saved from Nazism and will grow up (or give life to) strong new soldiers to defend the best country in the world!
I seem to remember a group that was interesting in saving children from their oppressive and wrong thinking families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany)
Stealing children from families is a heinous act, and it's important to remember the answer to the question "What kind of evil culture does [that]" is: far too many, including my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/native-american-children-endured-brutal-treatment-in-u-s-boarding-schools-federal-report-shows/2022/05#:~:text=Tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20Native,U.S.%20Department%20of%20Interior%20found.
I'm racking my brains to think of any time in history that it has been proven to be a good idea.
Stealing kids was the only bad thing I could come up with that the Canadians did a few posts back. I mentioned they sent Native kids to school. Looks like the Russians are outdoing them.
They weren't simply stolen, many of the kids were killed and pretty much all were horribly abused. These schools had so many dead kids that they have mass unmarked gravesites that are being uncovered with hundreds of children in them, the estimates are 3,000-6000+ dead children. Do not try to minimize how awful that is, it was straight up genocide funded and supported by the canadian government and the catholic church. They killed these kids and just dumped them in the ground. Instead, educate yourself on the horrors of Canada's residential school system and donate to support survivors, and educate others so the same thing doesn't happen again. This wasn't in the 1800s, the last residential school closed in 1997!
Bodies, unmarked graves, and potential burial sites have been identified near residential school sites across Canada since the 1970s, mainly using ground-penetrating radar. To date, the sites of unmarked graves are estimated to hold the remains of more than 1,900 previously unaccounted individuals, mostly children. However, across the entire residential school system, the number of identifiable children who are documented as having died while in their custody is over 4,100 individuals; the fourth volume of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada "identified 3,200 deaths on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Register of Confirmed Deaths of Named Residential School Students and the Register of Confirmed Deaths of Unnamed Residential School Students".[5] The issue of unmarked graves gained renewed attention after an anthropologist detected ground disturbances on radar at Kamloops Indian Residential School in May 2021, and concluded that these were 215 "probable burials" (this number was later revised to 200).[6][7] Several similar announcements followed over the ensuing months, leading to commemorations and protests, as well as leading to a series of arsons against Christian buildings and the 2022 "penitential" visit to Canada by Pope Francis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites
It cannot be overstated how bad the residential school system was in Canada. The abuse and horrors endured at these schools didn't just hurt a whole generation of native people, but it ended up causing all sorts of problems for their kids too. It damaged their ability to reintegrate with their communities, radically spiked drug and alcohol use, engendered a (well earned) distrust of government officials . . . the list goes on and on.
I should read up on it. However, they don't do it now and obviously there is a sort of guilt that many Canadians feel. How about those Russians? They have done this type of thing for generations to many ethnic groups / natives. They still do it. They send poor Asians to die in a form of double genocide against the Ukrainians. They abduct their children. Is there any National guilt in that land?
-
More on RU logistics disrupted by damage to the Kerch railway bridge:
interesting analysis of the 🇷🇺 logistics in the south by the 🇷🇺 military researcher Atomic Cherry. They show that 🇷🇺 relied heavily on the Crimean bridge and the damage to it will have long-lasting consequences given the lack of alternatives to supply south:
At the same time, the condition of the bridge itself is currently unclear.
Due to the peculiarities of its design made out of full-metal ballast troughs, the burning out of 450 tons of diesel fuel, followed by extinguishing with cold sea water, could seriously damage the integrity of the structure.
In a word, the true consequences of what happened to the bridge are just beginning to manifest themselves at least on a somewhat full scale . What they will eventually result in will become clear over the next 3-4 weeks."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1581023172346118144.html
-
They weren't simply stolen, many of the kids were killed and pretty much all were horribly abused. These schools had so many dead kids that they have mass unmarked gravesites that are being uncovered with hundreds of children in them, the estimates are 3,000-6000+ dead children. Do not try to minimize how awful that is, it was straight up genocide funded and supported by the canadian government and the catholic church. They killed these kids and just dumped them in the ground. Instead, educate yourself on the horrors of Canada's residential school system and donate to support survivors, and educate others so the same thing doesn't happen again. This wasn't in the 1800s, the last residential school closed in 1997!
Bodies, unmarked graves, and potential burial sites have been identified near residential school sites across Canada since the 1970s, mainly using ground-penetrating radar. To date, the sites of unmarked graves are estimated to hold the remains of more than 1,900 previously unaccounted individuals, mostly children. However, across the entire residential school system, the number of identifiable children who are documented as having died while in their custody is over 4,100 individuals; the fourth volume of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada "identified 3,200 deaths on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Register of Confirmed Deaths of Named Residential School Students and the Register of Confirmed Deaths of Unnamed Residential School Students".[5] The issue of unmarked graves gained renewed attention after an anthropologist detected ground disturbances on radar at Kamloops Indian Residential School in May 2021, and concluded that these were 215 "probable burials" (this number was later revised to 200).[6][7] Several similar announcements followed over the ensuing months, leading to commemorations and protests, as well as leading to a series of arsons against Christian buildings and the 2022 "penitential" visit to Canada by Pope Francis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites
Not to minimize the bad things that happened, but many of those graves were marked - it's just that they were usually marked with a wooden cross which in most cases have long since rotted away. Burying the dead is one of the corporal works of mercy and whatever feelings you may have against the Catholic Church, it's not like children were being systematically murdered en masse and tossed into a mass grave ala the Holocaust or other cases of genocide. Some of those children died of natural causes and were buried in cemeteries near the school. We'll never know how many died from abuse or neglect vs. getting sick, etc. But it certainly wasn't all of them. These thousands of deaths occurred over multiple decades at numerous locations.
From the Wikipedia entry:
On June 30, 2021, the leadership of ʔaq̓am (a member of the Ktunaxa Nation) announced that 182 unmarked grave sites had been identified in a cemetery in their community adjacent to the site of the former St. Eugene's Mission Residential School.[27] During remedial work around the cemetery in 2020, they came upon an "unknown and unmarked grave", and set about to use ground-penetrating radar to identify additional unmarked graves. The graves were marked with wooden crosses which eventually burned or rotted away, resulting in them being unmarked.[64]
The graveyard dates to 1865, before the construction of the school, and has been continuously used for burials by the local settler and indigenous community, including for the St. Eugene Hospital, which operated from 1874 to 1899. The residential school was in operation from 1912 to 1970, and a press release from the First Nation stated that, due to the site's history, it is "extremely difficult to establish whether or not these unmarked graves contain the remains of children who attended the St. Eugene Residential School".[65][64]
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
-
Now back to your regularly scheduledprogram. progrom….
FTFY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom
-
The Kremlin is silencing ultranationalist milbloggers while RU losses in southern Ukraine are escalating as are logistical problems and mounting casualties among newly mobilized civilians - that's how bad things look from their perspective.
-
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/how-the-crimean-bridge-explosion-caused-multiple-spans-to-collapse-11-10-2022/ Looks like the Crimea Bridge attack was very well planned and executed. I would have just said that every span was independent, but it seems they were in groups of four and the explosion managed to take out four spans and a fuel train at the same time. It is one of the most effective single explosions in history I'd say. I'm sure there have been several, but probably top ten. Ironically if the Russians don't repair the rail bridge we won't know for along time if it is too seriously damaged to have any chance to pass a train, or they are just incompetent.
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/15/1129321544/russia-soldiers-shooting-training-belgorod
I'm no expert on this, but I haven't previously heard of shootings like this in Russia. Civil unrest maybe?
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/15/1129321544/russia-soldiers-shooting-training-belgorod
I'm no expert on this, but I haven't previously heard of shootings like this in Russia. Civil unrest maybe?
The mobilization has been hugely unpopular. Constant stories of crap equipment or no equipment being issued out, mobilized troops getting no training, uncaring leadership telling them to their faces that they're fodder, but there's plenty of alcohol available. Rub these factors together, give everyone live ammo, and somebody was going to snap.
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/15/1129321544/russia-soldiers-shooting-training-belgorod
I'm no expert on this, but I haven't previously heard of shootings like this in Russia. Civil unrest maybe?
The mobilization has been hugely unpopular. Constant stories of crap equipment or no equipment being issued out, mobilized troops getting no training, uncaring leadership telling them to their faces that they're fodder, but there's plenty of alcohol available. Rub these factors together, give everyone live ammo, and somebody was going to snap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/16/russia-mobilization-men/
Yeah, the mobilization might massively backfire on Putin.
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/15/1129321544/russia-soldiers-shooting-training-belgorod
I'm no expert on this, but I haven't previously heard of shootings like this in Russia. Civil unrest maybe?
The mobilization has been hugely unpopular. Constant stories of crap equipment or no equipment being issued out, mobilized troops getting no training, uncaring leadership telling them to their faces that they're fodder, but there's plenty of alcohol available. Rub these factors together, give everyone live ammo, and somebody was going to snap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/16/russia-mobilization-men/
Yeah, the mobilization might massively backfire on Putin.
Grim conditions at the front for the mobiks:
Dmitri
@wartranslated
This intercepted call reveals how defensive lines operate for the Russians: first in the line are convicts guarded by mobiks in the second line, who are in turn guarded by regular forces.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1581601563432603648
Edit:
transcript:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1581607312665427968.html
-
… the explosives were loaded on 22 pallets, shipped through Bulgaria, Armenia, and Georgia before crossing into Russia...
I read that, too. I was struck by the nonsense of the countries. So explosives originated in Bulgaria, magically jumped across Turkey to Armenia, a landlocked country in the Caucasus, then Georgia, Russia, and on to Crimea. I guess that airfreight is possible, but it seems improbable and subject to more scrutiny.
That said, someone should smuggle more high explosives out of Bulgaria and into Armenia, through Georgia, and then blow up something else.
In other news, I read a story about how the Russians are essentially abducting and re-homing Ukrainian children. What kind of evil culture does the stuff that Russia is doing in Ukraine? If there’s a hell, a whole lot of Russians have been locking in their reservations.
The problem is that they've been lied to so much that when they get to hell, they'll think it's heaven.
Now that is a great and spot on quote.
-
Putin " I want to sit down and talk about a resolution" while sending kamikaze drones into Kiev. Classic Putin.
-
Putin " I want to sit down and talk about a resolution" while sending kamikaze drones into Kiev. Classic Putin.
I guess it means that he really doesn't want to talk.
There seems to be kind of a blackout on battle news. I think Ukraine is making a big push in Kherson. Russians have taken their bosses out of the area which is a good indication. However, they hold to their principles (or lack thereof) as this story demonstrates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/16/russian-troops-kill-ukrainian-musician-yuriy-kerpatenko-for-refusing-role-in-kherson-concert (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/16/russian-troops-kill-ukrainian-musician-yuriy-kerpatenko-for-refusing-role-in-kherson-concert)
-
The last time Ukraine had this sort of media blackout, they had telegraphed (for several weeks!) that a big offensive was coming in Kherson. Instead, that's when they hit hard in the Kharkiv region and took Kupyansk, Izyum, and Lyman.
Personally, I don't think Kherson is going to get hit this time, either. From what I've heard, Russia has their strongest defenses there, including building concrete fortifications and the greater density of personnel.
A few other options:
1) With the Kerch Strait bridge still out of action, a drive to Melitopol would cut off all of the Russian armed forces in the Kherson region from any resupply or reinforcement. At 55 miles to the bay, that might be too big of a bite to take.
2) A 35-mile drive down the west bank of the Dnieper river to Nova Kakhovka would cut off the Russian's only permanent supply line (over the dam), but I'm guessing the Russians recognize that vulnerability as well and have dug in appropriately.
3) A big push to isolate/recapture Svatove and Kreminna? That distance is much shorter, and (again, from what I've heard) Russia's forces are far more sparse there than in Kherson. That's a big juicy resupply route for Russian forces in the northeast. It's not as glorious as the other two options, and the Russians have had a few weeks reprieve to dig in.
-
Toots wasn’t surprised by the atrocities committed in Bucha. Nor were any other of the counterintelligence agents I interviewed in Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. They’re aware of how Russians conducted themselves in the Baltics during the Second World War. Of how they conducted themselves before that. Of how they’ve always behaved. The West lacks such awareness.
„[The West is] fortunate,“ Toots remarks. „We’re a buffer between them and Russia. They’ve forgotten a lot and think Russia is just like them.“
The quote above is from an estonian interview with some baltic intelligence officers. Very interesting read.
https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120083694/human-life-has-no-value-there-baltic-counterintelligence-officers-speak-candidly-about-russian-cruelty
(the page layout is a bit messy but the reading mode of the Edge web browser actually cleaned it up nicely).
-
Good read:
Principled legal, moral, and ethical considerations require supporting Ukraine’s efforts to regain its lost lands and people and should not be dismissed. The aim of this essay has been to show that purely military realities and strategic considerations lead to the same conclusion. If Ukraine is to emerge from this war able to defend itself against a future Russian attack and with a viable economy that does not rely on long-term international financial support, it must liberate almost all its territory.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-16
-
Toots wasn’t surprised by the atrocities committed in Bucha. Nor were any other of the counterintelligence agents I interviewed in Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. They’re aware of how Russians conducted themselves in the Baltics during the Second World War. Of how they conducted themselves before that. Of how they’ve always behaved. The West lacks such awareness.
„[The West is] fortunate,“ Toots remarks. „We’re a buffer between them and Russia. They’ve forgotten a lot and think Russia is just like them.“
The quote above is from an estonian interview with some baltic intelligence officers. Very interesting read.
https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120083694/human-life-has-no-value-there-baltic-counterintelligence-officers-speak-candidly-about-russian-cruelty
(the page layout is a bit messy but the reading mode of the Edge web browser actually cleaned it up nicely).
Very interesting article. It emphasizes that the Russian culture is quite different. From the article:
For Russia, both sides winning equals a loss,“ remarks an Estonian entrepreneur who has organized complex business transactions with Russians for decades. „They need for there to always be winners and losers, even when negotiating.“ And only they may come out on top.
„There, diplomacy is a sign of weakness,“ says Mežviets. „Russia only recognizes force. It’s hard for the West to understand, as Westerners hold different values and believe that others do as well.“
Jauniškis compares contemporary Russian society to the medieval Mongols. Though Lithuania once joined forces with Russian princes to counter the Mongolian hordes, he feels that Russia switched sides given the behavior of its officers and soldiers alike. „They’re animals,“ he frankly states.
This article helps make the recent behavior of Russians make sense. It's hard to figure how it can just be one crazy guy at the top allowing all this evil to happen. The Russians have done some nasty stuff throughout the years and the article says they've never really had to come to terms with their brutal actions. It wasn't in the article but I've read elsewhere that the Russians sort of see themselves as the successors of the ancient Romans. They aren't into the Capitalism thing as much as the conquering thing.
-
Toots wasn’t surprised by the atrocities committed in Bucha. Nor were any other of the counterintelligence agents I interviewed in Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. They’re aware of how Russians conducted themselves in the Baltics during the Second World War. Of how they conducted themselves before that. Of how they’ve always behaved. The West lacks such awareness.
„[The West is] fortunate,“ Toots remarks. „We’re a buffer between them and Russia. They’ve forgotten a lot and think Russia is just like them.“
The quote above is from an estonian interview with some baltic intelligence officers. Very interesting read.
https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120083694/human-life-has-no-value-there-baltic-counterintelligence-officers-speak-candidly-about-russian-cruelty
(the page layout is a bit messy but the reading mode of the Edge web browser actually cleaned it up nicely).
Very interesting article. It emphasizes that the Russian culture is quite different. From the article:
For Russia, both sides winning equals a loss,“ remarks an Estonian entrepreneur who has organized complex business transactions with Russians for decades. „They need for there to always be winners and losers, even when negotiating.“ And only they may come out on top.
„There, diplomacy is a sign of weakness,“ says Mežviets. „Russia only recognizes force. It’s hard for the West to understand, as Westerners hold different values and believe that others do as well.“
Jauniškis compares contemporary Russian society to the medieval Mongols. Though Lithuania once joined forces with Russian princes to counter the Mongolian hordes, he feels that Russia switched sides given the behavior of its officers and soldiers alike. „They’re animals,“ he frankly states.
This article helps make the recent behavior of Russians make sense. It's hard to figure how it can just be one crazy guy at the top allowing all this evil to happen. The Russians have done some nasty stuff throughout the years and the article says they've never really had to come to terms with their brutal actions. It wasn't in the article but I've read elsewhere that the Russians sort of see themselves as the successors of the ancient Romans. They aren't into the Capitalism thing as much as the conquering thing.
Yes. It's not "Putin's war". It's Russia's war.
-
Putin " I want to sit down and talk about a resolution" while sending kamikaze drones into Kiev. Classic Putin.
No, as before he is open to talks. Ukraine only needs to stop fighting, kick Selensky out and remove all trops from the annexed land. Then peace talks are no problem at all.
1) With the Kerch Strait bridge still out of action, a drive to Melitopol would cut off all of the Russian armed forces in the Kherson region from any resupply or reinforcement. At 55 miles to the bay, that might be too big of a bite to take.
Right when the counterattack started I wrote that it looks like Ukraine is trying to 3-split the the Russian territory (to make supply even harder) according to where the fights happened. A south part, a north part and an east part. They already took (most of) the north part.
One of the prime targets for such a wedge is Melitupol. It is the most likely target now, including for PR, but of course the Russians know that too. If Melitupol is taken, it will become impossible to hold the south if the bridge is taken down. And after the South is taken back, it's time for the East, attacked from 2 sides.
-
Putin " I want to sit down and talk about a resolution" while sending kamikaze drones into Kiev. Classic Putin.
No, as before he is open to talks. Ukraine only needs to stop fighting, kick Selensky out and remove all trops from the annexed land. Then peace talks are no problem at all.
1) With the Kerch Strait bridge still out of action, a drive to Melitopol would cut off all of the Russian armed forces in the Kherson region from any resupply or reinforcement. At 55 miles to the bay, that might be too big of a bite to take.
Right when the counterattack started I wrote that it looks like Ukraine is trying to 3-split the the Russian territory (to make supply even harder) according to where the fights happened. A south part, a north part and an east part. They already took (most of) the north part.
One of the prime targets for such a wedge is Melitupol. It is the most likely target now, including for PR, but of course the Russians know that too. If Melitupol is taken, it will become impossible to hold the south if the bridge is taken down. And after the South is taken back, it's time for the East, attacked from 2 sides.
None of it is Russian territory. It is all part of Ukraine. Russian invaders merely hold the land. They now threaten nuclear war over that land.
-
Putin " I want to sit down and talk about a resolution" while sending kamikaze drones into Kiev. Classic Putin.
No, as before he is open to talks. Ukraine only needs to stop fighting, kick Selensky out and remove all trops from the annexed land. Then peace talks are no problem at all.
1) With the Kerch Strait bridge still out of action, a drive to Melitopol would cut off all of the Russian armed forces in the Kherson region from any resupply or reinforcement. At 55 miles to the bay, that might be too big of a bite to take.
Right when the counterattack started I wrote that it looks like Ukraine is trying to 3-split the the Russian territory (to make supply even harder) according to where the fights happened. A south part, a north part and an east part. They already took (most of) the north part.
One of the prime targets for such a wedge is Melitupol. It is the most likely target now, including for PR, but of course the Russians know that too. If Melitupol is taken, it will become impossible to hold the south if the bridge is taken down. And after the South is taken back, it's time for the East, attacked from 2 sides.
None of it is Russian territory. It is all part of Ukraine. Russian invaders merely hold the land. They now threaten nuclear war over that land.
Perhaps "Russian-held territory" would have been a more correct term?
-
There is no reason to panic, none at all:
Francis Scarr
@francis_scarr
In a late-night address posted on Telegram, Russian-installed Kherson official Kirill Stremousov calls for people to "evacuate the city as quickly as possible" and says Ukraine "will begin an offensive on the city of Kherson very soon"
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1582472381519781888
-
There is no reason to panic, none at all:
Francis Scarr
@francis_scarr
In a late-night address posted on Telegram, Russian-installed Kherson official Kirill Stremousov calls for people to "evacuate the city as quickly as possible" and says Ukraine "will begin an offensive on the city of Kherson very soon"
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1582472381519781888
Hearing such things makes me *really* hope that Kherson is once again a feint and that Russia is once again falling for it.
-
There is no reason to panic, none at all:
Francis Scarr
@francis_scarr
In a late-night address posted on Telegram, Russian-installed Kherson official Kirill Stremousov calls for people to "evacuate the city as quickly as possible" and says Ukraine "will begin an offensive on the city of Kherson very soon"
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1582472381519781888
Hearing such things makes me *really* hope that Kherson is once again a feint and that Russia is once again falling for it.
The Ukrainians have shown, repeatedly and consistently that two facts are true:
1. They understand Russia
2. They are the masters of trolling Russia.
Them trolling Russia over Kherson I can easily believe. We'll see what happens.
-
This is an excellent article on Putin's mindset (and thinking about nuclear use):
https://www.justsecurity.org/83605/addressing-putins-nuclear-threat-thinking-like-the-cold-war-kgb-officer-that-he-was/
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-presidential-adviser-condemns-putins-martial-law-declaration-2022-10-19/
Putin declares martial law in the four annexed regions of Ukraine.
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-presidential-adviser-condemns-putins-martial-law-declaration-2022-10-19/
Putin declares martial law in the four annexed regions of Ukraine.
Makes sense. Martial law is the best way to control a populace that is ecstatic to have been saved from a terrible fate. Otherwise you would have jubilant parties breaking out everywhere.
-
Lawrence Freedman on the whole "resolve this via negotiations" angle:
https://samf.substack.com/p/getting-to-negotiations?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-presidential-adviser-condemns-putins-martial-law-declaration-2022-10-19/
Putin declares martial law in the four annexed regions of Ukraine.
Makes sense. Martial law is the best way to control a populace that is ecstatic to have been saved from a terrible fate. Otherwise you would have jubilant parties breaking out everywhere.
And yet he is encouraging people to leave, apparently. Or maybe just making it look like he's saving his people because they're fleeing in droves anyway.
-
Is it wrong to say that NATO is now in an undeclared war with Russia?
It sure seems like it with $18B in weapons and military aid from just the U.S. this year with no end in sight.
-
Is it wrong to say that NATO is now in an undeclared war with Russia?
It sure seems like it with $18B in weapons and military aid from just the U.S. this year with no end in sight.
$18B is like 2% of US military spending and is less than what the military spends on management consulting (est $21B in 2022). (but yes, in a sense, the confrontation with Russia is associated with the long-term US objective to build and maintain a unipolar world order vs. an attempt by some regional powers to usher in a multipolar world order--it's not just about Russia but China as well)
-
Is it wrong to say that NATO is now in an undeclared war with Russia?
It sure seems like it with $18B in weapons and military aid from just the U.S. this year with no end in sight.
Yes it would be wrong. Saying NATO is at war is absurd.
-
Is it wrong to say that NATO is now in an undeclared war with Russia?
It sure seems like it with $18B in weapons and military aid from just the U.S. this year with no end in sight.
This is pocket change for the US military.
They get to test out these weapons to see what works and what don't. No US personnel get hurt and they get Ukraine to test out all the toys.
-
Is it wrong to say that NATO is now in an undeclared war with Russia?
It sure seems like it with $18B in weapons and military aid from just the U.S. this year with no end in sight.
Yes it would be wrong. Saying NATO is at war is absurd.
Last time I looked we still had elections here in Germany, so we are not, and we are part of NATO.
-
Is it wrong to say that NATO is now in an undeclared war with Russia?
It sure seems like it with $18B in weapons and military aid from just the U.S. this year with no end in sight.
This is pocket change for the US military.
They get to test out these weapons to see what works and what don't. No US personnel get hurt and they get Ukraine to test out all the toys.
Indeed. On top of that, we're seeing most of Russia's military capabilities wiped out at a steep discount.
-
Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic today but the U.S. never declared war in Afghanistan either, and it turned into a 20 year conflict where the Taliban ended back in control just like when it started.
I know we do not have any U.S. soldiers fighting on the ground, yet, but I feel we can't walk away from this either and let the Russians win. So, how many years until one side says, Enough?
-
Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic today but the U.S. never declared war in Afghanistan either, and it turned into a 20 year conflict where the Taliban ended back in control just like when it started.
I know we do not have any U.S. soldiers fighting on the ground, yet, but I feel we can't walk away from this either and let the Russians win. So, how many years until one side says, Enough?
It's been 8 years already since Russia invaded. They did the same thing in Georgia back in 2008 - they just didn't try to go all the way. However, Russia still has de facto control of chunks of Georgia and will probably never let them go.
I think Ukraine will eventually push Russia back. Maybe not completely back to pre-2014 borders but probably back to pre-2022 borders. Ukraine continues to get more advanced weapon systems while Russia is now bringing out 50–60-year-old systems like T-64s. Also, Russia can only project so much power into Ukraine while Ukraine is literally fighting for their country and can easily mobilize larger numbers of troops despite a lower population base.
This is exactly on strategy for the US in trying to keep any other power from controlling the Eurasian continent. It also fits nicely into our normal strategy of having allies do the bulk of the fighting. For tens of billions of dollars, we're achieving something that would have cost 10-100 times that if we had US Soldiers fighting Russia. Plus, that would be much more likely to end with nuclear war.
-
Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic today but the U.S. never declared war in Afghanistan either, and it turned into a 20 year conflict where the Taliban ended back in control just like when it started.
I know we do not have any U.S. soldiers fighting on the ground, yet, but I feel we can't walk away from this either and let the Russians win. So, how many years until one side says, Enough?
As long as the Ukrainians are not losing, I don't think the current level can be maintained by Russia for more than a year. Too many dead soldiers. Even in Russia that is going to turn the political tide eventually. And if they lower it, Ukraine will win.
-
A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...
-
Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic today but the U.S. never declared war in Afghanistan either, and it turned into a 20 year conflict where the Taliban ended back in control just like when it started.
I know we do not have any U.S. soldiers fighting on the ground, yet, but I feel we can't walk away from this either and let the Russians win. So, how many years until one side says, Enough?
Very different situations.
In Afgan, the US try to help them build and sustain a self government but they weren't very strong. As soon as the US left, the Taliban was able were able to take control of the country very easily.
In Ukraine, a strong democratic government are already in place. They just need to help them push the Russian out.
-
A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...
I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
But I agree with Biden. Last time Russia took Crimea with little effort. You got to stand up to the bullies or there's consequences for the futures.
-
I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
That might be what they are saying, but it is bullshit. Aid to Ukraine is not unlimited. Congress holds the power of the purse. All the aid sent to Ukraine was approved by Congress first.
Here's the reality: There is a strong faction in the United States that are fans of right-wing authoritarianism. Viktor Orbán, prime minister of Hungary is famous for his white, Christian, nationalist views, which include anti-LGBT and anti-immigration platforms and he as used to tools of state power to silence dissenting voices. Orban of course spoke a CPAC this summer where he gave a speech that was wildly racist even by his standards. Orban plays golf with Trump and Tucker Carlson heaps praise on him.
You know else who is famous for his white, Christian, nationalist views, which include anti-LGBT and anti-immigration platforms and he as used to tools of state power to silence dissenting voices? Putin. Trump and Tucker Carlson have also heaped praise on Putin and have blamed the US for the war in Ukraine.
If you look at the legislators who voted against the aid packages, all of them had white, Christian, nationalist views. Many of them are on the record as being admirers of Orban and to a lesser extent Putin. They are secretly rooting for Putin to win, and in some cases not so secretly.
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
And Trump got himself impeached for his actions related to Ukraine. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49800181
Don't listen to what they say. Look at what they do. Past behavior is a far better predictor of future actions.
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
Putin didn't need to. Trump was busy pulling out of everywhere enough to give Russia a lot of free reign (see Syria rapid withdrawal, talk of leaving NATO, etc). Besides, why invade when you can make a country self destruct by exploiting exsiting divisions? Russian meddling in the US election 2016 (of which there is no serious debate about it having happened) was far from benign.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
Republicans and Democrats alike were firm for decades about disliking Russian (originally Soviet) invasions and other Soviet / Russian machinations. This only changed during the Trump era, when Trump's liking for Putin swayed some of the base into being more Russian-friendly.
The poster who pointed out that aid to Ukraine has been Congressionally approved, not Biden mandated, is correct afaik. I suspect that's because traditional Repubs in Congress joined Dems in supporting Ukraine's resistance to the new Russian invasion this year.
As time passed, the Trump wing began rumbling against this but has not reached a majority in Congress. This friendly attitude toward Russian invasion is not something I've seen before from any Republicans in my lifetime (50something). Pre-Trump, I respected the GOP because of it tended to oppose Russian machinations such as invasions and propaganda operations.
It's true that previous administrations of both parties in 2000s did not intervene militarily when Russia invaded Georgia 2008 (GW Bush), Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014 and Donbas in 2014 (Obama). However, Pres Obama instituted economic sanctions.
Re Trump, the Russian invasions of Crimea and Donbas have continued until today, so they were ongoing throughout Trump's term in office. Trump did nothing about them and on other issues was notably friendly to Russia in addition to personally friendly to Putin.
-
I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
That might be what they are saying, but it is bullshit. Aid to Ukraine is not unlimited. Congress holds the power of the purse. All the aid sent to Ukraine was approved by Congress first.
Here's the reality: There is a strong faction in the United States that are fans of right-wing authoritarianism. Viktor Orbán, prime minister of Hungary is famous for his white, Christian, nationalist views, which include anti-LGBT and anti-immigration platforms and he as used to tools of state power to silence dissenting voices. Orban of course spoke a CPAC this summer where he gave a speech that was wildly racist even by his standards. Orban plays golf with Trump and Tucker Carlson heaps praise on him.
You know else who is famous for his white, Christian, nationalist views, which include anti-LGBT and anti-immigration platforms and he as used to tools of state power to silence dissenting voices? Putin. Trump and Tucker Carlson have also heaped praise on Putin and have blamed the US for the war in Ukraine.
If you look at the legislators who voted against the aid packages, all of them had white, Christian, nationalist views. Many of them are on the record as being admirers of Orban and to a lesser extent Putin. They are secretly rooting for Putin to win, and in some cases not so secretly.
I kinda agree with you.
I have hope that not all Republicans share this view.
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
Yes, comrade...
-W
-
Here's the reality: There is a strong faction in the United States that are fans of right-wing authoritarianism. Viktor Orbán, prime minister of Hungary is famous for his white, Christian, nationalist views, which include anti-LGBT and anti-immigration platforms and he as used to tools of state power to silence dissenting voices. Orban of course spoke a CPAC this summer where he gave a speech that was wildly racist even by his standards. Orban plays golf with Trump and Tucker Carlson heaps praise on him.
I think you're mistaken; Orban's CPAC speech was rather subdued in this regard. You might be thinking of his Tusvanyos speech where he talks about race-mixing (https://youtu.be/QyNVFIo23Bg?t=1092), though after the backlash, he suggested (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-orban-says-his-anti-immigration-stance-not-rooted-racism-after-backlash-2022-07-28/) that in a clearer expression of his views, he would have emphasized culture instead of race. In the broader context of his commentary, that explanation makes sense, but it's also possible he said the quiet part loud amid that incredible sea of Transylvanian straw hats.
FWIW his comments on Ukraine start around the 31m mark, and no surprises there (but why would a nationalist believe a country like Ukraine can't ponder NATO membership simply because Russia said so?).
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
This is a load of BS that could fertilize the Sinai.
First, there isn't a fixed amount of money the federal government can spend. If we so decide we can secure our borders (whatever you define that) and support Ukraine. Saying otherwise is total BS.
Next, if you look at their words and actions, many Republicans are pro-Putin, including Trump. And many others who haven't embraced Putin publicly embrace his white Christian nationalist views. Again, see Tucker Carlson.
And by the way, your memory does not serve correctly.
-
The ball/roller bearing issue has been known for a while but may only now be at the point that the bite is starting to be felt:
Russia is currently looking at a risk of collapse of their train network. Russia has taken 10,000 freight cars out of service, with 200,000 more at risk (read the linked article for good details). Russia is already reporting a huge shortage of ball bearings by year end, but even that number is overstated: “Until the end of the year, the shortage of bearings will be about 100,000 units, and this is provided that Russian manufacturers supply 95,000 units. But whether import substitution is possible in principle remains unclear.” Import substitution is the idea that things they used to import, like ball bearings, can be made in Russia. Over and over again for the past decades, Russia has proven that it falls down on Import substitution; they either completely fail to produce the needed good, or the locally made goods are of insanely lower standards.
The problem of ball bearings could bring Russia to the table after Ukraine pushes their troops out of Ukraine–with clear military failure, the continuing collapse of the Russian rail network threatens the stability of their entire empire.
Two cheers for Sweden and their serious industrial blockade of a most needed part.
https://perceptionmoney.com/2022/10/25/sweden-making-ball-bearings-great-again/
-
The ball/roller bearing issue has been known for a while but may only now be at the point that the bite is starting to be felt:
Russia is currently looking at a risk of collapse of their train network. Russia has taken 10,000 freight cars out of service, with 200,000 more at risk (read the linked article for good details). Russia is already reporting a huge shortage of ball bearings by year end, but even that number is overstated: “Until the end of the year, the shortage of bearings will be about 100,000 units, and this is provided that Russian manufacturers supply 95,000 units. But whether import substitution is possible in principle remains unclear.” Import substitution is the idea that things they used to import, like ball bearings, can be made in Russia. Over and over again for the past decades, Russia has proven that it falls down on Import substitution; they either completely fail to produce the needed good, or the locally made goods are of insanely lower standards.
The problem of ball bearings could bring Russia to the table after Ukraine pushes their troops out of Ukraine–with clear military failure, the continuing collapse of the Russian rail network threatens the stability of their entire empire.
Two cheers for Sweden and their serious industrial blockade of a most needed part.
https://perceptionmoney.com/2022/10/25/sweden-making-ball-bearings-great-again/
Seems like it would be fairly easy for Russia to order bearings from China. All of those high speed trains must need good bearings.
https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/ (https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/)
-
The ball/roller bearing issue has been known for a while but may only now be at the point that the bite is starting to be felt:
Russia is currently looking at a risk of collapse of their train network. Russia has taken 10,000 freight cars out of service, with 200,000 more at risk (read the linked article for good details). Russia is already reporting a huge shortage of ball bearings by year end, but even that number is overstated: “Until the end of the year, the shortage of bearings will be about 100,000 units, and this is provided that Russian manufacturers supply 95,000 units. But whether import substitution is possible in principle remains unclear.” Import substitution is the idea that things they used to import, like ball bearings, can be made in Russia. Over and over again for the past decades, Russia has proven that it falls down on Import substitution; they either completely fail to produce the needed good, or the locally made goods are of insanely lower standards.
The problem of ball bearings could bring Russia to the table after Ukraine pushes their troops out of Ukraine–with clear military failure, the continuing collapse of the Russian rail network threatens the stability of their entire empire.
Two cheers for Sweden and their serious industrial blockade of a most needed part.
https://perceptionmoney.com/2022/10/25/sweden-making-ball-bearings-great-again/
Seems like it would be fairly easy for Russia to order bearings from China. All of those high speed trains must need good bearings.
https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/ (https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/)
Actually no. I can't remember where I read this earlier this year, but these bearings are surprisingly high tech when it comes to their production and apparently the Chinese or other Russia friendly countries' product cannot hold a candle to SKF and other high end manufacturers.
-
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1586358375389884417 (https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1586358375389884417)
Ukraine launched a UAV/USV attack on the Sevastopol naval base. The damage is still being assessed, but so far it looks like a few ships were damaged as well as a fuel farm near the shore. Russia claimed it was a naval exercise at first, then a couple hours later admitted to the attack (claiming they defeated it), then ordered that all CCTV in Sevastopol be shut off. A few images and videos got out showing black smoke near the fuel farm and berths. And the attached video of a couple of the Ukrainian drone boats.
-
The ball/roller bearing issue has been known for a while but may only now be at the point that the bite is starting to be felt:
Russia is currently looking at a risk of collapse of their train network. Russia has taken 10,000 freight cars out of service, with 200,000 more at risk (read the linked article for good details). Russia is already reporting a huge shortage of ball bearings by year end, but even that number is overstated: “Until the end of the year, the shortage of bearings will be about 100,000 units, and this is provided that Russian manufacturers supply 95,000 units. But whether import substitution is possible in principle remains unclear.” Import substitution is the idea that things they used to import, like ball bearings, can be made in Russia. Over and over again for the past decades, Russia has proven that it falls down on Import substitution; they either completely fail to produce the needed good, or the locally made goods are of insanely lower standards.
The problem of ball bearings could bring Russia to the table after Ukraine pushes their troops out of Ukraine–with clear military failure, the continuing collapse of the Russian rail network threatens the stability of their entire empire.
Two cheers for Sweden and their serious industrial blockade of a most needed part.
https://perceptionmoney.com/2022/10/25/sweden-making-ball-bearings-great-again/
Seems like it would be fairly easy for Russia to order bearings from China. All of those high speed trains must need good bearings.
https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/ (https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/)
Actually no. I can't remember where I read this earlier this year, but these bearings are surprisingly high tech when it comes to their production and apparently the Chinese or other Russia friendly countries' product cannot hold a candle to SKF and other high end manufacturers.
This appears to be the case. Those bearings require very high-quality machining. If Russia could simply switch suppliers they would have done so six months ago. This bearing/flat car shortage was reported originally back in May and appears to be only getting worse.
-
The ball/roller bearing issue has been known for a while but may only now be at the point that the bite is starting to be felt:
Russia is currently looking at a risk of collapse of their train network. Russia has taken 10,000 freight cars out of service, with 200,000 more at risk (read the linked article for good details). Russia is already reporting a huge shortage of ball bearings by year end, but even that number is overstated: “Until the end of the year, the shortage of bearings will be about 100,000 units, and this is provided that Russian manufacturers supply 95,000 units. But whether import substitution is possible in principle remains unclear.” Import substitution is the idea that things they used to import, like ball bearings, can be made in Russia. Over and over again for the past decades, Russia has proven that it falls down on Import substitution; they either completely fail to produce the needed good, or the locally made goods are of insanely lower standards.
The problem of ball bearings could bring Russia to the table after Ukraine pushes their troops out of Ukraine–with clear military failure, the continuing collapse of the Russian rail network threatens the stability of their entire empire.
Two cheers for Sweden and their serious industrial blockade of a most needed part.
https://perceptionmoney.com/2022/10/25/sweden-making-ball-bearings-great-again/
Seems like it would be fairly easy for Russia to order bearings from China. All of those high speed trains must need good bearings.
https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/ (https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/)
Actually no. I can't remember where I read this earlier this year, but these bearings are surprisingly high tech when it comes to their production and apparently the Chinese or other Russia friendly countries' product cannot hold a candle to SKF and other high end manufacturers.
This appears to be the case. Those bearings require very high-quality machining. If Russia could simply switch suppliers they would have done so six months ago. This bearing/flat car shortage was reported originally back in May and appears to be only getting worse.
Apparently rail cars do not need roller bearings, plain journal bearings could be used.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,5469820
Disadvantages include much more labor to monitor and fix plain bearings. “Hot boxes” - ie fire in the bearings etc.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,3955147
. Date: 02/07/16 09:27
Re: Norfolk Southern: we dont handle friction bearings
Author: ATSF3751
All make you wonder how those railroads operated friction bearing passenger cars on trains that often reached 90MPH or above. What did they do before the invention of roller bearings?
Date: 02/07/16 10:15
Re: Norfolk Southern: we dont handle friction bearings
Author: ExSPCondr
They were all set up to oil them before they departed every yard, and all trains got a 500 mile inspection in a yard. Trains had cabooses with a brakeman and a conductor in them, an engineer, a fireman and a brakeman on the engine, and another brakeman riding the top of the cars. Engines and cabooses were equipped with "cooling sticks" which would help get a hotbox to the next setout track.
Most of the yards had a complete underground piping system with a fill pipe and a valve that filled the carman's oil can just by raising the lid.
There wasn't a single engined freight locomotive with over 2500 horsepower before 1960.
Unknown to me if retrofiiting is even possible or how difficult retrofitting would be.
-
The ball/roller bearing issue has been known for a while but may only now be at the point that the bite is starting to be felt:
Russia is currently looking at a risk of collapse of their train network. Russia has taken 10,000 freight cars out of service, with 200,000 more at risk (read the linked article for good details). Russia is already reporting a huge shortage of ball bearings by year end, but even that number is overstated: “Until the end of the year, the shortage of bearings will be about 100,000 units, and this is provided that Russian manufacturers supply 95,000 units. But whether import substitution is possible in principle remains unclear.” Import substitution is the idea that things they used to import, like ball bearings, can be made in Russia. Over and over again for the past decades, Russia has proven that it falls down on Import substitution; they either completely fail to produce the needed good, or the locally made goods are of insanely lower standards.
The problem of ball bearings could bring Russia to the table after Ukraine pushes their troops out of Ukraine–with clear military failure, the continuing collapse of the Russian rail network threatens the stability of their entire empire.
Two cheers for Sweden and their serious industrial blockade of a most needed part.
https://perceptionmoney.com/2022/10/25/sweden-making-ball-bearings-great-again/
Seems like it would be fairly easy for Russia to order bearings from China. All of those high speed trains must need good bearings.
https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/ (https://www.china-bearing-manufacturer.com/top-10-bearing-manufacturers-in%E2%80%82china/)
Actually no. I can't remember where I read this earlier this year, but these bearings are surprisingly high tech when it comes to their production and apparently the Chinese or other Russia friendly countries' product cannot hold a candle to SKF and other high end manufacturers.
This remind of the story of how the Chinese had to import the ball point for pens for years.
The government was so embarrassed that they made it a priority to made their own ball point.
It took them 5 years to finally produce one and I can tell you it's still shitty.
-
Lots of very interesting thoughts about Russia and Ukraine in the first section of this presentation. Thanks to @Stasher for pointing me in its direction. Hard to summarize as it was pretty dense, but focus is on commodity flows around the world and how this conflict affects them.
https://youtu.be/UA-jOLF2T4c
-
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1586358375389884417 (https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1586358375389884417)
Ukraine launched a UAV/USV attack on the Sevastopol naval base. The damage is still being assessed, but so far it looks like a few ships were damaged as well as a fuel farm near the shore. Russia claimed it was a naval exercise at first, then a couple hours later admitted to the attack (claiming they defeated it), then ordered that all CCTV in Sevastopol be shut off. A few images and videos got out showing black smoke near the fuel farm and berths. And the attached video of a couple of the Ukrainian drone boats.
Ukraine military released some really good drone point of view video of the strike. Can't be long until we see photos of the damage.
-
Apparently rail cars do not need roller bearings, plain journal bearings could be used.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,5469820
Disadvantages include much more labor to monitor and fix plain bearings. “Hot boxes” - ie fire in the bearings etc.
Oh yeah, the guys from "Well there is your problem" did one which included that. Getting fire on a train bearing was so common no one bat an eye when it happened.
-
So replacing roller bearings on axles would they use a larger version of crankshaft bearings i.e. half shell bearings or the old Babbitt bearings? I've done similar work with antique engines - and nothing complicated about half-shell bearings. Both need alot of lube i.e. oil bath.
I would imagine this could impact military vehicle production and maintenance too?
-
So replacing roller bearings on axles would they use a larger version of crankshaft bearings i.e. half shell bearings or the old Babbitt bearings? I've done similar work with antique engines - and nothing complicated about half-shell bearings. Both need alot of lube i.e. oil bath.
I would imagine this could impact military vehicle production and maintenance too?
They can't steal the bearings from washing machines like chips, I guess.
-
Someone snuck onto a Russian airfield near Latvia, assembled some bombs, and blew up several helicopters. Russia admits to two being damaged. Ukrainian sources state two destroyed and three damaged.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1587182889002827780 (https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1587182889002827780)
https://twitter.com/JohnB_Schneider/status/1587266104371576834 (https://twitter.com/JohnB_Schneider/status/1587266104371576834)
-
This video shows that steel that was directly exposed to the fire is deformed in at least one section of the railway bridge. We also know that the fire was left to burn itself out over several hours:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1578638416194912256
The deformation shown is just the catwalk. Utterly irrelevant to the structural steel holding the bridge up.
Only objective indicator of the temperature at the site of the blaze we have that indicates that a temperature sufficient to affect steel was achieved.
And that is the relevance of the observation.
Reinforced concrete can suffer structural weakness due to expansion of the steel inside the concrete during a fire, but it can take several hours to even begin to cause this type of damage. Even standard building codes (in the West, at least) require structural integrity for up to 4 hours during a building fire. On the other hand, obviously buildings are usually not coated in thousands of gallons of flammable liquid with another couple thousand tons of metal train cars on top. I guess the only way to find out is when someone posts a video of a loaded train going over the damaged section.
This whole episode shows how little aircraft are playing in this war at this point (on both sides).
And there is also the effect of heat on the concrete itself and we know that the temperature in some areas was well above the critical temperature (deformed steel).
We also know that there were high winds creating a furnace effect that is clearly seen on videos and stills and that definitely increased temperature in certain areas.
We know that the fire was left to burn out and that took several hours. Damage to the concrete and steel is determined by exposure time and temperature and given that there was a furnace effect, it must be assumed that extreme temperatures might have developed in spots.
Given all that, it looks to me that the affected spans must be assumed to be structurally unsound.
The Kerch railway bridge has two tracks but they are laid on single spans so the structural problems affect both tracks.
All that said, even assuming that the railway bridge is brought back into service, the attack has revealed that the entire RU operation in southern Ukraine is critically dependent on the Kerch railway bridge: there really is no way to get sufficient supplies to RU forces with the Kerch bridge out of service.
The Kerch bridge attack is a truly catastrophic event for RU that upended the propaganda space by unequivocally demonstrating RU weakness and that massively interferes with the RU effort in southern Ukraine.
Latest bridge damage:
https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA (https://twitter.com/mrkovalenko/status/1579550128930975744?s=21&t=-U-PeAEQwbLAEAENeAcghA)
Interesting. The deformed rails and axles are seen right were the furnace/blowtorch effect, seen in the footage from the fire, would be expected to be: between the underside of the car and above the rails. There might be some ugly problems lurking there.
The surviving section of road bridge doesn't look too clever either.
And the steel of at least one undercarriage has clearly melted, indicating 2200+ degrees Fahrenheit for an extended period of time in that particular area.
Looks like there is now confirmation that the Kerch railway bridge and the road bridges are going to be out of service for the duration of the war with repairs not expected to be completed until late 2023:
https://twitter.com/am_misfit/status/1588697303300177921
-
You are a brave man to predict the end date of the war, I'm not seeing anyone else doing that.
-
You are a brave man to predict the end date of the war, I'm not seeing anyone else doing that.
Actually I do not predict the timing of the end of the war.
The dates given by Russia for the repairs to be finished are not to be believed but they are an indicator how severely the railroad bridge is damaged.
I seriously doubt that Russia has the capability to finish a major construction project in an active war zone under deteriorating conditions and in a logistical stranglehold.
So my prediction is that the bridges will most likely not be brought back and Ukraine will see to that - however long the war may last.
-
With Russia hitting electric and water infrastructure, is there any effort to send parts and materials to repair them? You can't replace a crushed pipe if you don't have a new pipe to put in, and I'm sure Ukraine's going to run low at some point.
-
With Russia hitting electric and water infrastructure, is there any effort to send parts and materials to repair them? You can't replace a crushed pipe if you don't have a new pipe to put in, and I'm sure Ukraine's going to run low at some point.
It's not like there are no pipes produced or imported. Much of this happens hundreds of Kilometers away from the front, and if they can repair and repaint a missiled 6 storey housing block in a few month under these conditions, they certainly can replace a few pipes. It's not like the Russians are blowing up long lines under the ground from one town to the other.
More problematic will be specialized equipment like pumps and high voltage uh.. transformer station machines? Those are relativly rare, can't be produced from one day to the other and can be really heavy. Like special transport, close the streets heavy.
More dangerous is the winter, when because of such damage to pump stations or the elctricty grid the pipes freeze and get destroyed in a large area.
-
With Russia hitting electric and water infrastructure, is there any effort to send parts and materials to repair them? You can't replace a crushed pipe if you don't have a new pipe to put in, and I'm sure Ukraine's going to run low at some point.
It's not like there are no pipes produced or imported. Much of this happens hundreds of Kilometers away from the front, and if they can repair and repaint a missiled 6 storey housing block in a few month under these conditions, they certainly can replace a few pipes. It's not like the Russians are blowing up long lines under the ground from one town to the other.
More problematic will be specialized equipment like pumps and high voltage uh.. transformer station machines? Those are relativly rare, can't be produced from one day to the other and can be really heavy. Like special transport, close the streets heavy.
More dangerous is the winter, when because of such damage to pump stations or the elctricty grid the pipes freeze and get destroyed in a large area.
Several years ago I did a lot of work in electrical substations. The lead time after ordering major circuit breakers of transformers could be a year or more until the item(s) were delivered. I doubt whether the world's manufacturing capacity has changed greatly since that time.
-
With Russia hitting electric and water infrastructure, is there any effort to send parts and materials to repair them? You can't replace a crushed pipe if you don't have a new pipe to put in, and I'm sure Ukraine's going to run low at some point.
Short answer yes. There was a press release by Germany or somebody a couple days ago mentioning the replacement of electrical infrastructure. What that will require or how long it will take is anybody's guess.
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine. The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand. Experience is the best teacher.
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine. The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand. Experience is the best teacher.
But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.
-
A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...
I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
But I agree with Biden. Last time Russia took Crimea with little effort. You got to stand up to the bullies or there's consequences for the futures.
Well, you would be wrong. "Unlimited funds" "Biden" - LOL. Go back and read a few posts. Total so far is 2% of the annual US military budget - on top of that, a heck of a lot of the stuff we're sending was either nearing expiration (and thus needing disposal soon) - or in deep storage, unlikely to ever be used. Plus, the spending so far has nearly all been approved by Congress, including many Republicans.
Do you somehow think spending 4% of our military budget a year to massively degrade Russia's military capabilities could be better spent elsewhere? If so, please be clear about what it is and why other parts of the military budget shouldn't be used. Degrading the capability of a long-time enemy military without any casualties?
Biden has sole authority over Lend-Lease, but hasn't used that authority at all yet.
-
Some Republicans are just wanting equal money to secure our own border before sending 10's of billions to Ukraine to secure theirs. Yes, the Ukraine people are suffering and we should help, but the Repubs are not being pro-Russia. If memory serves me correctly, only during one President has Putin NOT invaded a neighbor...During the Trump administration.
This is a load of BS that could fertilize the Sinai.
First, there isn't a fixed amount of money the federal government can spend. If we so decide we can secure our borders (whatever you define that) and support Ukraine. Saying otherwise is total BS.
If you look at actual arrests for border violations - in less than 2 years the Biden administration has done more to secure the border than the entire 4 years of Trump.
Sure Trump and the Republicans blathered about border security - but they were too busy shoveling pork for ineffective segments of fencing to actually work at securing the border.
-
Timothy Snyder
@TimothyDSnyder
Levin Professor of History at Yale. Author of "On Tyranny," with 20 new lessons on Ukraine, "Our Malady," "Road to Unfreedom," "Black Earth," and "Bloodlands"
I have been hearing the idea from some Republicans that Ukrainian resistance comes at a cost to Americans. Nothing could be more wrong. Ukrainian resistance provides extraordinary security benefits to Americans.
In fact, Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s genocidal invasion does more for American security than any American policy does – or could do. It has changed the global balance in a way that makes peace more likely in decades to come.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1589260108537610240.html?fbclid=IwAR3OZ13522ugOWbhZfxW_OsVu9LtCMn0fkxC3NSjno0ng-41v48vZ0ykWRo
-
Timothy Snyder
@TimothyDSnyder
Levin Professor of History at Yale. Author of "On Tyranny," with 20 new lessons on Ukraine, "Our Malady," "Road to Unfreedom," "Black Earth," and "Bloodlands"
He was also featured on a recent podcast with Sam Harris the other day - very interesting listen. Only first hour available outside of paywall, but still interesting I think.
-
A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...
I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
But I agree with Biden. Last time Russia took Crimea with little effort. You got to stand up to the bullies or there's consequences for the futures.
Well, you would be wrong. "Unlimited funds" "Biden" - LOL. Go back and read a few posts. Total so far is 2% of the annual US military budget - on top of that, a heck of a lot of the stuff we're sending was either nearing expiration (and thus needing disposal soon) - or in deep storage, unlikely to ever be used. Plus, the spending so far has nearly all been approved by Congress, including many Republicans.
Do you somehow think spending 4% of our military budget a year to massively degrade Russia's military capabilities could be better spent elsewhere? If so, please be clear about what it is and why other parts of the military budget shouldn't be used. Degrading the capability of a long-time enemy military without any casualties?
Biden has sole authority over Lend-Lease, but hasn't used that authority at all yet.
So - after they have been greatly degraded will there be scavengers picking at Russia? I could see driving the troops from Transnistria. I could see them leaving Georgia. Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own. I could see a "Land for Peace" deal.
-
Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.
Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.
My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.
I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).
-
Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.
Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.
My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.
I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).
China and Russia at war? Interesting (somewhat distressing) concept.
I had been assuming that over time, China would buy out Russia's interests in a range of locations and domains, while hiring Russia in some form to its bidding. Had been assuming that various agreements or deals preserving a shred of Russian dignity and a shred or more of Russian sovereignty would be the mechanism putting China in charge of key assets, and directing Russian energy / weapons / identity into actions that serve Chinese interests.
I suppose there's room for a clash to take the shape of war. It seems inefficient but I guess it's possible. Certainly your point about regaining face-saving historically linked territory from the easier donor / victim makes sense; will keep in mind.
-
Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.
Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.
My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.
I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).
China and Russia at war? Interesting (somewhat distressing) concept.
I had been assuming that over time, China would buy out Russia's interests in a range of locations and domains, while hiring Russia in some form to its bidding. Had been assuming that various agreements or deals preserving a shred of Russian dignity and a shred or more of Russian sovereignty would be the mechanism putting China in charge of key assets, and directing Russian energy / weapons / identity into actions that serve Chinese interests.
I suppose there's room for a clash to take the shape of war. It seems inefficient but I guess it's possible. Certainly your point about regaining face-saving historically linked territory from the easier donor / victim makes sense; will keep in mind.
Wars are mot all fought violently. China has 1.4 billion people . It needs to produce for its populace and the world. Russia has all those resources that it's 144 million people do not develop for use by the world. Russia may be cash strapped after this war. Putin has killed the golden goose. Europe will be reticent to buy its products. A deal among friends will allow Chinese development of their former land. Chinese labor will be allowed on Russian soil to perform that development. At the beginning of the deal, it will seem like a win win. However after all those Chinese live on that land, it will become de facto Chinese. Then perhaps a part of China. This is something China has done throughout history. Remember Genghis Khan was not Chinese, but Kublai Khan was Chinese. The Mongol invaders had been assimilated.
-
Well, Kyiv's mayor is warning citizens to prepare for potentially a winter without water, power or heat. Hopefully, they can quietly evacuate at least some of the most vulnerable. And also hopefully the infrastructure damage can be stopped. I'm rooting for Ukraine still.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/06/kyiv-winter-water-heat-power-ukraine-russia-00065327
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine. The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand. Experience is the best teacher.
There are a number of YouTube, Twitter, Telegram and other media outlets the Ukrainians are using effectively to convey the situation on the ground. Fortunately with shared languages even Russians can tune in if they have internet access. Many of the videos have closed captions in English.
https://www.youtube.com/c/HromadskeTvUkraine
I'll still eager for Ukraine to succeed too. Hopefully Russia will be tamed for a century or more.
-
A lot probably depends on what a republican controlled house decides to do about it. For some reason they've suddenly become very very pro-russia...
I wouldn't say that. They don't want unlimited funds flowing to the Ukraine which is what Biden is doing.
But I agree with Biden. Last time Russia took Crimea with little effort. You got to stand up to the bullies or there's consequences for the futures.
Well, you would be wrong. "Unlimited funds" "Biden" - LOL. Go back and read a few posts. Total so far is 2% of the annual US military budget - on top of that, a heck of a lot of the stuff we're sending was either nearing expiration (and thus needing disposal soon) - or in deep storage, unlikely to ever be used. Plus, the spending so far has nearly all been approved by Congress, including many Republicans.
Do you somehow think spending 4% of our military budget a year to massively degrade Russia's military capabilities could be better spent elsewhere? If so, please be clear about what it is and why other parts of the military budget shouldn't be used. Degrading the capability of a long-time enemy military without any casualties?
Biden has sole authority over Lend-Lease, but hasn't used that authority at all yet.
Yep.
McConnell and mainstream Republicans are happy. A cheap-ish way to find out and destroy Russia's capabilities and economy without US troops being involved. Or even NATO. And mil-industrial complex BFF oh so happy, donating to the superPACs.
-
Perhaps the 1.4 billion people of China could use the resources of Manchuria they used to own.
Huh. I learned something today. Thank you, pecunia.
My first reaction to your post was that Manchuria is already part of China. It's the "head of the chicken," the bit north of north Korea. But then I googled that and it turned out that is inner Manchuria (like inner Mongolia, given that name to distinguish it from outer Mongolia the country), and there is a substantial region to the north and east of inner Manchuria, called conveniently enough outer Manchuria, which was ruled by China during the Yuan and part of the Qing dynasty before being ceded to Russia in the mid 1800s.
I think the Russia Ukraine war and particularly how badly Russia's army is doing, makes a war between China and Russia sometime in the next decade more likely. If China follows through on its invasion of Taiwan all bets are off. If they decide not to risk it, Xi is going to need a different big geopolitical win for domestic consumption and carving off big section of the resource rich and poorly populated Siberia from a further weakened Russia would fit the bill, especially since it could also be framed as restoring something China had lost in the past during a period of weakness and humiliation by foreign powers (just as the Taiwan issue is framed domestically).
China and Russia at war? Interesting (somewhat distressing) concept.
I had been assuming that over time, China would buy out Russia's interests in a range of locations and domains, while hiring Russia in some form to its bidding. Had been assuming that various agreements or deals preserving a shred of Russian dignity and a shred or more of Russian sovereignty would be the mechanism putting China in charge of key assets, and directing Russian energy / weapons / identity into actions that serve Chinese interests.
I suppose there's room for a clash to take the shape of war. It seems inefficient but I guess it's possible. Certainly your point about regaining face-saving historically linked territory from the easier donor / victim makes sense; will keep in mind.
Yeah I agree with this take, a military war is probably unlikely, more likely is that China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face. China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally. Makes sense they would do this to a very weak post-war Russia.
-
China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.
For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China
-
Interesting. These actors are seeing the writing on the wall: If Putin is allowed to continue the war Russia will eventually lose the capability to project force throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Once that happens the Russian empire will be gone. The clock is ticking.
Russian Enemies of Kremlin Meet to Plot Violent ‘Elimination’ of Putin
Although various groups interested in Putin losing power have different ideas about how to go about ensuring his downfall, according to former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community, Putin’s ouster very well may be violent and come all of a sudden.
“Nobody’s gonna ask, ‘Hey Vladimir, would you like to leave?’ No. It’s a fucking hammer to the head and he’s dead. Or it’s time to go to the sanatorium,” Daniel Hoffman, a former CIA Moscow chief of station, told The Daily Beast. “They schwack him for it. That’s what they’ll do.”
Even Putin’s closest allies have been criticizing him in recent days in what could be a signal that Putin’s clutches on power—and his future as a leader—are disintegrating.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-enemies-of-kremlin-meet-in-poland-to-plot-violent-elimination-of-vladimir-putin?ref=home
-
Interesting. These actors are seeing the writing on the wall: If Putin is allowed to continue the war Russia will eventually lose the capability to project force throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Once that happens the Russian empire will be gone. The clock is ticking.
Russian Enemies of Kremlin Meet to Plot Violent ‘Elimination’ of Putin
Although various groups interested in Putin losing power have different ideas about how to go about ensuring his downfall, according to former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community, Putin’s ouster very well may be violent and come all of a sudden.
“Nobody’s gonna ask, ‘Hey Vladimir, would you like to leave?’ No. It’s a fucking hammer to the head and he’s dead. Or it’s time to go to the sanatorium,” Daniel Hoffman, a former CIA Moscow chief of station, told The Daily Beast. “They schwack him for it. That’s what they’ll do.”
Even Putin’s closest allies have been criticizing him in recent days in what could be a signal that Putin’s clutches on power—and his future as a leader—are disintegrating.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-enemies-of-kremlin-meet-in-poland-to-plot-violent-elimination-of-vladimir-putin?ref=home
As per the above, if you think about it, what group in Russia js he helping? Is he raising the living standard of the people? Nope Is he helping the military? Nope Is he helping the Oligarchs? Nope Is he helping the FSB? I don't see how. He's just bad news for everyone. He's like the bad apple in the barrel. Does the world want to deal with the guy? Nope Will world leaders trust any deal he cuts with them? Nope
The best thing he can hope for is to retain that chunk of Ukraine he grabbed and I don't think that's enough to satisfy the other Russians.
He better really watch what he eats to stay healthy.
-
Well, if someone gets rid of Putin, I hope it is through defenestration.
-
Well, if someone gets rid of Putin, I hope it is through defenestration.
I was re-reading SchlockMercenary (a webcomic, https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-07-17)
and didn't realize it was a real term for political protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration.
Transcript
VOG: I can only conclude that my people pose no threat to you, and you know this.
Furthermore, we have nothing you care to take, nor even anything of value to offer.
The wars I fought, and planned to someday fight, are irrelevant.
This rage of mine is useless. I suspect I shall soon be replacing it with grief.
LANDON: He got all that from jumping out the window?
BUNNI: I'll quote you when I submit my grant proposal for auto-defenestration therapy.
-
Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512
-
Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512
He really does look like Dr. Evil. I've also read that they left a lot of their new recruits there. What kind of trap could they have laid? Will they blow up the entire city taking a lot of newly mobilized with many Ukrainian troops?
-
Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512
He really does look like Dr. Evil. I've also read that they left a lot of their new recruits there. What kind of trap could they have laid? Will they blow up the entire city taking a lot of newly mobilized with many Ukrainian troops?
From what I've heard, they've basically stripped the city of anything that has value and isn't nailed down, and destroyed anything else that might be of use to Ukraine. It sounds like they're actually managing to execute an orderly withdrawal.
They also have a very recent history of boobytrapping and mining everything as they withdraw, so there's that.
-
Russia is withdrawing from Kherson city:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1590368333727424512
He really does look like Dr. Evil. I've also read that they left a lot of their new recruits there. What kind of trap could they have laid? Will they blow up the entire city taking a lot of newly mobilized with many Ukrainian troops?
From what I've heard, they've basically stripped the city of anything that has value and isn't nailed down, and destroyed anything else that might be of use to Ukraine. It sounds like they're actually managing to execute an orderly withdrawal.
They also have a very recent history of boobytrapping and mining everything as they withdraw, so there's that.
Orderly disengagement and retreat are very difficult operations and I would be surprised if RU can execute that and does not simply collapse.
But then, I might be underestimating RU capabilities in Kherson.
-
It seems hard to believe, given Russia's poor performance over the past nine months. However, they've had a fair amount of time to entrench in Kherson, and reportedly have the best of their forces located there, and Ukraine hasn't been pressing them particularly hard, so perhaps they are showing a tiny bit of competence?
-
The article I read had a quote from someone in Ukraine's Ministry of Defense that, essentially, they were watching what Russia did, not what they said. And Ukraine has been clearing all the mines and traps elsewhere, I'd be shocked if they didn't assume the entire city is a giant death trap. I really don't want to know how many mass graves they find in and around the city though.
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine. The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand. Experience is the best teacher.
But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.
Bill Browder, who is near the top of Putin's enemies list, would disagree. Russia getting expelled from Ukraine would be seen as weakness by the Russian people, and they would not tolerate that of Putin. According to Mr Browder, in that situation Putin would be gone in a weekend.
It's unclear how many usable nuclear missiles Russia has, as they are expensive to maintain - especially for a government fueled by corruption. If Russia was able to hit Ukraine with a nuclear explosion, if the radiation drifted into Europe that would be an act of war. In that case, I hope the U.S. uses conventional missiles to blow up every workplace, home and school used by Russian hackers. Get some revenge for the Solar Winds hack - and avoid retaliating with nukes, if possible.
All of the horrific things Russia has done have never been threats. Their military exercises were not an invasion - until they were. Russia's soldiers torture and kill civilians - again without a threat. They target civilians with missiles - no threat there, either. If you look at the evil things Russia does, it does them without threats. So maybe nukes are some kind of exception, but why threaten them instead of using them?
I actually think most of the issues Russia is raising now are distractions. When you see Russia try to create some drama, consider the last bit of news reporting you saw on Russia. Maybe they were being accused of war crimes, and wanted the media to change the subject. Maybe their prestiguous capital ship had blown up or their bridge symbolizing a connection with Crimea had been damaged. I think Russia seeks to distract the news from events like that, which is why you hear about grain shipments stopping and starting. The news media has no patience or persistence these days, so distraction works quite well.
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine. The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand. Experience is the best teacher.
But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.
Bill Browder, who is near the top of Putin's enemies list, would disagree. Russia getting expelled from Ukraine would be seen as weakness by the Russian people, and they would not tolerate that of Putin. According to Mr Browder, in that situation Putin would be gone in a weekend.
It's unclear how many usable nuclear missiles Russia has, as they are expensive to maintain - especially for a government fueled by corruption. If Russia was able to hit Ukraine with a nuclear explosion, if the radiation drifted into Europe that would be an act of war. In that case, I hope the U.S. uses conventional missiles to blow up every workplace, home and school used by Russian hackers. Get some revenge for the Solar Winds hack - and avoid retaliating with nukes, if possible.
All of the horrific things Russia has done have never been threats. Their military exercises were not an invasion - until they were. Russia's soldiers torture and kill civilians - again without a threat. They target civilians with missiles - no threat there, either. If you look at the evil things Russia does, it does them without threats. So maybe nukes are some kind of exception, but why threaten them instead of using them?
I actually think most of the issues Russia is raising now are distractions. When you see Russia try to create some drama, consider the last bit of news reporting you saw on Russia. Maybe they were being accused of war crimes, and wanted the media to change the subject. Maybe their prestiguous capital ship had blown up or their bridge symbolizing a connection with Crimea had been damaged. I think Russia seeks to distract the news from events like that, which is why you hear about grain shipments stopping and starting. The news media has no patience or persistence these days, so distraction works quite well.
I guess all this just confirms what Bullwinkle and Rocky were trying to tell me years ago.
-
Russia only understands force, so I think it's time Ukraine were given weapons that hit power stations and water generation inside Russia. Yes, it's an escalation - compared to what? Slaughtering civilians and ensuring more die from cold and thirst? Russia is running out of worse horrors to inflict on Ukraine.
Also, Russia is playing the media like a fiddle, which sucks. Russian soldiers shot thousands of Ukrainian civlians dead, and now we're talking about grain shipments and if Russia will use nuclear weapons. They're distracting from the horrors they've comitted on civilians, in my view.
It would seem to be an excellent way to make the average citizenry understand what has been happening within Ukraine. The populace of Russia may understand there is a war, but they don't really understand. Experience is the best teacher.
But that won't happen. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do that and not have their hands full, that is a real red line.
That's what would rally the Russians for the war, not against it, and it would mean atomic bomb is now "legal" by Russian doctrine, if you stretch it jsut a little bit.
I think that is what is behind the formula of "Russia cannot (is not allowed to meaning) win the war" that politicians have used while avoiding "Ukraine must win". If Russia get repelled from Ukrainian territory, Russia has not won. But you could also say it has not lost. But if the war moves to Russian territory, Russia has lost.
Bill Browder, who is near the top of Putin's enemies list, would disagree. Russia getting expelled from Ukraine would be seen as weakness by the Russian people, and they would not tolerate that of Putin. According to Mr Browder, in that situation Putin would be gone in a weekend.
It's unclear how many usable nuclear missiles Russia has, as they are expensive to maintain - especially for a government fueled by corruption. If Russia was able to hit Ukraine with a nuclear explosion, if the radiation drifted into Europe that would be an act of war. In that case, I hope the U.S. uses conventional missiles to blow up every workplace, home and school used by Russian hackers. Get some revenge for the Solar Winds hack - and avoid retaliating with nukes, if possible.
All of the horrific things Russia has done have never been threats. Their military exercises were not an invasion - until they were. Russia's soldiers torture and kill civilians - again without a threat. They target civilians with missiles - no threat there, either. If you look at the evil things Russia does, it does them without threats. So maybe nukes are some kind of exception, but why threaten them instead of using them?
I actually think most of the issues Russia is raising now are distractions. When you see Russia try to create some drama, consider the last bit of news reporting you saw on Russia. Maybe they were being accused of war crimes, and wanted the media to change the subject. Maybe their prestiguous capital ship had blown up or their bridge symbolizing a connection with Crimea had been damaged. I think Russia seeks to distract the news from events like that, which is why you hear about grain shipments stopping and starting. The news media has no patience or persistence these days, so distraction works quite well.
I guess all this just confirms what Bullwinkle and Rocky were trying to tell me years ago.
Here's a culture critics take on "Moose and Squirrel" : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-bullwinkle-taught-kids-sophisticated-political-satire-180964803/
I remember the "goof gas" episode she is referring to. The goof gas was designed to make Congress stupid (hmmm) but Bullwinkle proudly claimed that he would be immune to the effects because of his "built in stupidity".
-
It seems hard to believe, given Russia's poor performance over the past nine months. However, they've had a fair amount of time to entrench in Kherson, and reportedly have the best of their forces located there, and Ukraine hasn't been pressing them particularly hard, so perhaps they are showing a tiny bit of competence?
The rumors of a Russian retreat started almost a month ago with people reporting that Russian senior officers moved their command posts to the other side of the river once it looked like the bridges weren't coming back and the ferries started getting hit. Other reports in the last two weeks stating the pro-Russian civilian leadership was quietly moving, then the looting picked up, then a few days ago reports of the better Russian units being replaced with conscripts. Yesterday Shoigu declared the Russian intention to withdraw. In the last 24 hours, Ukrainian forces are confirmed to have taken Kyselivka and Snihurivka which were critical to the Russian frontline after the last major offensive.
Whether this is a no-kidding full retreat of the Kherson front remains to be seen, but the evidence is piling up daily. What I'm curious to see is how much has already been completed and we missed it, whether Ukraine is attacking or just occupying evacuated ground, and just how many troops and equipment Russia can remove or get left behind.
-
Kherson city has been liberated - Slava Ukraini:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1591114773281656832
-
And this puts Russian forces in southern Ukraine in a tough spot, because everything between Kherson and Crimea is within HIMARS range. I've heard it suggested that Russia's retreat from Kherson was forced by their difficulty in supplying their forces west of the Dnipro River. Well, now the land bridges from Crimea are in range, and there aren't many roads or railroads between Crimea and Ukraine in the first place. So if Ukraine severs those supply links, Russia will have to supply their forces all the way from Rostov and Donbas.
-
And this puts Russian forces in southern Ukraine in a tough spot, because everything between Kherson and Crimea is within HIMARS range. I've heard it suggested that Russia's retreat from Kherson was forced by their difficulty in supplying their forces west of the Dnipro River. Well, now the land bridges from Crimea are in range, and there aren't many roads or railroads between Crimea and Ukraine in the first place. So if Ukraine severs those supply links, Russia will have to supply their forces all the way from Rostov and Donbas.
The way things have unfolded in Ukraine reminds me of the Bradley Quote, "Amateurs strategy. Professionals talk logistics."
-
And this puts Russian forces in southern Ukraine in a tough spot, because everything between Kherson and Crimea is within HIMARS range. I've heard it suggested that Russia's retreat from Kherson was forced by their difficulty in supplying their forces west of the Dnipro River. Well, now the land bridges from Crimea are in range, and there aren't many roads or railroads between Crimea and Ukraine in the first place. So if Ukraine severs those supply links, Russia will have to supply their forces all the way from Rostov and Donbas.
The land north of Crimea and south of the river is fed by a rail line and highway coming from the south and east. The Crimean rail line is barely functional thanks to the strike last month, and the east/west rail is in danger of becoming frontline property if/when Ukraine decides to finally attack from the Zap/southern Donbas direction. Satellite photos show Russians already digging trenches south of the river, and if an attack southwest from Zap materializes that area will be difficult to supply.
-
China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.
For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China
That article suggests it was nothing more than symbolic.
"The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply "symbolic obeisance".[8] Actors within the "tribute system" were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute"
-
China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.
For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China
That article suggests it was nothing more than symbolic.
"The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply "symbolic obeisance".[8] Actors within the "tribute system" were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute"
Yes, but it's the firs step. The point is that China has a long experience in being the one on the top and letting others do what they want despite official independence.
-
China will loan money and people to help Russia rebuild and eventually Russia will become a vassal state while pretending to maintain sovereignty to save face.
China does this really well and have been doing it for a while globally.
For more than 2000 years. They have made it into a art. Have you heard of tribute trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China
That article suggests it was nothing more than symbolic.
"The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply "symbolic obeisance".[8] Actors within the "tribute system" were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute"
Yes, but it's the firs step. The point is that China has a long experience in being the one on the top and letting others do what they want despite official independence.
Russia has had a lot of their good people leave the country. After this war, they will see how they need to develop, but will not have the people or resources to do it. They will remain a de facto pariah country to the Western nations. The Chinese have 1.4 billion people and are losing world markets. They need to diversify. The vacuum that Russia created by the people leaving the country can be filled by Chinese workers. China has often used their own workers on their overseas belt and road initiative projects rather than using locals. Is it so difficult to imagine entire Chinese industries moving into sparsely populated Siberia to develop resources needed for the Chinese economy? The Russians moved many populations around when Stalin was in charge.
As parts of Russia become increasingly Chinese, the Chinese can use the same arguments the Russians used about the predominantly Russian areas of Ukraine. This time the argument can be made that the areas have become predominantly Han Chinese. The takeover will be quick and painless for this land now held by Russia to become a part of China.
Of course nobody can tell me I am wrong because it sill take a generation or two and we will all be gone.
-
A friend of a friend just managed to send a message to Russia in a rather distinct way:
https://twitter.com/leifnixon/status/1592449231276892161
The words written as a message says "Do you remember Svensksund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svensksund), you Russian f**ks?"
The words spoken at the end says "From Sweden with love, FIRE"
-
Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles. It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles. In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.
I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory. I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response. The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.
-
Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles. It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles. In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.
I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory. I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response. The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.
Jake Broe did a video featuring possible reasons why. You may find it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs)
He had the idea that I hadn't thought of. Perhaps the Russian anti missile defense will work on the larger longer range ATACMS. However, it appears to be only Jake's conjecture.
MY perspective is that if there is not a hidden flaw to the use of ATACMS, then their use could cut supply lines such as the Kerch bridge and shorten this war.
-
Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles. It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles. In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.
I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory. I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response. The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.
Jake Broe did a video featuring possible reasons why. You may find it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs)
He had the idea that I hadn't thought of. Perhaps the Russian anti missile defense will work on the larger longer range ATACMS. However, it appears to be only Jake's conjecture.
MY perspective is that if there is not a hidden flaw to the use of ATACMS, then their use could cut supply lines such as the Kerch bridge and shorten this war.
Given that Russia's air defense has so far failed pretty spectacularly to stop HIMARS rockets, I don't know how much water that argument holds.
-
Think how much we are learning about Russian capabilities by watching their troops, command, and hardware in action. Adversaries are taking detailed notes on how our hardware is performing too. Not showing more cards than we have to is strategically good for us. I know nothing of the logistics and trying required to deploy those advanced systems, but suspect it is not trivial.
-
Think how much we are learning about Russian capabilities by watching their troops, command, and hardware in action. Adversaries are taking detailed notes on how our hardware is performing too. Not showing more cards than we have to is strategically good for us. I know nothing of the logistics and trying required to deploy those advanced systems, but suspect it is not trivial.
The funny thing is that, once we've learned all this good stuff, we will likely never need to use it, because after this is all over, Russia military will be pretty much destroyed and incapable of fighting another offensive war.
-
Think how much we are learning about Russian capabilities by watching their troops, command, and hardware in action. Adversaries are taking detailed notes on how our hardware is performing too. Not showing more cards than we have to is strategically good for us. I know nothing of the logistics and trying required to deploy those advanced systems, but suspect it is not trivial.
The funny thing is that, once we've learned all this good stuff, we will likely never need to use it, because after this is all over, Russia military will be pretty much destroyed and incapable of fighting another offensive war.
Two things to consider:
1) Russia is not the only game in town. Uncle Ching has his eye on every move and his technology is developing fast with his 1.4 billion souls at his disposal. This would be a reason to limit exposure of the weapons capabilities.
2) Technology is advancing at an exponential rather than linear rate. This would indicate that we should give Ukraine all the good stuff. By the time the next war comes around, the stuff will be outdated. They had no drones in Vietnam. Computer guided missiles weren't invented until about 1983. I wish I could imagine the stuff they will have in the next 15 years.
-
There is a seperate thread for the incident, just saying.
Two missiles crossed the border into Poland, killing two poles. It's not clear yet whether they were Russian missiles aimed at Lviv that got the wrong targeting info or otherwise went astray, or Ukrainian SAMs that missed their targets, or remnants of destroyed Russian missiles. In any case, it has a LOT of people riled up.
I still don't quite get why we aren't giving Ukraine ATACMS so that they can reach deeper into Russian-held territory. I keep hearing "it'd be an escalation!" but I'm having trouble imagining how Russia could escalate in response. The only thing they *haven't* done yet is drop a nuke, and I don't see that happening in response to NATO supplying longer-range missiles.
Jake Broe did a video featuring possible reasons why. You may find it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rcr0S-DLs)
He had the idea that I hadn't thought of. Perhaps the Russian anti missile defense will work on the larger longer range ATACMS. However, it appears to be only Jake's conjecture.
MY perspective is that if there is not a hidden flaw to the use of ATACMS, then their use could cut supply lines such as the Kerch bridge and shorten this war.
Given that Russia's air defense has so far failed pretty spectacularly to stop HIMARS rockets, I don't know how much water that argument holds.
It all comes down to time imho. I mean even the GDR Strela (those few that actually worked) can take down a plane.
The problem with the Himars is that you have an awfully small time window in which to do anything about them. In this time you have to detect and identify them, see where they are flying and have a AAA close enough to hit. You have what, 40 seconds on average for it I think I read?
Giving it a longer range will increse flight time, and sich significantly increase the time window for reaction and for the distance an AAA can be away to be still reach in time.
-
Other reasons could be NATO wanting Russian military to bleed out/self destruct.
Giving longer range artillery may simply cause Russia to surrender quickly, leaving the Russian military with more heavy equipment to invade a neighbor at a later date.
By supplying Ukraine with just enough equipment to keep Russia involved they end up destroying more Russian equipment, greatly reducing Russia's ability to wage war in the future. And even reduce Russia's influence on global arms trade.
5 more months of conflict at the current rate of loss and Russia will be all out of combat effective military hardware, with the exception of their artillery. We're talking, no fighter jets, no combat helicopters, no tanks, no AA, no APVs. And if sanctions remain Russia will struggle to rebuild their military. We're talking approx 50 years to get to where they were at the start of 2022. Russia isn't the manufacturing super power the USSR was.
If this is the case, I'd expect only a modest response from NATO on the recent shelling of Poland.
-
In a lot of cases the west doesn't have that many weapons to give. The reality is that this isn't WW2 where a new tank or bomber is rolling off the production line every 15 minutes. There is one plant that makes every Abrahms tank. There's probably one plant that makes every HIMARS or MLRS. They might be able to produce a few new pieces of equipment per week, but that's a huge supply chain to ramp up in an industry used to getting orders that will take years to fulfill.
It's the same thing with the munitions. Most US units don't have dozens of Javelin anti-tank missiles. They get a few each year for training and there are some deployed in combat zones and that's about it. There are no massive stockpiles of munitions like the Soviets produced because these things are expensive and buying munitions is not sexy. Buying new helicopters, tanks, and artillery is something visible a General or member of Congress can point to. A bunker full of 155mm artillery shells isn't something you can easily show off.
If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.
-
If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.
Not a problem when 10% of your active stock dwarfs most countries whole armies.
-
If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.
Not a problem when 10% of your active stock dwarfs most countries whole armies.
Easier said than done. I've dealt with weapons/equipment transfers before in the Army. It's not a quick process. Weeks at least, probably months. Then you're left with the problem of reequipping that unit that was just robbed of their equipment.
Readiness in the military is a three-legged stool. People, equipment, and training. You need all three to be functional. Remove one and you're not going to be able to complete your mission.
-
If the US wants to provide equipment, in many cases it would have to come from a current unit.
Not a problem when 10% of your active stock dwarfs most countries whole armies.
Dwarfing most countries armies isn't much comfort when we're locked in an escalating saber rattling contest with China over the de facto independence of Taiwan.
For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.
-
For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.
While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.
-
For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.
While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.
Not to mention that you don't need to take those units equipment. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, I dare say one of them is not swimming there ;)
-
For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.
While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.
Fighting across the Strait, yes. But an invasion of Taiwan would rapidly become fending off amphibious assaults and/or block by block fighting in urban environments. At that point the equipment and material needed to fight the current war in Europe and the hypothetical war in Asia converge significantly.
-
For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.
While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.
Fighting across the Strait, yes. But an invasion of Taiwan would rapidly become fending off amphibious assaults and/or block by block fighting in urban environments. At that point the equipment and material needed to fight the current war in Europe and the hypothetical war in Asia converge significantly.
I'm not privy to US or Taiwan war plans, but I am fairly sure that their plans revolve largely around sending as much of China's invasion force to the bottom of the strait as possible. They've been planning it for about 75 years, so I'd imagine they have their ranges dialed in already.
One US aircraft carrier group would be very able to succeed at such a task. 2 or more and nothing bigger than a seagull would be above sea level for long.
-
Except that China has been building lots of missiles to take out those carriers.
-
China has a troop transport problem. They don't have enough military ships to move 100k troops across the strait let alone 500k+ so they'll be using civilian ships.
Taiwan has a shit-ton of anti-ship missiles (they're getting 400 more US Harpoons this year). Four of those missiles can take out a Chinese destroyer; one or two can disable or sink a car carrier or ferry converted into a troop transport ship.
Taiwan would eventually fall but the strait would be a blood bath.
-
Add the fact that China presumably wants Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing intact. Those are by nature highly sensitive to disruption. You lob a missile in the general direction and you could severely damage the production capacity. It's also highly skilled work from my understanding, which means its easily sabotaged by captive workers, or replacement workers who don't have the training, skill or experience would not be able to produce high quality products, and possibly no products.
So yeah, China would eventually capture Taiwan, but most likely everything they wanted to get out of it will be destroyed. And then they'd have an island full of very pissed of people on their hands, and the rest of the world would be pissed because of the destruction of the semiconductor production. Not a good position to be in. China may or may not care of course, but it's still not a good position to be in.
-
Yeah, China, or at least Xi Jiping, dioes not care much in face of the "reunification", but it is a severe problem for them.
btw. Warren Buffet bought TSMC stocks. I am surprised he takes that risk when so many people are convinced China will attack in 3-5 years if nothing happens.
-
Yeah, China, or at least Xi Jiping, dioes not care much in face of the "reunification", but it is a severe problem for them.
btw. Warren Buffet bought TSMC stocks. I am surprised he takes that risk when so many people are convinced China will attack in 3-5 years if nothing happens.
Warren Buffet is 92. I wonder if he still thinks long term or is now looking for more short term gains like most of the Wall Street guys.
I guess I can see China looking at Taiwan as a historical enemy, but 22 million people on an island that will do them no harm seems like a waste of resources to get the military all fired up. Trade with Taiwan has been a win win for both countries. China has a lot of very intelligent people, maybe they will come to their senses. I'd like to think they look at the Russian attack on Ukraine, view the world's reactions and think it's not such a good idea.
-
There's talk in Ukraine of another attack on Kyiv.
-
The very existence of Taiwan is destabilizing to China, just as the existence of Ukraine is destabilizing to Russia. The presence of an immediately proximate neighbor with significantly greater individual freedom, innovation, and expanding democratic values throws into stark relief the deficiencies of the Chinese and Russian systems. Coupled with a population with closely related cultures and histories, it is a recipe for turmoil and agitation in the authoritarian states. This, more than anything, is why Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s why China wants to subjugate Taiwan. Because the presence of an independent and free Ukraine or Taiwan creates a direct threat to the governments of Russia and China from their own people.
-
The very existence of Taiwan is destabilizing to China, just as the existence of Ukraine is destabilizing to Russia. The presence of an immediately proximate neighbor with significantly greater individual freedom, innovation, and expanding democratic values throws into stark relief the deficiencies of the Chinese and Russian systems. Coupled with a population with closely related cultures and histories, it is a recipe for turmoil and agitation in the authoritarian states. This, more than anything, is why Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s why China wants to subjugate Taiwan. Because the presence of an independent and free Ukraine or Taiwan creates a direct threat to the governments of Russia and China from their own people.
I suppose the Berlin Wall is a rather stark evidence of that phenomenon as well.
-
The very existence of Taiwan is destabilizing to China, just as the existence of Ukraine is destabilizing to Russia. The presence of an immediately proximate neighbor with significantly greater individual freedom, innovation, and expanding democratic values throws into stark relief the deficiencies of the Chinese and Russian systems. Coupled with a population with closely related cultures and histories, it is a recipe for turmoil and agitation in the authoritarian states. This, more than anything, is why Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s why China wants to subjugate Taiwan. Because the presence of an independent and free Ukraine or Taiwan creates a direct threat to the governments of Russia and China from their own people.
I suppose the Berlin Wall is a rather stark evidence of that phenomenon as well.
I would argue that is quite a big difference between those things (war and wall) but yes, the motivation is similar. The wall is to keep people in, the war is to make the in bigger.
I actually should think a bit about that...
You definitely should be very concerned if Xi Jiping, when asked if China wants to reunify with Taiwan even if the people there don't want it, says that nobody is intending an invasion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#Start_of_the_construction_(1961))
-
China has a troop transport problem. They don't have enough military ships to move 100k troops across the strait let alone 500k+ so they'll be using civilian ships.
Taiwan has a shit-ton of anti-ship missiles (they're getting 400 more US Harpoons this year). Four of those missiles can take out a Chinese destroyer; one or two can disable or sink a car carrier or ferry converted into a troop transport ship.
Taiwan would eventually fall but the strait would be a blood bath.
Russia couldn't even take Kharkiv, less than 50 km from its land border. This, with a modicum of surprise. China will have no such luxury when amassing troops and ships off the Taiwan Straits.
The Ukrainians are providing an unforgettable object lesson to show that there's no way that China can land 100k troops in Taiwan, keep them alive AND resupply these troops to keep them fighting.
China's already tried to take an island from Taiwan once before. They got an old school back-alley beat down; close to 100% of the invading force either captured, wounded or dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou)
-
For all the talk about how Russia-Ukraine war is letting NATO degrade Russia's armed forces, if we're really chewing through all of our (limited) weapons stockpiles to do so, I could imagine a group of nationalistic Chinese generals thinking the same thing about how the Russia-Ukraine war is degrading NATO's ability to fight a sustained warn in the near future.
While there would be some overlap, I would imagine the weapon stockpile used to fight on the Ukrainian plains would be quite different than the weapon stockpile used to fight across the Taiwan Strait.
Fighting across the Strait, yes. But an invasion of Taiwan would rapidly become fending off amphibious assaults and/or block by block fighting in urban environments. At that point the equipment and material needed to fight the current war in Europe and the hypothetical war in Asia converge significantly.
I'm not privy to US or Taiwan war plans, but I am fairly sure that their plans revolve largely around sending as much of China's invasion force to the bottom of the strait as possible. They've been planning it for about 75 years, so I'd imagine they have their ranges dialed in already.
One US aircraft carrier group would be very able to succeed at such a task. 2 or more and nothing bigger than a seagull would be above sea level for long.
I think you severely underestimate the sophistication and size of of China’s military. Twenty years ago what you described might have been close to accurate - but they’ve advanced light years in that timeframe. Don’t get me wrong, the Chinese still can’t match the US military head-to-head, but they could cause a whole heck of a lot of damage in a conventional confrontation, particularly around their mainland.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed. Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life. He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years. In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous. China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.
Will the middle class be a brake on Xi? The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience. Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed. Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life. He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years. In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous. China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.
Will the middle class be a brake on Xi? The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience. Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.
I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion. The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost. The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed. Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life. He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years. In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous. China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.
Will the middle class be a brake on Xi? The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience. Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.
I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion. The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost. The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.
China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones. They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future. It's human nature to want to play with those toys. Lord knows the US is guilty of this.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed. Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life. He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years. In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous. China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.
Will the middle class be a brake on Xi? The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience. Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.
I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion. The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost. The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.
China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones. They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future. It's human nature to want to play with those toys. Lord knows the US is guilty of this.
Yes - I remember a few years ago when they interviewed some guys about the "bunker buster" bombs. They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Those Chinese hypersonic missiles may be quite the temptation. They could wreak a lot of havoc on their fellow Chinese in Taiwan.
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed. Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life. He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years. In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous. China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.
Will the middle class be a brake on Xi? The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience. Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.
I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion. The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost. The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.
China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones. They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future. It's human nature to want to play with those toys. Lord knows the US is guilty of this.
Yes - I remember a few years ago when they interviewed some guys about the "bunker buster" bombs. They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Those Chinese hypersonic missiles may be quite the temptation. They could wreak a lot of havoc on their fellow Chinese in Taiwan.
The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese. They very much don't want to become Chinese!
-
Exactly. There is a reason why China is one of the few countries with aricraft carriers - they can do it.
There is no doubt an invasion would be extremely costly - but China will be the economic number 1 in the world and contrary to Russia is more or less able to be self-dependend. And where not - that is why they have bought themselves in economically and militarily into Africa for example. A stopped trade would likely hit the West a lot more than China.
And even more important, I am quite sure Taiwan cannot sustain itself. If China blockades the island, it takes only a few month for them to be in a very dire situation where they can either surrender or die.
A couple of counterpoints:
1) From what I've heard, China's demographics put them in a "do it soon or you'll miss your chance" situation. The one-child policy is coming back to bite them as their population will start shrinking, and the growing middle class means that there will be less appetite for the cost of imperialism.
2) China is very much dependent on other countries for both food and energy imports. Isolating themselves as Russia has will be absolutely devastating. That said, I'm sure Russia would be just fine selling them wheat and oil
3) Naval blockades aren't what they used to be. They're expensive, inefficient, and very difficult to maintain, thanks to the large area you must cover, and because of anti-ship missiles.
I *really* hope China's rulers are wise enough not to start anything, but I had that same hope for Russia, and it seems the power of ego is hard to overcome.
Bit in bold: I think this is the big thing that has changed. Xi has changed China from a party autocracy with changes of leader every few years since the fall of Mao to a one-man supreme leader for life. He's 69 years old in a long-lived demographic, chances are he'll be leader for another 15 years. In 15 years the chance is fairly high that hubris and the inevitable disconnect from reality that high office engenders will make him more and more dangerous. China's internal affairs are heavily locked down already so the only scope for him to exercise that hubris in a noticeable and lasting way is on the international stage, and for China that means Taiwan first and last.
Will the middle class be a brake on Xi? The bargain made by China's leaders has been middle class prosperity in return for political subservience. Middle class prosperity with a shrinking demographic and growing climate instability is going to be harder to maintain, but I suspect the appearance of it will be maintained for a decade or two yet.
I'm still saying 22 million people will not be that big an asset to China's 1.4 billion. The resources on the island of Formosa (Taiwan) are simply not worth the cost. The value is that it is a diversion for the masses.
China is rapidly modernizing it's military, they're way ahead of us in pumping out drones. They're gonna have a lot of shiny new toys in the near future. It's human nature to want to play with those toys. Lord knows the US is guilty of this.
Yes - I remember a few years ago when they interviewed some guys about the "bunker buster" bombs. They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Those Chinese hypersonic missiles may be quite the temptation. They could wreak a lot of havoc on their fellow Chinese in Taiwan.
The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese. They very much don't want to become Chinese!
Right! I figure Toronto must have a Chinatown. Those people don't want to be Chinese either. Then there are the Ukrainian settlements in Manitoba. They probably don't want to be Chinese either. Come to think of it, I don't want to be Chinese either.
You have to be so careful of ethnicity these day. Jeepers!
-
Taiwan has a mixture of beliefs, with older people tending to want reunification while younger people tend to want to stay apart from China. There's also the unfortunate example of Hong Kong, which had its freedom removed recently.
The last thing I recall President Biden doing against China was to further restrict their access to advanced computer chips. I think the value of Taiwan Semiconductor is greatly underestimated - but not by world leaders. Advanced chips are critical to advanced military equipment.
"Taiwan makes 65% of the world’s semiconductors and almost 90% of the advanced chips."
https://www.voanews.com/a/race-for-semiconductors-influences-taiwan-conflict-/6696432.html
Almost two hundred years ago, Western powers controlled China (the "Opium Wars"). I suspect that is what China most wants to avoid, and is why they focus on defensive weapons. Those weapons include anti-ship missiles, which would be a significant threat to the US Navy (original typo: anti-chip missiles).
In both China and Russia, criticicism of the government is off limits. But in China, people loudly protested the treatment of a doctor who tried to warn about Covid - and China decided to make a memorial for him. I'll need to dig up other examples, but when a protest is in the millions, China seems to respond to it.
If China invades Taiwan, I expect the US cuts off all trade, and probably Europe to some extent. That creates a huge economic impact in China, where a fraction of the country's exports are simply not needed. If a hundred million people suddenly become unemployed, would they protest? That's an additional risk for China contemplating a violent solution to Taiwan.
-
Almost two hundred years ago, Western powers controlled China (the "Opium Wars").
Good point. Most people in the West have forgotten about this, if they even knew about it at all. The Chinese haven't forgotten, though. They outlawed opium in the 1830's, yet Western traders insisted on exporting opium from other parts of the British Empire and importing the opium in China. From the Chinese point of view the West brought about the downfall of China through unethical (immoral?) business practices.
Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA. Most every other country has outlawed bulk sale/export of meth precursor chemicals, but not China. Turnabout is fair play and all that.
-
Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA.
That's such a brutal piece of information I had to fact check it, hoping it was a conspiracy theory... it's confirmed by multiple government websites, the most clearest being this one:
Over the last 15 years, Mexican drug organizations have replaced domestic producers as the main manufacturers and distributors of meth in the United States. While Mexican cartels produce the majority (around 90 percent) of meth used in the United States, around 80 percent of precursor chemicals used in Mexican meth come from China.
https://www.uscc.gov/research/meth-precursor-chemicals-china-implications-united-states
So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.
-
Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA.
That's such a brutal piece of information I had to fact check it, hoping it was a conspiracy theory... it's confirmed by multiple government websites, the most clearest being this one:
Over the last 15 years, Mexican drug organizations have replaced domestic producers as the main manufacturers and distributors of meth in the United States. While Mexican cartels produce the majority (around 90 percent) of meth used in the United States, around 80 percent of precursor chemicals used in Mexican meth come from China.
https://www.uscc.gov/research/meth-precursor-chemicals-china-implications-united-states
So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.
So they have followed the model of big business and have "outsourced" the production. Local criminals are essentially "laid off." It's tough in bad cities in the rust belt. Even meth cookers have a tough time these days.
-
So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.
Dan Simmons novel "Flashback" had this as the central plot, except that it wasn't the Chinese. Get America get hooked on a drug that was kept out of the home country. Good book, by the way.
-
China's already tried to take an island from Taiwan once before. They got an old school back-alley beat down; close to 100% of the invading force either captured, wounded or dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou)
Fascinating. This is some serendipity:
Chung Lung [an ROC ship] was supposed to leave on the evening of October 24 after offloading its cargo, but remained, offering an official excuse of "bad weather". The unmentioned real reason the ship remained in the area was that it was running a side business of smuggling brown sugar from Taiwan island in exchange for peanut oil. However, there was not enough peanut oil on the whole island for the deal, so the ship was forced to stay for another day while waiting for more peanut oil to be produced, making it the accidental hero of the battle.
-
Thus, today the Chinese have no qualms about selling methamphetamine precursor chemicals in bulk to Mexican transnational criminal organizations for them to then process into meth and sell in the USA.
That's such a brutal piece of information I had to fact check it, hoping it was a conspiracy theory... it's confirmed by multiple government websites, the most clearest being this one:
Over the last 15 years, Mexican drug organizations have replaced domestic producers as the main manufacturers and distributors of meth in the United States. While Mexican cartels produce the majority (around 90 percent) of meth used in the United States, around 80 percent of precursor chemicals used in Mexican meth come from China.
https://www.uscc.gov/research/meth-precursor-chemicals-china-implications-united-states
So apparently China does have offensive weapons: meth addiction of Americans.
The nature of the trade allows the Chinese deniability; 'We don't make any meth so we didn't do anything wrong' and 'Someone else is cooking meth and exporting to the USA, not us. For best results, talk to them' and 'If your citizens didn't want it, no one would make it', etc.
Yet, the Chinese know full well what is going on. Due to their own history, they know how devastating illegal drug activity can be to a country, which is the whole point of the Chinese doing it, IMHO.
-
It's also a nice business, but yes, they certainly watch gleefully.
It's really of no use to talk about Chinas actions as long as you don't know the opium history - and understand how important that still is to the Chinese, like um... statues of General Lee for the Southerners in the US.
In the same was you need to understand that Xi Jiping is a victim of Mao - and still managed to work himself up into the highest ranks (also by marriage) by being a Maoist. That guy has discipline and determination enough for a dozen people. And no scruples at all.
-
ISW published an analysis of the Russian milblogger scene. A few months ago, some milbloggers appeared on Russian TV propaganda shows and their criticism, based on realistic assessments as for the conduct of the war, was severe and was seen by some in the west as signs of unrest in Russia and a potential threat to Putin.
This was talked about earlier in this thread but when I looked into it I could not verify that because it really looked like exercises in self-criticism or something and should more or less be seen as system stabilizing:
A few days ago, a former Russian colonel gave an excellent analysis of the war in Ukraine on Russian TV and some in the west have seen this as an important development as opinions like that are rare in the Russian media.
But they are wrong as this is just an attempt to keep the debate a Russian issue and potentially preparing the propaganda space for a face-saving retreat for the regime.
There is a tradition of self criticism in Marxism/Leninism that has always been used in two quite different ways: to purge dissenters from the party or to introduce issues that either could not be ignored anymore or arose in the minds of others in the upper echelons.
It is basically a gatekeeper strategy that makes any allowed debate one that takes places within the constraints of party orthodoxy, while allowing some, easily discreditable if the need should arise, crazy expert deviation from it. And at the same time, all undesirable debates will be suppressed.
This tradition also pays homage to a particular kind of expert veneration because, after all, Marxism/Leninism is the expert way how to run the world, and there are probably a lot of Russians who get nostalgic with that USSR stuff.
It is not evidence of major dissent but standard procedure in Marxism/Leninism to introduce a subject into public discourse using the perceivedly most neutral entry: an expert in the field.
The Russian TV audience skews older, just like in the US, and they most assuredly are not shocked when something controversial appears on TV, as that was always standard operating procedure to either steer and control the public discourse or at least to lend legitimacy to the propaganda.
Here is how the media sees it - and it´s grotesquely beside the point, but then, they simply do not know any of this.
They are saying that the colonel's statements left his fellow panelists stunned and that opinions like his are banished from the airwaves. As far as I know, the same person gave another excellent analysis weeks before the invasion and predicted the outcome.
Here is the article from Feb 3, Google translate does a decent job:
Predictions of bloodthirsty political scientists
About enthusiastic hawks and hasty cuckoos
"FINDINGS
In general, there will be no Ukrainian blitzkrieg. The statements of some experts such as “The Russian army will defeat most of the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 30-40 minutes”, “Russia is able to defeat Ukraine in 10 minutes in the event of a full-scale war”, “Russia will defeat Ukraine in eight minutes” have no serious grounds.
And finally, the most important thing. An armed conflict with Ukraine is currently fundamentally not in Russia's national interests. Therefore, it is best for some overexcited Russian experts to forget about their hatred fantasies. And in order to prevent further reputational losses, never remember again."
https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html
It is just like in the old days: a good propaganda operation blends factual analysis and reporting with the right amount of lies - see US extremist media.
And as far as Russian TV goes, the opinions of their pundits are so extreme, calling for using nukes or extermination of Ukrainians etc., that Putin almost looks like a prudent leader. And in this context, the colonel´s analysis might actually be, among other things, reassuring to those who might have developed some doubts - at least one can be assured that these issues are known and considered by dear leader.
So, notwithstanding that the good colonel´s analysis is excellent, the fact that it was aired on TV does not indicate anything but business as usual in the Russian TV propaganda operation.
On a Russian talk show, a retired colonel stuns his colleagues by pointing out that the invasion isn’t going well.
"A military analyst on one of Russian state television’s most popular networks left his fellow panelists in stunned silence on Monday when he said that the conflict in Ukraine was deteriorating for Russia, giving the kind of honest assessment that is virtually banished from the official airwaves."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/world/europe/russian-state-tv-ukraine-invasion.html
I´m quoting my older post in its entirety to provide some context and to show that this is not a new development but has become more important with the way the war has been going for Russia.
Putin clearly is more closely aligned with the milbloggers than in May and the ISW analysis certainly clarifies certain positions taken by Russian officials and political influencers.
Going forward, this political maneuvering will become more important as it could provide a pathway towards preserving Putinism, and by extension Putin himself, in the face of a Russian defeat.
I suggest reviewing the ISW analysis if one is interested in Russian domestic power machinations and wants to put the notion to rest that Russian milblogger dissent is some sort of dissident activity. They are not dissident but system stabilizing:
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, NOVEMBER 20
Nov 20, 2022 - Press ISW
ISW is publishing an abbreviated campaign update today, November 20. This report discusses the rising influence of the milblogger (military correspondent or voenkor) community in Russia despite its increasingly critical commentary on the conduct of the war. The milblogger community reportedly consists of over 500 independent authors and has emerged as an authoritative voice on the Russian war.[1] The community maintains a heavily pro-war and Russian nationalist outlook and is intertwined with prominent Russian nationalist ideologists. Milbloggers’ close relationships with armed forces – whether Russian Armed Forces, Chechen special units, Wagner Group mercenaries, or proxy formations – have given this community an authoritative voice arguably louder in the Russian information space than the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD). Russian President Vladimir Putin has defended the milbloggers from MoD attacks and protected their independence even as he increases oppression and censorship throughout Russia.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-20
-
It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.
-
It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.
Yeah. At least the US in their (mostly) imperialistic wars don't go out of their way to kill civilians, they are merely hushing their war crimes up and putting whistleblowers in jail.
It doesn't sound like it, but that was meant without irony. I think now Russia undisputedly has crossed the genocide line.
-
It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.
Yeah. At least the US in their (mostly) imperialistic wars don't go out of their way to kill civilians, they are merely hushing their war crimes up and putting whistleblowers in jail.
It doesn't sound like it, but that was meant without irony. I think now Russia undisputedly has crossed the genocide line.
That country is definitely evil. There is absolutely no benefit for them to destroy the country they wish to conquer. The strangest thing to me is that their Russian Orthodox Church leaders support all of this. I think corruption in various forms is rampant throughout their Society. It has been pointed out that they cannot outfit the soldiers, but their riot police seem to be well outfitted. I guess that's the priority keeping their populace in line.
-
It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.
Yeah. At least the US in their (mostly) imperialistic wars don't go out of their way to kill civilians, they are merely hushing their war crimes up and putting whistleblowers in jail.
It doesn't sound like it, but that was meant without irony. I think now Russia undisputedly has crossed the genocide line.
That country is definitely evil. There is absolutely no benefit for them to destroy the country they wish to conquer. The strangest thing to me is that their Russian Orthodox Church leaders support all of this. I think corruption in various forms is rampant throughout their Society. It has been pointed out that they cannot outfit the soldiers, but their riot police seem to be well outfitted. I guess that's the priority keeping their populace in line.
The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is effectively the state religion in Putinism. The idea of ROC either supporting or not supporting Russian state actions doesn´t really apply here. ROC is nothing but an instrument of political and religious repression and cannot be looked at the same way as independent religious entities.
-
Also the current patriarch is an ex-KGB. Also from the St. Petersburg branch and a old friend of Putin, if I rember correctly.
All positions of power in Russia are with the people there are because Putin put them there. That is also why a rebellion on the top is vanishingly unlikely.
-
It bears repeating that the Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure are war crimes. Fuck war is terrible.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?
Your point?
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?
Your point?
Those actions were predicated on the idea that "if we just let the Germans have what they want, maybe we can all live in peace and harmony together." It didn't work. Once they got what they said they wanted one year, they expanded their ambitions accordingly.
Russia wasn't willing to stop once they took over Crimea, a few years later they came back for more. Even supposing the Ukrainian people were interested in trading the current Russian-held territory for a peace settlement (which I believe they are not), what reason do we have to believe that such a peace would last? If we all know the peace will be temporary at best, there's little to be gained by delaying the inevitable conflict, and plenty to lose.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?
Your point?
Those actions were predicated on the idea that "if we just let the Germans have what they want, maybe we can all live in peace and harmony together." It didn't work. Once they got what they said they wanted one year, they expanded their ambitions accordingly.
Russia wasn't willing to stop once they took over Crimea, a few years later they came back for more. Even supposing the Ukrainian people were interested in trading the current Russian-held territory for a peace settlement (which I believe they are not), what reason do we have to believe that such a peace would last? If we all know the peace will be temporary at best, there's little to be gained by delaying the inevitable conflict, and plenty to lose.
Yes, and it's not inconceivable that this war outlasts dictator Putin himself. The Russians buying weapons from Iran and using T-62 tanks, and all that cardboard filled body armor proves the oligarchs stole so much of that military budget to buy mega yachts and Parisian apartments. Russian pilots have to Velcro Garmin GPS and Apple iPhones too their wind-shields so they know where they are. Look at their one aircraft carrier. It doesn’t start, LOL. It is clear they thought a large-scale conventional war unlikely, and Ukrainians would be waving welcoming Russian flags after paying all those pro-Russian separatists off for so long.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
Have you heard of Neville Chamberlain and his attempt to negotiate "peace" with the Nazis before WWII?
Your point?
Those actions were predicated on the idea that "if we just let the Germans have what they want, maybe we can all live in peace and harmony together." It didn't work. Once they got what they said they wanted one year, they expanded their ambitions accordingly.
Russia wasn't willing to stop once they took over Crimea, a few years later they came back for more. Even supposing the Ukrainian people were interested in trading the current Russian-held territory for a peace settlement (which I believe they are not), what reason do we have to believe that such a peace would last? If we all know the peace will be temporary at best, there's little to be gained by delaying the inevitable conflict, and plenty to lose.
I just did a quick check. There are 13 owl species that live in Russia.
The Russians have stated on their media that they want more than just Ukraine. The people that live on the border with Russia seem to have a very good understanding of the type of people they deal with when they deal with Russia. they seem to support Ukraine quite well. I think the Neville Chamberlain analogy is quite apt.
After Russia saw how much misery they created for the civilians in Ukraine, they recently shut the gas off to Moldova. There certainly seems to be a lot of credibility in calling them a terrorist state as a number of European nations have recently done.
Life isn't fair. I'll bet the mothers of the 86,710 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine don't think its fair. You know - Nobody would stop them from packing up and going home to Russia. After all, it was all their idea. Then peace can be made.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd,
...
Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died
...
It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders.
Your post is filled with strawman arguments - things you made up and then dispute, which nobody else is saying.
Russian soliders shooting civilians in the back of the head isn't war - its a war crime. There's video evidence of it, and mass graves of civilians.
Germany and Japan instigated WWII many decades ago, and each killed millions of civilians. That does not justify doing something similar at a smaller scale now.
-
There is no peace to be made with Russia that only involves parts of Ukraine. There would be only a temporary pause and then another push for the rest of Ukraine, for the rest of Moldova, for the rest of Georgia, for the fomenting of Russian populations in the Baltic States, for suborning extremist politicians in Hungary, Czechia and Serbia, and all happening during the continued genocide of Ukrainians in the occupied parts of Ukraine.
There is no peace to be made with Russia that does not involve acquiescing in the genocide of Ukrainians and in continued efforts by Russia to spread their terrorism further and further.
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
How silly!
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
If it were a matter of civilians caught in a crossfire in a disputed area, sure, that happens. When you're throwing inaccurate cruise missiles in the general direction of civilian power infrastructure hundreds of miles from the actual fighting, you lose your deniability.
Are there any examples where appeasement *has* worked? It didn't work pre-WWII, it didn't work when Ukraine gave up their nukes, it didn't work after the 2014 invasion.
Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.
Sadly, unless Ukraine actually makes significant progress into Crimea proper, the Kerch Strait will still be well outside HIMARS range.
-
I'm curious, for the "oh noes Russia killed three civilians" crowd, what did you expect? It's fucking war. Maybe you grew up during the McDonalds wars with the US in the middle east where only brown families died so you didn't have to worry about it? Do some research on war. Real war, like WW1, WW2. It ain't some bullshit lobbing a few cruise missiles at goat herders. Which ought to make you question who is really pushing to extend this war and not negotiate some sort of peace. Because Ukraine isn't going to beat Russia flat out. So how many innocent people are you willing to throw in the meat grinder for the sake of, whatever?
If it were a matter of civilians caught in a crossfire in a disputed area, sure, that happens. When you're throwing inaccurate cruise missiles in the general direction of civilian power infrastructure hundreds of miles from the actual fighting, you lose your deniability.
Are there any examples where appeasement *has* worked? It didn't work pre-WWII, it didn't work when Ukraine gave up their nukes, it didn't work after the 2014 invasion.
Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.
Sadly, unless Ukraine actually makes significant progress into Crimea proper, the Kerch Strait will still be well outside HIMARS range.
How did they do it last time? I guess they used a truck filled with explosives. The world blew up bridges before HIMARS. Ukraine has just been given some remote drone submarines. Maybe, they could do the job. It's always a whole lot easier to break something than it is to build something. The bridge is not going any where. They will figure out a way. They may be letting it be used in a somewhat crippled state to allow Russians to retreat.
-
Regarding negotiations with Russia:
The Case Against Negotiations with Russia
Frederick W. Kagan
November 17, 2022
The West should help Ukraine liberate the areas that are strategically vital to its security and economic well-being and then build up the Ukrainian military and economy to a point that deters future Russian invasions. Moscow will continue to pursue means short of invasion to undermine pro-Western Ukrainian governments and coerce Ukrainians to surrender their independence. Success for Ukraine and the West lies in turning this hot war into a cold war on terms that leave Ukraine strong enough to survive and ultimately win it.
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-case-against-negotiations-with-russia
-
Yeah, because Russia can be trusted to keep to its treaties (see their security guarantee for a de-nuclearised Ukraine back in the 1990s) and respect the borders and sovereignty of its neighbours (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, the list goes on). And Ukraine *is* beating Russia - Russia has already retreated from Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and is now giving back territory in Donbass. Plus, if Ukraine moves forward a bit more in the south, the Kerch bridge and all Russian ships are within HIMARS range, putting Crimea very much on the table.
Sadly, unless Ukraine actually makes significant progress into Crimea proper, the Kerch Strait will still be well outside HIMARS range.
The rockets that can hit the Kerch bridge exist, it's just that the US isn't delivering them (yet). While I think the main Ukrainian push is currently in Donbass, I don't think the southern occupied territories will be "left alone". Considering that Russia's forces so far seem to be regionally collapsing pretty drastically when they do, the picture can be very different in just a few weeks.
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
You would think they would learn from their own history. This was one of the major problems with the Winter war with Finland. They saw the cold take the Germans in World War 2. They saw the cold take Napoleon's troops. What do they call it when the same mistake is made over and over?
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
You would think they would learn from their own history. This was one of the major problems with the Winter war with Finland. They saw the cold take the Germans in World War 2. They saw the cold take Napoleon's troops. What do they call it when the same mistake is made over and over?
Insanity?
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
You would think they would learn from their own history. This was one of the major problems with the Winter war with Finland. They saw the cold take the Germans in World War 2. They saw the cold take Napoleon's troops. What do they call it when the same mistake is made over and over?
Insanity?
Those who learn from history get to watch others repeat it.
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
You would think they would learn from their own history. This was one of the major problems with the Winter war with Finland. They saw the cold take the Germans in World War 2. They saw the cold take Napoleon's troops. What do they call it when the same mistake is made over and over?
Insanity?
Corruption and incompetence.
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
You would think they would learn from their own history. This was one of the major problems with the Winter war with Finland. They saw the cold take the Germans in World War 2. They saw the cold take Napoleon's troops. What do they call it when the same mistake is made over and over?
Insanity?
Corruption and incompetence.
Or arrogance. "For us, it will be different."
-
I think the simple answer is that Russia assumed this war (or “special military operation”) would last weeks at best, and be over long before spring became summer. And given how easily they took Crimea and their apparent superiority in numbers and equipment back in Feb. that’s understandable.
Now they’re facing winter, and some horrible choices. Retreat (further) and this boondoggle becomes a public recognition of complete military failure. Dig in and they face continued battlefield losses coupled with the unforgiving cold at the very time when their supply lines are most strained and international sanctions are finally biting.
-
I think the simple answer is that Russia assumed this war (or “special military operation”) would last weeks at best, and be over long before spring became summer. And given how easily they took Crimea and their apparent superiority in numbers and equipment back in Feb. that’s understandable.
Now they’re facing winter, and some horrible choices. Retreat (further) and this boondoggle becomes a public recognition of complete military failure. Dig in and they face continued battlefield losses coupled with the unforgiving cold at the very time when their supply lines are most strained and international sanctions are finally biting.
I find it telling that Russia is using its precious "precision" cruise missiles on targets with no military value, while Ukraine is using its (actual) precision weapons to take out weapons caches, fuel depots, command & control centers, supply lines, etc. To me, this means that Ukraine's logistics will be in FAR better condition for the next few months of fighting than Russia's will be...
Errrr, let me rephrase. The gap between Ukraine's logistics capabilities and Russia's will continue, and winter is only going to compound it. As bad as we've heard it is for the Russian conscripts, it's only going to get worse.
-
I think the simple answer is that Russia assumed this war (or “special military operation”) would last weeks at best, and be over long before spring became summer. And given how easily they took Crimea and their apparent superiority in numbers and equipment back in Feb. that’s understandable.
Now they’re facing winter, and some horrible choices. Retreat (further) and this boondoggle becomes a public recognition of complete military failure. Dig in and they face continued battlefield losses coupled with the unforgiving cold at the very time when their supply lines are most strained and international sanctions are finally biting.
I find it telling that Russia is using its precious "precision" cruise missiles on targets with no military value, while Ukraine is using its (actual) precision weapons to take out weapons caches, fuel depots, command & control centers, supply lines, etc. To me, this means that Ukraine's logistics will be in FAR better condition for the next few months of fighting than Russia's will be...
Errrr, let me rephrase. The gap between Ukraine's logistics capabilities and Russia's will continue, and winter is only going to compound it. As bad as we've heard it is for the Russian conscripts, it's only going to get worse.
As I understand it the Russians have three lines of defense. The first is the conscripts. The second is the regular army. The third are the Chechens. Any conscript retreating will be shot by regular army. If he gets by them, the Chechens will finish him off. If he advances, Ukrainian fire will take him down. So he has to stay and freeze in the trench. If fires are lit for warmth, the drones will spot them and drop grenades.
-
I think the simple answer is that Russia assumed this war (or “special military operation”) would last weeks at best, and be over long before spring became summer. And given how easily they took Crimea and their apparent superiority in numbers and equipment back in Feb. that’s understandable.
Now they’re facing winter, and some horrible choices. Retreat (further) and this boondoggle becomes a public recognition of complete military failure. Dig in and they face continued battlefield losses coupled with the unforgiving cold at the very time when their supply lines are most strained and international sanctions are finally biting.
I find it telling that Russia is using its precious "precision" cruise missiles on targets with no military value, while Ukraine is using its (actual) precision weapons to take out weapons caches, fuel depots, command & control centers, supply lines, etc. To me, this means that Ukraine's logistics will be in FAR better condition for the next few months of fighting than Russia's will be...
Errrr, let me rephrase. The gap between Ukraine's logistics capabilities and Russia's will continue, and winter is only going to compound it. As bad as we've heard it is for the Russian conscripts, it's only going to get worse.
As I understand it the Russians have three lines of defense. The first is the conscripts. The second is the regular army. The third are the Chechens. Any conscript retreating will be shot by regular army. If he gets by them, the Chechens will finish him off. If he advances, Ukrainian fire will take him down. So he has to stay and freeze in the trench. If fires are lit for warmth, the drones will spot them and drop grenades.
Surrendering seems like their best option.
-
...some sort of peace.
What sort of peace?
Idk, peace where there isn't hundreds of rounds of mortar everyday? Life isn't fair. You can conjure up the Hollywood story of how Ukraine stood up to the big bad daddy six ways to Sunday...it's great MSM fodder. But let's dial the time back to WW2, where Russia lost somewhere around 20M lives...20 fucking million. You think they care about 500 lives lost this month or whatever the latest claims are? Russia will just continue to throw meat into the meat grinder for years. Oh boo hoo it's not fair or it's a genocide or whatever. It's fucking war. If you're not prepared to accept that then you ought to be begging for all sides to negotiate peace. Which btw means Russia increases it's western border territory.
Or Russia just says "Oh yeah, peace! What a novel idea! Why not? We pull back all our forces into our country".
Everyone (at least outside Russia) would gladly end this war. But destroying Ukraine as a price and showing dictators that you just have to kill enough people to make everyone cover down is not acceptable, but for Ukrainians and everyone else.
But your going back to WWII has some points to it. It's just that now Russia has the Role of Nazi Germany and Ukrainians are the defenders. And they are way more prepared to fight to the bitter end than today's Russia.
If anything the winter might tone down the actual fighting, but it will hurt Russia a lot more, even with the civilian problems Russia causes in Ukraine. Their military attacked in February with summer clothes and I am sure they didn't get around to supply the 100K new recruits with winter ones. In contrast new Ukrainian soldiers get both a good training, good weapons and good winter clothes from Canada. They will keep up the pressure.
Russia only needs to go home for peace.
There is evidence that Russian soldiers are actually freezing to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/27/russian-soldiers-are-freezing-to-death-in-eastern-ukraine/?sh=224342da4254
You would think they would learn from their own history. This was one of the major problems with the Winter war with Finland. They saw the cold take the Germans in World War 2. They saw the cold take Napoleon's troops. What do they call it when the same mistake is made over and over?
Insanity?
Corruption and incompetence.
Putin is completely insulated from the plight of the people on the front lines. He's not accountable to anyone. He has a large number of reservists who can be sent to freeze to death.
That's a tough trifecta that would have to be overcome for Russia to care.
-
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf (https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf)
Analysis on the first six months of the war by a couple of Ukrainian generals and UK analysts. Goes into a lot of details I hadn't read before about Russian prep work leading up to the war, tactical actions by both sides in the first couple months, and lessons to be learned.
-
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf (https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf)
Analysis on the first six months of the war by a couple of Ukrainian generals and UK analysts. Goes into a lot of details I hadn't read before about Russian prep work leading up to the war, tactical actions by both sides in the first couple months, and lessons to be learned.
Wow. This a lot more informative than ordinary news reports.
-
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf (https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf)
Analysis on the first six months of the war by a couple of Ukrainian generals and UK analysts. Goes into a lot of details I hadn't read before about Russian prep work leading up to the war, tactical actions by both sides in the first couple months, and lessons to be learned.
Wow. This a lot more informative than ordinary news reports.
Yeah, definitely worth putting a few hours in if you are interested.
-
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf (https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf)
Analysis on the first six months of the war by a couple of Ukrainian generals and UK analysts. Goes into a lot of details I hadn't read before about Russian prep work leading up to the war, tactical actions by both sides in the first couple months, and lessons to be learned.
Thanks @Travis I didn't read the whole thing yet but what I skimmed was excellent. Definitely some good lessons learned to pass on to my Soldiers.
-
The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese. They very much don't want to become Chinese!
Um, the official name for Taiwan is "Republic of China" and that the government used to control the Chinese mainland until the PRC took over.
I'd agree they very much don't want to be under the PRC government, but that's a different thing than being Chinese.
-
The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese. They very much don't want to become Chinese!
Um, the official name for Taiwan is "Republic of China" and that the government used to control the Chinese mainland until the PRC took over.
I'd agree they very much don't want to be under the PRC government, but that's a different thing than being Chinese.
It depends on you how you look at it I suppose. Ethnically, the people of Taiwan are almost entirely Han. They were nationally Chinese when they fled Mao's takeover of China in the late '40s. But after 80ish years apart from China (and fighting pretty hard to not re-join China that whole time) I'm not sure that you the label 'Chinese' fits any more. I don't see the government or political structure of China changing for several generations at least, so would expect the Taiwanese to continue to diverge from their ancestral roots going forward.
-
The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese. They very much don't want to become Chinese!
Um, the official name for Taiwan is "Republic of China" and that the government used to control the Chinese mainland until the PRC took over.
I'd agree they very much don't want to be under the PRC government, but that's a different thing than being Chinese.
It depends on you how you look at it I suppose. Ethnically, the people of Taiwan are almost entirely Han. They were nationally Chinese when they fled Mao's takeover of China in the late '40s. But after 80ish years apart from China (and fighting pretty hard to not re-join China that whole time) I'm not sure that you the label 'Chinese' fits any more. I don't see the government or political structure of China changing for several generations at least, so would expect the Taiwanese to continue to diverge from their ancestral roots going forward.
An ex's parents were from Taiwan, and were among those who fled China. They were adamant that they were NOT Chinese. So, that's 2 people out of 20+ million.
-
The people living in Taiwan are Taiwanese. They very much don't want to become Chinese!
Um, the official name for Taiwan is "Republic of China" and that the government used to control the Chinese mainland until the PRC took over.
I'd agree they very much don't want to be under the PRC government, but that's a different thing than being Chinese.
It depends on you how you look at it I suppose. Ethnically, the people of Taiwan are almost entirely Han. They were nationally Chinese when they fled Mao's takeover of China in the late '40s. But after 80ish years apart from China (and fighting pretty hard to not re-join China that whole time) I'm not sure that you the label 'Chinese' fits any more. I don't see the government or political structure of China changing for several generations at least, so would expect the Taiwanese to continue to diverge from their ancestral roots going forward.
An ex's parents were from Taiwan, and were among those who fled China. They were adamant that they were NOT Chinese. So, that's 2 people out of 20+ million.
Fwiw, @GuitarStv, wikipedia lists the demonym as "Taiwanese."
That kind of agrees with Sibley's direct report of the people's preference.
I met Taiwan's representative to the US, what would be an ambassador under normal circumstances. I think he said Taiwanese. He definitely didn't say Chinese in our conversation.
-
I think it would be like calling Canadians "Americans". They might accept being called "North Americans" on occasion but would surely object if one did so consistently.
I recently saw the raw data for a local survey and quite a few of the respondents deliberately did not choose "Chinese" as an ethnicity, picking "Other" and filling in "Taiwanese" as an option.
-
I'm hesitant to go too far off the Ukraine topic but if the USA duplicates computer chip manufacturing capability within North America - does that make Taiwan less valuable to the west? Less likely to defend Taiwan?
-
I'm hesitant to go too far off the Ukraine topic but if the USA duplicates computer chip manufacturing capability within North America - does that make Taiwan less valuable to the west? Less likely to defend Taiwan?
The US's relationship transcends the chip question, as evidenced by the fact the US has been in a posture of strategic ambiguity in terms of defense of Taiwan since before the ascent of TSMC. This all goes back to the central question: is the US setting the terms for a unipolar world with global institutions and trade, or will the US retreat and allow a multipolar & more fractured world to arise? So far, the unipolar view is winning (e.g. the relative solidarity behind Ukraine).
But yes, I think if TSMC fab technology wasn't limited to Taiwan, it would give the US a freer hand in determining how committed it was maintaining the status quo with China. One analogue situation, which has been particularly emphasized by Peter Zeihan, is US fracking technology, which gave the US greater leeway in lowering its involvement in the mideast. In spite of nominal energy independence, however, the US is still considerably engaged there.
-
I'm hesitant to go too far off the Ukraine topic but if the USA duplicates computer chip manufacturing capability within North America - does that make Taiwan less valuable to the west? Less likely to defend Taiwan?
Perhaps, but Taiwan is still a critical node in the first island chain (including Japan and the Philippines) that basically keeps China contained from a naval perspective.
In the same respect, Ukraine helps keep Russia contained from expanding further west into Europe.
A central tenet of US strategy is keeping a global competitor from arising in Eurasia - right now that is China (and to a much lesser extent Russia) just as it used to the Soviet Union and before that Nazi Germany.
-
Is this BS or are HIAMRS kaput as an effective weapon?
https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/ (https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/)
-
Is this BS or are HIAMRS kaput as an effective weapon?
https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/ (https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/)
Probably BS. Even if they have better air defense, they have to be in the right place at the right time. They can't protect everything and clearly the HIMARS has been effective in hitting a lot of targets. Also, how many missiles can the US provide vs. how many counter-missiles can Russia produce?
-
Is this BS or are HIAMRS kaput as an effective weapon?
https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/ (https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/)
It's two sentences that screams "trust me bro."
"Army stuck in the early 80s whips up a software update that changes the laws of physics and doubles effectiveness of every air defense system regardless of radar or missile being used."
Also, take a look at every other article on that site.
-
Is this BS or are HIAMRS kaput as an effective weapon?
https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/ (https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/)
"Russian air defenses were previously knocking down 75 to 80% of GMLRS"
"Now 100%!"
"tornado mlrs is like so much better!"
Pure BS.
Also consider the sources of the quotes: all Russian state media. Finally, "eurasia" is a phrase Russian propagandists have taken to refer to a new Russian empire, so your source is essentially named "New Russian Empire Times."
-
Is this BS or are HIAMRS kaput as an effective weapon?
https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/ (https://eurasiantimes.com/end-of-himars-russian-air-defenses-units-receive-new-software-that-can-track-knock-out-us-supplied-mlrs/)
@Michael in ABQ is right about being in the right place, although since Russia's biggest weakness (among many big weaknesses) is their logistics hubs, so that's where I would expect Russia to put their AA defenses.
Of course, that then opens up all sorts of other targets, and Ukraine has already been hitting Russian front line units with HIMARS, so...who knows?
In any case, given the poor performance of Russia's.....everything over the past nine months, I find it difficult to believe any claims of sudden improvements in their capability.
-
About the only thing the Russians have done WELL is hit Ukraine's electrical grid. I don't know how Russia has such good information about the grid, but they do. Some possibilities are benign, others are not. Either way, it really sucks for Ukraine.
-
About the only thing the Russians have done WELL is hit Ukraine's electrical grid. I don't know how Russia has such good information about the grid, but they do. Some possibilities are benign, others are not. Either way, it really sucks for Ukraine.
It's publicly available information. Power plants and transformers don't move, even after a decade. The flip side of them using ten year old intel is that they've fired missiles at abandoned military bases as well.
-
About the only thing the Russians have done WELL is hit Ukraine's electrical grid. I don't know how Russia has such good information about the grid, but they do. Some possibilities are benign, others are not. Either way, it really sucks for Ukraine.
It's publicly available information. Power plants and transformers don't move, even after a decade. The flip side of them using ten year old intel is that they've fired missiles at abandoned military bases as well.
Besides publicly available one line power diagrams satellite photos can be used to spot substations. Oddly enough I've worked at substations and have used Google to find them myself.
-
So, would it make sense for Ukraine (when this is all over), to rebuild their electrical grid and put it underground or otherwise protected? Or is that not really possible?
-
So, would it make sense for Ukraine (when this is all over), to rebuild their electrical grid and put it underground or otherwise protected? Or is that not really possible?
Burying AC power lines for medium to long distances is impractical due to capacitance effects. NBD at the low voltage, short distance neighborhood level. Big deal for transmission. It's also far more expensive than overhead power lines.
-
So, would it make sense for Ukraine (when this is all over), to rebuild their electrical grid and put it underground or otherwise protected? Or is that not really possible?
I think you have to define what you mean by "electrical grid". The wires? Nope. TomTX hit on the efficiency issues, and besides, suspended power lines are (relatively) inexpensive to run and repair. The substations, transformers, etc? That may make more sense to locate in more protected areas.
That's still kind of a bad idea, though, because either
A) Russia gets kicked out of Ukraine, the war ends, and Russia stops trying to blow it up, or
B) Russia eventually runs out of long-range precision weapons that can hit those facilities, or
C) Russia somehow wins (how!?) and it's a moot point.
-
So, would it make sense for Ukraine (when this is all over), to rebuild their electrical grid and put it underground or otherwise protected? Or is that not really possible?
I think you have to define what you mean by "electrical grid". The wires? Nope. TomTX hit on the efficiency issues, and besides, suspended power lines are (relatively) inexpensive to run and repair. The substations, transformers, etc? That may make more sense to locate in more protected areas.
That's still kind of a bad idea, though, because either
A) Russia gets kicked out of Ukraine, the war ends, and Russia stops trying to blow it up, or
B) Russia eventually runs out of long-range precision weapons that can hit those facilities, or
C) Russia somehow wins (how!?) and it's a moot point.
Even if it made economic sense to bury high voltage lines, most of the infrastructure is probably intact. Think of the high voltage towers. Shouldn't they be re-utilized rather than to trench hundreds of kilometers?
I suspect they are attacking substations and taking out transformers. High voltage transformers can have hundreds of gallons of oil used for winding resistance. I could see putting blast walls around them, but the connection bushings at the top would remain vulnerable. These may be particularly bad as these bushings can have an outer housing of porcelain
Perhaps the best defense is a lot of redundancy.
-
About the only thing the Russians have done WELL is hit Ukraine's electrical grid. I don't know how Russia has such good information about the grid, but they do. Some possibilities are benign, others are not. Either way, it really sucks for Ukraine.
A few minutes in Google Maps and you can find a dozen electrical substations. There's no way to hide that. You can put them inside a building, but it would be pretty obvious to see these huge electrical lines running into a building that never has any cars parked near it because there's little need for anyone to ever go there. The nature of a substation is that the equipment needs some buffer space from anything else and they usually have a wall or fence around them and clear areas without any vegetation to interfere with the equipment (not to mention the electrical wires running to and from them).
-
So, would it make sense for Ukraine (when this is all over), to rebuild their electrical grid and put it underground or otherwise protected? Or is that not really possible?
For a war, it would make a lot more sense to go for radical local energy production with wind, solar and biogas combinations on the level of every medium city.
Still, even that redundancy can't protect big consumers like steel factories.
-
So, would it make sense for Ukraine (when this is all over), to rebuild their electrical grid and put it underground or otherwise protected? Or is that not really possible?
For a war, it would make a lot more sense to go for radical local energy production with wind, solar and biogas combinations on the level of every medium city.
Still, even that redundancy can't protect big consumers like steel factories.
Steel factories favor the use of non intermittent power sources. Solar and wind may not be suitable for large industrial endeavors. This is why they are backed up by natural gas. Steel mini mills can be modeled at times like a short circuit as they may use an electric arc to melt scrap metal. Much larger amounts of power are needed than for the charging of cell phones.
-
I want to commend Ukrainian forces for striking two targets at once. If they only cause one explosion, it's hard to say if it's Russian incompetance or not.
Several people have been killed in explosions at two Russian military airfields, according to reports.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63857451
-
I want to commend Ukrainian forces for striking two targets at once. If they only cause one explosion, it's hard to say if it's Russian incompetance or not.
Several people have been killed in explosions at two Russian military airfields, according to reports.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63857451
I still believe it's incompetence. All trained personal is at the front and replacements just don't know (or care) to handle stuff correctly.
And even if this is not the reason, it's incompetence by the security ;)
-
I want to commend Ukrainian forces for striking two targets at once. If they only cause one explosion, it's hard to say if it's Russian incompetance or not.
Several people have been killed in explosions at two Russian military airfields, according to reports.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63857451
I still believe it's incompetence. All trained personal is at the front and replacements just don't know (or care) to handle stuff correctly.
And even if this is not the reason, it's incompetence by the security ;)
I'm reminded of Hanlon's Razor; "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence." Where in this case malice is action by the Ukrainian security forces. :)
-
https://twitter.com/warinukraineyet/status/1599765572610183168?s=46&t=x3tIwR3KKAv99Z5AwkpbQQ (https://twitter.com/warinukraineyet/status/1599765572610183168?s=46&t=x3tIwR3KKAv99Z5AwkpbQQ)
Ukrainian drone strikes.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1599832518944903168?s=20&t=hzv28J0HUa8GwVARMJOgHQ (https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1599832518944903168?s=20&t=hzv28J0HUa8GwVARMJOgHQ)
Russian MoD says two planes damaged. Other battle damage pending.
-
For the last couple months, Russian forces have been digging miles of trenches with excavators and installing countless "dragon's teeth" anti-tank obstacles all across the front lines. This is what some of those obstacles look like after maybe two months:
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1600151315371347968 (https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1600151315371347968)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought)
For reference, this is what WW2 dragon's teeth looked like:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/hitlers-fortified-siegfried-line-was-massive.html?chrome=1 (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/hitlers-fortified-siegfried-line-was-massive.html?chrome=1)
We got past them by either building large earthen ramps over them, or blowing them up. These look like they'll be knocked aside or flipped over by a simple front-loader.
-
For the last couple months, Russian forces have been digging miles of trenches with excavators and installing countless "dragon's teeth" anti-tank obstacles all across the front lines. This is what some of those obstacles look like after maybe two months:
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1600151315371347968 (https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1600151315371347968)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought)
For reference, this is what WW2 dragon's teeth looked like:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/hitlers-fortified-siegfried-line-was-massive.html?chrome=1 (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/hitlers-fortified-siegfried-line-was-massive.html?chrome=1)
We got past them by either building large earthen ramps over them, or blowing them up. These look like they'll be knocked aside or flipped over by a simple front-loader.
Nothing quite like using concrete parking blocks to stop a tank.
-
So the Russians simply threw a load of triangle shaped hollows on the field?
That is more useful as cover for infantry than in stopping a tank lol.
-
I don't entirely get the motivation. It's not like Ukraine has been rolling tanks into Russian territory to capture it and force Russian citizens to become Ukrainian.
Was this just to feed Russian state misinformation? If so, that would explain why they don't care about effectiveness.
-
For the last couple months, Russian forces have been digging miles of trenches with excavators and installing countless "dragon's teeth" anti-tank obstacles all across the front lines. This is what some of those obstacles look like after maybe two months:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought)
And if they fail to stop tanks, they double as Russian tombstones.
-
I don't entirely get the motivation. It's not like Ukraine has been rolling tanks into Russian territory to capture it and force Russian citizens to become Ukrainian.
Was this just to feed Russian state misinformation? If so, that would explain why they don't care about effectiveness.
Item#458 on Russia's "corruption breeds incompetence" punch list. And while nobody sane is talking about Ukraine crossing the Russian border, Belgorod now has a line of fortifications around it and villages on the border have been evacuated.
-
I don't entirely get the motivation. It's not like Ukraine has been rolling tanks into Russian territory to capture it and force Russian citizens to become Ukrainian.
Was this just to feed Russian state misinformation? If so, that would explain why they don't care about effectiveness.
Item#458 on Russia's "corruption breeds incompetence" punch list. And while nobody sane is talking about Ukraine crossing the Russian border, Belgorod now has a line of fortifications around it and villages on the border have been evacuated.
The Ukrainians might as well move into those villages. Why not? The Russians blew their homes up.
-
For the last couple months, Russian forces have been digging miles of trenches with excavators and installing countless "dragon's teeth" anti-tank obstacles all across the front lines. This is what some of those obstacles look like after maybe two months:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought)
And if they fail to stop tanks, they double as Russian tombstones.
THAT is a BRILLIANT idea.
-
Those damn smokers:
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1601148421121134593
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnS5-0ZCw3E
Check out the explorsions...
-
Looking beyond the current situation in Ukraine, this article provides some insight into objectives western powers are likely pursuing in the Russo-Ukrainian war:
A ‘Morgenthau Plan’ for Russia: Avoiding Post-1991 Mistakes in Dealing With a Post-Putin Russia (Part One)
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 19 Issue: 179
By: Sergey Sukhankin
December 1, 2022 05:34 PM
Moscow’s all-out war of aggression against Ukraine, which commenced on February 24, has vividly demonstrated that Russia’s militarism and drive toward colonial expansion has not disappeared. This has, in turn, revealed that arguments supporting the notion that economic growth and inclusion in major international organizations would bring stability and normalization to Russia have largely failed. The war against Ukraine has also underscored the bitter reality that Russia is indeed the number-one threat to European security. Additionally, the conflict has revealed a staggering discrepancy between the pre-war image of Russia, which was skillfully crafted by Moscow`s own propaganda and the Kremlin`s open and tacit supporters in the West, and the woeful reality, that of a deeply corrupt, criminalized, economically weakened and militarily archaic country.
https://jamestown.org/program/a-morgenthau-plan-for-russia-avoiding-post-1991-mistakes-in-dealing-with-a-post-putin-russia-part-one/
A ‘Morgenthau Plan’ for Russia: Avoiding Post-1991 Mistakes in Dealing With a Post-Putin Russia (Part Two)
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 19 Issue: 183
By: Sergey Sukhankin
December 8, 2022 06:32 PM
First, for its own good and for the sake of its neighbors’ security, Russia must suffer a complete military defeat in its war of aggression against Ukraine. This might result in a collapse of the current political regime and the drastic reduction of Russia’s conventional military potential. For this, Ukrainian forces must be provided with all necessary equipment, including modern air defense systems, artillery systems, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, combat aircraft and anti-ship missiles in the demanded quantities (Twitter.com/oleksiireznikov, April 26). Additionally, Ukraine should be granted membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) right away without delay. Luckily, awareness is rising among Western leaders that any “diplomatic solution” aimed at “saving face” for Russia—initially backed by many European politicians (Delfi, June 4)—will not halt Russia`s militarism in the long run. This was recently underscored by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, among others (The Moscow Times, November 25).
https://jamestown.org/program/a-morgenthau-plan-for-russia-avoiding-post-1991-mistakes-in-dealing-with-a-post-putin-russia-part-two/
-
The Russians seem to be masterful retreaters. In all the history I've read they should have taken devastating losses as they pulled back from Kyiv, much greater than they did. I chalked it up to Ukraine at the time and in the area being severely out gunned and outnumbered to the point it made no sense to pursue even slightly. But the same thing happened in Kherson: the Russians should have been demolished. They were on the wrong side of a large river, their enemy had good aerial reconnaissance and advanced artillery, and the Russians were outnumbered and out gunned. But again they got basically everyone and everything back across the river in relatively good order. Like, based on how well they do everything else, you would never guess how well the Russians retreat. If this were a computer game, their faction characteristic would be "+20 morale when retreating." This unfortunately does make it harder for Ukraine, because the Russians (if they were smart) are in their first moderately defensible position of the war.
-
OK, so how and when does this end? It's been brought up before, but not recently. Militarily Russia will have lost when the Oryx list https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html totals somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles, simply because at that point Russia will have nothing left. Even if they mobilize more men they will have nothing to fight with. That will likely occur sometime between the 1 and 2 year anniversary of the war, and I have been predicting the 2nd quarter of 2023. Does anyone have a different time frame they think is more likely?
But that doesn't end hostilities. Russia can continue lobbing all the missiles and drones it can get its hands on over the border essentially forever. Russia can send chumps with second rate rifles forever. Essentially it will be reduced to large scale state sponsored terrorism, doubly so if Ukraine is restrained from attacking back. If that happens eventually the hostilities may end in a manner favorable to Russia to some degree, unless Russia realizes there is a compelling reason to end hostilities on equal footing. Ukraine will need leverage, or at least a carrot, to avoid a territorial loss. Other issues Ukraine could want might include returning kidnapped Ukrainian citizens, turning over Russian war criminals, and reparations. I have some ideas for what Ukraine can do to end the war more favorably:
Possible Leverage:
Blockade of Russian Black Sea ports to get concessions
Destroy Russian militarily so badly Ukraine can start seizing parts of Russia and trade (which likely requires self sufficiency in weapons and ammo)
Possible Carrots:
End of Western sanctions
Return of Russian government funds held overseas
Russia gets land even if only the extreme eastern tip where there is an oddball rail line passing through on its way to Russia from Russia.
My guess is that the best case for Ukraine is getting back kidnapped citizens and taken territory, but no war criminals turned over and no reparations. I am not even sure I support reparations except seizure of existing Russian overseas funds. I don't think burdening future Russians with the bills of past Russians is a good way to build a better future, so I personally would not support ongoing reparations. I'd rather pay to rebuild Ukraine myself with like minded others and through my taxes, so that the future can be built on generosity.
Personally I see little chance of a Russian victory, I think the best they can do is hang onto a chunk of land in exchange for a host of other concessions.
A black swan is Russia collapsing, and everything goes out the window.
Another black swan is China suddenly turns it into a proxy war and supplies Russia with all the equipment it could ever need in endless quantities, fighting Ukraine and the West to the last Russian.
Thoughts?
-
It'll be interesting to know if Russia will continue the conflict if they're pushed out of Ukraine. Russia is out ranged in artillery, so their main weapon of war will have little effect. Well placed fortifications will prevent troop movements into Ukraine. So that basically means missiles and drones to terrorize Ukrainian civilians. But that goes both ways, Ukraine could continue to hit Russian military targets in Russia.
An internationally agreed duty on Russian oil and gas is the most likely way Ukraine will get reparations if they can't come to an agreement with Russia.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
This is what keeps Kazakhstan awake at night. They seem genuinely concerned that they'll be next whether Russia wins in Ukraine or not.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
This is what keeps Kazakhstan awake at night. They seem genuinely concerned that they'll be next whether Russia wins in Ukraine or not.
The Russians have troops in Moldova and Georgia. I'll bet those countries are very worried about being invaded by Mordor. This may not end until NATO troops ensure Russia does not expand. It looks like all the European countries (& Japan) see it that way too as many are increasing their defense spending. However this Ukraine war turns out, this war may have weakened the Russian empire for a generation.
-
New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
-
New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
Wow, fantastic article!
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
-
New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
Wow, fantastic article!
Note though, Phillips P. OBrien's quibble / concern with the by now disproved, continuing narrative about Russia's assumed military strength and Ukraine's supposed laxity/ lack thereof, in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1527719118438289409?s=20&t=NvL6077vWYMoh4g4QQdT8g (https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1527719118438289409?s=20&t=NvL6077vWYMoh4g4QQdT8g)
Sorry, no threadreader unroll available.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying it's so crazy. People are dying. It's depressing.
I feel like... I don't know, it just seems absurd that people die for these things.
People die because of religion. People die because other people are sad or depressed. People die for associating with other people. People die for being the wrong color/sex/trait. People die because people want to expand borders.
People just love killing people I guess.
What's even more depressing is that we live in the least homicidal times of human history and it's still like this.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
Ukraines East was the industrial center of the USSR. Like the steel factory that the defenders of Mariupol holded for weeks.
And that they have so much land is not of much use if nobody wants to live there. Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter. They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.
-
Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter.
I'm kind of skeptical. The Mir mine is over 1200 km away from Iruktsk (and it's the closest one I could find). It's the oldest diamond mine in the region which dates back to 1957. But Irkutsk was founded in 1661 and already had a population of around 350,000 people by 1957. I have a hard time believing half a million people would live there just because of the diamond trade.
They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.
You're not thinking of Yakutsk, are you? Irkutsk doesn't get quite that cold (about 20C difference in winter on average).
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329955-russia-cars-extreme-frosts
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
How much of that industrial capacity is left in the occupied areas? There's not a whole lot left of Azovstal. As for farmland, well, who's gonna farm it? The Ukrainians have left those areas or been kidnapped into Russia.
This is an ego trip for Putin. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter.
I'm kind of skeptical. The Mir mine is over 1200 km away from Iruktsk (and it's the closest one I could find). It's the oldest diamond mine in the region which dates back to 1957. But Irkutsk was founded in 1661 and already had a population of around 350,000 people by 1957. I have a hard time believing half a million people would live there just because of the diamond trade.
They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.
You're not thinking of Yakutsk, are you? Irkutsk doesn't get quite that cold (about 20C difference in winter on average).
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329955-russia-cars-extreme-frosts
Yeah, sorry, I mixed up the names. I am really bad with names. In Yakutsk it's currently -38°C.
-
Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter.
I'm kind of skeptical. The Mir mine is over 1200 km away from Iruktsk (and it's the closest one I could find). It's the oldest diamond mine in the region which dates back to 1957. But Irkutsk was founded in 1661 and already had a population of around 350,000 people by 1957. I have a hard time believing half a million people would live there just because of the diamond trade.
They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.
You're not thinking of Yakutsk, are you? Irkutsk doesn't get quite that cold (about 20C difference in winter on average).
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329955-russia-cars-extreme-frosts
Yeah, sorry, I mixed up the names. I am really bad with names. In Yakutsk it's currently -38°C.
Almost as cold as some parts of Montana recently!
https://www.ktvh.com/weather/incredibly-dangerously-cold
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
Don't forget the recent petroleum discoveries in UKR that, once developed, would make Russian oil uncompetitive in Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo6w5R6Uo8Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo6w5R6Uo8Y)
-
Zelensky in D.C. today, speaking to Congress tonight in person. He brought a Ukrainian flag signed by Bakhmut's defenders. He went down there to pick it up himself a few days ago.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
How much of that industrial capacity is left in the occupied areas? There's not a whole lot left of Azovstal. As for farmland, well, who's gonna farm it? The Ukrainians have left those areas or been kidnapped into Russia.
This is an ego trip for Putin. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree, capturing an empty city of rubble (Mariupol) doesn't make much sense - or fields that are now filled with unexploded ordnance, shell craters, land mines, and trenches. On the other hand, Russia basically captured Crimea with everything entirely intact. I think they clearly expected to achieve the same thing with a quick invasion and capture of Kyiv then replacing the government with a puppet (or outright annexation of the whole country). At this point anything they capture is more of a liability than an asset.
-
Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.
Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.
Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
How much of that industrial capacity is left in the occupied areas? There's not a whole lot left of Azovstal. As for farmland, well, who's gonna farm it? The Ukrainians have left those areas or been kidnapped into Russia.
This is an ego trip for Putin. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree, capturing an empty city of rubble (Mariupol) doesn't make much sense - or fields that are now filled with unexploded ordnance, shell craters, land mines, and trenches. On the other hand, Russia basically captured Crimea with everything entirely intact. I think they clearly expected to achieve the same thing with a quick invasion and capture of Kyiv then replacing the government with a puppet (or outright annexation of the whole country). At this point anything they capture is more of a liability than an asset.
It's only a liability if you care about the people or the place. I heard one announcer say that old man Putin doesn't care if he kills 300,000 Russians taking the place. the news reports that he places no financial limits on taking Ukraine. He's obviously been willing to blow up anything or anyone in his path. There's no logic to his actions. He is causing long term harm to the Russian people with this war. Its the actions of a 5 year old. "If I can't have it, I'll make sure you can't either." I wouldn't be too surprised if he begins to ruin the farmland in Ukraine as they did in ancient times.
-
From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.
-
New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
Wow, fantastic article!
Note though, Phillips P. OBrien's quibble / concern with the by now disproved, continuing narrative about Russia's assumed military strength and Ukraine's supposed laxity/ lack thereof, in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1527719118438289409?s=20&t=NvL6077vWYMoh4g4QQdT8g (https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1527719118438289409?s=20&t=NvL6077vWYMoh4g4QQdT8g)
Sorry, no threadreader unroll available.
When I follow that link, I get a Phillip O'Brien thread discussing evidence that Americans are interested in winnable wars and their opinion changes if they conclude a war is unwinnable. The original article discussed how weak the Russian military turned out to be, and how Putin was among the people who before the Ukraine war assumed the Russian military was strong.
How is O'brien quibbling with the original article? (I'm not arguing, just missing the connection.)
-
From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.
Given that the Ukrainian culture is about the closest culture in the world to the Russian culture, his actions don't make a lot of sense. Ukraine should have been the easiest country for him to befriend. It is only Belarus that seems to be on his side and it is reported the folks there think he sucks too. You would have to give Putin an F+ grade in foreign affairs.
-
From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.
Given that the Ukrainian culture is about the closest culture in the world to the Russian culture, his actions don't make a lot of sense. Ukraine should have been the easiest country for him to befriend. It is only Belarus that seems to be on his side and it is reported the folks there think he sucks too. You would have to give Putin an F+ grade in foreign affairs.
View it from the lens of an abusive relationship. Lavrov and Peskov will say in the same breath "We're saving our Slavic brothers from Western Nazi influence. And we're bombing their cities to powder because they're not listening. We'll kill as many as we have to until they accept our benevolence."
-
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
The baffling part to me is that Russia could have had all the access they wanted IF they had approached Ukraine from a capitalist point of view. Business deals instead of bombs and bullets. And NATO was never going to invade Russia. Clearly Russia's ruling class is full of people who talk about how the world is going to do them wrong when in reality, its those same people who are the real threat to the rest of the world. Also see Trump/GOP projecting their biases onto others for the consumption of their voting base...
-
The baffling part to me is that Russia could have had all the access they wanted IF they had approached Ukraine from a capitalist point of view. Business deals instead of bombs and bullets. And NATO was never going to invade Russia. Clearly Russia's ruling class is full of people who talk about how the world is going to do them wrong when in reality, its those same people who are the real threat to the rest of the world. Also see Trump/GOP projecting their biases onto others for the consumption of their voting base...
Yes.
Add to that world class universities, infrastructure and rule of law and then the Ukrainians would have falling all over themselves to move to Russia to benefit. But, alas, Putin is trying 'to catch flies with vinegar instead of honey.' Only the West has rule of law on offer. Until this changes, other countries will have a very hard time developing beyond a certain per capita GDP.
-
Putin has a criminal's mentality. Which means he feels, deep in his soul, that the world is crooked and the only way to survive is to beat the crooked world by being the most crooked and most clever about being crooked.
Thus any country that is trying to be honest and move toward the rule of law and away from coercion and violence becomes an affront and must either be taken over or destroyed. And here we are.
-
Thus any country that is trying to be honest and move toward the rule of law and away from coercion and violence becomes an affront and must either be taken over or destroyed. And here we are.
NATO is a defensive alliance and doesn't recruit or absorb members. You have to ask to join. And over the years, every time a new state asks to join its because Russia was up to something.
-
From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.
I'll note that in 1991, Crimea voted to be part of Ukraine by about a 10% margin.
-
So right now Russia is trying to recruit even more guys for the military. The thing is,......they haven't been able to train and supply their recent new recruits. It's also a fact that these are mouths to feed and they have less and less money coming in for these new soldiers. All these people are removed from their productive jobs in Russian society. So - some are giving it good odds that Russia is going to somehow fall apart.
The world abhors a vacuum. This is supposed to be as true in geopolitics as in anything else.
The world needs the resources that Russia can supply. The vast manufacturing capacity of mainland China sure would be happy to have those resources.
Russia should be quite broke after this war. The rest of the world will be spending money on rebuilding Ukraine.
Who is gonna help Russia? I'll just bet that the Chinese will work out a deal with the new government of Russia. China will be the new investors in Russia. It'll be a really good deal for China. It just seems likely.
-
So right now Russia is trying to recruit even more guys for the military. The thing is,......they haven't been able to train and supply their recent new recruits. It's also a fact that these are mouths to feed and they have less and less money coming in for these new soldiers. All these people are removed from their productive jobs in Russian society. So - some are giving it good odds that Russia is going to somehow fall apart.
The world abhors a vacuum. This is supposed to be as true in geopolitics as in anything else.
The world needs the resources that Russia can supply. The vast manufacturing capacity of mainland China sure would be happy to have those resources.
Russia should be quite broke after this war. The rest of the world will be spending money on rebuilding Ukraine.
Who is gonna help Russia? I'll just bet that the Chinese will work out a deal with the new government of Russia. China will be the new investors in Russia. It'll be a really good deal for China. It just seems likely.
And as much as Russia is going to Russia, so too is China going to China.
-
It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.
Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.
The baffling part to me is that Russia could have had all the access they wanted IF they had approached Ukraine from a capitalist point of view. Business deals instead of bombs and bullets. And NATO was never going to invade Russia. Clearly Russia's ruling class is full of people who talk about how the world is going to do them wrong when in reality, its those same people who are the real threat to the rest of the world. Also see Trump/GOP projecting their biases onto others for the consumption of their voting base...
Is NATO/the west going to invade Russia in the next 5-10 years? Of course not. In the next 20 years? Probably not. In the next 50 years .... it's hard to say. What if you had a wave of authoritarian governments come to power in Europe? What if some new resource replaces oil and natural gas? What if sea levels rise 10 feet and displace tens of millions of people? A lot can happen over multiple decades and historically Russia has been invaded multiple times by European powers.
I still think it was a terrible move to invade Ukraine when they probably could have just continued to use soft power (information warfare, economic warfare with oil/natural gas, etc.) to exert influence/control of Ukraine. Now that they've switched to hard power there's no going back.
-
It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.
-
So right now Russia is trying to recruit even more guys for the military. The thing is,......they haven't been able to train and supply their recent new recruits. It's also a fact that these are mouths to feed and they have less and less money coming in for these new soldiers. All these people are removed from their productive jobs in Russian society. So - some are giving it good odds that Russia is going to somehow fall apart.
The world abhors a vacuum. This is supposed to be as true in geopolitics as in anything else.
The world needs the resources that Russia can supply. The vast manufacturing capacity of mainland China sure would be happy to have those resources.
Russia should be quite broke after this war. The rest of the world will be spending money on rebuilding Ukraine.
Who is gonna help Russia? I'll just bet that the Chinese will work out a deal with the new government of Russia. China will be the new investors in Russia. It'll be a really good deal for China. It just seems likely.
And in a decades time China will learn never do businesses with Russia, after they default on debts and nationalize China's investments.
-
It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.
How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?
-
It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.
How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?
NATO did not fight in Libya. UN member nations did, resolution 1973.
And Serbia, that topic is quackmire of quicksand and I will not try to discuss if it was right to fight against the genocide or not. (btw, 1999)
But it was indeed, very strictly speaking, a non-contractual use of the NATO capabilities. For that they used the break of the Dayton contract (which was not with NATO, "only" with US and EU) and ignoring of the peace talk ultimatum.
For me "definding Germany at the Hindukush" just because a terrorist flew a plane into a building (and making that into a defense case) was a way bigger violation of conduct.
-
It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.
How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?
NATO did not fight in Libya. UN member nations did, resolution 1973.
According to Wikipedia, NATO did fight in Libya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya)
The point I'm trying to make is that for NATO members, NATO is a strictly defensive organization. However, for non-NATO authoritarians/dictators/strongmen, etc, it can be a source of unease.
-
It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.
How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?
NATO did not fight in Libya. UN member nations did, resolution 1973.
According to Wikipedia, NATO did fight in Libya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya)
The point I'm trying to make is that for NATO members, NATO is a strictly defensive organization. However, for non-NATO authoritarians/dictators/strongmen, etc, it can be a source of unease.
I'm not an expert about it so maybe someone can chime in but i believe it was that NATO members chose to conduct operations/fight in Libya together, whereas NATO is an obligation to fight together if one is attacked. They could have opted out of Libya if they had wanted, but there's a lot of political pressure for NATO members to engage together so they tend to do that although I think turkey is a bit of a wild card.
And lets be serious here, a lot of NATO nations in Libya were not substantively engaging in fighting/operations.
-
I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?
(https://i.redd.it/uzm2mplwii7a1.jpg)
-
We have no interest to defend in Ukraine… he’d probably say the same about Estonia. And Latvia. And Lithuania. Perhaps he would have said the same about the Holocaust. He’d have us huddle scared of the Russian bear while they invade country after country, building strength for the inevitable time when we have to stand up to them. Peace is easy to achieve in Ukraine. The Russians just need to go home.
Gosar has consistently shown he’s an idiot. He’s still an idiot.
-
It’s a complex situation. I don’t like cutting checks and sending equipment to a war we aren’t fighting. But man, we waste many many billions on totally worthless stuff.
We have a long history of not knowing what we are doing, especially with Russia, so who cares.
-
I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?
(https://i.redd.it/uzm2mplwii7a1.jpg)
A Neville Chamberlain for our age.
-
The U.S. budget allocated to defending Ukraine is some of the most efficient military spending we've ever done:
https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187
-
I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?
A Neville Chamberlain for our age.
More like a reincarnation of the America First movement of the 1930s and 1940s in the United States. It was full of Nazi sympathizers, had a plan for a coup and the whole shebang. It included both wingnuts, religious extermists and members of congress.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(1943)
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazism-and-madison-square-garden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Lundeen
-
I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?
Please recognize that such views are not mainstream among the GOP, let alone the party leadership. A little skepticism about writing a blank check, sure, that's common. But despite the disproportionate media attention paid to these guys, they're on the fringes.
The money spent on Ukraine's fight is about the best bang for the buck you can get. A fair portion (but not all) of what we sent have been older munitions approaching the end of their shelf life, which we would otherwise have had to dispose of. And effectively removing Russia's military power at the cost of a few tens of billions of dollars and zero American lives is the deal of a century.
There are two militaries that, prior to 2022, were thought to be strong enough that they might challenge the US: Russia and China. Russia is clearly not what they stacked up to be, and what they did have is getting attritted at a fantastic rate.* That potentially frees up a lot of resources for preparing for a potential attack by China.
* Something like 500-700 Russian soldiers are dying each day. Compare that to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--I remember how, every day, the news reported the two or three or five deaths the US forces saw that day. Russia is losing people at two hundred times that rate.
-
It’s a complex situation. I don’t like cutting checks and sending equipment to a war we aren’t fighting. But man, we waste many many billions on totally worthless stuff.
We have a long history of not knowing what we are doing, especially with Russia, so who cares.
What the US have spent in supplying Ukraine is a very small part of the military budget.
Basically the US is using the Ukraine war to find out what works and doesn't work in fighting Russia. Money well spent.
-
We have no interest to defend in Ukraine… he’d probably say the same about Estonia. And Latvia. And Lithuania. Perhaps he would have said the same about the Holocaust. He’d have us huddle scared of the Russian bear while they invade country after country, building strength for the inevitable time when we have to stand up to them. Peace is easy to achieve in Ukraine. The Russians just need to go home.
Gosar has consistently shown he’s an idiot. He’s still an idiot.
Agreed.
If Germany was stopped before it invaded so many countries, maybe there wouldn't be a WWII.
Russia need to be stopped. They took Crimea without much effort so they thought taking over Kiev would be just as easy.
Confronting Russia right now vs when they get stronger is the right thing to do.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
-
The U.S. budget allocated to defending Ukraine is some of the most efficient military spending we've ever done:
https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187
+1
-
The U.S. budget allocated to defending Ukraine is some of the most efficient military spending we've ever done:
https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187
+1
It's basically an american job program at this point
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking. But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine? Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.
-
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking. But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine? Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.
Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.
As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail. Like any other people, they will rebel. I have watched the You Tube videos of 1420. This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues. It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them. Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy. Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians. Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world. So let's say they receive a missile or three. It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people. I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.
Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest. However, they could perform a sort of work slow down. The war effort would be stifled. It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.
Opinions will, as always, differ.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking. But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine? Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.
Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.
As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail. Like any other people, they will rebel. I have watched the You Tube videos of 1420. This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues. It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them. Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy. Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians. Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world. So let's say they receive a missile or three. It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people. I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.
Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest. However, they could perform a sort of work slow down. The war effort would be stifled. It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.
Opinions will, as always, differ.
You don't know what the Russian people believe. You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it. There's an important difference there.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking. But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine? Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.
Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.
As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail. Like any other people, they will rebel. I have watched the You Tube videos of 1420. This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues. It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them. Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy. Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians. Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world. So let's say they receive a missile or three. It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people. I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.
Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest. However, they could perform a sort of work slow down. The war effort would be stifled. It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.
Opinions will, as always, differ.
You don't know what the Russian people believe. You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it. There's an important difference there.
Nope I haven't walked a mile in their shoes. As for you I do believe I did have a pair of Sorel boots once so perhaps i can more closely relate. It's even easier with Canada only a kilometer in the Sorels. Merry Christmas and Boxing day.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking. But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine? Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.
Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.
As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail. Like any other people, they will rebel. I have watched the You Tube videos of 1420. This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues. It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them. Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy. Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians. Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world. So let's say they receive a missile or three. It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people. I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.
Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest. However, they could perform a sort of work slow down. The war effort would be stifled. It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.
Opinions will, as always, differ.
You don't know what the Russian people believe. You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it. There's an important difference there.
Nope I haven't walked a mile in their shoes. As for you I do believe I did have a pair of Sorel boots once so perhaps i can more closely relate. It's even easier with Canada only a kilometer in the Sorels. Merry Christmas and Boxing day.
I'm reminded of the classic soviet joke . . . "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work!". :P
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.
No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths. I think people misunderstand how ugly war can be - remember veterans in your family talking about it? No, they didn't - not to you. They talk about it with other veterans.
Let's say Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the border. Then what? Russia will keep destroying Ukrainian cities. They have no incentive to stop, unless Russians stop Putin.
Most older Russians are insanely brainwashed - their children can be in Ukraine getting shelled, and they think their own children are lying to them, rather than Putin. There's no way that changes with a war over the border.
So what happens when Ukraine pushes Russia back to the border, and Russia keeps shelling Ukrainian cities?
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
I certainly understand the frustration that leads to this thinking. But how is targeting Russian civilians going to help Ukraine? Putin doesn't care about the people of his country, and will be happy to have non-manufactured war crimes to accuse Ukraine of committing.
Canada giving all the cold weather gear to Ukraine was a wise move,.......humanitarian.
As far as the civilians, they will reach a point where even their almost inbred propaganda will fail. Like any other people, they will rebel. I have watched the You Tube videos of 1420. This features a guy that goes around asking Russian people what they think of certain issues. It's pretty wild that so many of the people believe the BS that Putin shoves at them. Many of the people justify what they think by claiming that they live in a democracy. Many think they are the kind country fighting a world of barbarians. Many are like US MAGA folks ready to kick the ass of any country in the world. So let's say they receive a missile or three. It may serve as a reality shock to a good number of people. I think a lot of them would figure out the true root cause of this missile thing and it won't be Ukraine.
Due to Russia being a police state, they can't protest. However, they could perform a sort of work slow down. The war effort would be stifled. It could force their government to take positive actions in Ukraine which could wind this thing down.
Opinions will, as always, differ.
You don't know what the Russian people believe. You know that a lot of them will say they believe the lies that Putin has put forth when publicly questioned about it. There's an important difference there.
It's not frustration, it's cold calculation of human lives. There is nothing changing Russia's mind at the moment.
As to what Russians believe, as I mentioned upthread I have heard a number of stories of children of Russian parents living in Ukraine. They try to explain events they see with their own eyes - and their own parents don't believe them. It's very deep brainwashing. There are old people tortured by the KBG who long for those glory days again. What is clear is that they are very comfortable ignoring the war in Ukraine, and will continue to do so unless something shakes their world view.
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Bill Browder lived in Russia for 10 years before he exposed too much corruption and had to leave. He has said Russians will tolerate war crimes by their government, but what they will not tolerate is weakness. He claims if Russia is pushed back to its own borders, Putin is as good as dead. What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?
-
What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?
Well, yes, you might get someone worse than Putin a lot faster. The war won't end if Putin dies, and likely it would get worse if he does.
-
What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?
Well, yes, you might get someone worse than Putin a lot faster. The war won't end if Putin dies, and likely it would get worse if he does.
And you might not. The prime minister - Mikhail Mishustin - isn't someone I'd vote for, but he doesn't seem to be a outright sociopath like Putin.
Do you have any insight into other candidates for president?
-
What if that could be accelerated by showing Putin's weakness now?
Well, yes, you might get someone worse than Putin a lot faster. The war won't end if Putin dies, and likely it would get worse if he does.
And you might not. The prime minister - Mikhail Mishustin - isn't someone I'd vote for, but he doesn't seem to be a outright sociopath like Putin.
Do you have any insight into other candidates for president?
That soudns like you expect there will be an election and the people, in and out of their own free will, will elect an president.
Yeah.
If I had to bet today I would say Prigozhin.
-
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
That's what the Nazi's thought they were doing to the British when they launched the London Blitz. That's what the allies thought when we firebombed Dresden. We tried it when we bombed Pyongyang and Hanoi. The Irish tried bombing London to show the british that the war was coming to them.
"Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options. ...The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat. The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional."
The New York Times had a great article back in October (https://archive.ph/Zmhsl) walking through the failed and counterproductive history of bombing capitals believing it will cause a country's common people to reduce their support for a war rather than increase it.
-
I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?
Well, also because Biden supports it - hardcores have to automatically oppose it, no matter what.
-
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
That's what the Nazi's thought they were doing to the British when they launched the London Blitz. That's what the allies thought when we firebombed Dresden. We tried it when we bombed Pyongyang and Hanoi. The Irish tried bombing London to show the british that the war was coming to them.
"Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options. ...The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat. The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional."
The New York Times had a great article back in October (https://archive.ph/Zmhsl) walking through the failed and counterproductive history of bombing capitals believing it will cause a country's common people to reduce their support for a war rather than increase it.
Or you can view it like that: It's an attack. People have 2 deeply ingrained reponses to an attack: Either flee or fight.
Even if they could flee, they don't want to. So they fight.
-
All they need do is plant small bombs at Russian oil refineries. Places like that want to burn. They don't take much encouragement. This will remove much of the Russian's capacity to wage war. It will also irritate the general populace as fuel prices will rise. How long will it take to repair a burned out oil refinery? No more Western aid is available. Then, sit back and blame the smokers. Any smoking gun should be left in the charred remains.
-
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
That's what the Nazi's thought they were doing to the British when they launched the London Blitz. That's what the allies thought when we firebombed Dresden. We tried it when we bombed Pyongyang and Hanoi. The Irish tried bombing London to show the british that the war was coming to them.
"Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options. ...The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat. The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional."
The New York Times had a great article back in October (https://archive.ph/Zmhsl) walking through the failed and counterproductive history of bombing capitals believing it will cause a country's common people to reduce their support for a war rather than increase it.
And again, I did not say to wipe Moscow off the map, firebomb it, or try to kill tens of thousands of civilians like the examples you cited. I said:
No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths.
Maybe I can say it like this - attack Russian structures with symbolic value in a way that avoids hundreds of deaths. But shock Russians who think the war is only in Ukraine, and cannot impact Russia.
In the Vietnam war, the most wasteful thing the Viet Cong did was launch an attack that caused a large portion of their veteran troops to get killed. U.S. forces had greater mobility than expected by helicopter... but the Tet offensive actually ended the war, because Americans had been told lies for years - and the Tet offensive laid bare those lies. Same idea here - this is not a "special operation" but a war between Russia and Ukraine.
-
If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what? If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost? Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?
When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes? Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge? That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.
-
If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what? If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost? Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?
When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes? Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge? That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.
Here's one "then what": Currently, under the NATO charter, nations can't be accepted if they have contested borders. Once Russia is out of Ukraine, Ukraine can say "leave us alone, or we'll apply for NATO membership." Russia does NOT want NATO at its doorstep, and that's one reason Finland didn't apply until Russia showed itself to be a threat to Europe (and also incompetent).
-
Here's one "then what": Currently, under the NATO charter, nations can't be accepted if they have contested borders. Once Russia is out of Ukraine, Ukraine can say "leave us alone, or we'll apply for NATO membership." Russia does NOT want NATO at its doorstep, and that's one reason Finland didn't apply until Russia showed itself to be a threat to Europe (and also incompetent).
Um, Back in September Zelenskiy signed the application for fast-track NATO membership for Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-says-ukraine-applying-nato-membership-2022-09-30/
-
Here's one "then what": Currently, under the NATO charter, nations can't be accepted if they have contested borders. Once Russia is out of Ukraine, Ukraine can say "leave us alone, or we'll apply for NATO membership." Russia does NOT want NATO at its doorstep, and that's one reason Finland didn't apply until Russia showed itself to be a threat to Europe (and also incompetent).
Um, Back in September Zelenskiy signed the application for fast-track NATO membership for Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-says-ukraine-applying-nato-membership-2022-09-30/
I think there is a confusion on zolo's part with the requirements to join the EU, which does have uncontested borders as a prerequisite; NATO doesn't have any such requirement.
The Zelensky application is more of a symbolic gesture since there is little chance of approval by all 30 members in the current environment.
-
I think Zelensky signed the Ukrainian decision to join NATO, not the official "I want to join" document??
Anyway, nobody may join NATO that is in an active war so he can send as many applications he wants to, it won't help.
If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what? If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost? Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?
When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes? Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge? That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.
It was not a war crime. It is not a war crime to attack a valid target military target (and there is probably not one building in the whole war more important than that bridge) even if you know it will kill civilians. It is a matter of weighting and trying your best. You could say the reality of war.
Or do you think you would stop fighting because Russia has put a civilian on the turret of each tank?
-
Ukraine will join NATO.
Any agreements with Russia cannot be trusted. The only way to keep Russian imperial expansion at bay is to be part of a larger defensive force.
-
If Russia gets pushed back to their borders, then what? If Bill Browder is right, Putin will not want to show weakness, so won't he continue the war rather than admit he lost? Even with no Ukrainian territory left occupied, why would Russia stop bombing civilian targets in Ukraine?
When Ukraine blew up part of the bridge connecting Crimea, how many people complained of war crimes? Of killing innocent people driving on the bridge? That is exactly the kind of attack which shocks Russians at minimal cost in lives.
It was not a war crime. It is not a war crime to attack a valid target military target (and there is probably not one building in the whole war more important than that bridge) even if you know it will kill civilians. It is a matter of weighting and trying your best. You could say the reality of war.
Or do you think you would stop fighting because Russia has put a civilian on the turret of each tank?
My mistake, the civilian casaulties were not the purpose of the attack, but rather Ukraine sought to gain a military advantage by preventing the Russian military from using that bridge in its supply lines. So it seems that is a "legitimate military target":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target
The attack on the Kerch Bridge (Crimea bridge) had military value, but it was also a hugely symbolic target. It looks like Ukraine thinks it can shock the Russian populace without directly attacking Moscow.
"A fourth implication is that this is a psychological blow against Russia. An attack on military targets deep inside Russia’s borders will cause consternation among a public who thought they were largely insulated from the effects of the war (besides mobilisation, that is)"
https://mickryan.substack.com/p/russian-airfield-attacks-ukraine?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf
Could a drone strike a specific spire of the Kremlin? Once it nears the target, it can get a visual and attack - or are the chances too high of it going off course, and killing civilians? Drone strikes, if precise, could be a way to hit symbolic targets with military value (like the Kremlin) while avoiding civilian deaths. But I suspect shocking people with attacks on Moscow requires risking civilian deaths - which may not be a war crime if those deaths are incidental, and not the purpose.
-
Imho the Ukrainians are doing those psycological attacks by attacking military bases deep inside Russia.
If those are not safe, what is?
-
@MustacheAndaHalf - I had a lengthy, detailed response but the computer ate it. However, I’ve point I’d like to contest is that Russia has somehow avoided “paying a cost” for invading Ukraine.
To me, it seems like this has become a historically costly military campaign for very little (and quite possibly almost zero) gain. The current cost is blood and treasure makes this one of the costliest wars in the last few generations for Russia. Over the next decade the cost of deminished political and global trade combined with a significantly smaller core workforce will likely cause years of contraction when they should have been growing. And not to put too broad a point, but at least some of this has forced by western nations.
I think targeting Moscow would be a terrible idea, as Russia will suffer more greatly from its current role as a hostile force in a foreign state that’s supported by multiple nations with better equipment than they are left with
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
In the aggregate, though, here's a list of long-term impacts off the top of my head:
--Over 100,000 able-bodied males killed
--Probably a similar number wounded that will need medical care, ranging from minor to life-altering*
--A permanent, near-100% loss of natural gas revenue to Europe.
--Various sanctions inhibiting technology imports, capping oil prices, etc
--Acceleration of the demise of the Russian Space program, since nobody will want to launch through them
--Several hundred thousand people, who had the means to do so, have fled the country. How many of them will want to return?
--Long-term financial sanctions inhibiting global trade
--Hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets
--Their military might is substantially destroyed--the bulk of their tanks, APCs, etc. They're losing hard-to-replace aircraft and helicopters, some of which are out of production and cannot be replaced. They've sent their training personnel into Ukraine, making training new recruits less effective.
--The reputation of Russia's military equipment, and their ability to build it, has been tremendously damaged.
--Russia's reputation in general is in the toilet. Nobody's going to trust them, ever again.
--The war has forced Europe to actually recognize the threat that Russia represents, and so Europe is arming up.
--Sweden and Finland are joining NATO. Russia says they're worried about western aggression, and historically, they have a point, although I would argue that the foundations for such a worry are no longer extant, let alone relevant. The baltic states, Ukraine, Finland, etc represented a buffer between NATO and Russia. Well, With Sweden and Finland in NATO, Russia now has the 'enemy' right on their doorstep, and we all know how well Russia does when fighting Finland...
* - For Western nations with better tactics, training, discipline, and field medicine, you'd expect a 3:1 wounded:dead ratio, but Russia is lacking all of those things, so they leave a lot more wounded to die.
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
In the aggregate, though, here's a list of long-term impacts off the top of my head:
--Over 100,000 able-bodied males killed
--Probably a similar number wounded that will need medical care, ranging from minor to life-altering*
--A permanent, near-100% loss of natural gas revenue to Europe.
--Various sanctions inhibiting technology imports, capping oil prices, etc
--Acceleration of the demise of the Russian Space program, since nobody will want to launch through them
--Several hundred thousand people, who had the means to do so, have fled the country. How many of them will want to return?
--Long-term financial sanctions inhibiting global trade
--Hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets
--Their military might is substantially destroyed--the bulk of their tanks, APCs, etc. They're losing hard-to-replace aircraft and helicopters, some of which are out of production and cannot be replaced. They've sent their training personnel into Ukraine, making training new recruits less effective.
--The reputation of Russia's military equipment, and their ability to build it, has been tremendously damaged.
--Russia's reputation in general is in the toilet. Nobody's going to trust them, ever again.
--The war has forced Europe to actually recognize the threat that Russia represents, and so Europe is arming up.
--Sweden and Finland are joining NATO. Russia says they're worried about western aggression, and historically, they have a point, although I would argue that the foundations for such a worry are no longer extant, let alone relevant. The baltic states, Ukraine, Finland, etc represented a buffer between NATO and Russia. Well, With Sweden and Finland in NATO, Russia now has the 'enemy' right on their doorstep, and we all know how well Russia does when fighting Finland...
* - For Western nations with better tactics, training, discipline, and field medicine, you'd expect a 3:1 wounded:dead ratio, but Russia is lacking all of those things, so they leave a lot more wounded to die.
Most of these hurt Russia in the long term. Putin and his cohorts are old KGB farts and I'm thinking they just don't care. They want to restore the glory of Russia before they go to that spy headquarters in the sky.
-
@MustacheAndaHalf - I had a lengthy, detailed response but the computer ate it. However, I’ve point I’d like to contest is that Russia has somehow avoided “paying a cost” for invading Ukraine.
Then you had a lengthy response where you misquote me.
Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing. What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.
Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing. What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.
Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.
I fail to see the difference here.
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.
How is that not ‘paying a cost’?
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing. What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.
Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.
I fail to see the difference here.
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.
How is that not ‘paying a cost’?
Russia paid a cost for invading Ukraine. It then began targetting civilians, and no additional costs were imposed on Russia for that behavior. So Russia is not "paying a cost" for its attacks on civilians, over and above any cost it paid in starting the war.
-
Another internal cost Russia seems to be paying, if this thread is accurate: criminals' easy access to weapons from the front.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1606249858926612485.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1606249858926612485.html)
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing. What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.
Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.
I fail to see the difference here.
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.
How is that not ‘paying a cost’?
Russia paid a cost for invading Ukraine. It then began targetting civilians, and no additional costs were imposed on Russia for that behavior. So Russia is not "paying a cost" for its attacks on civilians, over and above any cost it paid in starting the war.
Again, I believe this is wrong, that additional costs have been imposed on Russia for their behavior.
Just look at the aide which was supplied to Ukraine back in February/March vs several months in. At first the US was supplying “no lethal weapons”. Then we quickly started supplying short-range, limited use and largely defensive weapons (e.g. Javelin anti-tank misses) precisely when it became clear that Russia was hitting civilian targets and creating a humanitarian catastrophy. Then the way more complex HIMARS with precision-guided munitions with a 50mi range came as Russia started shelling cities into rubble. Now we’ve pledged our most advanced Patriot missle system, which takes an entire platoon to operate effectively. Or just look at the budget allocations, where the US just added another $44.9B on top of three earlier (and smaller) packages.
Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.
-
Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.
This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed in Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.
What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.
-
Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.
This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed in Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.
What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.
Well - As I remember it Mr. Obama was still president in 2014. Had this man made more of an effort to keep the Russians out of Ukraine, he would have faced stiff opposition from the republican rascals. There was stiff opposition to anything he tried to do.
-
Or just look at the budget allocations, where the US just added another $44.9B on top of three earlier (and smaller) packages.
Nitpicking a bit, but it's really more like $33B. $12.9B is for replenishing US stocks of weapons to backfill what had been sent to Ukraine. The value was already accounted for in prior packages when the original weapons were shipped.
-
Or just look at the budget allocations, where the US just added another $44.9B on top of three earlier (and smaller) packages.
Nitpicking a bit, but it's really more like $33B. $12.9B is for replenishing US stocks of weapons to backfill what had been sent to Ukraine. The value was already accounted for in prior packages when the original weapons were shipped.
Ah, thanks for that correction
-
@nereo - you are spot on, although I suppose you could argue that "Russia" is or is not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "Putin," then no, he's not paying a price. If you define "Russia" as "the common Russian people," then yes, there is a huge price being paid.
Neither, because it was a strawman argument - I never said what nereo is arguing. What I said is that Russia is not paying a cost for attacking civilians.
Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.
I fail to see the difference here.
Russia is paying an enormous cost, and a core component for that is the support of western nations, who are providing continued aide Ukraine in part because they are so outraged by the war crimes you reference.
How is that not ‘paying a cost’?
Russia paid a cost for invading Ukraine. It then began targetting civilians, and no additional costs were imposed on Russia for that behavior. So Russia is not "paying a cost" for its attacks on civilians, over and above any cost it paid in starting the war.
Russia targeted civilians from the outset. Remember Bucha and Mariupol?
-
Ran across a Quora question on Bakhmut; liked the answer below from https://www.quora.com/profile/Toma%C5%BE-Vargazon, underneath the question link.
https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-are-attempting-to-encircle-Bakhmut-The-UK-Ministry-of-Defense-is-claiming-the-capture-of-Bakhmut-has-limited-operational-value-while-Ret-Gen-Wesley-Clarke-has-warned-Ukraine-to-hold-the-town-What-is
We may have been overthinking this battle of Bakhmut. There may be a simple, logical explanation for Russian fixation on Bakhmut, one that makes perfect sense, given Russian predicament.
Battle of Verdun, but it might as well be Bakhmut (photo of men in trenches)
The Russian predicament is quite precarious, Ukrainians are generating fresh forces much more rapidly than Russians, logistical situation of Russian army ranges from poor to attrocious, weapons stocks are dwindling, production is stalling, European resolve is unmoved. Russia needs breathing room, it needs a few months of peace to consolidate their forces, train fresh units and above all, to show Europeans the benefits of peace. So long as there is war, Ukraine will be supported come hell or high water. However if Russia manages to freeze the conflict aid to Ukraine is likely to take the backseat as Europe deals with their unenviable domestic situation. Therefore a cease fire and peace talks are what Kremlin wants, even if only as a temporary respite while they get their army in order.
To that end Russia must attack, to force Ukrainians to concessions, or at least prevent them from taking yet more ground. It doesn’t matter so much where it attacks, just that it does attack and fixes Ukrainian troops so they cannot be used for offensive purposes. Russian command structure is so poor they can’t effectively respond to Ukrainian attacks to launch their own counterattacks, so they need a position to launch attacks from.
It just so happens Bakhmut is where Russian ability to launch offensive operations is the highest, so that’s where they attack. Bakhmut is secondary to Russians, all they’re trying to do is have a front line where they aren’t losing ground and ties up a siezable number of Ukrainian troops and war materiel. The cost in blood is severe, but that’s a price the Kremlin is willing to pay.
Looking at Bakhmut from this perspective the whole thing begins to make sense. Russians aren’t really after Bakhmut, the battle is just the way they attempt to secure a cease fire and support defensive positions along more vulnerable areas of the front. It’s not a great plan, it’s not even a particularily good plan, but it might be the very best the depleted Russian army is still able to offer.
-
Ran across a Quora question on Bakhmut; liked the answer below from https://www.quora.com/profile/Toma%C5%BE-Vargazon, underneath the question link.
https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-are-attempting-to-encircle-Bakhmut-The-UK-Ministry-of-Defense-is-claiming-the-capture-of-Bakhmut-has-limited-operational-value-while-Ret-Gen-Wesley-Clarke-has-warned-Ukraine-to-hold-the-town-What-is
We may have been overthinking this battle of Bakhmut. There may be a simple, logical explanation for Russian fixation on Bakhmut, one that makes perfect sense, given Russian predicament.
Battle of Verdun, but it might as well be Bakhmut (photo of men in trenches)
The Russian predicament is quite precarious, Ukrainians are generating fresh forces much more rapidly than Russians, logistical situation of Russian army ranges from poor to attrocious, weapons stocks are dwindling, production is stalling, European resolve is unmoved. Russia needs breathing room, it needs a few months of peace to consolidate their forces, train fresh units and above all, to show Europeans the benefits of peace. So long as there is war, Ukraine will be supported come hell or high water. However if Russia manages to freeze the conflict aid to Ukraine is likely to take the backseat as Europe deals with their unenviable domestic situation. Therefore a cease fire and peace talks are what Kremlin wants, even if only as a temporary respite while they get their army in order.
To that end Russia must attack, to force Ukrainians to concessions, or at least prevent them from taking yet more ground. It doesn’t matter so much where it attacks, just that it does attack and fixes Ukrainian troops so they cannot be used for offensive purposes. Russian command structure is so poor they can’t effectively respond to Ukrainian attacks to launch their own counterattacks, so they need a position to launch attacks from.
It just so happens Bakhmut is where Russian ability to launch offensive operations is the highest, so that’s where they attack. Bakhmut is secondary to Russians, all they’re trying to do is have a front line where they aren’t losing ground and ties up a siezable number of Ukrainian troops and war materiel. The cost in blood is severe, but that’s a price the Kremlin is willing to pay.
Looking at Bakhmut from this perspective the whole thing begins to make sense. Russians aren’t really after Bakhmut, the battle is just the way they attempt to secure a cease fire and support defensive positions along more vulnerable areas of the front. It’s not a great plan, it’s not even a particularily good plan, but it might be the very best the depleted Russian army is still able to offer.
Perhaps the cost to the Russians is not so great. They take convicts and force them to make suicide runs against the Ukrainians. Dead convicts don't have to be housed and fed. They don't even pay fro the bullet that kills the convicts. UKrainians state that Russians don't even pick up the dead bodies from the battlefield.
-
And the UA/allies happily taunt Russia on the frutality of attacking Bakhmut, to ensure Russia keeps filling the grinder with fresh meat.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.
No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths. I think people misunderstand how ugly war can be - remember veterans in your family talking about it? No, they didn't - not to you. They talk about it with other veterans.
???
Let's say Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the border. Then what? Russia will keep destroying Ukrainian cities. They have no incentive to stop, unless Russians stop Putin.
Most older Russians are insanely brainwashed - their children can be in Ukraine getting shelled, and they think their own children are lying to them, rather than Putin. There's no way that changes with a war over the border.
?So what happens when Ukraine pushes Russia back to the border, and Russia keeps shelling Ukrainian cities?
That's what I've been wondering. I strongly disagree that symbolic attacks which kill civilians are a good strategy. They will likely unite Russians and erode vital international support for Ukraine. I think the best strategy will be to attack assets used to attack Ukraine, which is already being done in Crimea and recently the long range bomber base. Beyond that the means of military production are probably Russia's most vulnerable area: they are likely in old Soviet facilities and lacking in redundancy, while the Russians are not particularly resourceful. Bombing missile, shell, tank, and other factories could be highly successful and importantly doesn't rely on assumptions about how Russia will react. A big problem is that the world is deeply respectful of Russia, to a fault, so Ukraine probably needs to develop the means of those deep facilities itself.
-
Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.
This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.
What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.
I wonder how much Ukraine was even on its own map. In 2010 I met a Ukrainian-American in Moscow who was having a great time visiting all the museums and getting in at the discount local rate because nobody could tell from his accent that he was not local. He definitely seemed to think that Ukraine and Russia were BFFs, and that strongly influenced my thinking on the topic until 2022. My impression is that Ukraine was very friendly to Russia after the USSR ended, and was merely trying to get rid of a corrupt government. That was when they learned that fighting corruption is akin to fighting Russia, and a threat to corruption anywhere is a threat to Russia everywhere.
-
Ran across a Quora question on Bakhmut; liked the answer below from https://www.quora.com/profile/Toma%C5%BE-Vargazon, underneath the question link.
https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-are-attempting-to-encircle-Bakhmut-The-UK-Ministry-of-Defense-is-claiming-the-capture-of-Bakhmut-has-limited-operational-value-while-Ret-Gen-Wesley-Clarke-has-warned-Ukraine-to-hold-the-town-What-is
We may have been overthinking this battle of Bakhmut. There may be a simple, logical explanation for Russian fixation on Bakhmut, one that makes perfect sense, given Russian predicament.
Battle of Verdun, but it might as well be Bakhmut (photo of men in trenches)
The Russian predicament is quite precarious, Ukrainians are generating fresh forces much more rapidly than Russians, logistical situation of Russian army ranges from poor to attrocious, weapons stocks are dwindling, production is stalling, European resolve is unmoved. Russia needs breathing room, it needs a few months of peace to consolidate their forces, train fresh units and above all, to show Europeans the benefits of peace. So long as there is war, Ukraine will be supported come hell or high water. However if Russia manages to freeze the conflict aid to Ukraine is likely to take the backseat as Europe deals with their unenviable domestic situation. Therefore a cease fire and peace talks are what Kremlin wants, even if only as a temporary respite while they get their army in order.
To that end Russia must attack, to force Ukrainians to concessions, or at least prevent them from taking yet more ground. It doesn’t matter so much where it attacks, just that it does attack and fixes Ukrainian troops so they cannot be used for offensive purposes. Russian command structure is so poor they can’t effectively respond to Ukrainian attacks to launch their own counterattacks, so they need a position to launch attacks from.
It just so happens Bakhmut is where Russian ability to launch offensive operations is the highest, so that’s where they attack. Bakhmut is secondary to Russians, all they’re trying to do is have a front line where they aren’t losing ground and ties up a siezable number of Ukrainian troops and war materiel. The cost in blood is severe, but that’s a price the Kremlin is willing to pay.
Looking at Bakhmut from this perspective the whole thing begins to make sense. Russians aren’t really after Bakhmut, the battle is just the way they attempt to secure a cease fire and support defensive positions along more vulnerable areas of the front. It’s not a great plan, it’s not even a particularily good plan, but it might be the very best the depleted Russian army is still able to offer.
Perhaps the cost to the Russians is not so great. They take convicts and force them to make suicide runs against the Ukrainians. Dead convicts don't have to be housed and fed. They don't even pay fro the bullet that kills the convicts. UKrainians state that Russians don't even pick up the dead bodies from the battlefield.
Yeah it sorta makes sense. Ukraine is losing good people in Bakmut, while Russia loses convicts with no training, equipment, support, medical help, or body recovery, and even if the cost is 10:1 Russia may think they are getting the better end of that trade.
Similarly the Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure sorta make sense. Apart from the obvious affects, they drain air defense resources. Also when coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear are replaced by diesel generators it places a strain on the diesel supply system which is also part of the war effort. Further, at least in the western US, large generators and electrical equipment are the hardest things to get with 1 year lead times even before the invasion. I have no idea where generators going to Ukraine come from. Lead times here will soon be pushing 2 years, so this could also be their way to strike at the most sensitive part of the Western supply chain over the past 3 years.
I also think that there must be a Russian prerogative to show a massive capacity for cruelty in everything they do as a foundational strategy, including the examples above. I don't understand it, and it seems counterproductive outside of a Russian sandbox, but they seem to be intent on demonstrating it in everything they do. I would find it immensely satisfying to watch Moscow go the way of Grozny, Aleppo, and Mariupol.
-
Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.
This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.
What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.
I wonder how much Ukraine was even on its own map. In 2010 I met a Ukrainian-American in Moscow who was having a great time visiting all the museums and getting in at the discount local rate because nobody could tell from his accent that he was not local. He definitely seemed to think that Ukraine and Russia were BFFs, and that strongly influenced my thinking on the topic until 2022. My impression is that Ukraine was very friendly to Russia after the USSR ended, and was merely trying to get rid of a corrupt government. That was when they learned that fighting corruption is akin to fighting Russia, and a threat to corruption anywhere is a threat to Russia everywhere.
Lol re corruption principle!
Re underlying attitudes, a Ukrainian family is friends of a dear friend of mine. Husband is highly Russophile by nature and background; in leadup to war and early phases of it, was adamant that "I do not want to kill my Russian brothers." Wife was much less so - she married him for himself, not because she or family felt Russian, which they did not.
I've told attitudes at some pre-2014 and to some extent 2015-2021 varied widely amongst the populace. Not sure how much shifts occurred at what time, or whether there are still Ukrainian Russophiles who keep their heads down due to war circumstances. Husband, I am told, shifted due to 2022 experience.
-
Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.
This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.
What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.
I wonder how much Ukraine was even on its own map. In 2010 I met a Ukrainian-American in Moscow who was having a great time visiting all the museums and getting in at the discount local rate because nobody could tell from his accent that he was not local. He definitely seemed to think that Ukraine and Russia were BFFs, and that strongly influenced my thinking on the topic until 2022. My impression is that Ukraine was very friendly to Russia after the USSR ended, and was merely trying to get rid of a corrupt government. That was when they learned that fighting corruption is akin to fighting Russia, and a threat to corruption anywhere is a threat to Russia everywhere.
Lol re corruption principle!
Re underlying attitudes, a Ukrainian family is friends of a dear friend of mine. Husband is highly Russophile by nature and background; in leadup to war and early phases of it, was adamant that "I do not want to kill my Russian brothers." Wife was much less so - she married him for himself, not because she or family felt Russian, which they did not.
I've told attitudes at some pre-2014 and to some extent 2015-2021 varied widely amongst the populace. Not sure how much shifts occurred at what time, or whether there are still Ukrainian Russophiles who keep their heads down due to war circumstances. Husband, I am told, shifted due to 2022 experience.
I've been wasting time watching TV. I watch these TV shows from South America telling about Simon Bolivar and how all these countries rebelled against Spain. They spoke Spanish, had much the same culture and the same religion. Yet Spain treated them like dirt so they wanted to be independent. I was kind of thinking that is the way it's been with Russia. Ukraine has been treated as a colony. Spain ruled the South American countries for hundreds of years before they broke free. Russia ruled Ukraine for hundreds of years and now it is breaking free.
-
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow. Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month. Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost. Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop. I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.
As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.
No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths. I think people misunderstand how ugly war can be - remember veterans in your family talking about it? No, they didn't - not to you. They talk about it with other veterans.
???
Let's say Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the border. Then what? Russia will keep destroying Ukrainian cities. They have no incentive to stop, unless Russians stop Putin.
Most older Russians are insanely brainwashed - their children can be in Ukraine getting shelled, and they think their own children are lying to them, rather than Putin. There's no way that changes with a war over the border.
?
We're sitting far from the Ukrainian front line, and I'm saying we may need to remind ourselves that "war is hell". To draw the line at zero Russian civilian deaths is nice, but may prolong the time Russia spends killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
Putin isn't interested in ending the war, and no oligarch will go against Putin without being grounded (my term for accidentally falling from a high story window). The people who can stop the war are Russians. But Russian propaganda tells Russians whatever it wants, as there's no evidence of the war to contradict them. Shelling military targets inside Russia is one way to provide that evidence, and is what Ukraine has been doing recently.
The first implication is that Ukraine clearly now has ability to undertake targeting at very long distances. The Engels air base is 700km from Ukraine. The Dyagilevo base is about 600 kilometres from Ukraine. By comparison, Moscow is around 640 kilometres from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. This doesn’t mean at all that Ukraine is going to attack Moscow. But it will cause some sleepless nights in the capital.
https://mickryan.substack.com/p/russian-airfield-attacks-ukraine?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf
I think more than that is needed to convince Russians to end the war. Deliberately killing civilans is a poor approach. But a war is going to involve civilian deaths, like the air defense system in Ukraine that sent missiles past its target and into Poland, killing civilians there. So my point isn't to target civilians, but that we need to understand dozens of Russian civilians who happen to be killed is very different from tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians who were killed deliberately.
-
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
-
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
I agree. In addition, history has also shown that “bombing a population into submission” rarely works, and tends to have the opposite effect, as has been pointed out earlier. Ultimately using “war is hell” as a justification for making it hell for more people pushes this into a discussion of increasing war crimes.
-
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
I agree. In addition, history has also shown that “bombing a population into submission” rarely works, and tends to have the opposite effect, as has been pointed out earlier. Ultimately using “war is hell” as a justification for making it hell for more people pushes this into a discussion of increasing war crimes.
When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"? If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.
-
More fallout from the Ukraine/Russia war: a supply chain issue for the semi-conductor industry.
https://min.news/en/world/b1ee2a2b1bfc57e3054dd342b8176891.html
-
When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"? If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.
What you said was this:
But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.
When I called you on it previously your response was that you only wanted to kill "dozens" of russian civilians to show that the war was coming to them rather than thousands. I don't see what qualitative difference this makes in terms of what outcome it will produce but so be it.
You seem to be tripped up on the argument that was you are proposing is ethically wrong and avoiding multiple posters who are also pointing out that was you are proposing is logically wrong. The action you propose taking will not produce (and has not in the past produced) the outcome you are stating you want to achieve.
-
When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"? If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.
What you said was this:
But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.
When I called you on it previously your response was that you only wanted to kill "dozens" of russian civilians to show that the war was coming to them rather than thousands. I don't see what qualitative difference this makes in terms of what outcome it will produce but so be it.
You seem to be tripped up on the argument that was you are proposing is ethically wrong and avoiding multiple posters who are also pointing out that was you are proposing is logically wrong. The action you propose taking will not produce (and has not in the past produced) the outcome you are stating you want to achieve.
I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.
If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.
-
I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.
If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.
Yes, Military targets. Maybe it has excaped your attention, but an airfield with nuclear bombers has a few less civilians than the capital city.
And even if you aren't convinced and even if it suprisingly would work - it would still be war crime.
-
I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.
If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.
Yes, Military targets. Maybe it has excaped your attention, but an airfield with nuclear bombers has a few less civilians than the capital city.
And even if you aren't convinced and even if it suprisingly would work - it would still be war crime.
Are major transportation interchanges & energy production & distribution systems considered acceptable non-military targets?
-
Did either of you even read what I wrote or are you just looking to pick fights?
-
When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"? If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.
What you said was this:
But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.
When I called you on it previously your response was that you only wanted to kill "dozens" of russian civilians to show that the war was coming to them rather than thousands. I don't see what qualitative difference this makes in terms of what outcome it will produce but so be it.
You seem to be tripped up on the argument that was you are proposing is ethically wrong and avoiding multiple posters who are also pointing out that was you are proposing is logically wrong. The action you propose taking will not produce (and has not in the past produced) the outcome you are stating you want to achieve.
I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.
If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.
I think you're making a different point from Mustacheandahalf and one I also agree with. Yes, there may be military targets it makes sense for Ukraine to strike, even in Moscow itself. If it makes sense to do so, my guess is that they will do so. So this is not an argument that there is not context in which it would make sense for Ukraine to bomb targets in Moscow.
But it doesn't make sense for Ukraine to strike military targets in Moscow in order to "show the Russians the war is coming to them" because, based on history, showing the Russians the war is coming to them will make the Russian people more supportive of their leadership generally and the war specifically than they currently are.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
And a war crime.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
This thinking falls into the logical trap of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."
I don't know the correct answer to your question. All I can honestly tell you is that doing this particular something will not accomplish the outcome you wish to achieve.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
This thinking falls into the logical trap of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."
I don't know the correct answer to your question. All I can honestly tell you is that doing this particular something will not accomplish the outcome you wish to achieve.
Yes, but the "else" requests a different something. It asks for something other than the violence that has been decried. Perhaps, a reversal in a minor sanction accompanied by the proper PR to remind the Russian populace of what their government is actually doing. That may be a little difficult for their propaganda machine to cover up.
-
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
You don't/can't. You have to win on the battlefield at this point.
-W
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.
Will the battlefield defeat be enough? Will they simply pull back their claws for sharpening and return to their imperialistic battle at a later date? I'm thinking what happened in Germany between the two world wars. At any rate, this war apparently needs to be run to conclusion before that's a concern. And,......if it takes a generation I won't be around to see it.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.
Will the battlefield defeat be enough? Will they simply pull back their claws for sharpening and return to their imperialistic battle at a later date? I'm thinking what happened in Germany between the two world wars. At any rate, this war apparently needs to be run to conclusion before that's a concern. And,......if it takes a generation I won't be around to see it.
There are basically only two ways to end a war: overwhelming defeat (WWII) or fight each other to a standstill (WWI). Ukraine/Russia is heading for standstill, and if we're lucky it will be a standstill that sees Russia leaving as much of Ukraine as possible or, if we are even luckier, all of it. Length of time to achieve standstill is at this minute undetermined.
There will be war somewhere in the world for the rest of my life, just as there has been war somewhere in the world for the whole of my life so far. Welcome to the human race.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
-W
That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.
Will the battlefield defeat be enough? Will they simply pull back their claws for sharpening and return to their imperialistic battle at a later date? I'm thinking what happened in Germany between the two world wars. At any rate, this war apparently needs to be run to conclusion before that's a concern. And,......if it takes a generation I won't be around to see it.
Remember, it’s not just the battlefield losses. Broadly speaking, there is the military conflict, international trade (and sanctions) and immigration.
To me, Russia seems to be suffering greatly in all three areas. While battlefield losses has the most immediate impact, the damage to Russias economy is building and will continue to get worse, perhaps for the rest of the decade (if not longer). Global companies have left in droves and won’t come back for years. Targeted sanctions are and will continue to limit rebuilding their more advanced weapons. And their closest neighbors are no longer buying as much of their most valuable commodity, and have been pushed to rapidly divert away from fossil fuels by this very invasion. Then there’s the demographic impact - already a few hundred thousand 20 & 30 something men have been killed, wounded or fled. The Russian population has been declining for three decades, and roughly half is over the age of 40. Start subtracting young, working age adults and that’s going to echo through their economy for more than a decade.
Returning to the question of whether Russia will rationally realize that the costs of this war are not worth it - I’m not sure. On one hand the propaganda is incredibly effective. OTOH cracks are showing and there’s more dissent (but open and behind closed doors) of Putin than when have seen in twenty years. Support among oligarchs has fallen, as their interests no longer align. And of course the Russian citizens are hearing about the war from the stream of injured and poorly trained conscripts returning from Ukraine.
-
How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does? To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.
The war will continue as long as Putin is in power. Losing the war means for Putin loss of power, as this has historically been the case in Russia:
Withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989; two years later USSR dissolves and Gorbachov is out of power.
Backing down from Cuban Missle Crisis: two years later Khrushchev was removed from power.
The Korean War didn't end until Stalin died.
In 1917 the Russian Empire sued for peace to stop the fighting in WWI. Shortly thereafter the revolution breaks out and the Czar & family are shot.
So there is strong correlation between poor results in wartime and loss of political power for Russian leaders. Putin will only end the war on his terms.
For Russians to stop the war means removing Putin from power. The only way for this to happen is via a coup in the Kremlin.
A popular uprising won't achieve very much as Putin has control over all the levers of power. Besides, the Russian population is pretty apolitical at this point since the most politically attuned citizens have already left the country, so those remaining are not very likely to start protesting.
-
Kyrylo Oleksiyovych Budanov is Chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and Major General and this picture just popped up on Twitter and is supposed to show him in his office with a map of Moscow on the screen.
https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1609160165265227779/photo/1
-
I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.
The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.
-W
-
A little over a week ago, ukrainian authorities posted a clip from the search of what claimed to be a troll factory in Ukraine, manned by russians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpqHCrn-f-8
The description says this according to Google translate:
During the searches, more than 100,000 SIM cards were seized, which were used to register fake accounts. In total, bot networks had more than one and a half million accounts in various social networks, mail services and messengers. Bots were registered for spreading fakes and propaganda, pro-Russian narratives, justifying the actions of the occupiers, and spreading illegal content.
Comment: Yevhenii Doroganov, deputy head of the department - head of the department for countering crimes in the field of computer systems of the Cyber Police Department of the NPU
I can confirm that two of the stashes of SIMs are Swedish, first from Comviq at 0:56 and then Lycamobile at 2:15 in the video. The orange plastic carrying bag is from the Swedish sporting goods store Stadium.
Fascinating.
-
I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.
The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.
-W
I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle. For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain and are accustomed to a mostly middle-class type lifestyle. Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.
-
I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.
The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.
-W
I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle. For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain and are accustomed to a mostly middle-class type lifestyle. Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.
I think the more interesting question is what the impact of the brain drain that Russia has/will experience is going to be - it's possible many/most of those middle-class lifestyle folks will just leave.
-
I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.
The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.
-W
I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle. For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain and are accustomed to a mostly middle-class type lifestyle. Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.
I think the more interesting question is what the impact of the brain drain that Russia has/will experience is going to be - it's possible many/most of those middle-class lifestyle folks will just leave.
The world is supposed to be heading into a recession this coming new year. How much harder will it be on the Russian citizens? Can they still sell plywood to Europe? I guess they can still sell food. I think they will have a high unemployment rate. In addition the economy will suffer due to the folks that have left the country and left for the military. The missing people will stifle civilian production. The petroleum golden goose will be laying far fewer eggs. The economy will be geared to produce for the "special military operation" rather than for the civilian populace. Their economy is heading towards the command economy thing which they had in Soviet times. It didn't work so well for consumer goods. Unlike North Korea which has had generations kept poor since the 1950s, I think these folks will notice and be rather perturbed at their government.
On the other hand, Russians seem to be a different type of people.
Hopefully, this war will end and we'll all have a happy new year.
-
I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle. For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain and are accustomed to a mostly middle-class type lifestyle. Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.
I know some Russian expats and have asked them about this. The answer is: yes.
It is a literal cult of personality at this point and there will be no uprising. Putin is the new Kim.
-W
-
Then there’s the demographic impact - already a few hundred thousand 20 & 30 something men have been killed, wounded or fled. The Russian population has been declining for three decades, and roughly half is over the age of 40. Start subtracting young, working age adults and that’s going to echo through their economy for more than a decade.
Demographically it's even worse than the first pass would suggest - a fair percentage of the young men who fled have been joined by their families. In my neighborhood there are multiple young(or youngish) Russian families (with kids!) who fled Russia due to the conscription. Husbands left immediately, the families followed. They're all working on getting SSNs and asylum/long term residency.
Additionally, the "few hundred thousand" is likely low. It's pretty well agreed that just during the first week after the conscription announcement, ~260k left Russia. However, it's looking like at least 900k have left Russia between the start of the war and 1 week after the conscription announcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_emigration_following_the_2022_invasion_of_Ukraine Plus however many have left in the October-December timeframe.
Of course the 900k number isn't just the young men, it would include the families. Add in the 100k war deaths and we're looking at Russia losing about a million young people (so far!) due to the war.
-
I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle. For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain and are accustomed to a mostly middle-class type lifestyle. Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.
I know some Russian expats and have asked them about this. The answer is: yes.
It is a literal cult of personality at this point and there will be no uprising. Putin is the new Kim.
-W
North Korea is a tiny country that borders another dictatorship on one side and a highly guarded DMZ on the other. Even still, some small number of North Koreans manage to escape each year.
Russia is an utterly immense country that cannot possibly guard all its borders. It has endemic corruption, which includes border guards. If you shoot a few corrupt border guards, the rest will just show up at work and keep walking.
Putin will hold onto power for awhile, but nobody lives forever. Sadly, even if he is replaced by a kindly kindergarten teacher their country will take decades to attain any kind of equilibrium. Economic collapse and famine are not out of the question.
-
I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle. For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain and are accustomed to a mostly middle-class type lifestyle. Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.
I know some Russian expats and have asked them about this. The answer is: yes.
It is a literal cult of personality at this point and there will be no uprising. Putin is the new Kim.
-W
North Korea is a tiny country that borders another dictatorship on one side and a highly guarded DMZ on the other. Even still, some small number of North Koreans manage to escape each year.
Russia is an utterly immense country that cannot possibly guard all its borders. It has endemic corruption, which includes border guards. If you shoot a few corrupt border guards, the rest will just show up at work and keep walking.
Putin will hold onto power for awhile, but nobody lives forever. Sadly, even if he is replaced by a kindly kindergarten teacher their country will take decades to attain any kind of equilibrium. Economic collapse and famine are not out of the question.
How much chance of it breaking up? That sparsely populated East has a lot of resources. Some of the people who live there may realize that outside capital could really bring prosperity to that land.
-
Happy New Year!
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1609797488411828224
-
How much chance of it breaking up? That sparsely populated East has a lot of resources. Some of the people who live there may realize that outside capital could really bring prosperity to that land.
Probably not much without a total collapse of the civil power, and then who knows what comes next? Hopefully some sane people will at least get a grip on whatever nukes there are in place.
Much as I want Russia to stop invading Ukraine, I can't bring myself to wish famine or collapse on Russia. They may bring it on themselves.
-
Happy New Year!
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1609797488411828224
Damn, the Ukrainians really made an art out of trolling.
-
When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"? If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.
What you said was this:
But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.
Earlier you put words in my mouth by quoting something I didn't say, and now you're putting words in my mouth by twisting a meaning - and leaving out a key sentence that clarifies exactly what I meant:
Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
What part of "put a hole in the spire of the Kremlin" means "bombing into submission"? It doesn't, and if you quoted me in context you'd have to admit you were wrong.
I agree. In addition, history has also shown that “bombing a population into submission” rarely works, and tends to have the opposite effect, as has been pointed out earlier. Ultimately using “war is hell” as a justification for making it hell for more people pushes this into a discussion of increasing war crimes.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
You can't have it both ways. If you aren't in favor of killing civilians to send a message then don't turn around and argue that it's okay because Russia did it first.
-
In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for states like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.
(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27331.jpeg)
(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27278.jpeg)
-
A couple nights ago Ukraine hit a university building in Makiivka the Russians were using as a barracks. Allegedly it was full of recently mobilized Russians undergoing artillery training. It was also a storage site for artillery ammunition. Russia admits to 89 dead and at least 150 wounded to include a deputy regimental commander. Ukrainian and US sources think the casualties are in the mid-hundreds.
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1610402710062235648?s=20&t=GmPP-hDE6VmFB2KBHuY0Yw (https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1610402710062235648?s=20&t=GmPP-hDE6VmFB2KBHuY0Yw)
-
You can't have it both ways. If you aren't in favor of killing civilians to send a message then don't turn around and argue that it's okay because Russia did it first.
Are you claiming that the Kremlin (which contains the military barracks and training grounds of the Presidential Regiment) and a bridge (presumably with military logistics value) could not be legitimate military targets and are equivalent to deliberately targeting civilians?
Because that's the only way I can interpret your apparent position, and it's puzzling me.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
-
In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for countries like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.
I wouldn't be worried about India. They'll buy all the discount oil they can. But they won't send weapons or physically support Russia in any way. Much the same with China. Both countries value their economic progress to risk it on sanctions.
-
In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for countries like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.
I wouldn't be worried about India. They'll buy all the discount oil they can. But they won't send weapons or physically support Russia in any way. Much the same with China. Both countries value their economic progress to risk it on sanctions.
What has surprised me is Israel's attitude to Russia over Ukraine: lots of equivocation there and an unreliable ally to the west.
-
You can't have it both ways. If you aren't in favor of killing civilians to send a message then don't turn around and argue that it's okay because Russia did it first.
Are you claiming that the Kremlin (which contains the military barracks and training grounds of the Presidential Regiment) and a bridge (presumably with military logistics value) could not be legitimate military targets and are equivalent to deliberately targeting civilians?
Because that's the only way I can interpret your apparent position, and it's puzzling me.
My main position is that history shows us that "showing Russians that the war is coming to them" is actively counterproductive to the goal of getting Russia to stop fighting and end the war.
If there are sufficient tactical and strategic benefits to bombing a bridge that it is worth the negative consequence of the increase in public support for the war associated with making the war more real for the local russian population around the bridge, then bomb the bridge. But don't bomb the bridge in order to make the war more real for the local population and hence increase their support for the war. Because putting aside ethical arguments that would just be a really really stupid thing to do.
People arguing for actions which will prolong the war and enhance the support of the Russian populace for both the Kremlin and the war effort because of how bad the war is and how many people have already been killed* really bothers me and is prompting me to respond more emotionally than I otherwise would.
*And to be clear I don't include you among the people I see making this really unfortunate argument.
-
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
Thank you for clarifying your position and quoting what you have previously said on the matter. I still believe it is a terribly idea, from a pragmatic standpoint (“will it help end the fighting”), from a logistical standpoint (“going on the offensive”), from an international support position, and on the ethics alone.
Maizefolk did a pretty decent job summarizing my viewpoints on the non-ethical reasons, but in brief attacking even select targets within the capitol city would hold a huge cost for Ukraine in terms of support, both from their allies (who have backed them in unprecedented ways thusfar) and from Russians in general (resulting in much broader support for this conflict)
-
I started replying less because I didn't want to make this thread about me or my specific view, but I'll risk clarifying the idea that has been misconstrued. And maybe it will help to point to a different example I mentioned earlier in this thread.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government consistently lied to the American people. The enemy body counts and capabilities were not truthful. During the Tet holiday, North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive where they attacked numerous cities and villages at the same time, and captured a number of them. U.S. troops liberated cities, used heliocopters to rapidly move to other cities, liberating them. As a military offensive, it was a terrible defeat for North Vietnam... and it won them the war. Back in the U.S., Americans were shocked the enemy could take over numerous villages after what they'd been told. Sentiment against the war flooded in, and the U.S. withdrew in defeat. My key point is that U.S. government propaganda was shown to be a lie, and support for the war collapsed.
That is what I was trying to convey in my approach to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I was not suggesting killing tens of thousands of Russian civilians, nor targetting civilians. During the thread I learned about "legitimate military targets", and so my earlier comments about war crimes were ignorant and incorrect. It is not a war crime, for example, to attack the bridge the connects Russia to Crimea because the bridge has military value to Russia.
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
-
In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for states like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.
This is interesting, but it looks like it doesn't address the cost of absorbing the six million+ Ukrainian refugees who've left - that's quite a cost for the neighboring countries to absorb. That should be included in the overall definition of support.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
I would say: It starts with a free and open press - something Russia simply does not have. As is typical with dictatorships, the Kremlin keeps tight controls on all major media (and dissident journalists have a tendency of being exiled or mysteriously dying). Absent that, I don't see how any external pressure (military strikes or other) can effectively compete with state-run media channels controlling the message and blasting out propaganda to a pre-conditioned populace 24/7. Simply put, most have been conditioned to deeply distrust the West.
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
Instead of focusing on public sentiment, we could ask "what would make Putin decide this war is not worth fighting anymore?" While he might be a de-facto dictator his power stems from control of the military, support of the oligarchs (through a combination of intimidation and kickbacks) and a few other key positions. This conflict has embarrassed the military and shown general incompetence - and there's evidence that support from the oligarchs is waning, though they still fear Putin and his reach. There seems to be a debate as to whether its best to cut-and-run or triple-down and absolutely obliterate Ukraine. Making the latter option impossible seems to be the goal of the Western-led alliance. Targeted sanctions have been designed to sap support and break the corrupt control of the Kremlin-oligarch circle, as well as limit the manufacture of more precision-guided systems.
So what else...? From what I've read it seems Russia is getting at least some of their weapons now from Iran - trying to interrupt that source seems logical (though politically problematic). Improved defensive systems are scheduled but will take months to deploy onto the battlefield. Most of the missile attacks appear to be launched from Russia's warships in international waters, so curtailing that is tricky (outside the range of HIMARS and governed by international maritime law.
What other suggestions do you have?
-
My key point is that U.S. government propaganda was shown to be a lie, and support for the war collapsed.
That is what I was trying to convey in my approach to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
...
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
Ukraine has half-destroyed the kerch bridge. They have killed the Moskwa flagship. They have bombarded airfields for atomic bombers far away. They have just killed a stupid collection of recruits. Several Russian cities had air defense working (and by that I mean you could hear the explosions).
Russians know about that.
No single strike in Moskwa could tell the population more than the fact that Ukraine is able to take out the most valuable and protected military targets.
-
My key point is that U.S. government propaganda was shown to be a lie, and support for the war collapsed.
That is what I was trying to convey in my approach to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
...
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
Ukraine has half-destroyed the kerch bridge. They have killed the Moskwa flagship. They have bombarded airfields for atomic bombers far away. They have just killed a stupid collection of recruits. Several Russian cities had air defense working (and by that I mean you could hear the explosions).
Russians know about that.
No single strike in Moskwa could tell the population more than the fact that Ukraine is able to take out the most valuable and protected military targets.
Yes. Putin's relation with his people is different than what we in the West know and understand to be a 'normal' relationship between a political leader and the populace. It's best to try and view it through their lens, although this is exceedingly difficult for Westerners who have never spent time in or studied the history of Russia.
Russians who had anti war sentiment have done the only option available to them--they left the country. The first wave was in late Feb, 2022 and the second wave was after mass mobilization in late Sept. 2022. Writing/calling their representative wasn't an option. Voting for the opposition wasn't an option. Protesting wasn't an option. Complaining on television wasn't an option. Starting a blog wasn't an option. The only option was to vote with their feet and emigrate.
Since these people would just cause Putin trouble anyway, he's happy to see them go to the neighboring countries. Since most of these people are well educated and have job skills that are more mobile than most, the neighboring countries are happy to have them.
-
Actually, the Moscow region is a major logistical hub with many installations of military importance that can justifiably be targeted by UAF.
However, high profile incidents in the area would hand the regime a justification for internal security clampdowns which part of the population would support if they felt threatened.
Such a clampdown would of course interfere with UAF undercover activities in the capital region. Remember, Ukrainian agents can easily pass as Russians and, short of martial law, finding them is really difficult.
So I would not expect any UAF activity in the capital region until the situation has been shaped sufficiently that a security clampdown would not interfere any more in such endeavors.
I actually was more concerned with a false flag incident in Moscow in order to justify further security measures, but with the events of the last few weeks, the Kremlin must now consider that any attack in Moscow would be seen as a weakness of the regime and would likely be followed by extensive sabotage undermining the regime even further.
I posted this a few days ago:
Kyrylo Oleksiyovych Budanov is Chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and Major General and this picture just popped up on Twitter and is supposed to show him in his office with a map of Moscow on the screen.
https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1609160165265227779/photo/1
This picture was of course leaked intentionally. It is a threat to the Kremlin and a message that preparations are under way and whatever happens will happen at Ukraine´s convenience.
-
Cut the head off the snake.
-
Cut the head off the snake.
Risky. It’s not likely to result in a democratically elected leader, but rather another dictator who now can say with some legitimacy that evil externals are murderous bastards and must be preemptively destroyed. No guarantee the next guy wouldn’t be worse and want to “succeed where Putin failed” as some sort of affirmation of power
-
Cut the head off the snake.
Risky. It’s not likely to result in a democratically elected leader, but rather another dictator who now can say with some legitimacy that evil externals are murderous bastards and must be preemptively destroyed. No guarantee the next guy wouldn’t be worse and want to “succeed where Putin failed” as some sort of affirmation of power
But from a practical perspective, what could/would an even-worse successor do that Putin hasn't already done? Russia has already lost probably at least half their operational armor and over 100,000 troops, including much of their actually operational, trained ground forces. From many reports, they've used up nearly all their precision standoff weapons and called up 300,000 conscripts, who are getting chewed up at a rate of 500-700 per day. They've bombed hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and electrical infrastructure. They've kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainians. They've beaten, tortured, raped, and executed who-knows-how-many civilians. They stripped Kherson of anything of value as they pulled out. They basically leveled the entire city of Mariupol. They've stripped Belarus of all armor and artillery shells, have pulled anti-air defenses from Syria, and are having to source stuff from North Korea and Iran.
What escalatory steps are available to such a successor? Full mobilization? Considering Russia's logistical struggles, I see that doing more harm than good. Nukes? Perhaps I'm an optimist, but someone smart enough to position themselves to succeed Putin is gonna be smart enough to leave the nukes where they are. Chemical weapons? IMO, such an action would unlock a whole new set of modern western material support.
-
Cut the head off the snake.
Risky. It’s not likely to result in a democratically elected leader, but rather another dictator who now can say with some legitimacy that evil externals are murderous bastards and must be preemptively destroyed. No guarantee the next guy wouldn’t be worse and want to “succeed where Putin failed” as some sort of affirmation of power
But from a practical perspective, what could/would an even-worse successor do that Putin hasn't already done? Russia has already lost probably at least half their operational armor and over 100,000 troops, including much of their actually operational, trained ground forces. From many reports, they've used up nearly all their precision standoff weapons and called up 300,000 conscripts, who are getting chewed up at a rate of 500-700 per day. They've bombed hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and electrical infrastructure. They've kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainians. They've beaten, tortured, raped, and executed who-knows-how-many civilians. They stripped Kherson of anything of value as they pulled out. They basically leveled the entire city of Mariupol. They've stripped Belarus of all armor and artillery shells, have pulled anti-air defenses from Syria, and are having to source stuff from North Korea and Iran.
What escalatory steps are available to such a successor? Full mobilization? Considering Russia's logistical struggles, I see that doing more harm than good. Nukes? Perhaps I'm an optimist, but someone smart enough to position themselves to succeed Putin is gonna be smart enough to leave the nukes where they are. Chemical weapons? IMO, such an action would unlock a whole new set of modern western material support.
Yeah, nukes. Or just more of the same (but with new leadership and “this time it’s different” the war and losses continue until it becomes apparent that “actually nothing has changed). History is littered with examples of bad wars that still didn’t end when the leader was replaced. Heck, three consecutive presidents vowed to “get out of Afghanistan”
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
Great question, and I have no clear idea what the answers might be. I've been reading a lot about Russian politics lately, and it appears that a large number of Russians have views similar to Putin's. That is, they want to reconstitute their romantic visions of the greatness of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, view Ukraine as legitimately part of the Russian empire, and view Russia locked in an existential political, military, and cultural battle with the West.
There is a good chance that Russia will be defeated militarily in this war. But even that might not be enough to change public sentiment. Germany was defeated military in WWI, but Germany itself wasn't really invaded. After the war, a significant fraction of the population began to believe that Germany could have won, but was betrayed by the political leadership. That might be a loose analogy for Russia, but it seems to apply a bit. Already, milbloggers, propogandists, and even Prigozhin have begun to blame Russia's lack of progress on everyone and everything except for Putin himself. Assuming Russia is thrown back to the 2012 borders, I believe there is a good chance Russia will simply bide its time until it can invade again. Perhaps in a generation or two.
-
*And to be clear I don't include you among the people I see making this really unfortunate argument.
Thanks I was just trying to understand what you were saying.
Personally, I think Ukraine should stick with what they have been doing so well - focusing on disrupting Russian military logistics, both in Ukraine and in Russia while minimizing civilian casualties. Beyond the obvious ammo depots - if a bridge and/or train line is on a significant logistics route and is in range? Cripple or eliminate its carrying capacity. The Kerch strait bridge is a good example.
That said, whatever approaches Ukraine chooses (short of war crimes) it's really their decision, not mine.
-
Cut the head off the snake.
It's more of a hydra than a snake.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
Great question, and I have no clear idea what the answers might be. I've been reading a lot about Russian politics lately, and it appears that a large number of Russians have views similar to Putin's. That is, they want to reconstitute their romantic visions of the greatness of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, view Ukraine as legitimately part of the Russian empire, and view Russia locked in an existential political, military, and cultural battle with the West.
There is a good chance that Russia will be defeated militarily in this war. But even that might not be enough to change public sentiment. Germany was defeated military in WWI, but Germany itself wasn't really invaded. After the war, a significant fraction of the population began to believe that Germany could have won, but was betrayed by the political leadership. That might be a loose analogy for Russia, but it seems to apply a bit. Already, milbloggers, propogandists, and even Prigozhin have begun to blame Russia's lack of progress on everyone and everything except for Putin himself. Assuming Russia is thrown back to the 2012 borders, I believe there is a good chance Russia will simply bide its time until it can invade again. Perhaps in a generation or two.
Around the turn of the century, I lived in Russia for about 2 years. I was there when 9/11 happened. About 75% of the people we encountered were very sympathetic, etc. The remainder were of the "that's what you deserve, you dirty western dogs" mentality.
There is definitely a generational split in the country, between those who long for the bygone era of Soviet (perceived) Supremacy, and those who would love to be more integrated and friendly with the West. The number of those in the former group are rapidly dwindling--almost half of the population were born after the fall of the iron curtain--but currently hold the levers of power.
It doesn't surprise me that Putin has, at least domestically, escaped blame for this fiasco. To question or blame or in any way insinuate that he's anything but a master strategist is...risky. Witness the alarming number of oligarchs suffering untimely deaths over the last 10 months. I don't believe the younger, urban demographic has any illusions about the prudence of the "special military operation," nor do I believe they think that destroying hundreds of thousands of lives in order to conquer small portions of Ukraine is good policy.
As for Russia biding its time and rebuilding to invade again...I'm skeptical. Because once they're out of Ukraine, Ukraine no longer has contested borders and can work toward full EU membership, or joining NATO. And Ukraine isn't going to spend that time sitting on their hands, either. Everything from hardening infrastructure to arming up with western weapons to fortifying borders to changing their railroad gauge to stockpiling equipment, to training their forces, to developing and producing long-range drones...it's all on the table. Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to rebuild militarily will be severely hampered by sanctions, the huge brain drain, the tremendous corruption, price caps on oil, etc.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
Great question, and I have no clear idea what the answers might be. I've been reading a lot about Russian politics lately, and it appears that a large number of Russians have views similar to Putin's. That is, they want to reconstitute their romantic visions of the greatness of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, view Ukraine as legitimately part of the Russian empire, and view Russia locked in an existential political, military, and cultural battle with the West.
There is a good chance that Russia will be defeated militarily in this war. But even that might not be enough to change public sentiment. Germany was defeated military in WWI, but Germany itself wasn't really invaded. After the war, a significant fraction of the population began to believe that Germany could have won, but was betrayed by the political leadership. That might be a loose analogy for Russia, but it seems to apply a bit. Already, milbloggers, propogandists, and even Prigozhin have begun to blame Russia's lack of progress on everyone and everything except for Putin himself. Assuming Russia is thrown back to the 2012 borders, I believe there is a good chance Russia will simply bide its time until it can invade again. Perhaps in a generation or two.
Around the turn of the century, I lived in Russia for about 2 years. I was there when 9/11 happened. About 75% of the people we encountered were very sympathetic, etc. The remainder were of the "that's what you deserve, you dirty western dogs" mentality.
There is definitely a generational split in the country, between those who long for the bygone era of Soviet (perceived) Supremacy, and those who would love to be more integrated and friendly with the West. The number of those in the former group are rapidly dwindling--almost half of the population were born after the fall of the iron curtain--but currently hold the levers of power.
It doesn't surprise me that Putin has, at least domestically, escaped blame for this fiasco. To question or blame or in any way insinuate that he's anything but a master strategist is...risky. Witness the alarming number of oligarchs suffering untimely deaths over the last 10 months. I don't believe the younger, urban demographic has any illusions about the prudence of the "special military operation," nor do I believe they think that destroying hundreds of thousands of lives in order to conquer small portions of Ukraine is good policy.
As for Russia biding its time and rebuilding to invade again...I'm skeptical. Because once they're out of Ukraine, Ukraine no longer has contested borders and can work toward full EU membership, or joining NATO. And Ukraine isn't going to spend that time sitting on their hands, either. Everything from hardening infrastructure to arming up with western weapons to fortifying borders to changing their railroad gauge to stockpiling equipment, to training their forces, to developing and producing long-range drones...it's all on the table. Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to rebuild militarily will be severely hampered by sanctions, the huge brain drain, the tremendous corruption, price caps on oil, etc.
Times change - People Change
Today in 1965 Lyndon B Johnson gave a state of the union address outlining his great society plan. It mostly passed. It included some good ideas like Medicare. These things go in cycles. About the time when Reagan and Clinton were president, the ideas envisioned by Johnson and the post Roosevelt politicians were castigated. This remained the sratus quo for a generation. Today with the resurgence of unions and various government programs, the pendulum appears to be swinging back
I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk. In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity. However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
IMO, 2 things.
Dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia.
And Ukraine winning the war and taking back all territory, including Crimea.
-
I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk. In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity. However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.
I hope so. But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.
-
I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk. In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity. However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.
I certainly hope you are right. But looking at examples of other countries that have been held in check for a generation or more (Cuba, North Korea, arguably Iran), while the population may not support their leaders, the batshit crazy leadership largely remains in power.
-
I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk. In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity. However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.
I hope so. But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.
It did take a generation before they were able to make their resurgence.
Dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia.
Nah - They have portable crematoria. They'll just say the dead soldier is location unknown.
-
I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk. In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity. However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.
I hope so. But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.
It did take a generation before they were able to make their resurgence.
Dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia.
Nah - They have portable crematoria. They'll just say the dead soldier is location unknown.
It also prevents them from having to pay any death benefits for the family of the dead soldier back in Russia. Very frugal. Who knew that Russia was so mustachian!!
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
I think it's just necessary for Ukraine to win the war and push Russia entirely out of Crimea. That will do a MUCH better job of making Putin look weak.
-
I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk. In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity. However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.
I hope so. But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.
It did take a generation before they were able to make their resurgence.
Dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia.
Nah - They have portable crematoria. They'll just say the dead soldier is location unknown.
I contrast that with how the US treats Soldiers. I lost one of my Soldiers when we were deployed a couple of years ago (natural causes, not combat). Hundreds of people showed up to his memorial service in country including a couple of general and the ambassador. When his body arrived back home there were hundreds (possibly thousands) lining the streets with additional generals present and multiple police and fire departments (he was a police officer and volunteer firefighter as a civilian) present in his funeral procession (they temporarily shut down a major freeway).
-
It seems as if Putin's crowd is trying to Make Russia Great Again....
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Ok, here you are talking about Putin and what might remove him from power. Do you believe that if Putin is removed that the war will quickly end, particularly if that came about by the targeted distraction of the Kremlin in Moscow? That (should Putin be removed for looking “weak”) whomever takes over will look at the destruction of the Kremlin and conclude: Let’s not fight anymore?
-
Ok, here you are talking about Putin and what might remove him from power. Do you believe that if Putin is removed that the war will quickly end, particularly if that came about by the targeted distraction of the Kremlin in Moscow? That (should Putin be removed for looking “weak”) whomever takes over will look at the destruction of the Kremlin and conclude: Let’s not fight anymore?
I don't know if it would work, but I think the point is to show Putin as weak, so that he gets replaced, and then his replacement recognizes/acknowledges that Putin's escapade in Ukraine was folly/expensive/a military disaster and decides to pull out. There's a general feeling that Putin's cronies know the true extent of the damage, but the info presented to Putin is heavily filtered, and that has contributed to his poor decisions. If someone with a more correct dataset gets in power, better decisions (e.g. pull out of Ukraine) may be made.
-
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.
1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Ok, here you are talking about Putin and what might remove him from power. Do you believe that if Putin is removed that the war will quickly end, particularly if that came about by the targeted distraction of the Kremlin in Moscow? That (should Putin be removed for looking “weak”) whomever takes over will look at the destruction of the Kremlin and conclude: Let’s not fight anymore?
No, I didn't say "the war will quickly end". I said it moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak. And if he looks weak enough, then Bill Browder's view is that Putin is as good as dead. Not "removed", but dead. And the missile/drone strike on a spire of the Kremlin contributes to that - it does not accomplish that by itself. It "moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak", which can lead to his death.
For a successor, the war isn't proof of their strength like it is for Putin. It Putin is dead over the war, yes I think it likely the war ends. And again if Bill Browder is right, the war represents an existential crisis for Putin - he can't afford to be seen as weak or losing. A successor won't have that burden. I think the war will not end if Putin can do anything about it, while it can end under someone else.
Russia also seeks to execute as many civilians as it can, which I think could change under a successor. Even if the war doesn't end, but the executions do, that saves lives. With Putin gone there are several ways that lives are saved - the war could end, and civilian executions could end.
-
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.
1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?
Earlier in the thread I mentioned a missile strike, but didn't know if that was precise enough to hit a spire of the Kremlin, and also mentioned a drone strike. While Ukrainians can pass for Russians - they can infiltrate - Russia could order a lockdown, which prevents it. Russia could stop a bomb delivered by infiltration. My point was a missile or drone strike, which Ukraine could repeat on other symbolic and shocking targets.
Earlier I gave the example of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which revealed lies made by the U.S. government to its citizens, and lead to the end of the war. In that metaphor, a shocking event broke through propaganda and did contribute significantly to ending the war. So there's not as much need for a hypothetical - we have an actual war that was ended in the way I describe.
-
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.
1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?
Earlier in the thread I mentioned a missile strike, but didn't know if that was precise enough to hit a spire of the Kremlin, and also mentioned a drone strike. While Ukrainians can pass for Russians - they can infiltrate - Russia could order a lockdown, which prevents it. Russia could stop a bomb delivered by infiltration. My point was a missile or drone strike, which Ukraine could repeat on other symbolic and shocking targets.
Earlier I gave the example of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which revealed lies made by the U.S. government to its citizens, and lead to the end of the war. In that metaphor, a shocking event broke through propaganda and did contribute significantly to ending the war. So there's not as much need for a hypothetical - we have an actual war that was ended in the way I describe.
Fine, if you prefer, the Taliban launches a drone strike that somehow destroys the Truman balcony without killing anyone.
There is a clear need for a hypothetical because the Tet offensive was a military reversal thousands of miles away (not analogous to a hole in the Kremlin and much more analogous to Ukraine's success in pushing back the Russian army) and the USA continued to actively fight in Vietnam for years afterwards (so it didn't end the war).
A hole in the Kremlin or damage to the White House are much more similar to each other and so is a better way to test your mental model for how Russians would react by putting yourself in a similar situation and imagining how you would react.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
My simplistic view is the Russian situation is alot like the MAGA/Q-anon/COVID conspiracy problem here but on a grander scale. The problem doesn't pass in a year or so with elections. Things are the way they are b/c they have always been that way - the bullies win. Changes will have to overcome an incredible amount of inertia. And there are millions under-educated Russians that get their information for the TV and internet rumors just like the MAGA crowd does here.
-
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.
1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?
I am not convinced that my reaction would be remotely similar to your average Russian citizen's reaction. I know that there are significant, if sometimes subtle, cultural differences. I know that the Russian government controls the media. Would the average Russian know that there was a giant hole in the Kremlin? Maybe, maybe not. If they did know, would it be taken as "we want revenge" or "we are so horribly embarrassed that we must run and hide"? Something else? I don't know.
So your analogy might not apply. Or it might. I don't know.
I do know that if Putin is removed from power, someone will replace him and there's a very good chance that the west would be even less pleased with that person than Putin.
Ukraine is going to be essentially rubble by the time this war is over. But they will rebuild, and they'll be an incredible country in the future. Russia's future is not so bright.
-
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.
1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?
I am not convinced that my reaction would be remotely similar to your average Russian citizen's reaction. I know that there are significant, if sometimes subtle, cultural differences. I know that the Russian government controls the media. Would the average Russian know that there was a giant hole in the Kremlin? Maybe, maybe not. If they did know, would it be taken as "we want revenge" or "we are so horribly embarrassed that we must run and hide"? Something else? I don't know.
So your analogy might not apply. Or it might. I don't know.
I do know that if Putin is removed from power, someone will replace him and there's a very good chance that the west would be even less pleased with that person than Putin.
Ukraine is going to be essentially rubble by the time this war is over. But they will rebuild, and they'll be an incredible country in the future. Russia's future is not so bright.
This war is not doing anybody in Russia any good. If Putin was gone, the folks in charge could regroup, largely blame Putin and negotiate. It gives them a way out of the mess.
-
Sibley, I agree with you. We are not Russians and our reactions may not be the same as Russians. But when people are confidently predicting Russians will react on a way that is completely different from Americans (e.g. of the taliban blew up the White House or some fraction thereof it would make Joe Biden look bad but it would have creates a huge surge is support for the war that would have made ending it even harder than it already was), there should be some reasoning for WHY they are predicting Russians would have such a polar opposite response.
Human beings are generally bad at modeling how other people will respond to our actions. The best hack we’ve come up with over thousands of years is “well how would you feel if someone did that to you?”
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
My simplistic view is the Russian situation is alot like the MAGA/Q-anon/COVID conspiracy problem here but on a grander scale. The problem doesn't pass in a year or so with elections. Things are the way they are b/c they have always been that way - the bullies win. Changes will have to overcome an incredible amount of inertia. And there are millions under-educated Russians that get their information for the TV and internet rumors just like the MAGA crowd does here.
There seems to always be a faction who crave authoritarian leadership, be they political or celestial even. They tend to think in terms of absolutes and let's not let the facts get in their way.
-
Why are people trying to over-complicate this? Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories.
That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.
-
Why are people trying to over-complicate this? Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories.
That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.
And you want to say that is NOT complicated?
-
Why are people trying to over-complicate this? Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories.
That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.
Nah. Instead, I or anybody else should post whatever they believe is relevant even if you think it's over-complicated. The sentiment of millions of Russians could very much ultimately become the key factor in this war's end.
-
Why are people trying to over-complicate this? Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories.
That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.
And you want to say that is NOT complicated?
I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'. It's not needed and likely counter-productive.
Why are people trying to over-complicate this? Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories.
That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.
Nah. Instead, I or anybody else should post whatever they believe is relevant even if you think it's over-complicated. The sentiment of millions of Russians could very much ultimately become the key factor in this war's end.
I think people here don't quite grok how powerless 'the people' are in an autocracy. Even if all 'the people' turned against the war, Putin would likely stay in power. In the West we have this underlying feeling that rulers stay in power more or less by the consent of the people being ruled. But it's simply false for countries like Russia (and North Korea, and China). In those countries, the leaders stay in power as long as they control the military, and as long as they can keep high level rivals from ousting them.
-
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?
But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.
I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin. Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia. I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.
His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead. Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness. Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
My simplistic view is the Russian situation is alot like the MAGA/Q-anon/COVID conspiracy problem here but on a grander scale. The problem doesn't pass in a year or so with elections. Things are the way they are b/c they have always been that way - the bullies win. Changes will have to overcome an incredible amount of inertia. And there are millions under-educated Russians that get their information for the TV and internet rumors just like the MAGA crowd does here.
There seems to always be a faction who crave authoritarian leadership, be they political or celestial even. They tend to think in terms of absolutes and let's not let the facts get in their way.
Made me think of the lyrics from Skynrd's Sweet Home Alabama...
In Birmingham they love the governor (boo-hoo-hoo)
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
-
In any autocracy the top leader must be supported by underlings like the people who run the military, judges, legislators, police, tax collectors, industrialists, and so on. The leader gains their support by bribing them, and/or credible threats of prison or death. And in turn those underlings maintain the power the same way over the people they rely on. In the event of a coup, any potential replacement for Putin will likely come from the same power structures that Putin himself is using. So, I'm not hopeful that even if Putin were replaced there would be any meaningful changes.
-
$3 billion aid package on the way to Ukraine from the US.
Around fifty M2-series Bradley Fighting Vehicles plus other odds and ends.
France sending AMX-10 light tanks.
Germany says they will send Marder Infantry Fighting Vehicles, as well as one of their Patriot batteries. Also looking at expanding Gepard anti-air vehicles and ammo.
RUMINT today now that western IFVs are on the way is that US and German tanks are moving from "impossible" to "maybe."
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1610685915029970945?s=20&t=07MXUpKOtq5wdgOay-aYfg (https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1610685915029970945?s=20&t=07MXUpKOtq5wdgOay-aYfg)
https://twitter.com/germanambusa/status/1611074496621846528 (https://twitter.com/germanambusa/status/1611074496621846528)
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1611074141213392897 (https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1611074141213392897)
https://twitter.com/LawyerForFuture/status/1611105630936354828?s=20 (https://twitter.com/LawyerForFuture/status/1611105630936354828?s=20)
-
^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?
-
^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?
No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.
-
A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong. There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia. It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.
Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.
1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?
Earlier in the thread I mentioned a missile strike, but didn't know if that was precise enough to hit a spire of the Kremlin, and also mentioned a drone strike. While Ukrainians can pass for Russians - they can infiltrate - Russia could order a lockdown, which prevents it. Russia could stop a bomb delivered by infiltration. My point was a missile or drone strike, which Ukraine could repeat on other symbolic and shocking targets.
Earlier I gave the example of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which revealed lies made by the U.S. government to its citizens, and lead to the end of the war. In that metaphor, a shocking event broke through propaganda and did contribute significantly to ending the war. So there's not as much need for a hypothetical - we have an actual war that was ended in the way I describe.
Fine, if you prefer, the Taliban launches a drone strike that somehow destroys the Truman balcony without killing anyone.
There is a clear need for a hypothetical because the Tet offensive was a military reversal thousands of miles away (not analogous to a hole in the Kremlin and much more analogous to Ukraine's success in pushing back the Russian army) and the USA continued to actively fight in Vietnam for years afterwards (so it didn't end the war).
A hole in the Kremlin or damage to the White House are much more similar to each other and so is a better way to test your mental model for how Russians would react by putting yourself in a similar situation and imagining how you would react.
I said contributed to the end of the war, not ended the war immediately. This article mentions the key points I knew - lies and sunny descriptions of a war that was almost over, and then a surprise organized attack in numerous cities.
https://www.history.com/news/tet-offensive-1968-vietnam-war-surprise-attack-changed-american-public-opinion
As to a hypothetical strike on the front of the White House, my first reaction would be "what the ****?". The White House has anti-air defenses, which would make it even more surprising (and reveals a flaw in my suggestion: the Kremlin probably has anti-air defenses, too).
Fox News would rail against the enemy attacking the roots of American democracy... well, in 2019. In 2021, they would talk about President Biden's incompetance in defending even his own house. I assume the President would order more drone strikes and fresh missile strikes on the Taliban in Afganistan.
Is it meaningful to talk about shocking Americans to leave Afganistan... when the plan was already to leave Afganistan? The U.S. had remained there, nation building, for many years after Osama Bin Laden was killed. The war had already dragged on and become something Americans wanted to end. So I don't see how convincing someone to do something they are already doing matters that much.
-
I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'. It's not needed and likely counter-productive.
Who are you quoting? I said "show Russians that the war is coming to them", which you claimed to understand. And yet you also talk about "no intentional killing of civilians", when I did not mention killing civilians intentionally. You talk of "bombing major cities in Russia", when I said to blow up a bridge late at night. I think it's fair to say you do not understand what I said, and your posts demonstrate that well.
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
-
^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?
No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.
It's a minor escalation in military hardware support. At first, we sent artillery, ATGMs, and intel. Then drones and HARMs and HIMARS. Then Patriot and other AA defenses. Now it's IFVs. Potentially, it makes the jump to main battle tanks a small step. And a relatively small step beyond tanks to planes.
The US has thousands of M2 Bradleys, and is in the process of replacing them. This is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen Ukraine tremendously at minimal marginal cost. 50 isn't a whole lot...to start with. It's enough to get a whole bunch of Ukrainians trained on how to use them, without saying "we're going to give Ukraine a thousand IFVs" (which would look like a HUGE escalation). That said, it seems like 1,000 IFVs would enable Ukraine to Thunder Run their way all the way to the pre-2014 borders.
-
^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?
No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.
It's a minor escalation in military hardware support. At first, we sent artillery, ATGMs, and intel. Then drones and HARMs and HIMARS. Then Patriot and other AA defenses. Now it's IFVs. Potentially, it makes the jump to main battle tanks a small step. And a relatively small step beyond tanks to planes.
The US has thousands of M2 Bradleys, and is in the process of replacing them. This is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen Ukraine tremendously at minimal marginal cost. 50 isn't a whole lot...to start with. It's enough to get a whole bunch of Ukrainians trained on how to use them, without saying "we're going to give Ukraine a thousand IFVs" (which would look like a HUGE escalation). That said, it seems like 1,000 IFVs would enable Ukraine to Thunder Run their way all the way to the pre-2014 borders.
Yeah, training seems likely, and showing it as a message. WE wont escalate, but we are ready to go with one. Unfortunately the message is lost...
I hope the US is replacing the vehicles with ones that actually work not like the Bundeswehr with the Pumas ;)
-
^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?
No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.
It's a minor escalation in military hardware support. At first, we sent artillery, ATGMs, and intel. Then drones and HARMs and HIMARS. Then Patriot and other AA defenses. Now it's IFVs. Potentially, it makes the jump to main battle tanks a small step. And a relatively small step beyond tanks to planes.
The US has thousands of M2 Bradleys, and is in the process of replacing them. This is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen Ukraine tremendously at minimal marginal cost. 50 isn't a whole lot...to start with. It's enough to get a whole bunch of Ukrainians trained on how to use them, without saying "we're going to give Ukraine a thousand IFVs" (which would look like a HUGE escalation). That said, it seems like 1,000 IFVs would enable Ukraine to Thunder Run their way all the way to the pre-2014 borders.
Yes - The right tools make the job go quicker.
-
I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'. It's not needed and likely counter-productive.
Who are you quoting? I said "show Russians that the war is coming to them", which you claimed to understand. And yet you also talk about "no intentional killing of civilians", when I did not mention killing civilians intentionally. You talk of "bombing major cities in Russia", when I said to blow up a bridge late at night. I think it's fair to say you do not understand what I said, and your posts demonstrate that well.
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
So, do you think my main point is wrong? My main point being that simply winning the war and reclaiming Crimea will be sufficient to make Putin look weak?
-
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government consistently lied to the American people. The enemy body counts and capabilities were not truthful.
I thought it turned out that the US's estimation of the body counts in Vietnam turned out to be fairly accurate, it's just that the North Vietnamese leaders were willing to lose 10 times as many people to win the war.
Ironically, although condemned as wildly inflated, the U.S. body counts reflecting heavy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong casualties were borne out. North Vietnam’s defense minister, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, admitted in an interview with an Italian reporter in 1969 that he had lost 500,000 soldiers killed from 1964 to 1969 alone. But accurate or not, the figures were meaningless.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-09-mn-675-story.html
-
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government consistently lied to the American people. The enemy body counts and capabilities were not truthful.
I thought it turned out that the US's estimation of the body counts in Vietnam turned out to be fairly accurate, it's just that the North Vietnamese leaders were willing to lose 10 times as many people to win the war.
Ironically, although condemned as wildly inflated, the U.S. body counts reflecting heavy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong casualties were borne out. North Vietnam’s defense minister, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, admitted in an interview with an Italian reporter in 1969 that he had lost 500,000 soldiers killed from 1964 to 1969 alone. But accurate or not, the figures were meaningless.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-09-mn-675-story.html
US military intelligence estimates of enemy strength were wildly off the mark. Even if the final numbers of enemy dead ended up more or less correct, ground commanders were often guessing or were pressured into outright lying since enemy KIA was pretty much the only thing written on their evaluation reports. Also, the Army wouldn't have a good idea how many were killed from artillery and air strikes so the Air Force probably made up for whatever numbers the Army was putting out.
I think it was SECDEF Clark Clifford or another senior DoD civilian who stumped an Army briefer mid-speech and actually did the math in front of him pointing out that his numbers for enemy strength plus reinforcement rate minus KIA and WIA would mean the enemy had nobody left standing to fight. It wasn't the only way to measure success they used, but it was a poor one.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/a-vicious-entanglement-part-v-the-body-count-myth/ (https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/a-vicious-entanglement-part-v-the-body-count-myth/)
-
Update on the next wave of weapons we're sending to Ukraine. It's big.
50 Bradleys plus 10 TOW missiles per vehicle
100 M113s
55 MRAPs
138 Humvees
18 M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers plus support vehicles
70k rounds of artillery ammo
500 Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells
1200 artillery-fired mines
36 105mm artillery w/95k rounds
10k 120mm mortar rounds
More GMLRS
Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles
Zuni air to ground rockets
2000 antitank missiles
Small arms, claymore mines, night vision goggles, and various spare parts
https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1611442805800374296 (https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1611442805800374296)
-
I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'. It's not needed and likely counter-productive.
Who are you quoting? I said "show Russians that the war is coming to them", which you claimed to understand. And yet you also talk about "no intentional killing of civilians", when I did not mention killing civilians intentionally. You talk of "bombing major cities in Russia", when I said to blow up a bridge late at night. I think it's fair to say you do not understand what I said, and your posts demonstrate that well.
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
So, do you think my main point is wrong? My main point being that simply winning the war and reclaiming Crimea will be sufficient to make Putin look weak?
You direct your post "talking to the people" followed by a misquote from me, and yet you don't understand what I'm saying. Here you reply to me, yet your reply has no relationship to what I said in my post, adding to the body of evidence you do not know what I'm saying.
-
I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'. It's not needed and likely counter-productive.
Who are you quoting? I said "show Russians that the war is coming to them", which you claimed to understand. And yet you also talk about "no intentional killing of civilians", when I did not mention killing civilians intentionally. You talk of "bombing major cities in Russia", when I said to blow up a bridge late at night. I think it's fair to say you do not understand what I said, and your posts demonstrate that well.
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it. So here is what I said:
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
So, do you think my main point is wrong? My main point being that simply winning the war and reclaiming Crimea will be sufficient to make Putin look weak?
You direct your post "talking to the people" followed by a misquote from me, and yet you don't understand what I'm saying. Here you reply to me, yet your reply has no relationship to what I said in my post, adding to the body of evidence you do not know what I'm saying.
The point we're discussing is what is required to make Putin look weak to his country. I think that Ukraine simply winning the war and pushing Russia out of Crimea is all that's needed to do that, but it seems like you feel more is required. What am I missing?
-
I don't know why you can't understand my posts, but I am clearly focused on you correcting your past false statements about what I said.
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
You were wrong to claim I said otherwise, but you have not said you were wrong or offered any correction.
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
Another example, I did not say to bomb major cities. You again did not understand my point and have not corrected this or admitted you were wrong.
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
Both of your comments were wrong - you claimed to understand what I was saying, when you clearly do not. You continued to talk of "attacking civilians", which is not what I posted. You have not admitted to being wrong or tried to correct your earlier incorrect statements.
-
I don't know why you can't understand my posts, but I am clearly focused on you correcting your past false statements about what I said.
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
You were wrong to claim I said otherwise, but you have not said you were wrong or offered any correction.
Ukraine can't win this war without Western support. And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.
Another example, I did not say to bomb major cities. You again did not understand my point and have not corrected this or admitted you were wrong.
I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?
Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.
Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.
I understand what you are saying. It's a terrible idea.
Both of your comments were wrong - you claimed to understand what I was saying, when you clearly do not. You continued to talk of "attacking civilians", which is not what I posted. You have not admitted to being wrong or tried to correct your earlier incorrect statements.
First, I didn't say anything about killing thousands of civilians, that was waltworks, not me. So stop trying to argue against something I never said.
I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.
You did say that you felt that Ukraine should be allowed to target Moscow. Then I said that targeting a major Russian city is a bad idea. Well, Moscow is a major Russian city, is it not?
Re: Killing civilians, well that's pretty much unavoidable if you 'target Moscow'. How can you not see that? Even if you try to limit your targets to the military or to major cultural artifacts.
But, even if you managed to avoid killing any civilians, it's still a bad idea to 'target Moscow' because it runs the risk of galvanizing the Russian populace around Putin. It also puts western support at risk.
And all of that is completely unnecessary because Ukraine can simply win the war on the battlefield.
-
Tyson, MustacheAndaHalf, be Elsa and Let It Go. Please.
-
Yes, we come here because the conversation is generally more grown up and has more grace than this.
-
Yes, we come here because the conversation is generally more grown up and has more grace than this.
Tyson, MustacheAndaHalf, be Elsa and Let It Go. Please.
Apologies.
I think my posting sometimes comes off as colder and more confrontational than I actually intend for it to be. I'll try to do better in the future.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
-
Tyson, MustacheAndaHalf, be Elsa and Let It Go. Please.
Sounds more like Dr Strangelove:
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
A few pages ago I brought something up which has been misquoted repeatedly, and I have been able to correct most of those misinterpretations by quoting my own posts with context. I will continue to do that.
-
The post about "taking the fight to Russia" (1) refers to an earlier post of mine, "show the Russians war is coming to them" (2) taken out of context by skipping the sentence "Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night" (2). If I was suggesting "intentional killing of civilians" (3), I would have mentioned the busiest time of day for a bridge, and not "late at night" (2).
(1)
I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'. It's not needed and likely counter-productive.
(2)
Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow. Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night. But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.
(3)
Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'. I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.
-
Tyson, MustacheAndaHalf, be Elsa and Let It Go. Please.
Sounds more like Dr Strangelove:
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
A few pages ago I brought something up which has been misquoted repeatedly, and I have been able to correct most of those misinterpretations by quoting my own posts with context. I will continue to do that.
I understood your orgiginal words and intent. Although reading through the maze of quotes got messy, I applaud your patience & determination to explain & defend yourself.
-
Gosar has consistently shown he’s an idiot. He’s still an idiot.
Yes, we come here because the conversation is generally more grown up and has more grace than this.
Interesting sequence of posts.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Yeh - But you see - Both US and Canada due to them being democracies have sort of a feed back mechanism where established morals are fed back into government actions and said vile actions then stop. The Russian government has more of an open loop control kind of thing. It has no feedback, i.e. moral correction. So, it will keep performing these types of actions and others such as what happened at Bucha with no corrective mechanism unless forces from the outside world perform such corrective action. It could also be considered like one of these hardened criminals that are talked about once in a while.
So - the whatboutism is really kind of weak. I guess you can compare apples to oranges, but why would you want to?
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
So did the Incans; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitma) . Every group has their dirty laundry. Let's stay on topic.
-
Tyson, MustacheAndaHalf, be Elsa and Let It Go. Please.
Sounds more like Dr Strangelove:
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
A few pages ago I brought something up which has been misquoted repeatedly, and I have been able to correct most of those misinterpretations by quoting my own posts with context. I will continue to do that.
I understood your orgiginal words and intent. Although reading through the maze of quotes got messy, I applaud your patience & determination to explain & defend yourself.
Thanks, appreciate that. Unfortunately I spent time correcting, when it would be more interesting to change my original idea in light of what I've learned. For example, Ukraine attacked the bridge connecting Russia to Crimea, which I learned is not a war crime, but a "legitimate target" because the bridge has military value to Russia.
It could be interesting to think about Russian targets with military and symbolic value, like the flagship Moskva. Ukraine claimed to hit it with Neptune class ship destroying missiles. Russia's version of events is questionable - and soon afterwards Russia retaliated by hitting the Ukranian factory that makes those Neptune class ship destroying missiles.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Not to get too off topic in Off Topic. But did they? Did the US and Canada forcibly remove/adopt native children that looked a certain way while leaving the ones that looked different?
-
Update on the next wave of weapons we're sending to Ukraine. It's big.
50 Bradleys plus 10 TOW missiles per vehicle
100 M113s
55 MRAPs
138 Humvees
18 M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers plus support vehicles
70k rounds of artillery ammo
500 Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells
1200 artillery-fired mines
36 105mm artillery w/95k rounds
10k 120mm mortar rounds
More GMLRS
Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles
Zuni air to ground rockets
2000 antitank missiles
Small arms, claymore mines, night vision goggles, and various spare parts
https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1611442805800374296 (https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1611442805800374296)
I was glad to see it, and I hope they make a timely arrival. My opinion is that many past US arms supplies have arrived about 30 days after they were really needed. Also I hope a lot more is in store soon. 500 Bradleys would have been a lot more compelling.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
This is one of my biggest concerns. It will be a lot easier to reconquer Crimea than to get back all the kidnapped civilians. Ukraine will really need to tighten the screws to get most of them back, and I assume it is not possible to get them all back. Maybe a blockade of the Russian Black Sea Coast, or occupy a few Russian oblasts, they'll need some kind of compelling leverage.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Not to get too off topic in Off Topic. But did they? Did the US and Canada forcibly remove/adopt native children that looked a certain way while leaving the ones that looked different?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/14/20913408/us-stole-thousands-of-native-american-children
Do you really doubt the terrible things that humans are capable of?
-
Yeh - But you see - Both US and Canada due to them being democracies have sort of a feed back mechanism where established morals are fed back into government actions and said vile actions then stop. The Russian government has more of an open loop control kind of thing. It has no feedback, i.e. moral correction. So, it will keep performing these types of actions and others such as what happened at Bucha with no corrective mechanism unless forces from the outside world perform such corrective action. It could also be considered like one of these hardened criminals that are talked about once in a while.
So - the whatboutism is really kind of weak. I guess you can compare apples to oranges, but why would you want to?
No, Russia has a perfect viable positive feedback loop. Many Russians approve of teaching the Nazis a lesson. Being able to Bucha is a show of strength. As is leveling cities.
-
Yeh - But you see - Both US and Canada due to them being democracies have sort of a feed back mechanism where established morals are fed back into government actions and said vile actions then stop. The Russian government has more of an open loop control kind of thing. It has no feedback, i.e. moral correction. So, it will keep performing these types of actions and others such as what happened at Bucha with no corrective mechanism unless forces from the outside world perform such corrective action. It could also be considered like one of these hardened criminals that are talked about once in a while.
So - the whatboutism is really kind of weak. I guess you can compare apples to oranges, but why would you want to?
No, Russia has a perfect viable positive feedback loop. Many Russians approve of teaching the Nazis a lesson. Being able to Bucha is a show of strength. As is leveling cities.
That's not feedback. It's not a correction mechanism. It's open loop. I suppose your idea of positive feedback does make sense in an odd sort of way. It's like their government is in short circuit mode. They keep killing more and more of their people. More and more of their industrial capacity is going to the "special military operation." The statements from their leaders are crazier and crazier. I sure hope the system burns out before they launch their nukes.
The next time I see those protesters out there at Western Capitals with the signs I will smile and realize the value of negative corrective feedback. Often they are forcing their governments to adopt basic morality.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Not to get too off topic in Off Topic. But did they? Did the US and Canada forcibly remove/adopt native children that looked a certain way while leaving the ones that looked different?
Canada planned and intentionally did our best to destroy native culture by forcing an entire generation of children to leave their parents for the majority of the year at schools where they were beaten for speaking their native tongue, sexual abuse was rampant, and negligence/abuse was so high that it caused an awful lot of deaths. The repercussions of this have been generational and significant for native communities.
But no, we didn't just do this with the whiter looking native kids. We applied our abuses 'fairly'.
-
Update on the next wave of weapons we're sending to Ukraine. It's big.
50 Bradleys plus 10 TOW missiles per vehicle
100 M113s
55 MRAPs
138 Humvees
18 M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers plus support vehicles
70k rounds of artillery ammo
500 Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells
1200 artillery-fired mines
36 105mm artillery w/95k rounds
10k 120mm mortar rounds
More GMLRS
Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles
Zuni air to ground rockets
2000 antitank missiles
Small arms, claymore mines, night vision goggles, and various spare parts
https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1611442805800374296 (https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1611442805800374296)
I was glad to see it, and I hope they make a timely arrival. My opinion is that many past US arms supplies have arrived about 30 days after they were really needed. Also I hope a lot more is in store soon. 500 Bradleys would have been a lot more compelling.
A single battalion isn't a "game changer," but its more than enough to begin a training program and set the groundwork for a later expansion. Moving a few hundred Brads will not be a simple task and I imagine some time will be needed to inspect and prepare that many vehicles.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Not to get too off topic in Off Topic. But did they? Did the US and Canada forcibly remove/adopt native children that looked a certain way while leaving the ones that looked different?
Canada planned and intentionally did our best to destroy native culture by forcing an entire generation of children to leave their parents for the majority of the year at schools where they were beaten for speaking their native tongue, sexual abuse was rampant, and negligence/abuse was so high that it caused an awful lot of deaths. The repercussions of this have been generational and significant for native communities.
But no, we didn't just do this with the whiter looking native kids. We applied our abuses 'fairly'.
The thing is,.......the people of Canada will prevent them from doing it again. Now,.......Russia,...........this mass conscience thing won't apply negative feedback to the government as a corrective action of a past inhumanity. They just stay evil.
Even a guitar amplifier has negative feedback inside to eliminate unwanted effects, but not the Russian government.
All right enough of that.
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Not to get too off topic in Off Topic. But did they? Did the US and Canada forcibly remove/adopt native children that looked a certain way while leaving the ones that looked different?
Canada planned and intentionally did our best to destroy native culture by forcing an entire generation of children to leave their parents for the majority of the year at schools where they were beaten for speaking their native tongue, sexual abuse was rampant, and negligence/abuse was so high that it caused an awful lot of deaths. The repercussions of this have been generational and significant for native communities.
But no, we didn't just do this with the whiter looking native kids. We applied our abuses 'fairly'.
The thing is,.......the people of Canada will prevent them from doing it again. Now,.......Russia,...........this mass conscience thing won't apply negative feedback to the government as a corrective action of a past inhumanity. They just stay evil.
Even a guitar amplifier has negative feedback inside to eliminate unwanted effects, but not the Russian government.
All right enough of that.
(Note: I really don’t want to derail this further, so I’m limiting how much I respond)
I brought up.the US & Canada because the strategy of erasing a particular group by co-opting their children is one that has been used by countless countries going back to at least the Romans, including recent acts by democratic countries. I’m routinely shocked at how many people simply don’t know this ever happened.
I’m more pessimistic that Canada (or the US) will prevent future atrocities from happening, in part because of a lengthy and sordid history of doing shitty things to first-nation/native populations, but also because I encounter opinions against these groups on a weekly basis (my work has me interacting with several native groups to manage a shared resource). A common complaint I hear is that they shouldn’t have “special rights” because “they live like the rest of us (modern homes and typical jobs)” and that the only time they “are Indian” is when it being it’s them. There’s a strong sentiment to deny educational systems “on rez” because they are free to choose between the public and reservation systems. In short, there’s still a lot of people that think forced integration is a grand idea (or at least the best solution)
-
"Russian authorities continue the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. Orphans from the occupied territories are often forcibly adopted by Russians, which is a large-scale scheme involving all branches of power in Russia." - Euromaidan: Russia spends €8 mn to select “quality material” for adoption among Ukrainian children: report (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/06/russia-spends-e8-mn-to-select-quality-material-for-adoption-among-ukrainian-children-report/?swcfpc=1)
From the article:
According to the report, the foster parents must meet ideological criteria, which means that “such actions must completely erase the Ukrainian identity of the deported children and distort the historical memory.”
The forced adoptions are aimed at increasing the share of Russian citizens “of Slavic appearance” as the Kremlin is concerned that over time, the Slavic population of Russia may become a minority.
Yep - History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. The Adolf guy in charge of Germany about 3 generations back had the same ideas, but with the Aryan thing. The country of Russia and Mr. Putin are from another age.
As did the US and Canada with respect to the native children in the 20th century.
Not to get too off topic in Off Topic. But did they? Did the US and Canada forcibly remove/adopt native children that looked a certain way while leaving the ones that looked different?
Canada planned and intentionally did our best to destroy native culture by forcing an entire generation of children to leave their parents for the majority of the year at schools where they were beaten for speaking their native tongue, sexual abuse was rampant, and negligence/abuse was so high that it caused an awful lot of deaths. The repercussions of this have been generational and significant for native communities.
But no, we didn't just do this with the whiter looking native kids. We applied our abuses 'fairly'.
The thing is,.......the people of Canada will prevent them from doing it again. Now,.......Russia,...........this mass conscience thing won't apply negative feedback to the government as a corrective action of a past inhumanity. They just stay evil.
Even a guitar amplifier has negative feedback inside to eliminate unwanted effects, but not the Russian government.
All right enough of that.
(Note: I really don’t want to derail this further, so I’m limiting how much I respond)
I brought up.the US & Canada because the strategy of erasing a particular group by co-opting their children is one that has been used by countless countries going back to at least the Romans, including recent acts by democratic countries. I’m routinely shocked at how many people simply don’t know this ever happened.
I’m more pessimistic that Canada (or the US) will prevent future atrocities from happening, in part because of a lengthy and sordid history of doing shitty things to first-nation/native populations, but also because I encounter opinions against these groups on a weekly basis (my work has me interacting with several native groups to manage a shared resource). A common complaint I hear is that they shouldn’t have “special rights” because “they live like the rest of us (modern homes and typical jobs)” and that the only time they “are Indian” is when it being it’s them. There’s a strong sentiment to deny educational systems “on rez” because they are free to choose between the public and reservation systems. In short, there’s still a lot of people that think forced integration is a grand idea (or at least the best solution)
Jealousy goes a long way. My last boss was a full blooded Choctaw. I was a bit jealous of him for a while because our contract firm did not provide health care. I had to do the Obamacare thing. It's understandable when it looks like somebody is getting special privileges as an accident of birth. However, he was a good boss and with his help we all had health care after a bit of time. His kids are only half Choctaw and I believe they lose dome privileges.
How many people are there out there that are a tiny fraction Cherokee?
Your worry about "special rights" may fade in time as nature takes its course and people naturally intermarry and the offspring is diluted. Until then, the law is the law. Besides, the trend towards "diversity" should be good for at least one generation.
Even in future generations, I hope that the tribes can still somehow maintain their culture, traditions and language.
All, indigenous peoples should be respected.
The Russians don't seem to have that belief.
-
The number today is 112,470. This wasn't a winning number for all those Russians. Their only winnings may have been to be sent home in a box. It seems such a fantastic amount of death.
-
It is. Perhaps when your nation's history includes stories of millions of its own being slain by the government, perhaps people there don't dwell on it unless it was one of their relatives.
I suspect that Russians (or perhaps rural Russians) have a different relationship with life and death than some of the rest of us.
The numbers of dead over the past 2-3 years including war and COVID is dizzying too.
-
The number today is 112,470. This wasn't a winning number for all those Russians. Their only winnings may have been to be sent home in a box. It seems such a fantastic amount of death.
They may be lucky to get a box. We've already seen Russian mobile crematoria in Ukraine, and there are a whole lot of Russian bodies lying uncollected in the fields around Bakhmut.
-
It's understandable when it looks like somebody is getting special privileges as an accident of birth. However, he was a good boss and with his help we all had health care after a bit of time. His kids are only half Choctaw and I believe they lose dome privileges.
I guess that I would argue that lots of people get special privileges as an accident of birth. Some people are born stateless and others are born with four passports. Some men in Ukraine are born with Ukrainian citizenship and can't leave during the war while others are born with Ukrainian and Polish citizenship and can (de facto, perhaps not de jure).
All, indigenous peoples should be respected.
The Russians don't seem to have that belief.
I don't want to get too off topic, but I can make an argument that the indigenous groups in eastern Russia were treated with more respect than were the ones in North America. Again, the Russians are taking the Slavic looking babies which while horrific is different than what happened in North America.
-
It's understandable when it looks like somebody is getting special privileges as an accident of birth. However, he was a good boss and with his help we all had health care after a bit of time. His kids are only half Choctaw and I believe they lose dome privileges.
I guess that I would argue that lots of people get special privileges as an accident of birth. Some people are born stateless and others are born with four passports. Some men in Ukraine are born with Ukrainian citizenship and can't leave during the war while others are born with Ukrainian and Polish citizenship and can (de facto, perhaps not de jure).
All, indigenous peoples should be respected.
The Russians don't seem to have that belief.
I don't want to get too off topic, but I can make an argument that the indigenous groups in eastern Russia were treated with more respect than were the ones in North America. Again, the Russians are taking the Slavic looking babies which while horrific is different than what happened in North America.
Yes - In fact the Russians are giving their minority groups a very good chance to show their patriotism, while denying as great an opportunity to the young men in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
-
It's understandable when it looks like somebody is getting special privileges as an accident of birth. However, he was a good boss and with his help we all had health care after a bit of time. His kids are only half Choctaw and I believe they lose dome privileges.
I guess that I would argue that lots of people get special privileges as an accident of birth. Some people are born stateless and others are born with four passports. Some men in Ukraine are born with Ukrainian citizenship and can't leave during the war while others are born with Ukrainian and Polish citizenship and can (de facto, perhaps not de jure).
All, indigenous peoples should be respected.
The Russians don't seem to have that belief.
I don't want to get too off topic, but I can make an argument that the indigenous groups in eastern Russia were treated with more respect than were the ones in North America. Again, the Russians are taking the Slavic looking babies which while horrific is different than what happened in North America.
Yes - In fact the Russians are giving their minority groups a very good chance to show their patriotism, while denying as great an opportunity to the young men in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
At least they get to see asphalt roads and have the opportunity to... organize washing machines for their mothers!
-
Germany is about to allow re-export of Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine.
The Leopard 2 MBT is exactly what Ukraine needs and they are plentiful.
That this is happening only after the US decided to field the Abrams MBT in Ukraine is entirely due to political and historic reasons in addition to copious kompromat Russia likely has on many German politicians, especially from the SPD.
In any case, the Abrams MBT is not the system that can easily and effectively be deployed at scale in Ukraine but will do just fine as political cover.
The Leopard 2 MBT is a game changing system that has its origins in the Cold War and was designed for the type of warfare Ukraine is conducting.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/europe/germany-leopard-2-tanks-ukraine-announcement-intl/index.html
-
Germany is about to allow re-export of Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine.
The Leopard 2 MBT is exactly what Ukraine needs and they are plentiful.
That this is happening only after the US decided to field the Abrams MBT in Ukraine is entirely due to political and historic reasons in addition to copious kompromat Russia likely has on many German politicians, especially from the SPD.
That is a nice spin, but the truth is that until today nobody asked Germany if they could reexport their tanks even though the government already said it would approve it as fast as possible if asked. But Poland only asked today, weeks after they announced they want to, if necessary without approval.
-
Germany is about to allow re-export of Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine.
The Leopard 2 MBT is exactly what Ukraine needs and they are plentiful.
That this is happening only after the US decided to field the Abrams MBT in Ukraine is entirely due to political and historic reasons in addition to copious kompromat Russia likely has on many German politicians, especially from the SPD.
That is a nice spin, but the truth is that until today nobody asked Germany if they could reexport their tanks even though the government already said it would approve it as fast as possible if asked. But Poland only asked today, weeks after they announced they want to, if necessary without approval.
Weird. News media here has been reporting for weeks about the conversations between Germany and other NATO countries urging Germany to allow export of the leopard 2.
-
Germany is about to allow re-export of Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine.
The Leopard 2 MBT is exactly what Ukraine needs and they are plentiful.
That this is happening only after the US decided to field the Abrams MBT in Ukraine is entirely due to political and historic reasons in addition to copious kompromat Russia likely has on many German politicians, especially from the SPD.
That is a nice spin, but the truth is that until today nobody asked Germany if they could reexport their tanks even though the government already said it would approve it as fast as possible if asked. But Poland only asked today, weeks after they announced they want to, if necessary without approval.
So all the back and forth over weeks was just because Poland forgot to ask for a re-export license in a timely manner?
I think one needs to be German to even begin to understand the notion that a missing formal request could delay delivery of hundreds of tanks to an ongoing war and precipitate weeks of acrimonious international back and forth on the issue.
-
It's more than just permission. It looks like Germany will start sending its own tanks over as well. Not many, like only 14 are ready to go, but there's close to 100 out there across Europe that are on the table. The rumors of US Abrams tanks going are somewhere between 10 and 50 depending on whose leak you're following.
https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1617939980529332230 (https://twitter.com/vonderburchard/status/1617939980529332230)
https://apnews.com/article/249de5c301a9bf83b5f3ac2182076a02 (https://apnews.com/article/249de5c301a9bf83b5f3ac2182076a02)
Switzerland also looking to change its stance on allowing the weapons it has sold to others to go to Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/HelloMrBond/status/1617935487091757056 (https://twitter.com/HelloMrBond/status/1617935487091757056)
Ukrainian Air Force saying they went to the US and picked the planes that they want from us.
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1617868545731465217 (https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1617868545731465217)
And US intelligence sources concerned that Russia will launch a large-scale offensive as soon as the weather permits.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html)
-
It's more than just permission. It looks like Germany will start sending its own tanks over as well. Not many, like only 14 are ready to go, but there's close to 100 out there across Europe that are on the table. The rumors of US Abrams tanks going are somewhere between 10 and 50 depending on whose leak you're following.
...
To be fair, the re-export license was always tied to Germany eventually becoming the main provider if the Leopard 2 should remain Ukraine´s system.
For immediate delivery, the re-export license was always the most important thing.
Now what is interesting, and I have not read anything discussing this yet, but the Abrams MBT cannot be immediately deployed and reach full operational capability within the timeframe and at the scale needed.
But the Abrams MBT is still more than just a token to be used domestically but it does allow postponement of the decision which MBT Ukraine will ultimately chose as their MBT once the war is over.
This absolutely could become politically important at some point in the future.
-
That is a nice spin, but the truth is that until today nobody asked Germany if they could reexport their tanks even though the government already said it would approve it as fast as possible if asked. But Poland only asked today, weeks after they announced they want to, if necessary without approval.
That's not true. The German government said very clearly they weren't going to approve an application, so nobody submitted one.
-
It's more than just permission. It looks like Germany will start sending its own tanks over as well. Not many, like only 14 are ready to go, but there's close to 100 out there across Europe that are on the table. The rumors of US Abrams tanks going are somewhere between 10 and 50 depending on whose leak you're following.
...
To be fair, the re-export license was always tied to Germany eventually becoming the main provider if the Leopard 2 should remain Ukraine´s system.
For immediate delivery, the re-export license was always the most important thing.
Now what is interesting, and I have not read anything discussing this yet, but the Abrams MBT cannot immediately deployed and reach full operational capability at the scale needed within the timeframe and at the scale needed.
But the Abrams MBT is still more than just a token to be used domestically but it does allow postponement of the decision which MBT Ukraine will ultimately chose as their MBT once the war is over. This absolutely could become politically important at some point in the future.
Allegedly Biden is sending the tanks against the Pentagon's advice. This could have been to eliminate the alleged excuse of "no Leos without Abrams first." I don't know if they're pulling from active motorpools or depot, but both it and the Leos will require the establishment of heavy transports, wreckers, fuel trucks, training, and repair facilities. There were also rumors/threats that we'd backfill Leo-sending nations with Abrams which also brings the possibility of Germany losing customers in the long term. Post-war will be interesting to see what Ukraine decides to do. They have options between Leopard, Abrams, K2, or something domestic depending on how long it takes to recapitalize their tank industry.
Edit: From what I'm hearing so far, the Leos may be there in weeks, but the Abrams will take months. There should be a couple speeches/press releases tomorrow.
-
I think I read that Canada has 112 of those Leopard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_Canada (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 (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.
-
That is a nice spin, but the truth is that until today nobody asked Germany if they could reexport their tanks even though the government already said it would approve it as fast as possible if asked. But Poland only asked today, weeks after they announced they want to, if necessary without approval.
That's not true. The German government said very clearly they weren't going to approve an application, so nobody submitted one.
In the world of politics, you often need to make the deal happen before you submit the paperwork.
-
I think I read that Canada has 112 of those Leopard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_Canada (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 (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 think I read that Canada has 112 of those Leopard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_Canada (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 (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.
-
From the AP:
The German government announced Wednesday plans to deliver 14 of the country’s Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine and allow other countries to send theirs, ending months of debate among Western allies and potentially helping to shift the balance on the battlefield.
The Biden administration is also due to announce Wednesday that it will send the main U.S. battle tank, the M1 Abrams, though probably not until at least the fall, a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Washington is expected to send at least 30.
In Europe, the goal is to quickly assemble two Leopard 2 tank battalions — equivalent at least about 80 tanks — for Ukraine, the German government said in a statement. As a first step, Germany will provide a company of 14 Leopard 2 A6 tanks from Bundeswehr stocks. Other European allies will also provide tanks.
-
I think I read that Canada has 112 of those Leopard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_Canada (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 (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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
Israel shooting at Iran is nothing new. Iran may not be doing things overtly, but they're certainly doing things covertly.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-ozkL_CYAEvFPZ?format=jpg&name=small)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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.
-
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/ (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...
-
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/ (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 (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 (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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set), 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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
That's not true. The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.
-
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,
That's not true. The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.
Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/
"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.
The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years
Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023
If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)
-
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,
That's not true. The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.
Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/
"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.
The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years
Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023
If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)
I think they worked. I think the recipient was happy to receive them.
-
That's not something an accountant is interested in. :D
Why are you guys so "steamy" when I point out that normally these things would have been thrown away at high costs, but you found a better use for them? It feels like I triggered some patriotism trigger??
-
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,
That's not true. The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.
Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/
"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.
The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years
Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023
If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)
Nice selective editing. Here is the actual quote:
For example, the Army is in the middle of a "service life extension plan" for some of its Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023 and is extending what the military calls their "useful life" until 2030.
No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.
-
No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.
It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o
But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?
-
No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.
It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o
But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?
Please don't paint all Americans as gun toting fanatics. As you can see here, the large majority of us favor tougher gun laws:
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lmymdcwv4karyhxr_8jwfa.png)
A big part of the problem is that gun ownership is part of the US Constitution, and any real effort at gun control will have to overcome that. The issue is that to overturn any part of the Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority from both the Congress and the Senate, and we're not even close to getting those super-majorities.
-
A big part of the problem is that gun ownership is part of the US Constitution, and any real effort at gun control will have to overcome that.
The constitution says that people can own guns to be part of a militia. It is the recent (in our lifetime) conservative led Supreme Court total reinterpretations of this aspect of the constitution that you'll need to overcome.
-
It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o
But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?
Actually, it doesn't have the wording that you want. Namely, something that supports your claim the US wanted to dispose of them. Your article clearly says they are refurbishing them, not disposing of them. FWIW, they started manufacturing Stingers again to replace the ones the to Ukraine. You typically don't buy more of something you are trying to get rid of.
-
The published dead of Russian soldiers is 132,160 as of today. The wounded is 396,480. When this war is finally over, I wonder what kind of PTSD these Russians will have after freezing in a trench with killing shells landing all around. It doesn't sound healthy. Numbers are from the armed forces of Ukraine. You may not believe these numbers. Your choice.
That number is about the same as the population of Midland, Texas. There would be quite a stir in this country if that number of people disappeared.
-
Lol @Tyson for that poll question, what state are we talking about? If I'm in X state, wow, what a PITA, it should be relaxed! If I'm in Y state, wow, I didn't need to show ANYTHING, it should be stronger! And then you have the places where it seems reasonable which I would define as some sensible hoops to jump through that aren't too burdensome or costly and aren't just an outright revenue grab by the state. Or is that poll just a vague virtue signal of a person's politics with respect to this one issue? Hard for me to answer that question with anything other than "it depends where you live" but that's not a choice.
It's not clear what gun-toting fanatics in the US have to do with Ukraine. I, for one, own a gun and don't really think we have business being in Ukraine directly or indirectly* but that's JMO and a very uneducated one at that, so I like to read the various perspectives to gain more insight.
* Basically the US was the world police in the 20th Century and I don't think that was the best long-term solution (arguably the US created more enemies for itself in the long term and we have the constant military-industrial complex presence coloring our media and legislation not to mention needing more places to fund wars every so often). It worked decently in the short-term and for the post-WW2 situation at the time it made sense. But now we have some more decades under our belt and everything is so twisted that I like simplicity. A nuclear war is less likely if the US is not involved with a non-NATO country, thus let's mind our own business. Short-term it sucks, long-term we avoid the Dr Stangelove ending. And honestly, if the US was never involved with Ukraine, I'm not convinced by this thread or the glimpses I've read elsewhere that the death count of Ukrainians and Russians would be higher (and if our goal is not to minimize the loss of human life, WTF are we doing meddling in post-Soviet politics via adding billions' worth of human-killing tanks, missiles, etc.?!). It feels icky politically and business-motivated but I'm open to the possibility of not having all the facts.
-
No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.
It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o
But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?
Typically, they're used for training. Modern missiles are far too expensive for every Soldier to get a chance to train with them. Several years ago we had some AT4s (shoulder launched unguided rocket) that were expiring, and my company got to pick a couple of Soldiers (out of 100+) to go fire them. It's a morale booster and provides better training value than the simulator that fires a modified tracer 9mm pistol round (at a cost of a few dollars vs. thousands of dollars).
When we had Soldiers go to a 2-week class to get certified on shooting Javelin missiles only the top one or two in the class (of 20-30 Soldiers) got a chance to fire a live missile. The US military annually spends hundreds of millions, if not billions, on training ammunition. However, that's still not nearly enough to be firing Stingers or Javelins missiles on a regular basis. It's mostly for rifle and machine gun ammunition, artillery and mortar shells, tank rounds, etc. All of those have cheaper training rounds that don't contain explosives or have a reduced amount so they're less expensive. That doesn't really work with a guided missile since the explosive would be a tiny part of the final cost.
-
Lol @Tyson for that poll question, what state are we talking about? If I'm in X state, wow, what a PITA, it should be relaxed! If I'm in Y state, wow, I didn't need to show ANYTHING, it should be stronger! And then you have the places where it seems reasonable which I would define as some sensible hoops to jump through that aren't too burdensome or costly and aren't just an outright revenue grab by the state. Or is that poll just a vague virtue signal of a person's politics with respect to this one issue? Hard for me to answer that question with anything other than "it depends where you live" but that's not a choice.
It's not clear what gun-toting fanatics in the US have to do with Ukraine. I, for one, own a gun and don't really think we have business being in Ukraine directly or indirectly* but that's JMO and a very uneducated one at that, so I like to read the various perspectives to gain more insight.
* Basically the US was the world police in the 20th Century and I don't think that was the best long-term solution (arguably the US created more enemies for itself in the long term and we have the constant military-industrial complex presence coloring our media and legislation not to mention needing more places to fund wars every so often). It worked decently in the short-term and for the post-WW2 situation at the time it made sense. But now we have some more decades under our belt and everything is so twisted that I like simplicity. A nuclear war is less likely if the US is not involved with a non-NATO country, thus let's mind our own business. Short-term it sucks, long-term we avoid the Dr Stangelove ending. And honestly, if the US was never involved with Ukraine, I'm not convinced by this thread or the glimpses I've read elsewhere that the death count of Ukrainians and Russians would be higher (and if our goal is not to minimize the loss of human life, WTF are we doing meddling in post-Soviet politics via adding billions' worth of human-killing tanks, missiles, etc.?!). It feels icky politically and business-motivated but I'm open to the possibility of not having all the facts.
I was just replying to LennStar's quote "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket" which is a pretty funny satire of the NRA's talking point. I do think our gun laws are too lax, and the poll shows that most Americans do too. Is there state to state variation? Of course. I was born in Texas and lived there for quite a while before moving to CO. I don't think there's a more pro-gun state than TX. CO is more moderate, and other states like CA or OR are not pro-gun at all.
State to state variation doesn't change the fact that the large majority of Americans want tougher gun laws. But there are structural issues at play that prevent a simple majority from being able to make the desired change.
Anyway, back to Ukraine. Russia is slowly dying and one way that empires have traditionally staved off their demise is to simply take over other countries. That's what we are seeing here. The problem is that this only temporarily stops the bleeding and so sooner or later the empire is forced to take over more countries to prevent a death spiral. IMO, the US and Europe stepping in to stop this is nipping Russian expansion in the bud.
-
Thanks @Tyson ! Admittedly, that prior context flew past me.
-
The published dead of Russian soldiers is 132,160 as of today. The wounded is 396,480. When this war is finally over, I wonder what kind of PTSD these Russians will have after freezing in a trench with killing shells landing all around. It doesn't sound healthy. Numbers are from the armed forces of Ukraine. You may not believe these numbers. Your choice.
That number is about the same as the population of Midland, Texas. There would be quite a stir in this country if that number of people disappeared.
FWIW, the number of wounded assumes a 3:1 wounded:killed ratio, which is what modernized western militaries with their logistics, field medicine, and combat tactics see. Russia, being far inferior in all these areas, is likely to see far fewer of their wounded survive long enough to be recovered and medivac'ed and treated.
-
The published dead of Russian soldiers is 132,160 as of today. The wounded is 396,480. When this war is finally over, I wonder what kind of PTSD these Russians will have after freezing in a trench with killing shells landing all around. It doesn't sound healthy. Numbers are from the armed forces of Ukraine. You may not believe these numbers. Your choice.
That number is about the same as the population of Midland, Texas. There would be quite a stir in this country if that number of people disappeared.
FWIW, the number of wounded assumes a 3:1 wounded:killed ratio, which is what modernized western militaries with their logistics, field medicine, and combat tactics see. Russia, being far inferior in all these areas, is likely to see far fewer of their wounded survive long enough to be recovered and medivac'ed and treated.
Yeah, based on the really shitty, inadequate kits for Russian medics and numerous reports/videos/etc of abandoning or outright killing wounded - it's at best a 1:1 ratio for the Russians in this war.
-
It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o
But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?
Actually, it doesn't have the wording that you want. Namely, something that supports your claim the US wanted to dispose of them. Your article clearly says they are refurbishing them, not disposing of them. FWIW, they started manufacturing Stingers again to replace the ones the to Ukraine. You typically don't buy more of something you are trying to get rid of.
The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?
Please don't paint all Americans as gun toting fanatics.
I didn't do. I merely referred in an satirical way to normal American behavior, as someone above clearly understood.
Typically, they're used for training. Modern missiles are far too expensive for every Soldier to get a chance to train with them. Several years ago we had some AT4s (shoulder launched unguided rocket) that were expiring, and my company got to pick a couple of Soldiers (out of 100+) to go fire them.
Okay, that makes sense, you can probably upgrade their software to look like newer stuff. And as long as the missile part works it's okay for training.
I was just thinking about the Strela's (East Germany army anti-tank missiles) - we gave quite a number to the Ukrainians, but they said 99% of them no longer worked after 30 years probably untouched in storage. Judging by the refurbishing giving not even 10 years of life time, I would assume even for training it would be too much hassle with the high rates of not working to use them in training.
-
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,
That's not true. The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.
Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/
"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.
The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years
Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023
If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)
I think they worked. I think the recipient was happy to receive them.
Russia had a blast with them, too. Or maybe "detonation", to spoil the pun.
-
The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?
According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of. So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.
-
The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?
According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of. So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.
I wonder what the cost difference is between refurbishing a Stinger and manufacturing a new one.
-
I'm sure it is substantially cheaper. Stinger production ended about 18 years ago, and like many systems they have been more or less continuously upgraded over time. Production was started again to replace stocks consumed in Ukraine.
-
The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?
According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of. So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.
I wonder what the cost difference is between refurbishing a Stinger and manufacturing a new one.
I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains. It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash". On its face both claims seem dubious.
We have inventories precisely so that we have items when we need them, and don't have to spend literally years ramping up production -it's as simple as that. It's not some mistake that we maintain armories filled with everything from Javelin missiles to Humvees, it's by design. We also have relief valves built in to control the supply. A major one - training - was pointed out by @Michael in ABQ. We want our troops to get live-fire training but we don't to manufacture new ammo just to have some junior enlistee shoot it into the sand halfway to the target. But there's another head-smackingly obvious reason we stockpile munitions, and that is to supply nations like Ukraine (or - more accurately - countries we think are in our best interest to arm. Sometimes we provide weapons as "aid" and in Ukraine at least it seems to have had a phenomenal ROI so far. In many other cases we sell these 'outdated' and 'near end of service' caches to other countries, earning quite a bit of money in the process . And of course we always keep a crap-ton at hand just in case they are needed for domestic defense. When these missiles were being produced some 30 years ago we didn't have a clue what they would ultimately be used for, but the brass was quite certain that they could be used for something, at some point, somewhere, and they were right.
And of course there's the whole "industrial-military complex" - making and sending out munitions is an enormous jobs program here in the US, with >$150B spent annually for 'private' companies to build bombs and bombers, employing a civilian workforce of almost 1MM people.
Authors note: I'm in no way endorsing the US's model of supplying half the military weapons in the world, but merely pointing out the flaws in saying these misses were headed to the landfill if only Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine.
-
When I was deployed to Africa my main mission was training and equipping the local military. We sent dozens of brand-new HMMWVs and machine guns plus hundreds of rifles and millions of dollars of other equipment and spare parts. It was at zero cost to the local government but built goodwill towards the US and is part of the global competition against China and Russia who are actively trying to do the same thing - albeit less effectively. It also provides a foot in the door if they decide they want to equip more of their forces - at which point they have to pay market price for new equipment or ongoing service. That money would go to defense contractors - not the US government directly but would generate economic activity in the US that would ultimately lead to more tax revenue.
Some of it was clearly old stock (i.e. load-bearing equipment or rucksacks from 1-2 generations ago - but still in new condition) but the HMMWVs and machine guns were straight from the factory. The senior officers were quite impressed as they expected to get refurbished vehicles. Ironically, we were driving HMMWVs that were 15-years old and had constant maintenance issues to escort a shipment of brand-new vehicles.
-
The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?
According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of. So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.
Just for you I went into the article again. It clearly states:
"For example, the Army is in the middle of a "service life extension plan" for some of its Stingers"
Since English is not my first language I might err, but I am quite sure "some" is less than half, quite a bit less to be precise.
So the answer is that most of them were NOT refurbished, but at the end of their life time. Which for me means no longer used/useable. Which means disposed off sooner or later. Again, if I am wrong with that, tell me what else happens to them.
If, as posters above said, it means they are scheduled to be given away, that is an answer. One I didn't expect and find a... curious way of disposing military waste, but it is different from destroying, so it counts.
nereo:
I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains. It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash".
The post I wrote was to point out that cost on paper is oftne not the real costs and that there are a lot of costs not counted in the official "help for Ukraine" numbers.
In this case I merely pointed out that from an accountants view explosives that are no longer intended to be used and at the end of their life span are worth nothing in the balance (or for that matter could even be a liability, like a poisened strip of land), and as such I find it uncorrect to use their buying price for calculations.
-
No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.
It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o
But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?
Please don't paint all Americans as gun toting fanatics. As you can see here, the large majority of us favor tougher gun laws:
(img)
A big part of the problem is that gun ownership is part of the US Constitution, and any real effort at gun control will have to overcome that. The issue is that to overturn any part of the Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority from both the Congress and the Senate, and we're not even close to getting those super-majorities.
The 2/3 majority of congress is the easier part. It's the 3/4 of states required to ratify that basically makes the process impossible.
-
nereo:
I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains. It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash".
The post I wrote was to point out that cost on paper is oftne not the real costs and that there are a lot of costs not counted in the official "help for Ukraine" numbers.
In this case I merely pointed out that from an accountants view explosives that are no longer intended to be used and at the end of their life span are worth nothing in the balance (or for that matter could even be a liability, like a poisened strip of land), and as such I find it uncorrect to use their buying price for calculations.
Why bother with all this mental contortion? what point are you trying to make here? You keep trying to make this unfounded point that these munitions are "no longer intended to be used" when clearly that's not the case. I just don't understand why you are getting stuck on this.
-
nereo:
I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains. It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash".
The post I wrote was to point out that cost on paper is oftne not the real costs and that there are a lot of costs not counted in the official "help for Ukraine" numbers.
In this case I merely pointed out that from an accountants view explosives that are no longer intended to be used and at the end of their life span are worth nothing in the balance (or for that matter could even be a liability, like a poisened strip of land), and as such I find it uncorrect to use their buying price for calculations.
Why bother with all this mental contortion? what point are you trying to make here? You keep trying to make this unfounded point that these munitions are "no longer intended to be used" when clearly that's not the case. I just don't understand why you are getting stuck on this.
I do not know if this actually applies to the Stingers but it is very clear that a lot of the material support for Ukraine is comng from stocks that are considered obsolete in a western military context but are extremely valuable for Ukraine.
It is also true that the $$ numbers are inflated because they are using book values that are not realistic because they could neither be realized in the market nor by own use as they are obsolete in that context.
For Ukraine, though, the equipment is indeed worth as much if not more as stated and they would gladly pay for it if need be and if they were able to.
So it is not a complete deception but it is pretty clear that the material support Ukraine is receiving is much lower in cost for the donors while being at least as valuable to Ukraine as the $$ value stated.
The confusion lies in good part in the issue itself and has a lot to do with the asymmetry of western and Russian military capabilities.
-
From Past entry by nereo:
We have inventories precisely so that we have items when we need them, and don't have to spend literally years ramping up production -it's as simple as that. It's not some mistake that we maintain armories filled with everything from Javelin missiles to Humvees, it's by design. We also have relief valves built in to control the supply. A major one - training - was pointed out by @Michael in ABQ. We want our troops to get live-fire training but we don't to manufacture new ammo just to have some junior enlistee shoot it into the sand halfway to the target. But there's another head-smackingly obvious reason we stockpile munitions, and that is to supply nations like Ukraine (or - more accurately - countries we think are in our best interest to arm. Sometimes we provide weapons as "aid" and in Ukraine at least it seems to have had a phenomenal ROI so far. In many other cases we sell these 'outdated' and 'near end of service' caches to other countries, earning quite a bit of money in the process . And of course we always keep a crap-ton at hand just in case they are needed for domestic defense. When these missiles were being produced some 30 years ago we didn't have a clue what they would ultimately be used for, but the brass was quite certain that they could be used for something, at some point, somewhere, and they were right.
Many years ago I had an economics class. I remember being taught that money could go into "guns or butter." I remembered that there was no real return from the investment in guns. The Ukraine war now makes me doubt that assertion. Perhaps all defense spending is not just a necessary evil where the money is pissed away. I can envision Ukraine being a tremendous investment opportunity for the world after this war, but only if the invaders are sent back home. It will be a win win for the investors and the Ukrainians.
I'm not a money guy. I hate bean-counters so this money spent on Ukraune can be seen as a different kind of investment, a moral investment. The payback will continue to be there for generations, but only if the invaders are sent back home.
Right now it looks like glorious leader has issued an edict to take Donbas by March.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-accuses-vladimir-putin-of-ordering-a-complete-takeover-of-donbas-by-march (https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-accuses-vladimir-putin-of-ordering-a-complete-takeover-of-donbas-by-march)
The death toll mounts every day. Today the internet tells me it's 133,190 dead Russian soldiers. They seem to have losses of about 700 per day now. Putin reminds me of a CEO where "It's my way or the highway." So the Russians are in a surge where "warm bodies" are literally thrown at the problem.
-
Many years ago I had an economics class. I remember being taught that money could go into "guns or butter." I remembered that there was no real return from the investment in guns. The Ukraine war now makes me doubt that assertion. Perhaps all defense spending is not just a necessary evil where the money is pissed away. I can envision Ukraine being a tremendous investment opportunity for the world after this war, but only if the invaders are sent back home. It will be a win win for the investors and the Ukrainians.
I'm not a money guy. I hate bean-counters so this money spent on Ukraune can be seen as a different kind of investment, a moral investment. The payback will continue to be there for generations, but only if the invaders are sent back home.
Right now it looks like glorious leader has issued an edict to take Donbas by March.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-accuses-vladimir-putin-of-ordering-a-complete-takeover-of-donbas-by-march (https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-accuses-vladimir-putin-of-ordering-a-complete-takeover-of-donbas-by-march)
The death toll mounts every day. Today the internet tells me it's 133,190 dead Russian soldiers. They seem to have losses of about 700 per day now. Putin reminds me of a CEO where "It's my way or the highway." So the Russians are in a surge where "warm bodies" are literally thrown at the problem.
I see two ways of looking at whether our contributions are "worth it". The first is pretty much what you summed up - and that certainly is how the Ukrainians are looking at it - if they are unsuccessful at permanently repelling Russia then all the support is for naught. But from the EU, Nato and US standpoint, this conflict appears to have already substantially reduced Russia's military offensive capabilities, perhaps for many years. Finland and Sweden are now joining NATO. Russia has lost several hundred thousand of its most productive citizens through a combination of combat injuries, deaths and emigration.The amount of military equipment they've lost is staggering. Global sanctions have started to bite, and are notoriously 'sticky' to remove. The next decade does not appear nearly as hopeful now for Russia as it did in January 2022. Even if Ukraine falls tomorrow I can't imagine the costs will have been worth it, but Putin is too deep to back out now.
-
Many years ago I had an economics class. I remember being taught that money could go into "guns or butter." I remembered that there was no real return from the investment in guns. The Ukraine war now makes me doubt that assertion. Perhaps all defense spending is not just a necessary evil where the money is pissed away. I can envision Ukraine being a tremendous investment opportunity for the world after this war, but only if the invaders are sent back home. It will be a win win for the investors and the Ukrainians.
I'm not a money guy. I hate bean-counters so this money spent on Ukraune can be seen as a different kind of investment, a moral investment. The payback will continue to be there for generations, but only if the invaders are sent back home.
The return on that investment is in general global stability. I.e we don't have a problem with pirates in the modern era (with very limited local exceptions) because the US Navy ensures freedom of navigation around the world. There certainly aren't privateers operating to "legally" capture ships from other countries like their used to be hundreds of years ago. I have no idea what it would cost to ship a container halfway around the world if piracy was at the levels it was in the 1700s and 1800s, but it would certainly be higher than it is today.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a pretty blatant violation of international norms - just as when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq. It's basically armed robbery on a larger scale. In that case the US intervened directly to restore the borders of a sovereign nation - in the case of Ukraine we're being more indirect. But allowing countries to simply conquer their neighbors is bad for everyone and the threat of US intervention has probably stopped a lot of dictators from doing so. Of course, we'll never know for sure - but the return on guns wasn't zero.
-
Why bother with all this mental contortion? what point are you trying to make here? You keep trying to make this unfounded point that these munitions are "no longer intended to be used" when clearly that's not the case. I just don't understand why you are getting stuck on this.
I am getting stuck why you can't take it as the half-funny besides it is.
In my book, something that is sorted out is no longer intended to be used. I don't see why this is an unfounded point even if it might be untrue in this context. Maybe it's standard procedure in the US army to throw away stuff by giving it to other militaries. I don't know. But in a business it would still not count as "you have given away $". And that is why I said you can't really take the buying price if you want to say how much money was donated. That's all!
And all I will say to this.
The death toll mounts every day. Today the internet tells me it's 133,190 dead Russian soldiers. They seem to have losses of about 700 per day now. Putin reminds me of a CEO where "It's my way or the highway." So the Russians are in a surge where "warm bodies" are literally thrown at the problem.
Yes, but a lot of them are convicts. If they get killed, it saves money for the prisons. win-win
-
In my book, something that is sorted out is no longer intended to be used. I don't see why this is an unfounded point even if it might be untrue in this context. Maybe it's standard procedure in the US army to throw away stuff by giving it to other militaries. I don't know. But in a business it would still not count as "you have given away $". And that is why I said you can't really take the buying price if you want to say how much money was donated. That's all!
I can donate inventory and get a tax deduction for the original cost - even if it's something that I can no longer sell because it's not popular, etc. Book value is the only real value available for most weapons/defense materiel as there's not exactly a free market for Stinger Missiles and HIMARS rocket launchers to determine market value. Even when arms are sold to a foreign government the pricing includes things like training and support and may be discounted for various reasons or offset in some other way.
The US Army places the book value of an M4 Rifle at about $800 - which is pretty close to what a civilian version costs that is identical except for the little bit that makes it fully automatic instead of semi-automatic (which from a materials/labor perspective probably costs the exact same). But when you get to something like a 60mm mortar where there is no civilian equivalent the price goes up to about $60,000 for what is essentially a very strong metal tube about 1 meter long plus various accessories. Just the Command Launch Unit for a javelin missile is $100,000 (handheld device with night/long-distance optics that aims and launches the missile and is reused). I'm not sure what the book value is for a tank - I've never been signed for one. But the equipment for my 131-man Rifle Company was about $4 million (rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, night vision, thermal sights, etc. plus a couple of trucks). That doesn't even include the thousands of dollars per person for uniforms, body armor, load-bearing equipment, cold weather clothing, etc.
-
Yes, but a lot of them are convicts. If they get killed, it saves money for the prisons. win-win
I realize the bean-counters run the world, but I think even convict's lives need to be considered more than in monetary terms. Russians may look at their lives that way, but I certainly don't. Too much quibbling about the ledger values of the munitions and perhaps not enough humanitarian sentiment.
-
Yes, but a lot of them are convicts. If they get killed, it saves money for the prisons. win-win
I realize the bean-counters run the world, but I think even convict's lives need to be considered more than in monetary terms. Russians may look at their lives that way, but I certainly don't. Too much quibbling about the ledger values of the munitions and perhaps not enough humanitarian sentiment.
Russia, from what I understand, doesn't have a culture that values individuals the way the US (and the West) does. The glory of the country is more important than any individual. So they would not think of loss of life for a soldier to be a tragedy. Rather, the soldier died in service to their country, and there can be no greater honor. So I'm not sure that Russia will stop the war just because a bunch of people die.
I think that it's going to be a grueling fight where Ukraine will have to force out the invaders, block by block, city by city. I don't think it will be an easy victory. But I do think Ukraine will win.
-
I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains. It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash". On its face both claims seem dubious.
The latest Perun video is quite relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj9HD8MdAFs
TL,DW: Neither the "we're sending trash" nor the headline numbers for aid are at all accurate.
-
Regarding the Stinger back and forth earlier, the SLEP is to replace the CPU that is so old it can't be reprogrammed anymore. Doing a SLEP on "some" could be due to lack of parts or simply not having the budget or need to do them all at once (the contract was awarded pre-war). The Stingers that have been made in the last few years for foreign buyers have been using hard-to-get components designed in the late 1970s. Raytheon had to go back to the drawing board last summer and redesign the heat-seeking part of the warhead with modern parts in order to restart full production to replace the couple thousand that we've sent to Ukraine. It'll take until 2025 to increase production to just 60 per month which is a 50% increase over today's rate.
Zelensky went to the UK yesterday and Paris today. The next Ramstein meeting is Tuesday where they're supposed to talk aircraft.
-
Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation? Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.
Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous. As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible. You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative. It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof. I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation. It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way. Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died). I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.
I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up. Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty. Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.
-
Well, I doubt Putin is going to declare war on the US. And there wont be Sanctions (like always), the US is too big to fail diplomatically, too many states that can be bullied.
More important would be the diplomatic damage to Germany and the rest of the EU. The company that was damaged was a European one, even if owned by Gazprom.
-
Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation? Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.
Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous. As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible. You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative. It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof. I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation. It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way. Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died). I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.
I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up. Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty. Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.
The US has a long history of doing terrible shit to advance US interests . . . but what's the benefit of blowing up the pipeline for them? It's not like anyone in America cared when Russia annexed Crimea.
-
The US has a long history of doing terrible shit to advance US interests . . . but what's the benefit of blowing up the pipeline for them? It's not like anyone in America cared when Russia annexed Crimea.
I'm sure we can speculate endlessly on why the US might have done it. One reason might be to prevent/slow/discourage countries from re-establishing dependence on Russian gas after the whole Ukraine thing is done. Russia can't use it as a bargaining chip to discourage western aid to Ukraine ("that's a nice gas supply you have there. It'd be a pity if something...happened...to it.") From a very cynical perspective, it makes for more potential customers for US LNG.
I think the "nobody cared about Crimea" has more to do with the fact that Ukraine actually stopped Russia this time (on their own!), has closer ties to the West than they used to, and is running an absolutely masterful PR(/propaganda) campaign.
-
Honest theoretical question:
Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
-
Looks like Wagner has its best days behind it:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1625908304676368392
-
Looks like Wagner has its best days behind it:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1625908304676368392
They say Putin saw the Wagner boss as a bit of a threat. Maybe, there is still a window waiting for him to fall out of.
Is there going to be a massive offensive against Ukraine? Is Russia training and equipping men somewhere within its vast land? OR Are we seeing the best they have and they are low on gas? I keep hearing about this vast horde being drafted. I would think they would have been spotted by satellite.
-
Looks like Wagner has its best days behind it:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1625908304676368392
They say Putin saw the Wagner boss as a bit of a threat. Maybe, there is still a window waiting for him to fall out of.
Is there going to be a massive offensive against Ukraine? Is Russia training and equipping men somewhere within its vast land? OR Are we seeing the best they have and they are low on gas? I keep hearing about this vast horde being drafted. I would think they would have been spotted by satellite.
That quarter million recruited is at the front. That is why the Ukrainians have such big trouble. It's just that, as always, you might see 50K at the front lines, but 200K are working in supply etc.
-
Honest theoretical question:
Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Apparently Russia pulled this move on Georgia years ago as well, sabotaging a pipeline rather than pay shut off fines.
-
Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation? Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.
Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous. As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible. You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative. It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof. I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation. It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way. Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died). I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.
I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up. Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty. Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.
https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe (https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe)
Dismantling Hersh's story piece by piece.
-
Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Agree. Occam's razor.
-
Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Agree. Occam's razor.
I don't know. It is definitely a (post war) loss for Russia, and for the fines they could just not pay them. Of course it could be that Putin thought the gas sale would never happen again anyway, but at that time it was too early imho to get to this decision. We were still panicking with "winter will be freezing cold homes!".
If it was Russia then the most likely explanation for me is a message to the West "See, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to get Ukraine, so don't send in more weapons, or something might happen to your other pipelines."
-
Have anyone seen any good sources of the recent events in Moldova?
I'm thinking of the government stepping down, talks of coup d'état attempt by Russia etc.
-
Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation? Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.
Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous. As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible. You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative. It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof. I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation. It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way. Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died). I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.
I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up. Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty. Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.
I listened to the interview yesterday on Democracy Now. I was not surprised because, as has been mentioned, history.
But who knows what the truth is.
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/2/15/nord_stream_sy_hersh
-
Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation? Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.
Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous. As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible. You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative. It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof. I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation. It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way. Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died). I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.
I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up. Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty. Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.
https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe (https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe)
Dismantling Hersh's story piece by piece.
This is very helpful, thanks for sharing! It does seem pretty compelling to REMOVE the US/Norway from involvement but I wonder how this squares with the Dec WAPO article that basically said Russia was not suspected as being involved. Like, if the US and Russia weren't behind it, who would be!? The WAPO article was behind a paywall so I didn't read it but wiki summarized it as thus:
"In December 2022, The Washington Post reported that after months of investigation, there was no conclusive evidence that Russia was behind the attack, and many European and US officials no longer suspected that Russia was involved."
-taken from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage
Here is that WAPO article in case anyone has a sub.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/russia-nord-stream-explosions/
Someone did it! Someone is lying. Someone is hiding official locations of vessels making a false trail or at least doing whatever possible to cover this up (and honestly, it's impressive!). It's like whenever a pre-meditated murder happens and beforehand the perpetrator had given a credit card to a friend and ordered them to travel somewhere far away from the murder scene to provide an alibi. Like, I understand these cases you hear about are cases where the murderer gets caught but I wonder how many times that actually works and you just never hear about it (i.e. unsolved murder mysteries with initial suspects who are the actual murderer but get ruled out based on an impossible-to-disprove alibi). In this story the "credit cards" are the military ships that can "prove" who it wasn't but so far haven't been able to prove who it was.
So currently we have no conclusive evidence that Russia was involved (unless anyone has an article that rebuts the WAPO article piece by piece OR WAPO is going to do a retraction or something but I would count them normally as a reliable source). We currently have no conclusive evidence that the US was involved (based on the convincing rebuttals to Hersh).
Also taken from the wiki:
"In late 2022, the former head of Germany's Federal Intelligence Service August Hanning said that Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Britain had a plausible interest in disabling the pipelines, as well as the U.S."
IDK, I'm fascinated, shocked, horrified, puzzled, intrigued, disillusioned, etc. with everything to do with our geopolitics regarding Ukraine and the pipeline explosion. The baddies involved here are too sophisticated for lay people like me on any type of short timeline and that's frustrating. We might learn the truth about this 30 years from now or we might NEVER have conclusive proof on what actually happened. Either way, the Ukraine-Russia situation, or at least the current rendition, will be well over with.
-
that WAPO article:
No conclusive evidence Russia is behind Nord Stream attack
World leaders were quick to blame Moscow for explosions along the undersea natural gas pipelines. But some Western officials now doubt the Kremlin was responsible.
After explosions in late September severely damaged undersea pipelines built to carry natural gas from Russia to Europe, world leaders quickly blamed Moscow for a brazen and dangerous act of sabotage. With winter approaching, it appeared the Kremlin intended to strangle the flow of energy to millions across the continent, an act of “blackmail,” some leaders said, designed to threaten countries into withdrawing their financial and military support for Ukraine.
But now, after months of investigation, numerous officials privately say that Russia may not be to blame after all for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.
“There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said one European official, echoing the assessment of 23 diplomatic and intelligence officials in nine countries interviewed in recent weeks.
Some went so far as to say they didn’t think Russia was responsible. Others who still consider Russia a prime suspect said positively attributing the attack — to any country — may be impossible.
In the months after the explosions, which resulted in what was probably one of the largest-ever single releases of methane gas, investigators have combed through debris and analyzed explosives residue recovered from the bed of the Baltic Sea. Seismologists have pinpointed the timing of three explosions on Sept. 26, which caused four leaks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
No one doubts that the damage was deliberate. An official with the German government, which is conducting its own investigation, said explosives appear to have been placed on the outside of the structures.
But even those with inside knowledge of the forensic details don’t conclusively tie Russia to the attack, officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share information about the progress of the investigation, some of which is based on classified intelligence.
“Forensics on an investigation like this are going to be exceedingly difficult,” said a senior U.S. State Department official.
The United States routinely intercepts the communications of Russian officials and military forces, a clandestine intelligence effort that helped accurately forecast Moscow’s February invasion of Ukraine. But so far, analysts have not heard or read statements from the Russian side taking credit or suggesting that they’re trying to cover up their involvement, officials said.
Attributing the attack has been challenging from the start. The first explosion occurred in the middle of the night to the southeast of the Danish island of Bornholm. Scientists detected two additional explosions more than 12 hours later to the northeast of the island.
Given the relatively shallow depth of the damaged pipelines — approximately 80 yards at the site of one explosion — a number of different actors could theoretically have pulled off the attack, possibly with the use of submersible drones or with the aid of surface ships, officials said. The list of suspects isn’t limited only to countries that possess manned submarines or deep-sea demolitions expertise.
The leaks occurred in the exclusive economic zones of Sweden and Denmark. European nations have been attempting to map which ships were in the region in the days before the explosions, in the hope of winnowing the field of suspects.
“We know that this amount of explosives has to be a state-level actor,” Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said in an interview this month. “It’s not just a single fisherman who decides to put the bomb there. It’s very professional.”
Regardless of the perpetrator, Haavisto said that for Finland, which isn’t a Nord Stream client, “The lesson learned is that it shows how vulnerable our energy network, our undersea cables, internet … are for all kinds of terrorists.”
Russia remains a key suspect, however, partly because of its recent history of bombing civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and propensity for unconventional warfare. It’s not such a leap to think that the Kremlin would attack Nord Stream, perhaps to undermine NATO resolve and peel off allies that depend on Russian energy sources, officials said.
But a handful of officials expressed regret that so many world leaders pointed the finger at Moscow without considering other countries, as well as extremist groups, that might have the capability and the motive to conduct the attack.
“The governments that waited to comment before drawing conclusions played this right,” said one European official.
Condemnation of Moscow was swift and widespread. On Sept. 30, four days after the explosions, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told the BBC it “seems” Russia was to blame. “It is highly unlikely that these incidents are coincidence,” she said.
German Economy Minister Robert Habeck also implied that Russia, which has consistently denied responsibility, was responsible for the explosions. “Russia saying ‘It wasn’t us’ is like saying ‘I’m not the thief,’” Habeck told reporters in early October.
An adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the ruptures “a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression toward [the European Union].”
“No one on the European side of the ocean is thinking this is anything other than Russian sabotage,” a senior European environmental official told The Washington Post in September.
But as the investigation drags on, skeptics point out that Moscow had little to gain from damaging pipelines that fed Western Europe natural gas from Russia and generated billions of dollars in annual revenue. The Nord Stream projects had stirred controversy and debate for years because they yoked Germany and other European countries to Russian energy sources.
“The rationale that it was Russia [that attacked the pipelines] never made sense to me,” said one Western European official.
Nearly a month before the rupture, the Russian energy giant Gazprom stopped flows on Nord Stream 1, hours after the Group of Seven industrialized nations announced a forthcoming price cap on Russian oil, a move intended to put a dent in the Kremlin’s treasury. During Putin’s long stretch in office, the Kremlin has used energy as an instrument of political and economic leverage, employing the threat of cutoffs to bully countries into going along with its goals, officials said. It didn’t make sense that Russia would abandon that leverage.
Germany had halted final authorization of Nord Stream 2 just days before Russian forces invaded Ukraine. But the pipeline was intact and had already been pumped full with 300 million cubic meters of natural gas to ready it for operations.
European and U.S. officials who continue to believe that Russia is the most likely culprit say it had at least one plausible motive: Attacking Nord Stream 1 and 2, which weren’t generating any revenue to fill Russian coffers, demonstrated that pipelines, cables and other undersea infrastructure were vulnerable and that the countries that supported Ukraine risked paying a terrible price.
Haavisto noted that Finland has taken steps to strengthen infrastructure security since the explosions. Germany and Norway have asked NATO to coordinate efforts to protect critical infrastructure such as communication lines in the North Sea and gas infrastructure.
“But it’s at the same time true that we cannot control all the pipelines, all the cables, all the time, 24/7,” Haavisto said. “You have to be prepared. If something happens you have to think, where are the alternatives?”
The war prompted European countries to build up stockpiles of alternative energy, making them less dependent on Russian sources. But the Nord Stream attack has left many governments uneasy about the lengths to which Russia or other actors might go.
Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom said his government was waiting for the country’s independent prosecutor’s office to complete its investigation into the explosions before reaching a conclusion. Sweden, along with Denmark, increased its naval patrols right after the attack.
“We have spoken about [the explosions] as part of the view that the security situation in the northern part of Europe has deteriorated following Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, with all the implications that it has,” Billstrom said in an interview this month.
The prospect that the explosions may never be definitively attributed is unsettling for nations like Norway, which has 9,000 kilometers (5,500 miles) of undersea gas pipelines to Europe.
A Norwegian official said Norway is attempting to strengthen security around its own pipelines and broader critical infrastructure. It is investing in surveillance; working with Britain, France and Germany to intensify naval patrols; and trying to find ways to keep oil and gas flowing in the event of another attack.
Norway is also investigating the appearance of unidentified aerial drones around its oil and gas facilities around the time of the Nord Stream attacks.
“It’s not a good thing,” the official said, of the possibility that the Nord Stream explosions may remain unsolved. “Whoever did it may get away with it.”
-
Perhaps it was Spectre?
/sarcasm
-
One of the counterpoints to the Hersh story is "they would have gone after all the pipelines." Well, it's also possible that they *did*, and one set of explosives failed to detonate.
But you could say the same about any of the other possible suspects.
-
I don't know. It is definitely a (post war) loss for Russia, and for the fines they could just not pay them.
Germany (and most of Europe) was already resolved to get entirely off Russian gas ASAP. There is no post-war loss for Russia since they weren't going to be making sales anyway. Only potential liability.
Fines can be used as a reason to seize and redistribute some of the hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian assets already located in and frozen by the West.
Have anyone seen any good sources of the recent events in Moldova?
I'm thinking of the government stepping down, talks of coup d'état attempt by Russia etc.
Other than the actual invasion, Russia has been trying to follow nearly the same playbook as Ukraine. "Little green men" (ie Russians sent by Putin but claiming to be volunteers) were used as a military force to create the "breakaway" region of Transnistria. There are still a couple thousand Russian soldiers holding territory in Transnistria, supporting the rebels. Sounds an awful lot like 2014 in Crimea and the Donbas, eh?
If Russia had been able to take Odesa, they likely would have continued on to directly attack Moldova. That map Lukashenko publicly leaked showed this plan to invade Transnistria after conquering the whole Ukrainian coastline.
-
I don't know. It is definitely a (post war) loss for Russia, and for the fines they could just not pay them.
Germany (and most of Europe) was already resolved to get entirely off Russian gas ASAP. There is no post-war loss for Russia since they weren't going to be making sales anyway. Only potential liability.
There seems to be a sizeable (and influential) faction within Germany that is happy to return to a dependence on cheap Russian natural gas because of the economic benefits. There has also been a lot of news about Russian influence/manipulation/blackmail/whatever among German politicians over the course of the last year as well. There was no guarantee that after a quick war, Germany wouldn't re-enable Russia by restarting their NG purchases. Blowing up the pipelines is a guarantee. Or would be, had both NS2 pipelines been severed.
-
Have anyone seen any good sources of the recent events in Moldova?
I'm thinking of the government stepping down, talks of coup d'état attempt by Russia etc.
The Guardian (https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=moldova&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=m&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=) is a source I trust and it has covered recent events in Moldova.
Other than that, on the off-chance that you or (more likely) anyone else interested speak Dutch, Nieuwsuur covered Moldova yesterday. Unfortunately no English dubbing or subtitles available.
https://www.npostart.nl/nieuwsuur/16-02-2023/VPWON_1343539 (skip to 25:42)
-
I don't know. It is definitely a (post war) loss for Russia, and for the fines they could just not pay them.
Germany (and most of Europe) was already resolved to get entirely off Russian gas ASAP. There is no post-war loss for Russia since they weren't going to be making sales anyway. Only potential liability.
There seems to be a sizeable (and influential) faction within Germany that is happy to return to a dependence on cheap Russian natural gas because of the economic benefits. There has also been a lot of news about Russian influence/manipulation/blackmail/whatever among German politicians over the course of the last year as well. There was no guarantee that after a quick war, Germany wouldn't re-enable Russia by restarting their NG purchases. Blowing up the pipelines is a guarantee. Or would be, had both NS2 pipelines been severed.
They are not that influential, but yes, both in the rightest and leftest party in the parliament are quite a lot of people who are... not so concerned about Russia.
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
It seems to me that if Russia wanted to thus intimidate Germany, they could do so without destroying the very pipelines they hope to sell product through. Blow up someone else's pipeline, or cut someone else's undersea cable, for example
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
It seems to me that if Russia wanted to thus intimidate Germany, they could do so without destroying the very pipelines they hope to sell product through. Blow up someone else's pipeline, or cut someone else's undersea cable, for example
How does get them off the hook for contractual penalties for failure to deliver?
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
It seems to me that if Russia wanted to thus intimidate Germany, they could do so without destroying the very pipelines they hope to sell product through. Blow up someone else's pipeline, or cut someone else's undersea cable, for example
How does get them off the hook for contractual penalties for failure to deliver?
It doesn't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it seems counterproductive for Russia to blow up their own pipeline in order to intimidate Germany into buying more gas that Russia suddenly can't deliver because they blew up their own pipeline.
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
It seems to me that if Russia wanted to thus intimidate Germany, they could do so without destroying the very pipelines they hope to sell product through. Blow up someone else's pipeline, or cut someone else's undersea cable, for example
How does get them off the hook for contractual penalties for failure to deliver?
It doesn't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it seems counterproductive for Russia to blow up their own pipeline in order to intimidate Germany into buying more gas that Russia suddenly can't deliver because they blew up their own pipeline.
As the name Nordstream 2 suggests, there is still Nordstream 1. And other pipelines, though the Russians probably don't want to send more gas through Ukraine.
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
It seems to me that if Russia wanted to thus intimidate Germany, they could do so without destroying the very pipelines they hope to sell product through. Blow up someone else's pipeline, or cut someone else's undersea cable, for example
How does get them off the hook for contractual penalties for failure to deliver?
It doesn't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it seems counterproductive for Russia to blow up their own pipeline in order to intimidate Germany into buying more gas that Russia suddenly can't deliver because they blew up their own pipeline.
Again, secretly blowing up their own pipeline will trigger a 'force majeure' clause in their gas delivery contract and get them out of huge penalties for failure to deliver.
Blowing up someone else's pipeline or cable doesn't - and also could be considered an act of war. For example, if it were Norway's pipeline and reasonably proven Russia did it, that would trigger NATO Article 5.
-
But I cannot eccept that "Germany was already resolved" back then. Not at all. Maybe rhetorically by the government, but as I said we were still in Panic mode. "We will all freeze to death" and "Our economy will plumment by 20% without gas" were normal talking points at that time.
Which then gives another reason for Russia to blow up some of the pipelines (but not all the NS pipelines). Scare Germany into reversing course.
It seems to me that if Russia wanted to thus intimidate Germany, they could do so without destroying the very pipelines they hope to sell product through. Blow up someone else's pipeline, or cut someone else's undersea cable, for example
How does get them off the hook for contractual penalties for failure to deliver?
It doesn't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it seems counterproductive for Russia to blow up their own pipeline in order to intimidate Germany into buying more gas that Russia suddenly can't deliver because they blew up their own pipeline.
Again, secretly blowing up their own pipeline will trigger a 'force majeure' clause in their gas delivery contract and get them out of huge penalties for failure to deliver.
Blowing up someone else's pipeline or cable doesn't - and also could be considered an act of war. For example, if it were Norway's pipeline and reasonably proven Russia did it, that would trigger NATO Article 5.
Were the pipes blown from the inside or outside?
-
Were the pipes blown from the inside or outside?
Very likely the outside, whoever the culprit was. Russia had already shut down gas flow, so there was no way to get an explosives-laden pig in position.
For those not familiar with pipelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigging
-
As the name Nordstream 2 suggests, there is still Nordstream 1. And other pipelines, though the Russians probably don't want to send more gas through Ukraine.
One of the two pipelines of Nordstream 2 is still functioning, but both lines in Nordstream 1 were damaged and inoperable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage
-
Biden visits Ukraine.
-
Biden visits Ukraine.
Mitch McConnell went with him. It kind of surprised me, but Mitch has been a good supporter of Ukraine. With the top dog in the Republican party aligned with Biden, I think Ukraine may actually get the help they need to drive the invaders out.
-
I listened to excerpts of Putin’s speech tonight. I know it shouldn’t surprise me, but I am still amazed at the outright lies that come out of his mouth.
-
I listened to excerpts of Putin’s speech tonight. I know it shouldn’t surprise me, but I am still amazed at the outright lies that come out of his mouth.
I understand he neglected to mention the failed ICBM test which Russia attempted while Biden was in Ukraine.
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
I’m still stunned at how poorly Russia has done in this war. Count me as one who believed the Russians would have controlled all of Ukraine within a few months, given the size and supposed superior equipment they had amassed along the boarder a year ago.
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
I’m still stunned at how poorly Russia has done in this war. Count me as one who believed the Russians would have controlled all of Ukraine within a few months, given the size and supposed superior equipment they had amassed along the boarder a year ago.
For the last three days, Maruipol has been hit with...some sort of attack. If you recall, Mariupol is where a relatively small number of Ukrainian soldiers held out for weeks in the Azovstal steel plant, with no hope of rescue and little hope of resupply, against an overwhelming and continuous Russian attack, including carpet bombing.
Ukraine is being coy about what sorts of weapons are being used, but they're something new. HIMARS has a range of 84km. The nearest Ukrainian forces are over 100km away. I haven't heard yet what exactly was hit, but if Ukraine has a significant number of these weapons, Russia's in for a world of hurt. Ukraine is claiming they can now reach over 150km. That means that Russia's entire land bridge, from Crimea on the west to the Russian border on the east, can now be targeted.
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
I’m still stunned at how poorly Russia has done in this war. Count me as one who believed the Russians would have controlled all of Ukraine within a few months, given the size and supposed superior equipment they had amassed along the boarder a year ago.
For the last three days, Maruipol has been hit with...some sort of attack. If you recall, Mariupol is where a relatively small number of Ukrainian soldiers held out for weeks in the Azovstal steel plant, with no hope of rescue and little hope of resupply, against an overwhelming and continuous Russian attack, including carpet bombing.
Ukraine is being coy about what sorts of weapons are being used, but they're something new. HIMARS has a range of 84km. The nearest Ukrainian forces are over 100km away. I haven't heard yet what exactly was hit, but if Ukraine has a significant number of these weapons, Russia's in for a world of hurt. Ukraine is claiming they can now reach over 150km. That means that Russia's entire land bridge, from Crimea on the west to the Russian border on the east, can now be targeted.
Interesting, and potentially significant in the war.
I’m also reading about how the Wagner group has suffered catastrophic losses and has dropped their “Zeroing” policy for subordination and desertion, and that they have stopped the pipeline of inmates-to-mercenaries that they relied on so heavily in recent months. Reports of their ranks being sent into combat with no armor and literally no ammunition. If true I’m not sure how Russia advances or even holds territory.
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
I’m still stunned at how poorly Russia has done in this war. Count me as one who believed the Russians would have controlled all of Ukraine within a few months, given the size and supposed superior equipment they had amassed along the boarder a year ago.
For the last three days, Maruipol has been hit with...some sort of attack. If you recall, Mariupol is where a relatively small number of Ukrainian soldiers held out for weeks in the Azovstal steel plant, with no hope of rescue and little hope of resupply, against an overwhelming and continuous Russian attack, including carpet bombing.
Ukraine is being coy about what sorts of weapons are being used, but they're something new. HIMARS has a range of 84km. The nearest Ukrainian forces are over 100km away. I haven't heard yet what exactly was hit, but if Ukraine has a significant number of these weapons, Russia's in for a world of hurt. Ukraine is claiming they can now reach over 150km. That means that Russia's entire land bridge, from Crimea on the west to the Russian border on the east, can now be targeted.
The Mariupol targets hit this week could be reached by normal GMLRS, but only if the truck was practically on the front line. If that's what they did, it says something about either the value of the target or Russia's inability to interfere with the launch in that sector. The most likely launch site was in Vuhledar which Russia attempted to seize over the last 30 days and it cost them a brigade's worth of armor.
That said, there are new long range drones coming off Ukrainian assembly lines and the rumors of the GLSDB getting into theater at some vague time this year are still rampant.
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
I’m still stunned at how poorly Russia has done in this war. Count me as one who believed the Russians would have controlled all of Ukraine within a few months, given the size and supposed superior equipment they had amassed along the boarder a year ago.
For the last three days, Maruipol has been hit with...some sort of attack. If you recall, Mariupol is where a relatively small number of Ukrainian soldiers held out for weeks in the Azovstal steel plant, with no hope of rescue and little hope of resupply, against an overwhelming and continuous Russian attack, including carpet bombing.
Ukraine is being coy about what sorts of weapons are being used, but they're something new. HIMARS has a range of 84km. The nearest Ukrainian forces are over 100km away. I haven't heard yet what exactly was hit, but if Ukraine has a significant number of these weapons, Russia's in for a world of hurt. Ukraine is claiming they can now reach over 150km. That means that Russia's entire land bridge, from Crimea on the west to the Russian border on the east, can now be targeted.
The Mariupol targets hit this week could be reached by normal GMLRS, but only if the truck was practically on the front line. If that's what they did, it says something about either the value of the target or Russia's inability to interfere with the launch in that sector. The most likely launch site was in Vuhledar which Russia attempted to seize over the last 30 days and it cost them a brigade's worth of armor.
That said, there are new long range drones coming off Ukrainian assembly lines and the rumors of the GLSDB getting into theater at some vague time this year are still rampant.
I guess they just signed the contract with Boeing for the glide bombers so it might be a while,.........unless,...........some forward thinking executive assembled resources for fast production. It seems like building these bombs was almost a no-brainer for them so maybe it happened.
-
One year since the invasion today. :(
I’m still stunned at how poorly Russia has done in this war. Count me as one who believed the Russians would have controlled all of Ukraine within a few months, given the size and supposed superior equipment they had amassed along the boarder a year ago.
For the last three days, Maruipol has been hit with...some sort of attack. If you recall, Mariupol is where a relatively small number of Ukrainian soldiers held out for weeks in the Azovstal steel plant, with no hope of rescue and little hope of resupply, against an overwhelming and continuous Russian attack, including carpet bombing.
Ukraine is being coy about what sorts of weapons are being used, but they're something new. HIMARS has a range of 84km. The nearest Ukrainian forces are over 100km away. I haven't heard yet what exactly was hit, but if Ukraine has a significant number of these weapons, Russia's in for a world of hurt. Ukraine is claiming they can now reach over 150km. That means that Russia's entire land bridge, from Crimea on the west to the Russian border on the east, can now be targeted.
The Mariupol targets hit this week could be reached by normal GMLRS, but only if the truck was practically on the front line. If that's what they did, it says something about either the value of the target or Russia's inability to interfere with the launch in that sector. The most likely launch site was in Vuhledar which Russia attempted to seize over the last 30 days and it cost them a brigade's worth of armor.
That said, there are new long range drones coming off Ukrainian assembly lines and the rumors of the GLSDB getting into theater at some vague time this year are still rampant.
I guess they just signed the contract with Boeing for the glide bombers so it might be a while,.........unless,...........some forward thinking executive assembled resources for fast production. It seems like building these bombs was almost a no-brainer for them so maybe it happened.
The weapon seems straightforward enough. Join a preexisting rocket motor to a preexisting smart bomb and stuff them into HIMARS pods. The catch is the concept is new enough that they're practically assembled by hand. The factory to mass produce them is just now coming online. The factory owner implied they could produce them in the high dozens this year.
-
I’m also reading about how the Wagner group has suffered catastrophic losses and has dropped their “Zeroing” policy for subordination and desertion, and that they have stopped the pipeline of inmates-to-mercenaries that they relied on so heavily in recent months. Reports of their ranks being sent into combat with no armor and literally no ammunition. If true I’m not sure how Russia advances or even holds territory.
According to a Russophile friend who detests the war but has been reading about Russian doctrine and tactics*, Russia's standard doctrine involves several elements very different from the well trained volunteer forces that Canada, Britain and US deploy:
1) They minimize supply requirements by expecting their units to severely erode during combat. Training reflects the doctrine; they anticipate failing to resupply front line troops, so they just train them / tell them that their supplies will run out and they'd better learn to fend for themselves with increasingly inadequate kit and/or ad hoc requisitioning (theft) of local supplies.
2) Instead of continuous resupply and if necessary troop rotation / replacement intended to maintain adequacy of a fighting unit, they expect the unit to fight until exhaustion. This means exhaustion of troop numbers, supplies, and physical energy.
3) When one unit is exhausted, they send in a whole new unit. Only then can survivors of the dilapidated first unit be allowed to withdraw.
4) Did I say "allowed"? Yeah, front line troops such as prison conscripts and disrespected minorities from poverty-stricken hinterlands are backed by a layer of more professional troops whose job is to shoot the front line if it tries to retreat. Conscripts like this, "cannon fodder" as we'd call it, are called "cannon meat" in Russian. Behind the pros are a further line of soldiers / enforcers from the FSB, the modern KGB, who in turn are tasked to kill any wavering retreaters. Essentially it's a forced system like a brutal empire that expects to sacrifice its unimportant peasants while the smaller core of more professional troops usually focus on enforcing the orders given to the cannon meat. Doctrine is designed not to value soldiers' lives, but to ensure that the orders of the czar / ruler / mob boss** are completed at any cost.
5) Skill levels may be low, but as long as cannons grind up enemy locations and front line troops have any semblance of weapons, the Russians can:
a) occupy the energy of opposing forces
b) Grind forwards given sufficient numbers
I don't know how anyone could advance against armed opposition if they literally have no weapons, but if they have weak armaments, that plus numbers plus death threats plus artillery can add up to something. Apparently.
PS. I have no idea if the following document supports the description above, but fwiw, here's a link that gives a link to a 416 page pdf describing "the Russian way of war". It is published by the US Army's Training and Doctrine Command G2's Foreign Military Studies Office. I haven't absorbed much of it, but it appears to present descriptions of the Russian army's command structure, force organization, and preplanned menu of tactics for defense as well as offense. My general impression is that while system is less flexible on some levels, it is robust in the sense of having simpler methods and being implementable with lower levels of kit. I open to remarks from more informed commenters!!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329934215_The_Russian_Way_of_War_Force_Structure_Tactics_and_Modernization_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces
*My understanding is very amateur, so pls forgive all mistakes including phrasing
**From what I understand, doctrine was developed during Soviet era, so originally the great leader of the Communist party; but bones of the system and possibly its spirit go back to czarist times
-
I’m also reading about how the Wagner group has suffered catastrophic losses and has dropped their “Zeroing” policy for subordination and desertion, and that they have stopped the pipeline of inmates-to-mercenaries that they relied on so heavily in recent months. Reports of their ranks being sent into combat with no armor and literally no ammunition. If true I’m not sure how Russia advances or even holds territory.
According to a Russophile friend who detests the war but has been reading about Russian doctrine and tactics*, Russia's standard doctrine involves several elements very different from the well trained volunteer forces that Canada, Britain and US deploy:
1) They minimize supply requirements by expecting their units to severely erode during combat. Training reflects the doctrine; they anticipate failing to resupply front line troops, so they just train them / tell them that their supplies will run out and they'd better learn to fend for themselves with increasingly inadequate kit and/or ad hoc requisitioning (theft) of local supplies.
2) Instead of continuous resupply and if necessary troop rotation / replacement intended to maintain adequacy of a fighting unit, they expect the unit to fight until exhaustion. This means exhaustion of troop numbers, supplies, and physical energy.
3) When one unit is exhausted, they send in a whole new unit. Only then can survivors of the dilapidated first unit be allowed to withdraw.
4) Did I say "allowed"? Yeah, front line troops such as prison conscripts and disrespected minorities from poverty-stricken hinterlands are backed by a layer of more professional troops whose job is to shoot the front line if it tries to retreat. Conscripts like this, "cannon fodder" as we'd call it, are called "cannon meat" in Russian. Behind the pros are a further line of soldiers / enforcers from the FSB, the modern KGB, who in turn are tasked to kill any wavering retreaters. Essentially it's a forced system like a brutal empire that expects to sacrifice its unimportant peasants while the smaller core of more professional troops usually focus on enforcing the orders given to the cannon meat. Doctrine is designed not to value soldiers' lives, but to ensure that the orders of the czar / ruler / mob boss** are completed at any cost.
5) Skill levels may be low, but as long as cannons grind up enemy locations and front line troops have any semblance of weapons, the Russians can:
a) occupy the energy of opposing forces
b) Grind forwards given sufficient numbers
I don't know how anyone could advance against armed opposition if they literally have no weapons, but if they have weak armaments, that plus numbers plus death threats plus artillery can add up to something. Apparently.
PS. I have no idea if the following document supports the description above, but fwiw, here's a link that gives a link to a 416 page pdf describing "the Russian way of war". It is published by the US Army's Training and Doctrine Command G2's Foreign Military Studies Office. I haven't absorbed much of it, but it appears to present descriptions of the Russian army's command structure, force organization, and preplanned menu of tactics for defense as well as offense. My general impression is that while system is less flexible on some levels, it is robust in the sense of having simpler methods and being implementable with lower levels of kit. I open to remarks from more informed commenters!!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329934215_The_Russian_Way_of_War_Force_Structure_Tactics_and_Modernization_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces
*My understanding is very amateur, so pls forgive all mistakes including phrasing
**From what I understand, doctrine was developed during Soviet era, so originally the great leader of the Communist party; but bones of the system and possibly its spirit go back to czarist times
A little bit of evil mustache twirling going on with your friend's description, but in principle he's not far off. He is mixing what is happening with what is supposed to happen. For example, Russian doctrine doesn't include tens of thousands of mercenary prisoners. Their supply doctrine is what we call "push" instead of "pull" where the higher command just sends predetermined amounts of food and ammo without the unit asking for it. Its a facet of their top-down leadership structure. It also saves on having to man supply organizations at the lower echelons. One of the downsides we've seen is that if the enemy knows where that centralized warehouse is located, the entire front is screwed. And they do seem to be designed to live on a shoestring of everything except fuel and ammo. Their truck fleet simply isn't big enough to keep all classes of supply equally filled.
Regarding the "fight until nothing left," Russia sends units to the fight in waves where second and third echelons will pile on to existing attacks with the idea that a weak point will be found and overwhelmed. Where it breaks down is if the attack is a failure and will not be won under any circumstances, then you're just sending more men to die for no gain (see contested river crossings and the attack into Vuhledar last month). A unit could be rotated off the frontline in theory, but in practice the frontline of this war is too long and Russia has run out of equally trained and equipped formations to swap them out. The notion of "blocking detachments" or units designed to prevent retreats has historical precedence, but more to prevent mass retreats rather than shoot anybody who might falter. Here it seems to be more prevalent with Wagner and a the separatist militias.
Russian doctrine is also stupidly heavy on artillery. This meant once they got their guns massed and started the attack, nothing was left of the target area but powder. This fueled their summer offensive until two things started to happen. First was the introduction of the HIMARS systems which started picking off ammo warehouses slowing resupply, and then after three months of nearly nonstop shelling they started breaking their cannons. Those barrels don't last forever, and firing nonstop without aiming too much shortens their lifespans quickly. Observers have noted a significant drop off in Russian artillery usage in the last couple months either from a lack of shells, worn out guns, or possibly stockpiling for some future offensive. Despite Russian shell reserves originally numbering in the millions, modern Russia doesn't make very many new ones. They've been refurbishing older Soviet-era shells for the last decade instead. So now the artillery-dependent army appears to be running low and they're in the same race the West is to make more. The difference is Ukraine's NATO-provided guns have longer range, are more accurate, and manned by better crews.
That book by the way is one of the best sources for how the Russian army is built. I recommend reading it and referencing it often for whenever you hear more news about the war.
-
So who can satisfy the apparent shortage of military shells in the "special military operation" the best? Wiki gives the following table (which is no longer a table)
World's largest arms exporters
Figures are SIPRI Trend Indicator Values (TIVs) expressed in millions. These numbers may not represent real financial flows as prices for the underlying arms can be as low as zero in the case of military aid. The following are estimates from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.[18]
2020
Rank Supplier Arms Exp
(in million TIV)
1 United States 9,372
2 Russia 3,203
3 France 1,995
4 Germany 1,232
5 Spain 1,201
6 South Korea 827
7 Italy 806
8 China 760
9 Netherlands 488
10 United Kingdom 429
So if shell production mirrors the overall export military production, then Russia has 3,203 vs (US 9372 + France 1995 + German 1232 + Spain 1201 + Italy 806 + Netherlands 488 + UK 429) Parenthesis total is 15,503 Granted, this is armament export and not shells, but it does give an indication that motivated NATO countries should be able to outproduce Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry)
-
Overall value of arms being exported isn't a good indicator of something like ammo production. The US exports a lot of high tech, high dollar systems: Aircraft, Air defense systems, M1 Abrams tanks, warships... We can produce a mere 14k 155mm artillery shells a month at current max production - hopefully ramping to 20k sometime in the spring and 90k by sometime in 2025.
At the peak, Russia was throwing 60k artillery shells per DAY. Admittedly across multiple calibers (the US basically uses two: 155mm and 105mm)
-
But on the other hand, Russia also uses far more shells than they can produce, even their refurbished production they are doing now with their stacks of USSR time shells can only do I think 1/4 of their usage was said.
Though that beggs how often they will run out of stock until they actually run out ;) Already last year they should have run out based on the estimates from summer.
-
But on the other hand, Russia also uses far more shells than they can produce, even their refurbished production they are doing now with their stacks of USSR time shells can only do I think 1/4 of their usage was said.
Though that beggs how often they will run out of stock until they actually run out ;) Already last year they should have run out based on the estimates from summer.
Seems like a little smoking at the Russian shell factory might be a good thing. I can't imagine Russia makes shells at very many locations.
-
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1305
I wonder how most American feels about paying Ukrainian pensions, civil servants, and teachers with American $? That's quite a step up from military aid.
At this rate Ukraine will be the 51st state instead of DC or PR. /s
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-treasurys-yellen-makes-surprise-visit-ukraine-push-economic-aid-2023-02-27/
"America will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes," Yellen, flanked by sandbags at the cabinet ministers' office, told Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, in a trip also aimed at shoring up support at home for continued aid.
Sigh, the war machine keeps turning with no end in sight. Meanwhile, what happened in East Palestine can't be labeled a "major disaster" so it limits what FEMA and other agencies can do even though the contamination seems to be worse than initially surmised. If it's in Ukraine, the US finds a way to make something happen. If we have a situation on American soil, then we have the bureaucracy step in and add red tape. Good system of allocating our taxpayer dollars we have!
-
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1305
I wonder how most American feels about paying Ukrainian pensions, civil servants, and teachers with American $? That's quite a step up from military aid.
At this rate Ukraine will be the 51st state instead of DC or PR. /s
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-treasurys-yellen-makes-surprise-visit-ukraine-push-economic-aid-2023-02-27/
"America will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes," Yellen, flanked by sandbags at the cabinet ministers' office, told Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, in a trip also aimed at shoring up support at home for continued aid.
Sigh, the war machine keeps turning with no end in sight. Meanwhile, what happened in East Palestine can't be labeled a "major disaster" so it limits what FEMA and other agencies can do even though the contamination seems to be worse than initially surmised. If it's in Ukraine, the US finds a way to make something happen. If we have a situation on American soil, then we have the bureaucracy step in and add red tape. Good system of allocating our taxpayer dollars we have!
Yes, our policies towards an adversary invading its nuclear-armed neighbor is different from how our federal and state agencies respond to an industrial accident. Why on earth would you expect it to be otherwise?
The scales are so monumentally different in every aspect - people impacted, people killed, territory effected, threat to our economy, to the environment, to our allies, to ourselves...
-
Plus, Russia is a bully. The only way to stop bullies is to stand up to them. Ukraine isn't the first country that bully Russia has 'expanded into'. If we don't go all in to support Ukraine, I promise you it won't be the last country either. Bullies are only emboldened when there is no push back.
-
Neville Chamberlain called, he wants his appeasement strategy back...
I'm just fine with spending 5-10% of the DOD budget on the most important geopolitical conflict of my adult lifetime. We're not even risking American lives, FFS. How cheap do you want to be?
"The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. ... Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."
-George Marshall (what a sucker, those were our taxpayer dollars...)
-W
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1305
I wonder how most American feels about paying Ukrainian pensions, civil servants, and teachers with American $? That's quite a step up from military aid.
At this rate Ukraine will be the 51st state instead of DC or PR. /s
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-treasurys-yellen-makes-surprise-visit-ukraine-push-economic-aid-2023-02-27/
"America will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes," Yellen, flanked by sandbags at the cabinet ministers' office, told Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, in a trip also aimed at shoring up support at home for continued aid.
Sigh, the war machine keeps turning with no end in sight. Meanwhile, what happened in East Palestine can't be labeled a "major disaster" so it limits what FEMA and other agencies can do even though the contamination seems to be worse than initially surmised. If it's in Ukraine, the US finds a way to make something happen. If we have a situation on American soil, then we have the bureaucracy step in and add red tape. Good system of allocating our taxpayer dollars we have!
-
From a basic strategic perspective, the US has several goals and a major one is preventing any other nation-state from uniting the Eurasian continent and potentially challenging us and our control of the oceans. That's why we fought the WW1 and WW2. It's why we sought to contain the USSR during the cold war, and why we seek to contain China and Russia today. Supporting Ukraine against Russia is a direct reflection of that strategy.
The vast majority of the world's population lives in Eurasia and the US can never field enough troops for a major ground war there without local allies. Basic US strategy has been to let allies, especially local allies, due as much of the fighting (and dying) as possible. WW1 (French, English + commonwealth, Russia), WW2 (English + commonwealth, Russia, China), Korean War (South Koreans), Vietnam War (South Vietnamese), Gulf War (Coalition of the Willing), etc. This is because the US public is averse to casualties, and because we simply can't support the number of ground troops that a local ally can when we literally have to fly/ship almost everything to the other side of the world.
As a US Soldier, I would rather have Ukranian Soldiers fighting for their country than US Soldiers. We can provide far more assistance with intelligence and logistics than simple boots on the ground. Soldier for Soldier and tank for tank I would put the US up against anyone, but it's not 10:1, maybe 2:1 or 1.5:1. However, when it comes to intelligence and logistics it really is 10:1.
-
Neville Chamberlain called, he wants his appeasement strategy back...
I'm just fine with spending 5-10% of the DOD budget on the most important geopolitical conflict of my adult lifetime. We're not even risking American lives, FFS. How cheap do you want to be?
"The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. ... Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."
-George Marshall (what a sucker, those were our taxpayer dollars...)
-W
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1305
I wonder how most American feels about paying Ukrainian pensions, civil servants, and teachers with American $? That's quite a step up from military aid.
At this rate Ukraine will be the 51st state instead of DC or PR. /s
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-treasurys-yellen-makes-surprise-visit-ukraine-push-economic-aid-2023-02-27/
"America will stand with Ukraine as long as it takes," Yellen, flanked by sandbags at the cabinet ministers' office, told Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, in a trip also aimed at shoring up support at home for continued aid.
Sigh, the war machine keeps turning with no end in sight. Meanwhile, what happened in East Palestine can't be labeled a "major disaster" so it limits what FEMA and other agencies can do even though the contamination seems to be worse than initially surmised. If it's in Ukraine, the US finds a way to make something happen. If we have a situation on American soil, then we have the bureaucracy step in and add red tape. Good system of allocating our taxpayer dollars we have!
I was in agreement with it. Then I saw it was from George Marshall. Wow! The Marshall plan is touted as one of America's great success stories. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
-
Sigh, the war machine keeps turning with no end in sight. Meanwhile, what happened in East Palestine can't be labeled a "major disaster" so it limits what FEMA and other agencies can do even though the contamination seems to be worse than initially surmised. If it's in Ukraine, the US finds a way to make something happen. If we have a situation on American soil, then we have the bureaucracy step in and add red tape. Good system of allocating our taxpayer dollars we have!
Former environmental consultant here. I've worked on a number of sites similar to this one (not this bad, but similar). I don't see what role FEMA would play in this incident. The emergency response portion of this incident was over within five days. State and federal EPA and the responsible party (RP) had emergency response contractors on scene within hours who began to assess the situation and initial remediation action. As far as I can tell, they did everything they needed to do in a timely fashion. The only controversial part that I can see is the controlled burn, but the RP felt that it was necessary to prevent an explosion. Absent any other information, that seems like a reasonable course of action and the data say it was conducted safely.
Many people underestimate the time and difficulty required to assess a subsurface release. I won't get into it, but it takes a lot of careful and expensive analysis and part of that analysis includes monitoring how conditions change over time. Everyone wants it done immediately, but it can't be done immediately. FEMA does not have the ability to speed up the process, nor do they have any particular expertise, nor are they they lead agency. What FEMA can do is pass out grants and low interest loans. But in this case, EPA has already identified the RP--Norfolk Southern. Superfund laws have some real teeth. Norfolk Southern is 100% financially responsible for all this.
So why in Odin's name do we want the US government to pass out money, when the RP is legally responsible for the costs? And why would we involve another federal agency even though they really can't do anything to help? Seems like a very poor use of tax dollars to me.
-
You guys just aren't watching enough FOX and News Max.
-
Sigh, the war machine keeps turning with no end in sight. Meanwhile, what happened in East Palestine can't be labeled a "major disaster" so it limits what FEMA and other agencies can do even though the contamination seems to be worse than initially surmised. If it's in Ukraine, the US finds a way to make something happen. If we have a situation on American soil, then we have the bureaucracy step in and add red tape. Good system of allocating our taxpayer dollars we have!
So, you might go beyond your surface jingoism and ask why East Palestine isn't declared as a major disaster?
The answer is: The Republican Governor of Ohio refuses to declare it a disaster at all.
I guess you think the Feds should override "state's rights" or something?
-
@Telecaster Please tell me that this was a mis-threaded post. Otherwise I have no idea what or how you are responding to @simonsez 's post
-
@Telecaster Please tell me that this was a mis-threaded post. Otherwise I have no idea what or how you are responding to @simonsez 's post
@simonsez seemed to suggest the US government was prioritizing Ukraine over domestic needs of the US, specifically that FEMA had not been deployed to the East Palestine spill.
I have professional experience with this type of situation. While I have no inside information regarding this particular incident and get my info from the newspapers like everybody else, this is of professional interest and I have been paying attention. Based on what I've read I haven't seen any indications the spill response has been lacking and I don't understand FEMA would even do in this case. There was also a mention of tax dollars. A lot of what FEMA does is hand out grants and low interest loans and such after a natural disaster. Unlike a hurricane, in this case we have a responsible party who is legally obligated to pay all the bills. So I don't see why we need taxpayer dollars for this purpose.
Hence, it doesn't seem plausible the US government is distracted by Ukraine in this instance as @simonsez seems to be claiming.
-
So you say the government agency is not getting the money back from the company?
That would be how it's handled here. Everyone who needs immediate help gets the money from the state, who then gets it back from the company.
That's also easier than for hundreds of people to sue for years before they get their money. hint hint
-
So you say the government agency is not getting the money back from the company?
That would be how it's handled here. Everyone who needs immediate help gets the money from the state, who then gets it back from the company.
That's also easier than for hundreds of people to sue for years before they get their money. hint hint
No, I'm saying EPA has statutory authority to force Norfolk-Southern to repair the damage, and has already done so. I'm not aware of anyone who needs immediate help in this case, so I don't understand why emergency payments would be needed. But again, all I know is what I read in the papers.
Anyway, back on topic. A couple items jumped out at me this morning. First was an NYT article about a major tank battle around Vuhledar which left the Russians reeling (soft paywall).
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tanks.html
Second, in a somewhat related tweet, Oryx reported over 6,000 Russian vehicles are visually confirmed to be destroyed.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1630876345344327680
-
I do have regret about bringing up East Palestine in the manner in which I did. I was frustrated having read some more about the bubbling up of the water (leading me to believe the problem is worse and perhaps more long-term than being advertised) in places further away coupled with some general fatigue on our international fronts and I posted while not in a good headspace. I just think the particular domestic situation was not handled very well and has some ongoing issues that hopefully will be rectified in the near term. I also admit everything with the Flint water situation from a few years ago also pissed me off to a similar degree.
I do struggle with assigning proper weights to various issues as they intersect with centers of control in my own life. E.g. a person being beheaded in Syria is undeniably worse than my wife having a headache but I care about the latter more so. And my opinion likely wouldn't change regardless if someone with a blue tie or a red tie tells me to care because X country is economically important (meanwhile all the other horrors in the world that are ongoing we're supposed to care about less because it doesn't impact our bottom line as much or we're supposed to completely ignore because it DOES affect our bottom line - hello coltan mining!). You have people in this thread admitting it's good that the US is not risking lives but that other countries are. I mean, I kinda agree with that sentiment but doesn't that showcase how skewed our views of human value can be? To me, it's not that big of a leap to go from "I don't care - as long as Americans aren't dying" to "I don't care - as long as American dollars aren't being wasted". All we're quibbling about is the definition of waste in this context.
I'm saying geopolitical boundaries change ALL the time. Some of those involve bloodshed and some do not. We are very picky with what we're supposed to care about. How many of your neighbors were hanging Ukrainian flags outside their homes in 2014? How many of us would be against annexing Hawaii if it happened today instead of in 1893?
We've been conditioned to care now about this instance because $ and power are on the line. Not really my $ or power, mind you, just those that we vote to put in office who treat it like their top priority is to get re-elected rather than serve their constituents and then also participate in the lobbying game to grease the wheels of our economic system. I'm naive about how I view "how things should be" and it's perhaps too easy for me to become disillusioned.
For anyone talking about death counts - would the death count have been higher or lower in Vietnam if the US was never involved militarily? And as a follow-up, do you think it was a good thing that the US was involved?
My answer to those two questions is: lower and no. If I'm in the minority on that, that's fine. Human lives are human lives. I'm not a pacifist nor a conscientious objector so I admit the line is a tough one. E.g. WW2 it was good we were involved but in Vietnam I'd say it wasn't good.
Economic sanctions were deemed to not be enough or act fast enough in this instance so I will stand at the side and hope our elected leaders call the right shots. I'm just not as big of a war hawk and don't think our 20th century policy of policing the world has worked out the best in terms of a) long-term relations with other countries and b) minimizing human deaths as a result of war. Maybe it has and I'm totally wrong, that's certainly a possibility! Luckily for me, my opinion matters zilch.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
-
Economic sanctions were deemed to not be enough or act fast enough in this instance so I will stand at the side and hope our elected leaders call the right shots. I'm just not as big of a war hawk and don't think our 20th century policy of policing the world has worked out the best in terms of a) long-term relations with other countries and b) minimizing human deaths as a result of war. Maybe it has and I'm totally wrong, that's certainly a possibility! Luckily for me, my opinion matters zilch.
I think there's a much broader set of issues and goals involved in Ukraine than simply number of Ukrainians and Russians dead and economic damage.
1) Exposing Russia's military's comical ineptitude and corruption goes a long way toward crippling their military exports in the long term
2) Sanctioning Russia has a similar effect (they can't get the high-tech stuff they need for their higher-end weapons)
3) Grinding down Russia's military, both personnel and equipment, will dramatically reduce Russia's influence
4) Weakening a key Chinese ally weakens China as well
5) There are fears that if Ukraine pushes back too fast thanks to western weapons, Putin will fly off the handle and start lobbing nukes
6) Western military equipment manufacturers get to demonstrate their wares
7) Currently, the west isn't sending any people into Ukraine. The west isn't incurring any casualties, nor are they taking that escalatory step
8) There's definitely a message being sent to China: "Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'"*
9) Drawing Ukraine into the circle of EU and NATO is a huge deal. It shows that Russia isn't just weak, they can't even hang on to their former soviet bloc countries.
I don't know if people recognize the magnitude of the impact an attack by China on Taiwan would have on the world. The world's biggest (and arguably most advanced) semiconductor company is there. The few hundred thousand lives lost, and a few trillion dollars in damage in Ukraine will be nothing compared to the impact of taking out TSMC.
* - "And oh, by the way, don't think that all the weapons we sent Ukraine are weakening our ability to respond to you. We've got a whole other set of weapons with your name on 'em." On a larger scale, China's running out of time. They're getting squished between a growing middle class, a population time bomb (um, yay, one-child-policy?), other SE asian countries undercutting them (e.g. Vietnam), and their real estate crisis. Now that the world has woken up to the reality of the two bullies (Russia & China) and are responding accordingly, China's window to successfully attack Taiwan seems to be closing.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
It's also worth pointing out that we're seeing a lot fewer (though still too many!) people die at the hands of their government, and also worth pointing out where such deaths have occurred over the last 80 years--it's primarily in the types of governments the US opposes. Think of Stalin's purges, all of the awful stuff the Chinese communists have done, etc. Certainly the US in is bed with some unsavory characters (e.g. many of the gulf states), and yeah, this stinks of whataboutism, but I'd argue that we're seeing a lot less suffering in the last 80 years than previous to it.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
+1.
Pax Americana
Peace and prosperity prevail, making everyone's quality of life better, just as during Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. Once the previous Pax (paxi?) ended, lots of death, destruction and lower quality of life returned. So it will be when the Pax Americana ends.
One day the Pax Americana will end, as it must, just as the other pax before it ended.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
Oh wow, not just wrong but objectively wrong!
I don't even think there is a way to prove what you were specifically responding to me about one way or another. What evidence are you citing? I clicked on the link you provided. I did not see a graph or text that was along the lines of "due to US involvement, the world has saved X number of deaths" or "without US involvement, the world would have a lot more wars" so I'm not sure what I'm looking for.
Maybe we define 'objectively' quite differently? US crime rates have reduced since the early 90s. HW met Yeltsin at Camp David in early 1992 to declare the Cold War over. Since that point the US crime rate is roughly half of what it was then. Would that be an objective truth that ending the Cold War made Americans so happy that we all got along and the result lowered domestic crime? Of course not. I would expect, based on a number of sociological and economic factors, that the global number of deaths from war will continue to trend downward for years to come regardless of what the US military does.
-
The most compelling theory is that the increasi g prevalence of laws being applied more evenly across society and a concurrent growth in trust in systemic justice has resulted in decreasing violent deaths. Soft and hard pressure help that at the local and global level. If you want a hefty discussion, refer to Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature.
Support at home and support abroad are not necessarily a zero sum game and we should be able to walk and chew gum despite the GOPs consistent efforts to gut federal agencies.
For every 100 billion, that is about 300 bucks on a per capita basis. On a pragmatic note, that seems like cheap insurance against Russia reclaiming its 1970s borders and the massive world destabilization and global economic hit that would cause. Similarly, I think massive semiconductor subsidy is good economic policy and positioning against st China.
(And as an environmental professional, telecaster comment seemed on point).
-
It's also worth pointing out that we're seeing a lot fewer (though still too many!) people die at the hands of their government, and also worth pointing out where such deaths have occurred over the last 80 years--it's primarily in the types of governments the US opposes. Think of Stalin's purges, all of the awful stuff the Chinese communists have done, etc. Certainly the US in is bed with some unsavory characters (e.g. many of the gulf states), and yeah, this stinks of whataboutism, but I'd argue that we're seeing a lot less suffering in the last 80 years than previous to it.
Yeah, but a lot of those governments were also installed by the US. Think Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama bin Laden just to name the most known from one area.
btw. there is a strong correlation between leaded fuel and violent crime, and since we know that lead in the brain causes several symptoms including violent behavior, that might be another way how cars have killed people.
-
The next phase of the war is here. Ukraine is applying pressure on Russia in anticipation of major offensve operations:
Zelensky and His War Room Are Signaling an Imminent Spring Offensive
Ukrainian officials are done concealing plans for a major spring offensive led by NATO-trained troops armed with Leopard tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles.
by Stefan Korshak | March 1, 2023, 4:21 pm
President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a nationally televised speech on Tuesday evening, added his voice to a growing chorus of senior Kyiv officials messaging that the Ukrainian army is fully intent on kicking off a major offensive by May, if not earlier.
The Ukrainian leader said that he had met with top officers in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and other members of the national military leadership, and that the preparations are fully in progress, with the army readying itself for a major attack.
“As always, we looked at logistics in detail and how to deal with [material] shortages. We are preparing for the return of our troops to active efforts for the liberation of our lands. We have this righteous goal in mind every day, and every day it comes closer to fulfillment. Ukraine will be free. All of Ukraine,” Zelensky said.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/13695
-
Also a pretty big deal that higher ranking Pentagon officials are saying, essentially, that regardless of the outcome of this war, Russia is shattered.
Putin was successful only in putting the blinders on the population and military/mercenaries to keep throwing bodies at a lost cause. (at least) 50k dead Russian troops since December. I know up until recently Ukraine was taking somewhat similar losses, but I have to believe the ratio is much more in favor with Ukraine now.
-
Also a pretty big deal that higher ranking Pentagon officials are saying, essentially, that regardless of the outcome of this war, Russia is shattered.
Putin was successful only in putting the blinders on the population and military/mercenaries to keep throwing bodies at a lost cause. (at least) 50k dead Russian troops since December. I know up until recently Ukraine was taking somewhat similar losses, but I have to believe the ratio is much more in favor with Ukraine now.
Aren't the blinders still on the Russian population? There can be no dissenting voices on Russian media and the country is known as an isolated Eastern European culture.
My source says there are 150,605 dead Russian soldiers as of today. Perhaps the Russian population has been told 5,000.
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Based on news of the past week, there is some indication they've got some longer range missiles. Maybe, they can take out the Kerch bridge again.
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Based on news of the past week, there is some indication they've got some longer range missiles. Maybe, they can take out the Kerch bridge again.
There's no doubt they have longer-range missiles. However, the long-range attacks are hitting ~50 miles, while the Kerch strait is over 170 miles from the current battle lines. Big difference.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
+1.
Pax Americana
Peace and prosperity prevail, making everyone's quality of life better, just as during Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. Once the previous Pax (paxi?) ended, lots of death, destruction and lower quality of life returned. So it will be when the Pax Americana ends.
One day the Pax Americana will end, as it must, just as the other pax before it ended.
It's not just the peace, but the complete control of all global trade through military force has brought a lot of prosperity to the US. The US Navy and Air Force controls virtually all key shipping lanes, so when the US wants to change what countries can and can't get specific resources they can control that, and they can control what the US receives. If China had control of the shipping lanes America would not be doing well. I think the whole "america needs to stop policing the world" thing is mostly propoganda put out by other countries, that people buy into because it sounds reasonable, who want more control over the flow of goods and resources globally by reducing the American control.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
+1.
Pax Americana
Peace and prosperity prevail, making everyone's quality of life better, just as during Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. Once the previous Pax (paxi?) ended, lots of death, destruction and lower quality of life returned. So it will be when the Pax Americana ends.
One day the Pax Americana will end, as it must, just as the other pax before it ended.
It's not just the peace, but the complete control of all global trade through military force has brought a lot of prosperity to the US. The US Navy and Air Force controls virtually all key shipping lanes, so when the US wants to change what countries can and can't get specific resources they can control that, and they can control what the US receives. If China had control of the shipping lanes America would not be doing well. I think the whole "america needs to stop policing the world" thing is mostly propoganda put out by other countries, that people buy into because it sounds reasonable, who want more control over the flow of goods and resources globally by reducing the American control.
It seems like the US could really abuse this power, but they don't. They even go so far as to let a lot of trade between Bad Guys happen. I mean, there's enough satellite surveillance that all those ships sneaking stuff into/out of sanctioned countries like Iran and North Korea could be interdicted.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
+1.
Pax Americana
Peace and prosperity prevail, making everyone's quality of life better, just as during Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. Once the previous Pax (paxi?) ended, lots of death, destruction and lower quality of life returned. So it will be when the Pax Americana ends.
One day the Pax Americana will end, as it must, just as the other pax before it ended.
It's not just the peace, but the complete control of all global trade through military force has brought a lot of prosperity to the US. The US Navy and Air Force controls virtually all key shipping lanes, so when the US wants to change what countries can and can't get specific resources they can control that, and they can control what the US receives. If China had control of the shipping lanes America would not be doing well. I think the whole "america needs to stop policing the world" thing is mostly propoganda put out by other countries, that people buy into because it sounds reasonable, who want more control over the flow of goods and resources globally by reducing the American control.
It seems like the US could really abuse this power, but they don't. They even go so far as to let a lot of trade between Bad Guys happen. I mean, there's enough satellite surveillance that all those ships sneaking stuff into/out of sanctioned countries like Iran and North Korea could be interdicted.
Not sure if I'm reading you right, but it sounds like you're saying that the States doesn't do much policing the world when it's not convenient.
-
It's also worth pointing out that we're seeing a lot fewer (though still too many!) people die at the hands of their government, and also worth pointing out where such deaths have occurred over the last 80 years--it's primarily in the types of governments the US opposes. Think of Stalin's purges, all of the awful stuff the Chinese communists have done, etc. Certainly the US in is bed with some unsavory characters (e.g. many of the gulf states), and yeah, this stinks of whataboutism, but I'd argue that we're seeing a lot less suffering in the last 80 years than previous to it.
Yeah, but a lot of those governments were also installed by the US. Think Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama bin Laden just to name the most known from one area.
While the US has certainly installed governments led by unsavory characters, Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden are not on that list.
-
Human death as a result of war has been dropping during the entire "US world police" post-WW2 era:
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
That's absolute numbers, so as a percentage of living humans, it's even more dramatic.
So you're objectively wrong here. Now, correlation is not causation, so maybe the world would be in even better shape if the US wasn't a superpower/had troops and planes and ships everywhere. However the evidence does not support your assertion at all.
-W
+1.
Pax Americana
Peace and prosperity prevail, making everyone's quality of life better, just as during Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. Once the previous Pax (paxi?) ended, lots of death, destruction and lower quality of life returned. So it will be when the Pax Americana ends.
One day the Pax Americana will end, as it must, just as the other pax before it ended.
It's not just the peace, but the complete control of all global trade through military force has brought a lot of prosperity to the US. The US Navy and Air Force controls virtually all key shipping lanes, so when the US wants to change what countries can and can't get specific resources they can control that, and they can control what the US receives. If China had control of the shipping lanes America would not be doing well. I think the whole "america needs to stop policing the world" thing is mostly propoganda put out by other countries, that people buy into because it sounds reasonable, who want more control over the flow of goods and resources globally by reducing the American control.
It seems like the US could really abuse this power, but they don't. They even go so far as to let a lot of trade between Bad Guys happen. I mean, there's enough satellite surveillance that all those ships sneaking stuff into/out of sanctioned countries like Iran and North Korea could be interdicted.
When it comes to arms shipments from Iran to Yemen, the US Navy does a pretty good job of interdiction. However, trying to stop freighters carrying coal, oil, ore, grain, etc. gets a lot harder to enforce. If it's a Chinese flagged vessel it's not really worth the geopolitical risk of stopping that ship.
Satellite surveillance is only as effective as the person/computer looking at the imagery. If the US was trying to find one ship carrying a nuclear bomb it could probably dedicate the resources to do that. Trying to track the thousands (tens of thousands?) of large ships on the ocean is not really possible with the current technology/resources dedicate to it.
The US Navy is only a few hundred ships - and that includes things like aircraft carriers and submarines that can't interdict ships. Many of those ships are undergoing maintenance or spend time traveling to and from their home port. The number of ships that could actually go intercept another vessel is a few dozen at most spread out over the entire world. When you compare that to the number of freighters that could make a stop in Iran or North Korea, and the time it would take to actually stop those ships and inspect them to determine if they were violating some sanctions - it quickly becomes untenable.
If we wanted to actually blockade North Korea or Iran that becomes a potential (or actual) act of war. Considering North Korea is now a nuclear power (and Iran isn't far behind) the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Based on news of the past week, there is some indication they've got some longer range missiles. Maybe, they can take out the Kerch bridge again.
There's no doubt they have longer-range missiles. However, the long-range attacks are hitting ~50 miles, while the Kerch strait is over 170 miles from the current battle lines. Big difference.
Even if the Ukrainians can punch through Melitopol and keep going to Kyrylivka and reach the Azov Sea, the Kerch Bridge still would be ~90 miles away (not within HIMARS range).
Has anyone seen if the Kerch Bridge's rail line is operational yet?
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Based on news of the past week, there is some indication they've got some longer range missiles. Maybe, they can take out the Kerch bridge again.
There's no doubt they have longer-range missiles. However, the long-range attacks are hitting ~50 miles, while the Kerch strait is over 170 miles from the current battle lines. Big difference.
Even if the Ukrainians can punch through Melitopol and keep going to Kyrylivka and reach the Azov Sea, the Kerch Bridge still would be ~90 miles away (not within HIMARS range).
Has anyone seen if the Kerch Bridge's rail line is operational yet?
I saw an article on a pro-Russian site crowing about how they fixed the road portion ahead of schedule. Any mention of the railroad was conspicuously absent. So, I would guess that it's still inoperable.
-
Wasn't that railway going after a few days under reduced load?
And chops, you are right. The US helped the Shah (who wasn't exactly a nice boy, but at least not brutal), and as a result Khomenei got traction (and led The West around like a bull on the ring).
But Osama - he was trained, financed and supported by the US, so don't say the US has nothing to do with it.
-
But Osama - he was trained, financed and supported by the US, so don't say the US has nothing to do with it.
Seems that’s far from a universally accepted statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view)
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Based on news of the past week, there is some indication they've got some longer range missiles. Maybe, they can take out the Kerch bridge again.
There's no doubt they have longer-range missiles. However, the long-range attacks are hitting ~50 miles, while the Kerch strait is over 170 miles from the current battle lines. Big difference.
Even if the Ukrainians can punch through Melitopol and keep going to Kyrylivka and reach the Azov Sea, the Kerch Bridge still would be ~90 miles away (not within HIMARS range).
Has anyone seen if the Kerch Bridge's rail line is operational yet?
I saw an article on a pro-Russian site crowing about how they fixed the road portion ahead of schedule. Any mention of the railroad was conspicuously absent. So, I would guess that it's still inoperable.
Rail line is going to take through the summer probably. The road was comparatively simple since it's built in almost pre-fab sections. The rail line was melted with a few sections of the structure having suspect structural integrity.
If Ukraine made it all the way to the Azov shore they could start hitting some targets in Crimea with greater frequency, but the amount of rocket-delivered explosives required to take out the bridge again would have to be measured in dozens of tons. Ukraine hit the Antonovsky bridge in Kherson about 100 times over the course of a couple months to keep Russia from using it and really didn't do much to it. In contrast, the Kerch bridge was a car bomb, and Russian engineers dropped half the Antonovsky in seconds with well placed demolition charges.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/08/08/ukraine-bombs-key-bridge-at-russian-held-kherson-a78529 (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/08/08/ukraine-bombs-key-bridge-at-russian-held-kherson-a78529)
-
The most compelling theory is that the increasi g prevalence of laws being applied more evenly across society and a concurrent growth in trust in systemic justice has resulted in decreasing violent deaths. Soft and hard pressure help that at the local and global level. If you want a hefty discussion, refer to Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature.
I find the "reducing lead poisoning of children" a pretty compelling hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Note that last year Ukraine talked a lot about an impending offensive at Kherson. Russians reinforced Kherson (drawing down troops elsewhere) so Ukraine first attacked the Kharkiv region instead, and only later took Kherson.
-
Wasn't that railway going after a few days under reduced load?
If you mean "a few empty cars for show, at <5MPH"? Sure. If you mean useful amounts of cargo - no.
-
The most compelling theory is that the increasi g prevalence of laws being applied more evenly across society and a concurrent growth in trust in systemic justice has resulted in decreasing violent deaths. Soft and hard pressure help that at the local and global level. If you want a hefty discussion, refer to Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature.
I find the "reducing lead poisoning of children" a pretty compelling hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
The lead hypothesis has a lot of empirical support, but is really only the last 40 years. And, it was a byproduct of a strong and just governmental action (EPA and courts). The rise of justice-oriented government has been a work in progress for centuries. I don't think these are either-or, and both have a positive influence on the bulk of humanity.
Interestingly, in ancient Rome the lead poisoning was particularly concentrated in the rich who could afford a specialty wine drink prepared by boiling down wine in lead vats. The resulting syrup was sweet both from the boiling and the lead content, which lends a sweet flavor. That said, the widespread use of lead pipes probably didn't help the broader population much.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/03/17/Caligula-and-Nero-victims-of-lead-poisoning/4419416725200/
Tap water in Rome had about 100x Pb background concentrations.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1400097111
-
Oh wow, not just wrong but objectively wrong!
How about "egregiously wrong" or "couldn't be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching before saying something hilariously wrong"? Are those better?
You originally said, and I quote: "I'm just not as big of a war hawk and don't think our 20th century policy of policing the world has worked out the best in terms of a) long-term relations with other countries and b) minimizing human deaths as a result of war. Maybe it has and I'm totally wrong, that's certainly a possibility!"
You are, according to all available data, completely wrong about point b. The era of American superpowerdom has, at the very least, coincided with a dramatic decline in war deaths. It is fairly easy to make plausible causal arguments about why this is the case as well.
Note that I am not saying the US doesn't do/hasn't done terrible things or that I support everything about our foreign policy.
-W
-
There has been a LOT of talk lately from Ukraine about mounting an offensive through to Melitopol in order to cut the land bridge. Without cutting off the Kerch Strait, though, I'd be worried about them overextending and exposing their suddenly-much-longer flanks.
Based on news of the past week, there is some indication they've got some longer range missiles. Maybe, they can take out the Kerch bridge again.
There's no doubt they have longer-range missiles. However, the long-range attacks are hitting ~50 miles, while the Kerch strait is over 170 miles from the current battle lines. Big difference.
Even if the Ukrainians can punch through Melitopol and keep going to Kyrylivka and reach the Azov Sea, the Kerch Bridge still would be ~90 miles away (not within HIMARS range).
Has anyone seen if the Kerch Bridge's rail line is operational yet?
I saw an article on a pro-Russian site crowing about how they fixed the road portion ahead of schedule. Any mention of the railroad was conspicuously absent. So, I would guess that it's still inoperable.
Rail line is going to take through the summer probably. The road was comparatively simple since it's built in almost pre-fab sections. The rail line was melted with a few sections of the structure having suspect structural integrity.
If Ukraine made it all the way to the Azov shore they could start hitting some targets in Crimea with greater frequency, but the amount of rocket-delivered explosives required to take out the bridge again would have to be measured in dozens of tons. Ukraine hit the Antonovsky bridge in Kherson about 100 times over the course of a couple months to keep Russia from using it and really didn't do much to it. In contrast, the Kerch bridge was a car bomb, and Russian engineers dropped half the Antonovsky in seconds with well placed demolition charges.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/08/08/ukraine-bombs-key-bridge-at-russian-held-kherson-a78529 (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/08/08/ukraine-bombs-key-bridge-at-russian-held-kherson-a78529)
Yup, exactly what I was wondering. As long as the Kerch Bridge rail line isn't operable, the Russians will be hard pressed to mount an effective counterattack from the South. Even within easy rail distance of Russia proper, their offensive in the Donbass is slow and underwhelming. Ukraine will be able to make a push to the Azov this spring/summer, break the Russians' landbridge and put Crimea under further pressure without fear of being outflanked from the South.
-
It's also worth pointing out that we're seeing a lot fewer (though still too many!) people die at the hands of their government, and also worth pointing out where such deaths have occurred over the last 80 years--it's primarily in the types of governments the US opposes. Think of Stalin's purges, all of the awful stuff the Chinese communists have done, etc. Certainly the US in is bed with some unsavory characters (e.g. many of the gulf states), and yeah, this stinks of whataboutism, but I'd argue that we're seeing a lot less suffering in the last 80 years than previous to it.
Yeah, but a lot of those governments were also installed by the US. Think Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama bin Laden just to name the most known from one area.
But Osama - he was trained, financed and supported by the US, so don't say the US has nothing to do with it.
Seems that’s far from a universally accepted statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view)
Exactly nereo. And it's even harder to make the assertion that the US installed Osama bin Laden in the Afghani government.
-
Yup, exactly what I was wondering. As long as the Kerch Bridge rail line isn't operable, the Russians will be hard pressed to mount an effective counterattack from the South. Even within easy rail distance of Russia proper, their offensive in the Donbass is slow and underwhelming. Ukraine will be able to make a push to the Azov this spring/summer, break the Russians' landbridge and put Crimea under further pressure without fear of being outflanked from the South.
Would Ukraine be vulnerable to attacks from the seas if they retook Crimea?
-
Yup, exactly what I was wondering. As long as the Kerch Bridge rail line isn't operable, the Russians will be hard pressed to mount an effective counterattack from the South. Even within easy rail distance of Russia proper, their offensive in the Donbass is slow and underwhelming. Ukraine will be able to make a push to the Azov this spring/summer, break the Russians' landbridge and put Crimea under further pressure without fear of being outflanked from the South.
Would Ukraine be vulnerable to attacks from the seas if they retook Crimea?
I think Turkey is helping ensure Russia cannot supplement it's Black Sea fleet. Also, the converse is true. The Ukrainians have sunk Russian ships. Russian ships will be at risk from Ukrainian missiles if Ukraine retakes its Crimean land.
-
Yup, exactly what I was wondering. As long as the Kerch Bridge rail line isn't operable, the Russians will be hard pressed to mount an effective counterattack from the South. Even within easy rail distance of Russia proper, their offensive in the Donbass is slow and underwhelming. Ukraine will be able to make a push to the Azov this spring/summer, break the Russians' landbridge and put Crimea under further pressure without fear of being outflanked from the South.
Would Ukraine be vulnerable to attacks from the seas if they retook Crimea?
Amphibious assaults are hard. Very few militaries have the capabilities to mount such an assault. Russia probably has limited capabilities to get dozens or maybe hundreds of Soldiers ashore somewhere that's not defended - but I doubt they could mount a serious assault against a defended target like a port or the beach near a major city (i.e. Odessa). Getting some troops ashore isn't very helpful unless you can resupply them and expand that beachhead to bring in additional troops. It was a similar situation with the air assault into the airport outside Kyiv at the beginning of the war. Russia brought in enough troops to take the objective, but they couldn't hold it for more than a day or two because they couldn't get resupplied and eventually ran out of ammunition and were overwhelmed by the Ukranian soldiers who could bring in heavier equipment and reinforcements.
-
Oh wow, not just wrong but objectively wrong!
How about "egregiously wrong" or "couldn't be bothered to spend 5 minutes researching before saying something hilariously wrong"? Are those better?
You originally said, and I quote: "I'm just not as big of a war hawk and don't think our 20th century policy of policing the world has worked out the best in terms of a) long-term relations with other countries and b) minimizing human deaths as a result of war. Maybe it has and I'm totally wrong, that's certainly a possibility!"
You are, according to all available data, completely wrong about point b. The era of American superpowerdom has, at the very least, coincided with a dramatic decline in war deaths. It is fairly easy to make plausible causal arguments about why this is the case as well.
Note that I am not saying the US doesn't do/hasn't done terrible things or that I support everything about our foreign policy.
-W
You certainly haven't provided anything that overwhelmingly makes your case and shows mine is "hilariously wrong" (why that would be funny to you in context talking about deaths as a result of military actions, I have no idea).
All available data points to your claim and disproves mine? What does that even mean?! The world of media, data, etc. is a big place! You already provided a link which didn't prove what you were saying so by definition of considering "all available data", that's already false. Now, you want me to go scour the Internet for sources to prove you're right when I've already repeated it's a claim which is hard to prove or disprove (but I guess I'll try since you are so compelled to reply). Frankly, it seems like you're bothered someone has an OPINION you disagree with and you can't let that be for whatever reason.
I'll make this really simple with one example focusing just on military deaths (I would imagine including civilian deaths would make for an even stronger case that the US contributed to excess deaths, e.g. My Lai massacre) : In the Vietnam War there were roughly 1.1 million North Vietnam/VC/allies military deaths and 334k South Vietnam/allies military deaths including 58k Americans.
It's not hard at all to find articles claiming President Nixon kept the war going just to sabotage Johnson's efforts to wind it down for political reasons. Thus, it's not crazy to conclude that perhaps the Vietnam War went on longer than it otherwise would've without any US involvement at all and that more soldiers died as a result. Is that egregiously wrong?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/#:~:text=Nixon%20Prolonged%20Vietnam%20War%20for,Suggest%20%7C%20Smart%20News%7C%20Smithsonian%20Magazine
"Eventually, Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC."
I still stand by my opinion based on what I've read. I've provided some evidence that puts forth that the US prolonged the Vietnam War and by extension, more soldiers died than had the US not been involved at all or in the least had gotten out earlier. Please, objectively disprove that. I'd be happy to read more about this.
-
... Please, objectively disprove that. I'd be happy to read more about this.
I'd be happy if the Pax Americana topic got its own thread and left this one more focused on the original topic? Wishful thinking maybe...
-
... Please, objectively disprove that. I'd be happy to read more about this.
I'd be happy if the Pax Americana topic got its own thread and left this one more focused on the original topic? Wishful thinking maybe...
agree - interesting subject but OT
-
... Please, objectively disprove that. I'd be happy to read more about this.
I'd be happy if the Pax Americana topic got its own thread and left this one more focused on the original topic? Wishful thinking maybe...
agree - interesting subject but OT
As I see it, while there have been numerous tangents the underlying question with this thread and “pax Americana” is whether the United States should be using such a heavy hand in supplying Ukraine with lethal weaponry against Russia. It began with the very legitimate observation that we are spending a couple billion every week on Ukraine but we are likely underfunding a number of important domestic projects.
-
... Please, objectively disprove that. I'd be happy to read more about this.
I'd be happy if the Pax Americana topic got its own thread and left this one more focused on the original topic? Wishful thinking maybe...
agree - interesting subject but OT
As I see it, while there have been numerous tangents the underlying question with this thread and “pax Americana” is whether the United States should be using such a heavy hand in supplying Ukraine with lethal weaponry against Russia. It began with the very legitimate observation that we are spending a couple billion every week on Ukraine but we are likely underfunding a number of important domestic projects.
I did not mean that the issues are unimportant - to the contrary.
I could see myself posting about this but I would not do it in this thread.
The reason for that is that the US has more going concerns internationally than Ukraine, and Ukraine would inevitably become the lens through which these concerns would be seen if it is channeled through this thread.
Not a criticism of any posts but I don´t think it would benefit either discussion if forced into one thread.
-
It began with the very legitimate observation that we are spending a couple billion every week on Ukraine but we are likely underfunding a number of important domestic projects.
Yes, but it doesn't follow that those important domestic projects are being underfunded because of Ukraine. If Congress believed that Project X was important, they could appropriate the money tomorrow. There is no Constitutional upper bound on government spending, and in relative terms both spending and taxes have been higher in the past than they are today.
In other words, the reason why Congress isn't funding worthwhile projects <insert your definition of worthwhile here> isn't because of a lack of dollars. it is because of a lack of support in Congress.
-
Yeh - Move the Pax discussion somewhere else. The PAX thing is highly suggestive of empire. It's kind of disgusting. The US is supposed to be a democracy. The idea of a democracy running an empire somehow doesn't sit well. A pox on all the Paxes.
-
It's not hard at all to find articles claiming President Nixon kept the war going just to sabotage Johnson's efforts to wind it down for political reasons. Thus, it's not crazy to conclude that perhaps the Vietnam War went on longer than it otherwise would've without any US involvement at all and that more soldiers died as a result. Is that egregiously wrong?
I said nothing about Vietnam, which I agree was a horrible war for everyone involved.
I was simply responding to your claim that US foreign policy had increased war deaths. That's not possible to prove either way, but I provided data that showed that war deaths declined the entire time that the US was a superpower and played the "world police" game. There's zero debate about this, and it's a topic that has been extensively studied by IR folks.
Now, as I also said, correlation isn't causation. Maybe if the US had junked it's entire military for scrap in 1946 we'd live in perfect peace.
-W
-
Yeh - Move the Pax discussion somewhere else. The PAX thing is highly suggestive of empire. It's kind of disgusting. The US is supposed to be a democracy. The idea of a democracy running an empire somehow doesn't sit well. A pox on all the Paxes.
The USA is an Empire and it's constituion has nothing to do with it. I don't know why the Americans seem to reluctend to accept reality, may it be cars, climate change or empire.
But waltworks&Co: With the same reasoning you could also say as long as the USSR existed war deaths declined the entire time.
The main prblem of the Ukraine is that they don't have heavy weapons they need. And the already in EU Bradley make a strong suggestion that the US realized that there will be no peace without beating Russia hard- The suggestion is that this realization came in November when CIA Burns met his counterpart in Istanbul.
-
But waltworks&Co: With the same reasoning you could also say as long as the USSR existed war deaths declined the entire time.
The trend has continued for the last ~35 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is an excellent point.
-W
-
The USA is an Empire and it's constituion has nothing to do with it. I don't know why the Americans seem to reluctend to accept reality, may it be cars, climate change or empire.
Empires usually are known to subjugate people. This is a bad thing. The bad guys do the bad things. Do Germans want to do bad things? I think not. People in US (& Canada) do not want to do bad things. It's a pretty strong held belief that folks ought to be able to determine their own destiny. The voting thing helps this along. The empire thing does not.
There are bad realities. I had a long time friend killed by a pickup truck while bicycling this week. Death is a bad reality that eventually overtakes us all. How we behave is determined by ourselves. We have the free will to do good or bad in this world. We have the power of choice. Countries have the power of choice. They can be an empire and crush the free will and aspirations of others or they can form mutually beneficial alliances. A country can be strong without the reality of being an empire. I'm not good at accepting the empire thing, sorry. People can choose good realities.
Russia, on the other hand, is really into the empire thing. They are not so interested in doing good or letting people choose their own destiny. Russia gives what we used to call "Bad Vibes."
-
Yeh - Move the Pax discussion somewhere else. The PAX thing is highly suggestive of empire. It's kind of disgusting. The US is supposed to be a democracy. The idea of a democracy running an empire somehow doesn't sit well. A pox on all the Paxes.
The USA is an Empire and it's constitution has nothing to do with it. I don't know why the Americans seem to reluctant to accept reality, may it be cars, climate change or empire.
While the US may exhibit imperial aspects such as overseas territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, it's not the same as many historic empires. For instance, for all the talk of the US invading Iraq for oil - we get very little oil from Iraq. It wasn't like Chevron or Exxon got the exclusive contract to extract oil from Iraq after we invaded. The government in Iraq still controls their natural resources and the US spent hundreds of billions of dollars to try and rebuild the country - same with Afghanistan.
Russia on the other hand is straight up taking the resources of areas it has captured so the government (and well-connected oligarchs) can profit from it. Their intention is to capture territory and integrate it into their country. The last US war of conquest was the Spanish-American War in 1898 - and most of that territory was returned to the people (Cuba and later the Philippines). Every war since then has been to defend/restore the territory of an ally or had some other limited scope that ultimately led the US to withdraw forces.
-
Yeah, I think the reason why so many say "Empire? Huh?" is because all they think about is "invading territory."
Not, putting aside the old stuff like Mexiko or Hawaii, that is not what makes an Empire.
An Empire has a significant, or even decisive, influence over several other countries, either economical and/or military and/or politically - and is actually using it.
That is why China just a few years back was not an Empire. Now... I would say still not, but they try hard. And that is not about Taiwan, that is about the strategic investment into key technologies (like it has taken the solar leadership from Germany) and the use of trade and credits to politically influence especially Africa.
-
Yeah, I think the reason why so many say "Empire? Huh?" is because all they think about is "invading territory."
Not, putting aside the old stuff like Mexiko or Hawaii, that is not what makes an Empire.
An Empire has a significant, or even decisive, influence over several other countries, either economical and/or military and/or politically - and is actually using it.
That is why China just a few years back was not an Empire. Now... I would say still not, but they try hard. And that is not about Taiwan, that is about the strategic investment into key technologies (like it has taken the solar leadership from Germany) and the use of trade and credits to politically influence especially Africa.
What does the internet say?
Empire definition (1)an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
(2) a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group.
Both of them remind me more of the Putin guy than the US.
Maybe empires don't have the same bad reputation in Germany as the United States. Germans are known to be hard working and probably didn't waste time watching Star Wars movies and seeing bad propaganda against the empire. It was also the Germans who eventually took down the Roman Empire so maybe they have a soft spot about empires.
However, you are free to think as you wish.
-
Sometimes confusion arises from conflating the definition of the terms "empire" with the term "imperialism".
"Empire" refers to the structure of the political entity and must include territories, colonies etc, and direct political control in some form.
"Imperialism" refers to behaviors of a state actor with the goal to establish economic and political influence. These behaviors can involve military action but not necessarily incorporation into an imperial structure with establishment of direct political control of some sort.
That means that all empires engage in imperialism even if not actively involved in expansion, which they typically are, simply by being empires.
The US certainly has vestiges of the imperial structures with its territories but, in terms of the international relations, treaties etc are of much, much greater importance. This makes the political-economical structure the US conducts its foreign policy in very much unlike the structure of an empire.
To summarize, empires by engage in imperialism by default, whereas non-empires may or may not engage in recognizable imperialist activities (and there, of course, is always a lot of discussion about what constitutes an imperialist activity).
I don´t know how often I have come across the problem (it feels like every time the subject comes up) that non-US people see US international activity that meets criteria for imperialist activity as evidence that the US must be an empire - that is not so.
In short: "imperialism" refers to activities and is essentially synonymous with "imperialist activities" and these activities are often mistaken by those subjected to these activities as the activities of an empire - and with good reason given that the population more likely than not had previously been living as subjects under imperial rule.
The trouble for the US is that the perception of history, just repeating itself with another imperial actor, leads to the conclusion that the newly arrived imperial actor needs to be destroyed because the history of living under an empire always includes the eventual destruction of the empire.
Insurgencies inevitably exploit this US ignorance/arrogance to the fullest and have little problem in growing, because empires are perceived as weak and defeatable and that is projected onto the US, with any restraint shown by the US just supporting the notion of US weakness.
edit: of course I meant to say "insurgencies" instead of "insurrections", and I edited it to that effect.
-
The bad guys do the bad things. Do Germans want to do bad things? I think not. People in US (& Canada) do not want to do bad things.
I often want to do bad things. :P
-
The bad guys do the bad things. Do Germans want to do bad things? I think not. People in US (& Canada) do not want to do bad things.
I often want to do bad things. :P
And you were polite enough to say so. A true Canadian.
-
Yeah, I think the reason why so many say "Empire? Huh?" is because all they think about is "invading territory."
Not, putting aside the old stuff like Mexiko or Hawaii, that is not what makes an Empire.
An Empire has a significant, or even decisive, influence over several other countries, either economical and/or military and/or politically - and is actually using it.
That is why China just a few years back was not an Empire. Now... I would say still not, but they try hard. And that is not about Taiwan, that is about the strategic investment into key technologies (like it has taken the solar leadership from Germany) and the use of trade and credits to politically influence especially Africa.
I think for any definition under which the US could be classified as an empire, Germany (and all of Europe) would then be an American satrapy or client state. I certainly see elements of satrapy. I think Putin was of the strong opinion both were true, and the thought emboldened him. However I think events have shown his opinion and to a lesser extent mine and yours were off the mark, and there is less of the traditional empire/satrapy relationship than would have been true in Russia or history. I guess that universal suffrage really cut down American empire aspirations.
-
Ok, now we REALLY need to move this whole tangent to a new topic. Please.
-
I mean we do, but I also think this gets to the heart of the matter of why the war started and why it’s gone the way it has. Putin thought there was no difference between the US and democratic systems from an empire. If he had been right, the war would have gone the way he expected. The gap between his expectations and his reality is IMO about exactly the same size and shape as the gap between the US and a real empire.
-
So Bakhmut still stands, but with difficulty
-
As always, an interesting take (on Bakhmut) from Phillips P. O'Brien:
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-18-the-end-of-the?sd=pf (https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-18-the-end-of-the?sd=pf)
-
"withdrawal of troops by Russia with the agreement that nato will not expand to Ukraine." https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/jeffrey-sachss-great-power-politics
as long as withdrawal of troops by Russia - from all of Ukraine: Crimea, Donbass, etc.
-
Ok. So let Russia withdraw and then sign Ukraine up to NATO? Or heck, just put Ukraine on a 5 year EU plan, and that effectively provides a similar result. Putin would only agree to this if he feels like they've lost already and wants to claim some concession that he was able to force from the retreat.
-
"withdrawal of troops by Russia with the agreement that nato will not expand to Ukraine." https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/jeffrey-sachss-great-power-politics
as long as withdrawal of troops by Russia - from all of Ukraine: Crimea, Donbass, etc.
Wow, Sachs comes off as a lunatic in that interview. Jesus.
I mean, the US has done lots of bad stuff. But Assad and now Russia could still have decided that indiscriminately bombing civilians wasn't their cup of tea.
-W
-
"withdrawal of troops by Russia with the agreement that nato will not expand to Ukraine." https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/jeffrey-sachss-great-power-politics
as long as withdrawal of troops by Russia - from all of Ukraine: Crimea, Donbass, etc.
Wow, Sachs comes off as a lunatic in that interview. Jesus.
I mean, the US has done lots of bad stuff. But Assad and now Russia could still have decided that indiscriminately bombing civilians wasn't their cup of tea.
-W
Sachs seems to be coming from the view that Putin (or Assad) is in power, and therefore we should acknowledge that he will have certain interests, like staying in power, that therefore become the interest of the state. Their obligations to their citizens are irrelevant. The difference is that in a democracy, the interests of the state are the interests of the people (broadly, and in the long term), and further that the right to dissent and argue and point out of the flaws of the government is embedded in the democracy's value systems. Sachs would have us sacrifice the interests and democratic rights of the citizens of Russia (or Syria), and even of intermediate or buffer states, like Ukraine, to serve Putin's (or Assad's) desire to stay in power. Even though the establishment of democratic institutions in Ukraine does not threaten an invasion of Russia, it represents a direct threat to the institutions of the Russian state and the power of its leader, so Sachs would have us defer to Russia and let Putin extend Russia's hegemony over Ukraine, even though its people do not want to submit to Russian power.
There's a certain amount of realpolitik about it, but I'm shocked at the mental gymnastics he jumps through to justify willingly sacrificing the current and future freedoms of millions of people. Sachs seems to be saying that it's better to be alive and imprisoned with no hope than to fight for your own freedom. It is a stance that is antithetical to American and democratic values.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html
"New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year"
"U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials."
"The review of newly collected intelligence suggests they were opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation. U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains."
Ok, so Ukraine did it now but it wasn't any of the top people (implying it wasn't a state-sponsored operation which is the opposite of what European intelligence officials are saying per the article) and we're not allowed to know the specific intelligence and all of this comes out a month after Sy Hersh's article.
Even if Hersh's oddly specific allegations are all incorrect, something smells rotten in the state of Denmark with the refusal to know more about the evidence (specifically, the timing of it) and that this operation neatly didn't involve any "top Ukrainian people". I hope we learn more about this rogue group and how they're funded and who they really do subterfuge for.
-
Blather from unidentified "sources", a misleading headline and no actual evidence - NYT has shoveled bullshit before using this tactic.
-
Blather from unidentified "sources", a misleading headline and no actual evidence - NYT has shoveled bullshit before using this tactic.
First we got Hersh's "this was a diabolical operation carried out with super secret high tech naval technology (of which there's no physical evidence)," and now we've got "this was slapped together by a band of terrorists with no technology whatsoever."
Both claims are crap for the same reasons.
-
Could be, but this is now being reported by multiple outlets. Doesn't mean it is correct, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, either.
-
There are mass protests in Tbilisi, Georgia.
This should really worry Russia (echoes of Euromaidan, Kyiv, UA, 2013):
Police using water cannon against peaceful demonstrator waving EU flag outside the Georgian Parliament protesting the adoption of the Russian-style anti-NGO law.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1633162811671998480
-
Blather from unidentified "sources", a misleading headline and no actual evidence - NYT has shoveled bullshit before using this tactic.
Deutsche-Welle reported last night that a couple of German news outlets had done the research and released some articles about it.
Not sure what the value of releasing this info publicly is.
It would be better to let Putin just twist in the wind on this topic? In fact perhaps keep doing this to Putin's interests - perhaps burn down a few of his houses - and let him wonder who is doing this to him...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqr8fLZYsI
-
Could be, but this is now being reported by multiple outlets. Doesn't mean it is correct, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, either.
Journalists are lazy and I'll be most of that other reporting boils down to "this is what somebody else said". For every true investigative journalist doing real work there are 100 others ready to piggyback of it and try to put their individual spin on it.
-
Could be, but this is now being reported by multiple outlets. Doesn't mean it is correct, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, either.
Journalists are lazy and I'll be most of that other reporting boils down to "this is what somebody else said". For every true investigative journalist doing real work there are 100 others ready to piggyback of it and try to put their individual spin on it.
It's not just laziness. It costs money to do research. Look at all the newspapers that have shut down. If a bean-counter finds he can make just as much money with cheaper low quality news, he thinks no further.
-
I want to live...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lots-russian-soldiers-want-surrender-100029309.html
Turns out there are innovative and humane ways to remove soldiers from the battlefield. As if it wasn't clear enough who the good guys are in this fight.
-
I want to live...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lots-russian-soldiers-want-surrender-100029309.html
Turns out there are innovative and humane ways to remove soldiers from the battlefield. As if it wasn't clear enough who the good guys are in this fight.
It kind of reminds me of a popular poster in the Vietnam days, "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came."
Bakhmut still stands - They resist the Russian horde.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/irans-alleged-ammunition-for-russias-war-in-ukraine-the-secret-journey-of-the-cargo-ships-accused-of-supplying-invasion-12828039 (https://news.sky.com/story/irans-alleged-ammunition-for-russias-war-in-ukraine-the-secret-journey-of-the-cargo-ships-accused-of-supplying-invasion-12828039)
Russia allegedly receiving grenades, rockets, shells, and small arms ammunition from Iran.
-
The mass protests in Tbilisi, Georgia are ongoing and have so far been successful.
Censorship legislation proposed by the pro-Russian government was voted down.
The events in Georgia are very worrysome for Russia as their ability to respond militarily in the Caucasus region is severely compromised with military bases severely depleted in personnel and equipment due to the war in Ukraine.
Russia discussing the events in terms of a foreign sponsored coup attempt could actually be interpreted as a public admission of the seriousness with which Russia sees the situation:
Russia casts Georgia protests as coup attempt, accuses West of fomenting unrest
Agence France-Presse
March 10, 2023
Moscow on Friday accused foreign countries of fomenting days of mass protests in Georgia, likening them to an attempted coup designed to sow tension on Russia's borders.
Hundreds of Georgians rallied for a fourth day outside parliament, as lawmakers dropped controversial "foreign agent" legislation that triggered violent clashes between police and protesters earlier this week.
The days-long demonstrations point to turmoil over the future in Georgia, which aims to join the EU and NATO, much to the frustration of Moscow, which invaded in 2008 and recognized two separatist territories in the north of the country.
https://www.rawstory.com/russia-casts-georgia-protests-as-coup-attempt-accuses-west-of-fomenting-unrest/
-
Didn't you it's the Amis?
The have a chemical named Agent Orange! They use spy balloons to chemtrail that over the people and they start an orange revolution!
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
The effect is twofold:
1) Putin is now effectively unable to travel to quite a few countries.
2) Hopefully this will make some Russians think about consequences and decide against committing (more) war crimes.
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
The effect is twofold:
1) Putin is now effectively unable to travel to quite a few countries.
2) Hopefully this will make some Russians think about consequences and decide against committing (more) war crimes.
Is 1) even true? I guess for private travel. But if he travels as Russia's head of state I think almost all countries have laws on the books for giving heads of state diplomatic immunity.
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
The effect is twofold:
1) Putin is now effectively unable to travel to quite a few countries.
2) Hopefully this will make some Russians think about consequences and decide against committing (more) war crimes.
Is 1) even true? I guess for private travel. But if he travels as Russia's head of state I think almost all countries have laws on the books for giving heads of state diplomatic immunity.
Nobody is going to handcuff him if he attends G20. The woman indicted alongside him for the kidnapping charges is fair game though.
Best case scenario, he's deposed and handed over by a new government as part of some really lucrative sanctions deal. And when I say "best" I mean "hail mary pass" likelihood.
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
The effect is twofold:
1) Putin is now effectively unable to travel to quite a few countries.
2) Hopefully this will make some Russians think about consequences and decide against committing (more) war crimes.
Is 1) even true? I guess for private travel. But if he travels as Russia's head of state I think almost all countries have laws on the books for giving heads of state diplomatic immunity.
Nobody is going to handcuff him if he attends G20. The woman indicted alongside him for the kidnapping charges is fair game though.
Best case scenario, he's deposed and handed over by a new government as part of some really lucrative sanctions deal. And when I say "best" I mean "hail mary pass" likelihood.
Germany said that if Putin shows up in their country, he will be arrested.
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
The effect is twofold:
1) Putin is now effectively unable to travel to quite a few countries.
2) Hopefully this will make some Russians think about consequences and decide against committing (more) war crimes.
Is 1) even true? I guess for private travel. But if he travels as Russia's head of state I think almost all countries have laws on the books for giving heads of state diplomatic immunity.
Nobody is going to handcuff him if he attends G20. The woman indicted alongside him for the kidnapping charges is fair game though.
Best case scenario, he's deposed and handed over by a new government as part of some really lucrative sanctions deal. And when I say "best" I mean "hail mary pass" likelihood.
Germany said that if Putin shows up in their country, he will be arrested.
Not sure if he's be arrested or suffer a fatal accident if he went to Poland, but either way it wouldn't be a good idea for Putin to go to Poland. Probably some of the other neighboring countries as well.
-
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin. They are pretty clear that they don't expect to be able to arrest and then try Putin at any point soon, but hope that it will mitigate ongoing war crimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-putin-news
The effect is twofold:
1) Putin is now effectively unable to travel to quite a few countries.
2) Hopefully this will make some Russians think about consequences and decide against committing (more) war crimes.
Is 1) even true? I guess for private travel. But if he travels as Russia's head of state I think almost all countries have laws on the books for giving heads of state diplomatic immunity.
Nobody is going to handcuff him if he attends G20. The woman indicted alongside him for the kidnapping charges is fair game though.
Best case scenario, he's deposed and handed over by a new government as part of some really lucrative sanctions deal. And when I say "best" I mean "hail mary pass" likelihood.
Germany said that if Putin shows up in their country, he will be arrested.
Not sure if he's be arrested or suffer a fatal accident if he went to Poland, but either way it wouldn't be a good idea for Putin to go to Poland. Probably some of the other neighboring countries as well.
How does this work in terms of diplomatic immunity? (In the quote below, ICJ stands for International Court of Justice.)
In the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ 1, the ICJ reaffirmed the principle of immunity of the head of state and other high officials. The Court stated: ‘in international law it is firmly established that […] certain holders of high-ranking offices, such as the head of state, head of government and minister of foreign affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other states, both civil and criminal’.
The ICJ has stated clearly that heads of state are immune for all acts performed during their time in power, including torture, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Source: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/are-international-immunities-of-heads-of-state-and-government-officials-undergoing-a-major-change/
-
German "State Media"(tm) said that does not apply to war crimes.
International law is a worse mine field than the Ukraine front so don't ask me ;)
-
So Bakhmut still stands, but with difficulty.
-
Do you think the support for Ukraine against the invaders sends a message to the Chinese leadership? Not exactly the same situation with Tiawan, or is it?
-
Do you think the support for Ukraine against the invaders sends a message to the Chinese leadership? Not exactly the same situation with Tiawan, or is it?
The weakness of Russia and the dependence upon China represents opportunities for China. I recently saw a news blurb where former Chinese cities in Manchuria were named on the map with old Chinese names rather than the Russian names. Russia has 140 million people and many natural resources. China has 1.4 billion people and the need for those natural resources. Russia took this portion of China in the 1800s.
If the attention in China is diverted to "assist" Russia in development in the next few years, they may be less concerned about Taiwan. Manchuria is a much bigger prize. Chinese will get what they want. They play the long game.
-
So Bakhmut still stands, but with difficulty.
That's been the headline now for about a month
-
Not sure if he's be arrested or suffer a fatal accident if he went to Poland, but either way it wouldn't be a good idea for Putin to go to Poland. Probably some of the other neighboring countries as well.
How does this work in terms of diplomatic immunity? (In the quote below, ICJ stands for International Court of Justice.)
In the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ 1, the ICJ reaffirmed the principle of immunity of the head of state and other high officials. The Court stated: ‘in international law it is firmly established that […] certain holders of high-ranking offices, such as the head of state, head of government and minister of foreign affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other states, both civil and criminal’.
The ICJ has stated clearly that heads of state are immune for all acts performed during their time in power, including torture, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Source: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/are-international-immunities-of-heads-of-state-and-government-officials-undergoing-a-major-change/
You are assuming that 1. the state will both openly and covertly comply with international law and 2. each resident of a state will both openly and covertly comply with international law. Those assumptions may or may not be accurate. And may I remind you that this entire war is illegal?
Putin is at risk of open arrest if he travels. That may or may not be a serious risk, I am not an expert on international law, but I have seen that a few countries have stated they would arrest him if he went there. So its not zero.
He's also at risk of assassination, whether by a state, an individual or a non-state affiliated group. There are a LOT of people who hate Putin. Thus my comment "suffer a fatal accident". Again, it may or may not be a serious risk, but I'm sure it's not zero.
As for Poland, from what I know, the Polish people have a deep and abiding enmity for Russia, for very good historical reasons. Many of the countries neighboring Russia have very good reasons to dislike Russia. Russia hasn't made itself very many friends, and Putin hasn't helped. If he leaves Russia, he's at risk.
-
As for Poland, from what I know, the Polish people have a deep and abiding enmity for Russia, for very good historical reasons. Many of the countries neighboring Russia have very good reasons to dislike Russia. Russia hasn't made itself very many friends, and Putin hasn't helped. If he leaves Russia, he's at risk.
Speaking from Sweden: Russia has been Swedens arch enemy for the past eight hundred years. Sweden have however not been important enough to remain Russias arch enemy lately... the last 200 years or so we've lost ground. :)
-
You are assuming that 1. the state will both openly and covertly comply with international law and 2. each resident of a state will both openly and covertly comply with international law. Those assumptions may or may not be accurate. And may I remind you that this entire war is illegal?
Putin is at risk of open arrest if he travels. That may or may not be a serious risk, I am not an expert on international law, but I have seen that a few countries have stated they would arrest him if he went there. So its not zero.
He's also at risk of assassination, whether by a state, an individual or a non-state affiliated group. There are a LOT of people who hate Putin. Thus my comment "suffer a fatal accident". Again, it may or may not be a serious risk, but I'm sure it's not zero.
As for Poland, from what I know, the Polish people have a deep and abiding enmity for Russia, for very good historical reasons. Many of the countries neighboring Russia have very good reasons to dislike Russia. Russia hasn't made itself very many friends, and Putin hasn't helped. If he leaves Russia, he's at risk.
Not assuming anything. Just questioning. Let me be clear that I am not a Putin sympathizer. I'm just trying to think this through.
My best guess is that if Putin has enough support at home, Russia would see the arrest of their head of state as an act of war. Russia is not a complete paper tiger, as if only a third of their nuclear arsenal is operable they are still a very lethal threat. If Russia declares war on a NATO nation, all the other NATO nations will join the fight. China may or may not actively participate, but they may see it as a good opportunity to seize Taiwan by force. Biden has explicitly said that the US will help defend Taiwan against such an attack. Things would get very ugly very quickly.
Also, if the EU likes to hold itself up as a shining example of the rule of law but member nation states openly flout established principles of international law, what does that say about them? I see good intentions but a lack of self-awareness.
For what it's worth, I would love to see Putin brought to justice for invading his neighbor on false pretenses. However, I think that if we truly hold principles such as rule of law to be dear, we need to be consistent in their application. Even when it's not convenient. Even when doing so is unpleasant. Otherwise we should ask ourselves just how dear these principles are to us. If we just want a certain outcome, we should be honest about it instead of hiding behind high ideals.
-
As for Poland, from what I know, the Polish people have a deep and abiding enmity for Russia, for very good historical reasons. Many of the countries neighboring Russia have very good reasons to dislike Russia. Russia hasn't made itself very many friends, and Putin hasn't helped. If he leaves Russia, he's at risk.
Speaking from Sweden: Russia has been Swedens arch enemy for the past eight hundred years. Sweden have however not been important enough to remain Russias arch enemy lately... the last 200 years or so we've lost ground. :)
Lost ground? I wonder. As an outsider, it seems you do pretty good. This magazine thinks so.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life)
Sweden is not blessed with oil money like Norway, yet they do good for their people. Russia is blessed with tremendous oil money yet their people live in poverty. I don't see Sweden invading their neighbors. And they make good chainsaws.
Besides, Sweden is in the EU. Isn't that a bit like gaining ground?
-
I don't see Sweden invading their neighbors.
We stopped doing that a couple of hundred years ago. We simply ran out of silver and copper in our mines that we used to pay the soldiers so we had to stop. That was our oil money back in the day.
-
I don't see Sweden invading their neighbors.
We stopped doing that a couple of hundred years ago. We simply ran out of silver and copper in our mines that we used to pay the soldiers so we had to stop. That was our oil money back in the day.
Interesting. Many, many civilizations have used the scarcity of a resource as justification for invading their neighbors.
-
I don't see Sweden invading their neighbors.
We stopped doing that a couple of hundred years ago. We simply ran out of silver and copper in our mines that we used to pay the soldiers so we had to stop. That was our oil money back in the day.
Interesting. Many, many civilizations have used the scarcity of a resource as justification for invading their neighbors.
Well, the explanation isn't fully true or complete... there are more factors... One important truth though is at that those two specific mines (Stora Kopparberget in Falun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Mine) and Sala Silver Mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sala_Silver_Mine)) was very very important for Swedens finances and was the way we financed our wars. If I remember correctly, there was times when that one copper mine produced 25-30% of all copper in the world.
At it's height, Sweden more or less encircled the whole Baltic sea and this included all the coast of what is now Russia near S:t Petersburg and Kaliningrad.
One of the stranger incidents in this war history is the Skirmish at Bender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmish_at_Bender) when the Swedish king had lost against the Russians (final battle in Poltava, which is now in Ukraine) so he took his army down south and finally ended up fighting the Turks instead and had a small standoff like the 300 Spartans from that one movie... but here it was 700 Swedish soldiers (and a king) against 10 000 Turks in the city of Bender, which is located in Moldova / Transnistria.
This has very little to do with the current war though. Other than that that king, Carolus Rex, is one of the western kings and leaders that have invaded Russia to give them their paranoia about being invaded from the west. European history is a bit messy.
-
Lost ground? I wonder. As an outsider, it seems you do pretty good. This magazine thinks so.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life)
Sweden is not blessed with oil money like Norway, yet they do good for their people. Russia is blessed with tremendous oil money yet their people live in poverty. I don't see Sweden invading their neighbors.
points to book in signature
Anyway, Selensky was in Charkiv. Bulgaria declared it doesn't send anything to Ukraine. Russia uses butterfly mines PFM-1 around electricity infrastructure, which are war crime.
-
It's truly Tanks for the Memories.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine (https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine)
Tanks from the forties and fifties are being sent into the fray by Russia. These things are older than a '57 Chevy.
I wonder if they have a boneyard of the famous T-34 tanks getting ready to go.
They can tell the young recruit that his great grandfather fought in this tank for the motherland and now he can too.
All of this while Europe decides to send Ukraine a million shells.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine)
Perhaps in a few months the Russian cavalry will be charging over the fields with the finest of steeds. It will be like a reproduction of historic battles. However, I doubt whether Putin will lead the charge.
-
It's truly Tanks for the Memories.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine (https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine)
Tanks from the forties and fifties are being sent into the fray by Russia. These things are older than a '57 Chevy.
I wonder if they have a boneyard of the famous T-34 tanks getting ready to go.
They can tell the young recruit that his great grandfather fought in this tank for the motherland and now he can too.
All of this while Europe decides to send Ukraine a million shells.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine)
Perhaps in a few months the Russian cavalry will be charging over the fields with the finest of steeds. It will be like a reproduction of historic battles. However, I doubt whether Putin will lead the charge.
It's interesting to think that years from now, people will be pulling scrap metal and reusing/recycling it from Ukraine. I wonder how much "new" steel will be recovered from this war. There's an immense of quantity of equipment, from Russia and elsewhere, that is being pulled out of storage.
-
It's truly Tanks for the Memories.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine (https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine)
Tanks from the forties and fifties are being sent into the fray by Russia. These things are older than a '57 Chevy.
I wonder if they have a boneyard of the famous T-34 tanks getting ready to go.
They can tell the young recruit that his great grandfather fought in this tank for the motherland and now he can too.
All of this while Europe decides to send Ukraine a million shells.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine)
Perhaps in a few months the Russian cavalry will be charging over the fields with the finest of steeds. It will be like a reproduction of historic battles. However, I doubt whether Putin will lead the charge.
It's interesting to think that years from now, people will be pulling scrap metal and reusing/recycling it from Ukraine. I wonder how much "new" steel will be recovered from this war. There's an immense of quantity of equipment, from Russia and elsewhere, that is being pulled out of storage.
Etsy is full of keychains and other metal stuff marked "Made in Russia, recycled in Ukraine" if you want a piece of it already now.
-
It's truly Tanks for the Memories.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine (https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine)
Tanks from the forties and fifties are being sent into the fray by Russia. These things are older than a '57 Chevy.
I wonder if they have a boneyard of the famous T-34 tanks getting ready to go.
They can tell the young recruit that his great grandfather fought in this tank for the motherland and now he can too.
All of this while Europe decides to send Ukraine a million shells.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine)
Perhaps in a few months the Russian cavalry will be charging over the fields with the finest of steeds. It will be like a reproduction of historic battles. However, I doubt whether Putin will lead the charge.
It's interesting to think that years from now, people will be pulling scrap metal and reusing/recycling it from Ukraine. I wonder how much "new" steel will be recovered from this war. There's an immense of quantity of equipment, from Russia and elsewhere, that is being pulled out of storage.
Etsy is full of keychains and other metal stuff marked "Made in Russia, recycled in Ukraine" if you want a piece of it already now.
Nah, I'd prefer they use it to make the steel beams they'll need for rebuilding.
-
It's truly Tanks for the Memories.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine (https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjq7q/russia-appears-to-be-deploying-75-year-old-tanks-to-ukraine)
Tanks from the forties and fifties are being sent into the fray by Russia. These things are older than a '57 Chevy.
I wonder if they have a boneyard of the famous T-34 tanks getting ready to go.
They can tell the young recruit that his great grandfather fought in this tank for the motherland and now he can too.
All of this while Europe decides to send Ukraine a million shells.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/eu-ministers-agree-to-send-1-million-artillery-shells-to-ukraine)
Perhaps in a few months the Russian cavalry will be charging over the fields with the finest of steeds. It will be like a reproduction of historic battles. However, I doubt whether Putin will lead the charge.
It's interesting to think that years from now, people will be pulling scrap metal and reusing/recycling it from Ukraine. I wonder how much "new" steel will be recovered from this war. There's an immense of quantity of equipment, from Russia and elsewhere, that is being pulled out of storage.
Etsy is full of keychains and other metal stuff marked "Made in Russia, recycled in Ukraine" if you want a piece of it already now.
Nah, I'd prefer they use it to make the steel beams they'll need for rebuilding.
Can't rebuild until Russia's out. And it doesn't look like Russia's going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
-
There is menace in this.
First time I´ve seen something that goes beyond complaining about conditions etc.
And I´m not talking about the talk, but about the demeanor and the look on their faces.
Wouldn´t take too much effort to teach them that they accidentally happen to be on the wrong side.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1639390679670374403
-
^^
The mobiks in the video above are indeed a different sort than we have seen before.
Apparently these are mobilized veterans, probably combat vets, and the Russian military is using blocking troops against them.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1639757260766191619
-
^^^^
In the video at 1:56, there is the following statement which identifies the video as a petition directed at the Commander-in-Chief: "We appeal to the Commander-in-Chief to help us in this difficult situation" which was delivered in an unemotional tone.
A direct petition to the Tsar is a traditional "right" and one may consider this as a formality as it appears in every single video airing grievances of any kind - just a Russian thing, whatever.
In this context and with this bunch it is a bit more difficult to dismiss it as that: these guys have been fired upon by troops under the command of the Russian MoD, now they have made their petition and they may yet get fired upon again - they have been betrayed and will be betrayed again.
Anyone who knows anything about the end of Tsarist rule in Russia can make the connection with January 22, 1905, the Bloody Sunday, when the Imperial Guards of Tsar Nicholas II fired upon unarmed petitioners on their way to the Winter Palace.
The events of that day caused major upheavals in Russian society and eventually led to the 1917 revolution and the imprisonment and eventual execution of Nicholas II and his family.
These guys know this and so do other Russians, in particular Vladimir Vladimirovich, amateur historian he is, knows all about it.
No surprise that this video is apparently much talked about in Russian channels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)
-
I came across this BBC report on Twitter. It's about six minutes long and gives some good on the ground footage from right on the front lines in Donetsk.
https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1639038915414728707
Here another one from Bakhmut, also about 6 minutes long.
https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1636601384941355008
This video is about 9 minutes long showing a failed Russian assault on a small section of trench near the Donetsk/Luhansk border. Pretty terrible tactics on the part of the Russian. They have 20+ people and they just slowly move through the open grass until they start getting hit with mortars - eventually killing or wounding most of them. It's far enough away that it's not that graphic, but clearly no one is surviving when a mortar explodes in the middle of a group of soldiers.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1639342501059260416
-
I came across this BBC report on Twitter. It's about six minutes long and gives some good on the ground footage from right on the front lines in Donetsk.
https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1639038915414728707
Here another one from Bakhmut, also about 6 minutes long.
https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1636601384941355008
This video is about 9 minutes long showing a failed Russian assault on a small section of trench near the Donetsk/Luhansk border. Pretty terrible tactics on the part of the Russian. They have 20+ people and they just slowly move through the open grass until they start getting hit with mortars - eventually killing or wounding most of them. It's far enough away that it's not that graphic, but clearly no one is surviving when a mortar explodes in the middle of a group of soldiers.
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1639342501059260416
I've been watching videos all week of entire Russian platoons getting mowed down over open fields by MGs, hit by artillery attempting to ford that little river in the middle of the city, or near Adviika getting grenades drone-dropped on them while they were sleeping in the open. It's been a mess for Russia the last couple weeks with armor losses visually just short of 2000 tanks. Russian forces are still taking some ground in Bakhmut, but its being measured by singular buildings now and no major attempts at extending the encirclement. There's rumors that regular Russian units are filling the line because Wagner is spent. In the south near Zap, drones are guiding artillery strikes on C2 vehicles, SAMs, and radars 10km behind the line.
-
https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1639348382819811328? (https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1639348382819811328?)
https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1638913309217898500?s=20 (https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1638913309217898500?s=20)
https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1639619088040198145?t=OqVf1AhhzO37d9V4LcadHQ&s=19 (https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1639619088040198145?t=OqVf1AhhzO37d9V4LcadHQ&s=19)
Analysis on Russian armored vehicle manufacturing.
TL:DR: they are extremely short on western-sourced components such as thermal imagers and night vision equipment for their gunsights. They can make do with home-grown solutions eventually, but the tech is 20 years behind and still needs to be ramped up in quantity. Nobody is quite sure what the purpose of the T-55s is yet, but sending a couple hundred obsolete vehicles to fill gaps to buy some time for this manufacturing bottleneck is a possibility.
-
https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1639348382819811328? (https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1639348382819811328?)
https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1638913309217898500?s=20 (https://twitter.com/pati_marins64/status/1638913309217898500?s=20)
https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1639619088040198145?t=OqVf1AhhzO37d9V4LcadHQ&s=19 (https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1639619088040198145?t=OqVf1AhhzO37d9V4LcadHQ&s=19)
Analysis on Russian armored vehicle manufacturing.
.. the purpose of the T-55s is yet, but sending a couple hundred obsolete vehicles to fill gaps to buy some time for this manufacturing bottleneck is a possibility.
purpose: Ukrainian target practice
-
I've been watching videos all week of entire Russian platoons getting mowed down over open fields by MGs, hit by artillery attempting to ford that little river in the middle of the city, or near Adviika getting grenades drone-dropped on them while they were sleeping in the open. It's been a mess for Russia the last couple weeks with armor losses visually just short of 2000 tanks. Russian forces are still taking some ground in Bakhmut, but its being measured by singular buildings now and no major attempts at extending the encirclement. There's rumors that regular Russian units are filling the line because Wagner is spent. In the south near Zap, drones are guiding artillery strikes on C2 vehicles, SAMs, and radars 10km behind the line.
While yes, there is a large amount of material showing the Russians getting destroyed - we should not underestimate them. Not just "quantity has a quality all its own". English speaking media is likely to bias toward showing things favorable to Ukraine, and due to their much greater use of drones with cameras, there's just a lot more Ukrainian success caught on video and shared by Ukraine.
Now, regarding those T-54/55s:
purpose: Ukrainian target practice
Hard disagree. Sure, you absolutely wouldn't want to be in a T-55 in a tank-on-tank firefight with a more modern tank. However, that's a relatively rare scenario. The T-55 is going to be able to shrug off infantry small arms fire, grenades, etc as well as a lot (if not all) of what an older IFV or APC can do. Sure, it's vulnerable to ATGMs like Javelin or TOW, but so are the more modern Russian tanks. T-55 is going to be quite good at the other things tanks are called on to do, like shooting buildings being used as cover/concealment for enemy infantry, indirect fire support and such.
One major advantage of the T-55 is that it uses completely different ammo compared to more modern tanks (100mm rifled). Ammo shortages have been a real problem and T-55 won't be competing with any other Russian tanks for ammo. Ammo was still in development into the 1980s when a APFSDS tungsten carbide penetrator was introduced.
Another advantage is it's less likely to blow up/pop the turret if there is a penetration - something like a T-64 has powder in cardboard tubes. T-55 has it in a brass casing because it's a one-piece shell. The crew at least has a chance of getting out before it blows.
Oh, and Ukraine is using T-55 as well. I ended up doing a bit deeper of a dive on these than I originally intended, so here it is:
Slovenia donated 28 T-55S to Ukraine. Admittedly these are noticeably better than the versions of T54/55 Russia is pulling out of storage. It's a pretty thorough modernization (for the '80s-'90s anyway.) The "S" upgrades included a main gun upgrade (L7 105mm, produced by Britain) which is controlled by new digital ballistic computer driving new stabilized fire control system. With modern ammunition, it can can penetrate a T-72 - plus we have laser detection for smoke grenades, added ERA bricks and an upgraded engine. Modern ammunition is relatively plentiful with multiple active manufacturers. T-55S also has some optics upgrades, with both the gunner and commander having day/night sights (probably no thermal imaging, but that's unclear as Slovenia offered thermal imager upgrades when they were trying to sell them off in 2016) and a laser rangefinder for the gunner. Only the gunner can fire a Russian T-55, in T-55S either gunner or commander can aim and fire.
-
I've been watching videos all week of entire Russian platoons getting mowed down over open fields by MGs, hit by artillery attempting to ford that little river in the middle of the city, or near Adviika getting grenades drone-dropped on them while they were sleeping in the open. It's been a mess for Russia the last couple weeks with armor losses visually just short of 2000 tanks. Russian forces are still taking some ground in Bakhmut, but its being measured by singular buildings now and no major attempts at extending the encirclement. There's rumors that regular Russian units are filling the line because Wagner is spent. In the south near Zap, drones are guiding artillery strikes on C2 vehicles, SAMs, and radars 10km behind the line.
While yes, there is a large amount of material showing the Russians getting destroyed - we should not underestimate them. Not just "quantity has a quality all its own". English speaking media is likely to bias toward showing things favorable to Ukraine, and due to their much greater use of drones with cameras, there's just a lot more Ukrainian success caught on video and shared by Ukraine.
Now, regarding those T-54/55s:
purpose: Ukrainian target practice
Hard disagree. Sure, you absolutely wouldn't want to be in a T-55 in a tank-on-tank firefight with a more modern tank. However, that's a relatively rare scenario. The T-55 is going to be able to shrug off infantry small arms fire, grenades, etc as well as a lot (if not all) of what an older IFV or APC can do. Sure, it's vulnerable to ATGMs like Javelin or TOW, but so are the more modern Russian tanks. T-55 is going to be quite good at the other things tanks are called on to do, like shooting buildings being used as cover/concealment for enemy infantry, indirect fire support and such.
One major advantage of the T-55 is that it uses completely different ammo compared to more modern tanks (100mm rifled). Ammo shortages have been a real problem and T-55 won't be competing with any other Russian tanks for ammo. Ammo was still in development into the 1980s when a APFSDS tungsten carbide penetrator was introduced.
Another advantage is it's less likely to blow up/pop the turret if there is a penetration - something like a T-64 has powder in cardboard tubes. T-55 has it in a brass casing because it's a one-piece shell. The crew at least has a chance of getting out before it blows.
Oh, and Ukraine is using T-55 as well. I ended up doing a bit deeper of a dive on these than I originally intended, so here it is:
Slovenia donated 28 T-55S to Ukraine. Admittedly these are noticeably better than the versions of T54/55 Russia is pulling out of storage. It's a pretty thorough modernization (for the '80s-'90s anyway.) The "S" upgrades included a main gun upgrade (L7 105mm, produced by Britain) which is controlled by new digital ballistic computer driving new stabilized fire control system. With modern ammunition, it can can penetrate a T-72 - plus we have laser detection for smoke grenades, added ERA bricks and an upgraded engine. Modern ammunition is relatively plentiful with multiple active manufacturers. T-55S also has some optics upgrades, with both the gunner and commander having day/night sights (probably no thermal imaging, but that's unclear as Slovenia offered thermal imager upgrades when they were trying to sell them off in 2016) and a laser rangefinder for the gunner. Only the gunner can fire a Russian T-55, in T-55S either gunner or commander can aim and fire.
Yeh Well - Ukraine is using 100 year old machine guns. Did you ever wonder what happened to those WW1 guns?
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/ukraine-maxim-machine-gun-russia/ (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/ukraine-maxim-machine-gun-russia/)
The Maxim was used in the Boer war.
-
For fixed defense (or mounted on a vehicle) the Maxim/Vickers/etc are still an excellent machine gun. Water cooled and overbuilt compared to modern guns - you can just keep firing and firing and firing - just top off the water as needed (urine works in a pinch, just don't use that one to make tea). Modern machine guns just can't keep up with it for extended firing. The main drawback is that the Maxim is heavy to be reasonably hauled by hand for any real distance, of course.
But "throwing lots of lead downrange" is a far cry from the complexity of systems on a modern (or semi-modern) tank.
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
It's basically a done deal at this point. Just a couple of formalities. Russia just got an additional 800+ miles of border now butting up against NATO!
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
It's basically a done deal at this point. Just a couple of formalities. Russia just got an additional 800+ miles of border now butting up against NATO!
It gives the old joke about how close the aggressive Russia put it's borders to our bases even more oomph!
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
It's basically a done deal at this point. Just a couple of formalities. Russia just got an additional 800+ miles of border now butting up against NATO!
It gives the old joke about how close the aggressive Russia put it's borders to our bases even more oomph!
I don’t get it…
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
It's basically a done deal at this point. Just a couple of formalities. Russia just got an additional 800+ miles of border now butting up against NATO!
It gives the old joke about how close the aggressive Russia put it's borders to our bases even more oomph!
I don’t get it…
Pictures like these
https://8hertzwitness.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/russia-wants-war-look-how-close-they-put-their-country-to-our-military-bases.jpg?w=600
Of course a lot of those bases do not exist or are not NATO or whatever.
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
It's basically a done deal at this point. Just a couple of formalities. Russia just got an additional 800+ miles of border now butting up against NATO!
It gives the old joke about how close the aggressive Russia put it's borders to our bases even more oomph!
I don’t get it…
Pictures like these
https://8hertzwitness.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/russia-wants-war-look-how-close-they-put-their-country-to-our-military-bases.jpg?w=600
Of course a lot of those bases do not exist or are not NATO or whatever.
I'm guessing in a couple years there will be one of those Base symbols on Finland.
-
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3350958/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/ (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3350958/biden-administration-announces-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/)
Latest US package of support to Ukraine. Highlights:
Eight heavy fuel tankers and 105 fuel trailers
Armored bridging systems
Trucks to transport heavy equipment
TOW missiles
Tank ammo
Bradley ammo
61 additional heavy fuel tankers
10 trucks and trailer to transport heavy equipment
Some of the items look like duplicates because of they're coming from different funding sources.
Aside from the usual shipments of ammunition, missiles, and shells, this shipment is very heavy on tank and Bradley support. Rumors are rife on the Russian side of social media concerned that a Ukrainian counteroffensive is imminent. The attack can go in at least four distinct directions all with their own merits.
-
Finland is another step closer to joining NATO. I'm sure Putin is thrilled. Hopefully the rest of the process goes smoothly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/turkish-parliament-approves-finlands-nato-accession-2023-03-30/
It's basically a done deal at this point. Just a couple of formalities. Russia just got an additional 800+ miles of border now butting up against NATO!
It gives the old joke about how close the aggressive Russia put it's borders to our bases even more oomph!
I don’t get it…
Pictures like these
https://8hertzwitness.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/russia-wants-war-look-how-close-they-put-their-country-to-our-military-bases.jpg?w=600
Of course a lot of those bases do not exist or are not NATO or whatever.
maybe it’s a lost in translation thing
-
https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1643445349762187269/photo/2 (https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1643445349762187269/photo/2)
Russian occupation officials denied #Ukrainian reports that they are preparing plans to evacuate from occupied [southern] regions of #Ukraine. #Russian occupation authorities rarely respond to #Ukrainian claims about evacuations. Russian occupation officials’ denial of civilian evacuations far from the frontline could suggest doubt in Russian forces’ ability to hold occupied territory.
Rumors abound that Russia is a little tense about possibly losing Crimea over this. I would not be surprised if Kremlin at some point abandons Kherson Oblast to re-enforce Crimea and make it look impenetrable.
At some point Putin will have to give up the idea of a land bridge and go back to attempting to maintain 2014 borders.
-
...meanwhile, reports show Russia has built an astonishingly large number of defense trenches throughout Crimea in just the past week.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0u_ir2JL-AhUhkokEHcW7AuoQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Finteractive%2F2023%2Fukraine-russia-crimea-battle-trenches%2F&usg=AOvVaw05Zu1GtdlnM3XdEAYm0eeJ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0u_ir2JL-AhUhkokEHcW7AuoQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Finteractive%2F2023%2Fukraine-russia-crimea-battle-trenches%2F&usg=AOvVaw05Zu1GtdlnM3XdEAYm0eeJ)
-
Pictures like these
https://8hertzwitness.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/russia-wants-war-look-how-close-they-put-their-country-to-our-military-bases.jpg?w=600
Of course a lot of those bases do not exist or are not NATO or whatever.
maybe it’s a lost in translation thing
It's a joke (or maybe Russian propaganda, but still funny) on the US hawks saying "Look how Russia is a thread to us, they are so aggressive" when Russia has Western bases all around it and is the threatened one.
Or in other words: It's like the US warning about Russian militarism while being the most militaristic country on earth by far. (Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
-
(Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
This was officially policy during the cold war. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Since the George W. Bush era several decades ago we've dialed back the official target for our armed forces: Be able to win one war while holding a stalemate in a second war. And even there, that's contemplating countries on the scale of (the former) Iraq or North Korea. Not Chinese or Russian sized militaries.
-
(Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
This was officially policy during the cold war. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Since the George W. Bush era several decades ago we've dialed back the official target for our armed forces: Be able to win one war while holding a stalemate in a second war. And even there, that's contemplating countries on the scale of (the former) Iraq or North Korea. Not Chinese or Russian sized militaries.
So why then do you still hold an army capable of beating number 1 and 2 combined? Just look at aircraft carriers, 40% in the whole world belong to the US.
And the last US-Iraq war was famous for the low losses of US material and soldiers. The US could beat 10 of those.
-----
If I had to guess at least at the moment Ukraine does not intend to invade Crimea, but of course they happily accept every bit of work Russia is wasting there.
Once they got the rest of the country back, Crimea is isolated and a lot easier to break open than now. Not to mention that at this point there may be a Russian leader capable of accepting giving it back, whoever that may be. Unlikely but not impossible.
-
...meanwhile, reports show Russia has built an astonishingly large number of defense trenches throughout Crimea in just the past week.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0u_ir2JL-AhUhkokEHcW7AuoQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Finteractive%2F2023%2Fukraine-russia-crimea-battle-trenches%2F&usg=AOvVaw05Zu1GtdlnM3XdEAYm0eeJ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0u_ir2JL-AhUhkokEHcW7AuoQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Finteractive%2F2023%2Fukraine-russia-crimea-battle-trenches%2F&usg=AOvVaw05Zu1GtdlnM3XdEAYm0eeJ)
If/when Ukraine cuts the land bridge, Crimea is toast. The Russians' only resupply routes will be 1) the Kerch strait, and 2) by ship either from the Sea of Azov or from Novorossisk. Once Ukraine gets to the 2021 border with Crimea, the Kerch Strait bridge is vulnerable. Resupply by sea is hard in the best of conditions, and the Sea of Azov is definitely within anti-ship missile range. That leaves the Black Sea.
-
(Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
This was officially policy during the cold war. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Since the George W. Bush era several decades ago we've dialed back the official target for our armed forces: Be able to win one war while holding a stalemate in a second war. And even there, that's contemplating countries on the scale of (the former) Iraq or North Korea. Not Chinese or Russian sized militaries.
So why then do you still hold an army capable of beating number 1 and 2 combined? Just look at aircraft carriers, 40% in the whole world belong to the US.
And the last US-Iraq war was famous for the low losses of US material and soldiers. The US could beat 10 of those.
I'm assuming when you say #1 above you mean China? It's not clear we could win a conventional (e.g. non-nuclear) war against China alone, let alone China and whoever you see in the #2 spot militarily. And obviously no one wins if a way escalates to the exchange of large numbers of nuclear weapons.
In my adult life the forecasts of what happens if-and-when China decides to invade Taiwan by force have shifted from "The US stops them." to "A long and bloody stalemate." to "Would we lose in a week or only a few days?" Now these are the same forecasters who said Ukraine would fall to Russia in days or weeks, so perhaps they are wrong. On the other hand a lot of the weapons the USA promised to our allies in Taiwan have been delayed or diverted to support the Ukrainians so perhaps the situation vis-a-vis China is worse than the forecasters predicted a couple of years ago.
But putting aside what would actually happen in such a way, what I can state definitively is that what you are calling current US military doctrine was indeed doctrine during the cold war, but has not been for decades as we have scaled back investment in our military. Time series US military spending data in a graph below the spoiler tag.
(https://media.defense.gov/2019/Mar/12/2002099941/-1/-1/0/190312-D-ZZ999-001.JPG)
-
(Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
This was officially policy during the cold war. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Since the George W. Bush era several decades ago we've dialed back the official target for our armed forces: Be able to win one war while holding a stalemate in a second war. And even there, that's contemplating countries on the scale of (the former) Iraq or North Korea. Not Chinese or Russian sized militaries.
So why then do you still hold an army capable of beating number 1 and 2 combined? Just look at aircraft carriers, 40% in the whole world belong to the US.
And the last US-Iraq war was famous for the low losses of US material and soldiers. The US could beat 10 of those.
The US military is largely a social program disguised as a military. It plays a pretty large/important role in lifting people out of poverty and giving them opportunities that wouldnt otherwise be available to them. Whether it's an efficient use of money is a different, but dialing back the size of the military without adding similar social opportunities isn't really feasible.
-
(Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
This was officially policy during the cold war. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Since the George W. Bush era several decades ago we've dialed back the official target for our armed forces: Be able to win one war while holding a stalemate in a second war. And even there, that's contemplating countries on the scale of (the former) Iraq or North Korea. Not Chinese or Russian sized militaries.
So why then do you still hold an army capable of beating number 1 and 2 combined? Just look at aircraft carriers, 40% in the whole world belong to the US.
And the last US-Iraq war was famous for the low losses of US material and soldiers. The US could beat 10 of those.
-----
If I had to guess at least at the moment Ukraine does not intend to invade Crimea, but of course they happily accept every bit of work Russia is wasting there.
Once they got the rest of the country back, Crimea is isolated and a lot easier to break open than now. Not to mention that at this point there may be a Russian leader capable of accepting giving it back, whoever that may be. Unlikely but not impossible.
Good point! I guess if the military thing was cut back, Europe would pick up the slack in helping Ukraine, etc. The German war machine could crank out dozens of Leopard tanks, etc. It has been said many times that German engineers are the best in the world. I'd like to see the US have the Socialized health care thing, high speed trains and a lot of other stuff. If that money was freed from the military, maybe the US could have its own "Belt and Road" initiative and help build needed infrastructure around the world.
-
(Remember it's US doctrine to be always able to win against number 2 and 3 combined.)
This was officially policy during the cold war. It is no longer the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Since the George W. Bush era several decades ago we've dialed back the official target for our armed forces: Be able to win one war while holding a stalemate in a second war. And even there, that's contemplating countries on the scale of (the former) Iraq or North Korea. Not Chinese or Russian sized militaries.
So why then do you still hold an army capable of beating number 1 and 2 combined? Just look at aircraft carriers, 40% in the whole world belong to the US.
And the last US-Iraq war was famous for the low losses of US material and soldiers. The US could beat 10 of those.
The US military is largely a social program disguised as a military. It plays a pretty large/important role in lifting people out of poverty and giving them opportunities that wouldnt otherwise be available to them. Whether it's an efficient use of money is a different, but dialing back the size of the military without adding similar social opportunities isn't really feasible.
It is more of a federal jobs program than social program. Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, Marines (and now Guardians) make up about 1.3 million but there are even more civilians and full-time contractors. Then if you add in all the indirect jobs (i.e. the entire military-industrial complex) it's easily hundreds of thousands if not millions more.
Here's an excerpt from a 2018 GAO report so the numbers have probably changed a bit since then.
The Department of Defense (DOD) is one of the largest employers in the federal government with approximately 1.4 million active-duty servicemembers, 813,000 reserve component servicemembers, 762,000 federal civilian full-time equivalent employees,1 and approximately 561,000 contractor full-time equivalent personnel.
It does provide opportunities for some poor people by enlisting but that's a fairly small segment of the force. Right off the bat 75-80% of young people are ineligible due to health, fitness, criminal record, lack of education/low test scores, etc.
-
I'm assuming when you say #1 above you mean China? It's not clear we could win a conventional (e.g. non-nuclear) war against China alone, let alone China and whoever you see in the #2 spot militarily. And obviously no one wins if a way escalates to the exchange of large numbers of nuclear weapons.
I don't think anyone could win a conventional war against China, the US, Russia or almost anyone on their own soil. The US couldn't even 'win' a war in Iraq or Afghanistan despite massive expense. 'Conquering' Russia or China would involve massive occupation forces and a lot of brutality, and still be 100% certain to fail. Nobody has successfully conquered either place since the Mongols.
Modern weapon and communications technology means it is almost impossible to occupy somewhere unless you are willing to be utterly monstrously brutal - and even then you will probably fail (the Nazis never pacified Ukraine successfully either, and they were industrially monstrous).
The same rules apply if China or Russia try to invade anywhere. The US couldn't beat them by conquering their countries, but they could certainly 'beat' them by preventing them from succeeding in their invasion. We are watching an example of this every day.
-
...meanwhile, reports show Russia has built an astonishingly large number of defense trenches throughout Crimea in just the past week.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0u_ir2JL-AhUhkokEHcW7AuoQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Finteractive%2F2023%2Fukraine-russia-crimea-battle-trenches%2F&usg=AOvVaw05Zu1GtdlnM3XdEAYm0eeJ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0u_ir2JL-AhUhkokEHcW7AuoQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Finteractive%2F2023%2Fukraine-russia-crimea-battle-trenches%2F&usg=AOvVaw05Zu1GtdlnM3XdEAYm0eeJ)
Digging massive lines of beach trenches to defend against an enemy with effectively no Navy or ability to perform a meaningful amphibious landing is pretty damn special, even for Russia. I guess someone is buying dachas with the proceeds....
-
Good point! I guess if the military thing was cut back, Europe would pick up the slack in helping Ukraine, etc. The German war machine could crank out dozens of Leopard tanks, etc.
Europe is not slacking. It's just paying in different things than just tanks which they don't have (and no, tripling the production rate is not something you can do at a moments notice). Like housing refugees, 10% of income more into energy costs...
edit: I just stumbled upon a counting that the Netherlands people (not the government etc.) have donated 10,57€ per head for Ukraine help to a group of organizations. So that's not even everything.
To compare, for the US that would be more than 3,5 billion dollar in private donations. Who is slacking? ;)
-
Good point! I guess if the military thing was cut back, Europe would pick up the slack in helping Ukraine, etc. The German war machine could crank out dozens of Leopard tanks, etc.
Europe is not slacking. It's just paying in different things than just tanks which they don't have (and no, tripling the production rate is not something you can do at a moments notice). Like housing refugees, 10% of income more into energy costs...
edit: I just stumbled upon a counting that the Netherlands people (not the government etc.) have donated 10,57€ per head for Ukraine help to a group of organizations. So that's not even everything.
To compare, for the US that would be more than 3,5 billion dollar in private donations. Who is slacking? ;)
You are right. Europeans aren't slackers. I know. it takes one to know one. I look at what Estonia has done and just say, "Wow!" With all the aid that Ukraine receives from the world, there have to be days where Putin says a lot more than "oops."
Every day I see a video where some country, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, etc is donating armaments to Ukraine. It is a united effort. The humanitarian efforts don't receive nearly the press that the donations for death receive.
What's today's count?
Reported losses of Russian soldiers in the "Special Military Operation" are 176,630.
Reported wounded of Russian soldiers in the "Special Military Operation" are 529,890.
You would think Putin would be looking for some sort of diplomatic end to this.
-
I’m t would be nice if Putin would “declare victory and go home”.
Maybe: “there is no longer a threat of Nazis in Ukraine!”
Doubt it will happen though.
-
What's today's count?
Reported losses of Russian soldiers in the "Special Military Operation" are 176,630.
Reported wounded of Russian soldiers in the "Special Military Operation" are 529,890.
You would think Putin would be looking for some sort of diplomatic end to this.
I'm pretty skeptical of those numbers, they seem to be mostly propaganda. The last I saw, the US and UK estimate about 200,000 total Russian causalities (killed and wounded). Which is still a very large number, but it is mostly poor people from ethnic minorities. Putin doesn't care about those people.
-
What's today's count?
Reported losses of Russian soldiers in the "Special Military Operation" are 176,630.
Reported wounded of Russian soldiers in the "Special Military Operation" are 529,890.
You would think Putin would be looking for some sort of diplomatic end to this.
I'm pretty skeptical of those numbers, they seem to be mostly propaganda. The last I saw, the US and UK estimate about 200,000 total Russian causalities (killed and wounded). Which is still a very large number, but it is mostly poor people from ethnic minorities. Putin doesn't care about those people.
The numbers are reported by the Ukrainians. They are the people doing the actual fighting and dying.
https://www.minusrus.com/en (https://www.minusrus.com/en)
Their other numbers such as tanks, etc have been verified by independent sources so I think the body count may be accurate too You've got to hand it too the Russian propagandists. They've been able to keep the atrocities and the enormous deaths from being know within the Russian population. I guess they learned a thing or two back in Stalin's day when he killed millions.
-
Sooner or later I would expect that people will notice when their sons, husbands, father or friend just doesn’t come back from the “special military exercises”.
Are there any significant number of women fighting on the Russian side? I can’t say I’ve heard anything about female Russian soldiers
-
I can’t say I’ve heard anything about female Russian soldiers
Russian women stay in the rear doing admin work. They constitute 1% of the Russian military and are barred from most specialties. One Russian female soldier is known to have been killed in Ukraine back in July.
-
I can’t say I’ve heard anything about female Russian soldiers
Russian women stay in the rear doing admin work. They constitute 1% of the Russian military and are barred from most specialties. One Russian female soldier is known to have been killed in Ukraine back in July.
It's bad enough to be a male in the Russian military, even if you are one of those shooting at your guys if they retreat instead of those forced to attack or be shot by "comrades". But you certainly don't want to be a women in the Russian army!
-
The numbers are reported by the Ukrainians. They are the people doing the actual fighting and dying.
https://www.minusrus.com/en (https://www.minusrus.com/en)
Their other numbers such as tanks, etc have been verified by independent sources so I think the body count may be accurate too You've got to hand it too the Russian propagandists. They've been able to keep the atrocities and the enormous deaths from being know within the Russian population. I guess they learned a thing or two back in Stalin's day when he killed millions.
In the Battle of Britain, RAF pilots claimed to have shot down about three times more Luftwaffe planes than were actually lost. High command knew this from Ultra intercepts and simply counting crashes but the claims were allowed to stand for propaganda and morale purposes. Luftwaffe pilots also overclaimed their victories by a similar amount. This is a very common phenomenon with a number of good explanations.
Oryx independently verifies equipment losses on both sides. They estimate Russia has lost 1924 tanks to all causes, verses the official count of 3631--almost double. Similarly, there are 81 confirmed Russian helicopter losses vs. 292 claimed.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
-
Orxy numbers are those confirmed by photo or video. It is not suprising that the actual number is higher.
From what I found the Ukrainian numbers are surprisingly correct. Propbably optimistic, but very likely close to actual losses.
That is wa far cry from the Russians who, according to their numbers, have already shot down more planes the Ukraine ever had and killed about every tank they ever had too. Oh, and killed about 3/4 of all mobilized soldiers.
-
From what I found the Ukrainian numbers are surprisingly correct. Propbably optimistic, but very likely close to actual losses.
How are you verifying the Ukrainian numbers?
-
From what I found the Ukrainian numbers are surprisingly correct. Propbably optimistic, but very likely close to actual losses.
How are you verifying the Ukrainian numbers?
For example with the Oryx ones, which are the best proof you can find. And then there are other countrie's estimates.
So far Ukraine has been very constant in their ratio to the Oryx numbers (if you keep in mind the actual action - it's more likely to get photos from tank wrecks of the failed storm on Kyiv for example) and to the numbers of other countries.
So either they have been lying (a bit) based on Oryx and getting nearly everyone in The West (including retired military personal) to go with them, or they are actually providing their real best estimates.
-
From what I found the Ukrainian numbers are surprisingly correct. Propbably optimistic, but very likely close to actual losses.
How are you verifying the Ukrainian numbers?
For example with the Oryx ones, which are the best proof you can find. And then there are other countrie's estimates.
So far Ukraine has been very constant in their ratio to the Oryx numbers (if you keep in mind the actual action - it's more likely to get photos from tank wrecks of the failed storm on Kyiv for example) and to the numbers of other countries.
So either they have been lying (a bit) based on Oryx and getting nearly everyone in The West (including retired military personal) to go with them, or they are actually providing their real best estimates.
I'm sure there is more equipment destroyed than Oryx has recorded, but with the huge number of photos and videos coming out there is no way it's anywhere close to what Ukraine is claiming (i.e. 2-3x). Maybe it's additional 20-30%, but not double.
-
Well, if you think there are a bunch of Ukranians 20km in Russian territory that have nothing better to do than take pictures of destroyed tanks, that is your right.
We will likely never know, and certainly not during the war. But "only" a factor of 2 would actually be a surprise to many military people.
-
Well, if you think there are a bunch of Ukranians 20km in Russian territory that have nothing better to do than take pictures of destroyed tanks, that is your right.
We will likely never know, and certainly not during the war. But "only" a factor of 2 would actually be a surprise to many military people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/us/politics/ukraine-russia-casualties.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/us/politics/ukraine-russia-casualties.html)
From the article: Senior U.S. officials said this week that they believe the number for Russia is closer to 200,000. That toll, in just 11 months, is eight times higher than American casualties in two decades of war in Afghanistan.
Ukraine puts the number of Russian dead up to today as 177,110.
Dead men tell no tales.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc&ab_channel=CovertCabal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc&ab_channel=CovertCabal)
Covert Cabal did a six month update on his analysis of Russian tanks in storage. TL:DW - last year he thought Russia's alleged 10k tanks in storage was more like 6k with half being restorable. He now thinks it is closer to 2k left that can be restored (with acknowledged margins of error). I've read Russian-speaking sources come up with a similar prediction recently.
There's a story going around this week that classified NATO reports were leaked about Ukraine to include examples of the documents. It's your choice to look for them, but I won't link them here.
Putting on my DoD Security Manager hat - if you're a US government employee or a security clearance holder - downloading or reposting classified information that has found its way to the public domain is still mishandling classified information.
-
More details on the (apparent) leak:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168581824/the-pentagon-is-investigating-leaks-of-top-secret-documents-on-the-war-in-ukrain
-
I'm assuming when you say #1 above you mean China? It's not clear we could win a conventional (e.g. non-nuclear) war against China alone, let alone China and whoever you see in the #2 spot militarily. And obviously no one wins if a way escalates to the exchange of large numbers of nuclear weapons.
I don't think anyone could win a conventional war against China, the US, Russia or almost anyone on their own soil. The US couldn't even 'win' a war in Iraq or Afghanistan despite massive expense. 'Conquering' Russia or China would involve massive occupation forces and a lot of brutality, and still be 100% certain to fail. Nobody has successfully conquered either place since the Mongols.
Modern weapon and communications technology means it is almost impossible to occupy somewhere unless you are willing to be utterly monstrously brutal - and even then you will probably fail (the Nazis never pacified Ukraine successfully either, and they were industrially monstrous).
The same rules apply if China or Russia try to invade anywhere. The US couldn't beat them by conquering their countries, but they could certainly 'beat' them by preventing them from succeeding in their invasion. We are watching an example of this every day.
The USA could absolutely win a conventional war against any of those countries.
The problem is no war nowadays can really be a conventional war. This goes for all countries.
The numbers are reported by the Ukrainians. They are the people doing the actual fighting and dying.
https://www.minusrus.com/en (https://www.minusrus.com/en)
Their other numbers such as tanks, etc have been verified by independent sources so I think the body count may be accurate too You've got to hand it too the Russian propagandists. They've been able to keep the atrocities and the enormous deaths from being know within the Russian population. I guess they learned a thing or two back in Stalin's day when he killed millions.
In the Battle of Britain, RAF pilots claimed to have shot down about three times more Luftwaffe planes than were actually lost. High command knew this from Ultra intercepts and simply counting crashes but the claims were allowed to stand for propaganda and morale purposes. Luftwaffe pilots also overclaimed their victories by a similar amount. This is a very common phenomenon with a number of good explanations.
Oryx independently verifies equipment losses on both sides. They estimate Russia has lost 1924 tanks to all causes, verses the official count of 3631--almost double. Similarly, there are 81 confirmed Russian helicopter losses vs. 292 claimed.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
It's worth pointing out how much easier this is for Ukraine to verify in most cases (as well as Russia, in theory) due to the increases in technology than it was in 1940.
I suspect Ukraine has immensely precise intelligence data surrounding the war so far, particularly for larger items like tanks/helicopters/planes/etc. My guess is quite a few US DoD folks spend a lot of time pouring over intel to do this, too.
Whether or not this is accurately reflected in the published stats is anyone's guess, though. There's propaganda reasons for everyone in this war, too.
-
I'm assuming when you say #1 above you mean China? It's not clear we could win a conventional (e.g. non-nuclear) war against China alone, let alone China and whoever you see in the #2 spot militarily. And obviously no one wins if a way escalates to the exchange of large numbers of nuclear weapons.
I don't think anyone could win a conventional war against China, the US, Russia or almost anyone on their own soil. The US couldn't even 'win' a war in Iraq or Afghanistan despite massive expense. 'Conquering' Russia or China would involve massive occupation forces and a lot of brutality, and still be 100% certain to fail. Nobody has successfully conquered either place since the Mongols.
Modern weapon and communications technology means it is almost impossible to occupy somewhere unless you are willing to be utterly monstrously brutal - and even then you will probably fail (the Nazis never pacified Ukraine successfully either, and they were industrially monstrous).
The same rules apply if China or Russia try to invade anywhere. The US couldn't beat them by conquering their countries, but they could certainly 'beat' them by preventing them from succeeding in their invasion. We are watching an example of this every day.
The USA could absolutely win a conventional war against any of those countries.
The problem is no war nowadays can really be a conventional war. This goes for all countries.
The numbers are reported by the Ukrainians. They are the people doing the actual fighting and dying.
https://www.minusrus.com/en (https://www.minusrus.com/en)
Their other numbers such as tanks, etc have been verified by independent sources so I think the body count may be accurate too You've got to hand it too the Russian propagandists. They've been able to keep the atrocities and the enormous deaths from being know within the Russian population. I guess they learned a thing or two back in Stalin's day when he killed millions.
In the Battle of Britain, RAF pilots claimed to have shot down about three times more Luftwaffe planes than were actually lost. High command knew this from Ultra intercepts and simply counting crashes but the claims were allowed to stand for propaganda and morale purposes. Luftwaffe pilots also overclaimed their victories by a similar amount. This is a very common phenomenon with a number of good explanations.
Oryx independently verifies equipment losses on both sides. They estimate Russia has lost 1924 tanks to all causes, verses the official count of 3631--almost double. Similarly, there are 81 confirmed Russian helicopter losses vs. 292 claimed.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
It's worth pointing out how much easier this is for Ukraine to verify in most cases (as well as Russia, in theory) due to the increases in technology than it was in 1940.
I suspect Ukraine has immensely precise intelligence data surrounding the war so far, particularly for larger items like tanks/helicopters/planes/etc. My guess is quite a few US DoD folks spend a lot of time pouring over intel to do this, too.
Whether or not this is accurately reflected in the published stats is anyone's guess, though. There's propaganda reasons for everyone in this war, too.
This Danish guy goes over the numbers quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mTWexL8bs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mTWexL8bs)
This is just an example of my weird thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plsrmXJFuLk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plsrmXJFuLk)
Like any war the guys in charge are sending young men to die. In 20 years much of it will be forgotten.
-
More details on the (apparent) leak:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168581824/the-pentagon-is-investigating-leaks-of-top-secret-documents-on-the-war-in-ukrain
So . . . if I'm reading this right, it sounds like it's not really a document leak per se. The documents were altered from the originals in order to present Russia in a much better light, so it sounds a lot more like espionage/misinformation?
-
More details on the (apparent) leak:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168581824/the-pentagon-is-investigating-leaks-of-top-secret-documents-on-the-war-in-ukrain
So . . . if I'm reading this right, it sounds like it's not really a document leak per se. The documents were altered from the originals in order to present Russia in a much better light, so it sounds a lot more like espionage/misinformation?
Well, not exactly. The actual "leak" apparently happened months ago, and may be genuine.
The most recent version from Russian sources is taking the documents originally leaked months ago and doing a rather bad/obvious job of changing numbers on them for rather obvious propaganda purposes.
-
Putting on my DoD Security Manager hat - if you're a US government employee or a security clearance holder - downloading or reposting classified information that has found its way to the public domain is still mishandling classified information.
Thanks for the reminder!
When I read the news, I do try and also look at the source material as much as possible. I'll break that habit in this instance.
-
So the leaker was arrested by the FBI this week. A junior Airman with the National Guard who provided network support to an intelligence center. From what I've gathered in various sources:
-He printed off and took home up to 300 pages of documents that covered a wide range of operations, not just Ukraine
-He posted them to a Discord he was in where the primary discussions were video games and racism
-His motivation so far appears to have been seeking street cred or validation from the mostly teenage population he was communicating with
-He was uncovered by a combination of: teenage Discord member getting discovered, interviewed, and flipped on him; signing up for the Discord with his real email address and credit card; and cross referencing with his other social media accounts which matched his name and the interior of his home that was visible in some of the leaked photos
-He faces up to 10 years in federal prison per document under the Espionage Act
-How exactly he knew where to find these documents and nobody saw him printing them off and walking out the door on multiple occasions is the DoD's next problem. He would have had access as a system administrator and if the files were in a Sharepoint that was well known he could just download them if the owner didn't bother to lock them down. The nature of many of the documents suggest they were daily reports read by thousands. Or he could have been looking over the shoulder of whoever was supposed to be reading them and taking notes for later. His chain of command and security managers are going to have a lot of explaining to do in the coming days
-
In other news, an additional two battalions of self-propelled artillery on their way to Ukraine. One battalion of M109s (tracked and armored) from Italy and the other Caesars (wheeled) from Denmark.
https://twitter.com/Mr_ATACMS/status/1647154737266016258?t=GUzPMcuYuhe6GXZcAvKq7A&s=19 (https://twitter.com/Mr_ATACMS/status/1647154737266016258?t=GUzPMcuYuhe6GXZcAvKq7A&s=19)
https://www.fmn.dk/da/nyheder/2023/ukrainske-soldater-er-nu-uddannet-til-at-bruge-artillerisystem/ (https://www.fmn.dk/da/nyheder/2023/ukrainske-soldater-er-nu-uddannet-til-at-bruge-artillerisystem/)
-
So the leaker was arrested by the FBI this week. A junior Airman with the National Guard who provided network support to an intelligence center. From what I've ..
“It sounds as if it was too easy for too many people to get a high-security clearance and then have access to things they did not need to know,” Charles Stevenson, a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told Semafor.
Stevenson said that the U.S. government needs to rethink how broadly access should be given to employees, and, notably, how much training is needed to “maintain secrecy.”
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/14/2023/how-did-jack-teixeira-have-access-to-classified-pentagon-documents
-
So the leaker was arrested by the FBI this week. A junior Airman with the National Guard who provided network support to an intelligence center. From what I've ..
“It sounds as if it was too easy for too many people to get a high-security clearance and then have access to things they did not need to know,” Charles Stevenson, a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told Semafor.
Stevenson said that the U.S. government needs to rethink how broadly access should be given to employees, and, notably, how much training is needed to “maintain secrecy.”
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/14/2023/how-did-jack-teixeira-have-access-to-classified-pentagon-documents
Just a few years ago, the same think tanks were accusing the DoD of over-classifying everything. We can definitely do a lot better at managing things like portal and folder permissions. There's going to be a handful of investigations related to this, so we'll learn exactly how he found those documents eventually.
-
-How exactly he knew where to find these documents and nobody saw him printing them off and walking out the door on multiple occasions is the DoD's next problem. He would have had access as a system administrator and if the files were in a Sharepoint that was well known he could just download them if the owner didn't bother to lock them down. The nature of many of the documents suggest they were daily reports read by thousands. Or he could have been looking over the shoulder of whoever was supposed to be reading them and taking notes for later. His chain of command and security managers are going to have a lot of explaining to do in the coming days
You've been in a SCIF and you know the reality is you could stuff a folder of documents under your shirt and walk out and no one would be the wiser. The security is meant to keep unauthorized people out - or to keep them from accessing any information inside the SCIF. It doesn't do a good job of keeping insiders from accessing information.
The current background check system that decides whether someone can get (and keep) a security clearance is pretty antiquated. It basically comes down to not having a criminal record, bad credit, or unexplained foreign connections/travel. My first interview for a TS clearance consisted of the interviewer talking to three of my coworkers I choose and reviewing the answers I submitted on my SF 86. They never so much as talked to another person in my life (parents, spouse, neighbors, etc.). The reinvestigation 6 years later was about the same. I think they talked to my current boss and that was about it.
I remember being called as a reference for someone I knew in the Army who was applying for a TS clearance. I told the investigator that I didn't think he would purposefully betray national security, but I wouldn't trust him with that kind of information because frankly he was kind of dumb and naive. When pressed, I said "no I don't think he should have a clearance". Based on his LinkedIn profile I'm pretty sure they still granted it to him.
-
@Michael in ABQ that's interesting, I had just an L clearance for the DOE in the 90s and they called dozens of people (that I didn't get to pick) and picked through things pretty thoroughly. It was actually pretty annoying.
Maybe standards have been relaxed.
-W
-
Security background difference- DOD does not equate to DOE?
-
@Michael in ABQ that's interesting, I had just an L clearance for the DOE in the 90s and they called dozens of people (that I didn't get to pick) and picked through things pretty thoroughly. It was actually pretty annoying.
Maybe standards have been relaxed.
-W
Yes. I know a lot of people who work for DoE and have Q clearances (roughly equivalent to Top Secret) and I think their experiences are similar to mine. For my original Secret clearance in the early 2000s (and basically the same today) there's usually no interviews - just a background check.
-
@Michael in ABQ that's interesting, I had just an L clearance for the DOE in the 90s and they called dozens of people (that I didn't get to pick) and picked through things pretty thoroughly. It was actually pretty annoying.
Maybe standards have been relaxed.
-W
Yes. I know a lot of people who work for DoE and have Q clearances (roughly equivalent to Top Secret) and I think their experiences are similar to mine. For my original Secret clearance in the early 2000s (and basically the same today) there's usually no interviews - just a background check.
For each of my DoD clearances, I had an investigator show up for each interview, or meet them in an office.
I've been a reference for co-workers, the Qs are usually Yes/No types, entire call is under 2 minutes. Met investigators at my workplace, or phone call.
Also, DHS TS /= DoD TS. An applicant with DHS TS got rejected for a DoD TS-required job. Different adjudication requirements, apparently.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2)
Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2)
Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.
Wow, that's wild. Reminds me of the poem attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
"For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost - And all for the want of a horseshoe nail."
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2)
Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.
Ball bearing are probably the most underrated item in the world. Not only when it comes to tanks or that little train accident with the poisenous stuff that burned for days 2 months ago.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/19/whats-perfectly-round-made-of-metal-and-keeping-russia-from-replacing-the-2000-tanks-its-lost-in-ukraine/?sh=590bca2223f2)
Apparently that ball bearing problem never went away.
Ball bearing are probably the most underrated item in the world. Not only when it comes to tanks or that little train accident with the poisenous stuff that burned for days 2 months ago.
The ball bearing thing proves once again, "The devil's in the details.' I wonder how they do replacing the barrels.
-
I just remembered that even some month ago I read that the Russians are starting to use "fire boxes" again.
FYI we are talking about trains here. The axles are held in a box full with oil. But there is still a lot of friction going on with tony weighting in. So the axles get hot. And often start to burn, hence the professional's term fire box.
Ball bearings dramatically reduced fires on trains. In the accident above one of those still started to burn, was weakened and that led to the derailment. It seems a fire detection sensor was broken and nobody in a hurry to fix it.
Now imagine what happens if you carry around a LOT of very HEAVY stuff (like tanks or artillery grenades) on fire box axles. You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.
-
You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.
Russia's rail infrastructure is massive, a strategic asset due to the distances to be covered, and under normal circumstances well-manned; however, they drafted a number of their railroad employees into the Army last fall.
And in other news, a Russian Su-34 dropped a 500 pound bomb on a street corner in Belgorod (Russian city near the Ukrainian border). There's a giant crater in the street, the surrounding apartment blocks sustained quite a bit of damage, and a car was launched onto the roof of a nearby building.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/europe/russia-belgorod-accidental-bombing-intl-hnk/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/europe/russia-belgorod-accidental-bombing-intl-hnk/index.html)
-
Looks like someone picked a whole basket of oopsie-daisies.
-
I just remembered that even some month ago I read that the Russians are starting to use "fire boxes" again.
FYI we are talking about trains here. The axles are held in a box full with oil. But there is still a lot of friction going on with tony weighting in. So the axles get hot. And often start to burn, hence the professional's term fire box.
Ball bearings dramatically reduced fires on trains. In the accident above one of those still started to burn, was weakened and that led to the derailment. It seems a fire detection sensor was broken and nobody in a hurry to fix it.
Now imagine what happens if you carry around a LOT of very HEAVY stuff (like tanks or artillery grenades) on fire box axles. You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.
On that note, I'm surprised that Ukraine and the Baltic states didn't re-gauge/standardise their railways after independence. We can see how Russia's using Ukrainian railway infrastructure to move around men and materiel. Would have been harder for them if Ukraine was using standard gauge.
-
I just remembered that even some month ago I read that the Russians are starting to use "fire boxes" again.
FYI we are talking about trains here. The axles are held in a box full with oil. But there is still a lot of friction going on with tony weighting in. So the axles get hot. And often start to burn, hence the professional's term fire box.
Ball bearings dramatically reduced fires on trains. In the accident above one of those still started to burn, was weakened and that led to the derailment. It seems a fire detection sensor was broken and nobody in a hurry to fix it.
Now imagine what happens if you carry around a LOT of very HEAVY stuff (like tanks or artillery grenades) on fire box axles. You really need to watch those wagons, especially if there is ammo on them.
On that note, I'm surprised that Ukraine and the Baltic states didn't re-gauge/standardise their railways after independence. We can see how Russia's using Ukrainian railway infrastructure to move around men and materiel. Would have been harder for them if Ukraine was using standard gauge.
It's expensive and complicated. You need to buy new rolling stock and try to not interfere with the economy too much.
All while being in the aftermath of a revolution.
Not to mention that several governments were puppets of Russia. You know, all that stuff about Maidan and Putins invasion after his guy was chased out.
-
Yeah, the inertia of infrastructure is a very real thing. Electronics are rife with examples of ports that have carried through generations despite acute drawbacks because they needed to remain “backward compatible”. On the ‘standard’ railway gauge used throughout much of the world - it’s based on standards adopted gradually more than a century ago. If it were possible to ‘magic’ all existing lines and equipment to fit a different standard my guess is railroad width would be much different from the 4’ 8.5” we use today.
-
Yeah, the inertia of infrastructure is a very real thing. Electronics are rife with examples of ports that have carried through generations despite acute drawbacks because they needed to remain “backward compatible”. On the ‘standard’ railway gauge used throughout much of the world - it’s based on standards adopted gradually more than a century ago. If it were possible to ‘magic’ all existing lines and equipment to fit a different standard my guess is railroad width would be much different from the 4’ 8.5” we use today.
The chariot story and railroads is sort of interesting.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/)
I'm sort of glad they standardize. There are all together too many plugs and adapters now.
-
Yeah, the inertia of infrastructure is a very real thing. Electronics are rife with examples of ports that have carried through generations despite acute drawbacks because they needed to remain “backward compatible”. On the ‘standard’ railway gauge used throughout much of the world - it’s based on standards adopted gradually more than a century ago. If it were possible to ‘magic’ all existing lines and equipment to fit a different standard my guess is railroad width would be much different from the 4’ 8.5” we use today.
The chariot story and railroads is sort of interesting.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/railroad-gauge-chariots/)
I'm sort of glad they standardize. There are all together too many plugs and adapters now.
Not much different from all the steps, foots, fingers etc. most measurements were taken from. Though I admit that "horse's arse width" has me grinning since I heard it when I was ~10.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
You and Thomas Edison would have got along very well. I'll stick with transformers for a little bit yet. It seems like the world has a greater appreciation for Nick Tesla in the past few years.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
Since watts = volts * amps, a 110 volt 20 amp circuit hits you with 2,200 volts.
A 220 volt 20 amp circuit is going to be 2,200 watts on each leg of the circuit, 4,400 total.
It's really the amps that determines the severity of the shock.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
I was tangentially involved in a pilot project to create a DC solar-powered microgrid with battery backups. The company built a demonstration project that was a small building, and all of the lighting was LED running directly off DC power, same with the HVAC, some TVs in the common area, etc. I recall the representative saying just skipping the DC to AC to DC conversion saved 20-30% on efficiency loss.
I could see a time where some solar power is used to directly power DC electrical needs in the home. However, it will probably remain a niche market for something like a remote cabin. I guess there is already a pretty market for the RV and boating worlds where basically everything is available in a DC powered version.
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
Since watts = volts * amps, a 110 volt 20 amp circuit hits you with 2,200 volts.
A 220 volt 20 amp circuit is going to be 2,200 watts on each leg of the circuit, 4,400 total.
It's really the amps that determines the severity of the shock.
You've got a few things wrong in your thinking. A 220V 20A circuit can deliver 4,400W, but only to a load that has a sufficiently low resistance to draw that much current. The human body isn't such a load--instead of the 10Ohm load required to draw 20A, it's more like 100,000.
That said, you're right that it's the current that counts, and it takes <50mA to stop a heart beating. (of course, the supply voltage and the load resistance determine the current, so they're all interrelated).
The 240V I got to feel was single-phase (I was in Russia at the time), and fortunately, the current just went through my hand, not through my chest. That's a whole nutty story that involves apartments that shared a main breaker and a cranky old babushka, but that's a tale for another time...
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
The new USB standard is 240W 5A 50V DC on a compact reversible plug, you could power quite a few things with just that. Two USB C sockets over a GFI 220V with anti child cover would be pretty ideal. In the topic of ground fault interrupt, DC, and shocks GFI stops the current in 1/2 cycle (1/120 of a second, or 20% longer in Europe). Is such a thing available for DC? Don’t tell me 220V DC is simply not interruptible…
-
Life would be a lot easier if everyone used European electrical standard (easier to draw more power from the same size of wires) and American train couplers (enable longer/heavier trains so you need fewer trains to move the same amount of freight).
Frankly I'll be happy for small miracles like the world successfully standardizing on 8 foot/2.44 meter widths for shipping containers.
They can keep their 50hz, I will stick with my 60hz thanks. Oh you probably meant voltage. I wish my stovetop induction burner and electric kettle were blazingly amazing like the ones I had in China, but 220 is more hazardous and overkill for most other things. On the other hand Europe is pushing USB C which I am pretty impressed with on my new company laptop, a mix of USB C and 220 outlets would be better than 110.
Having had the displeasure of being shocked by both, 110V is a LOT less painful. That said, 220V makes more sense for a lot of things. In my perfect world, though, most outlets would supply DC, not AC. When I think about the things in my house that actually need AC, it's things with larger motors--HVAC, refrigerators, fans/blowers. The other 95% of the electrical items in my house rectify it to DC before using it. And with more and more HVAC systems moving to variable-frequency drives, even that is moving to DC.
The new USB standard is 240W 5A 50V DC on a compact reversible plug, you could power quite a few things with just that. Two USB C sockets over a GFI 220V with anti child cover would be pretty ideal. In the topic of ground fault interrupt, DC, and shocks GFI stops the current in 1/2 cycle (1/120 of a second, or 20% longer in Europe). Is such a thing available for DC? Don’t tell me 220V DC is simply not interruptible…
The thing that always gives AC breakers an assist is the zero crossing. It's 60 times a second in North America and 50 times in places yonder. In fact, I remember station batteries in substations and power plants were often fused.
-
FunFact: Back when electricity was new, a generator was bought at Edison company, another from a German manufacturer.
As a result, until today, Japan has a 60Hz and a 50Hz grid. And probably because of that, nearly all bigger household electronic (remember Japans production in the 70s?) can work with both.
Ah Japan, I love you for always doing the extremes that nobody else does!
-
FunFact: Back when electricity was new, a generator was bought at Edison company, another from a German manufacturer.
As a result, until today, Japan has a 60Hz and a 50Hz grid. And probably because of that, nearly all bigger household electronic (remember Japans production in the 70s?) can work with both.
Ah Japan, I love you for always doing the extremes that nobody else does!
It's 400 cycles per second (Hz) on ships and airplanes. (At least it used to be.) This saves weight in transformer laminations.
Sorry - We are veering from the topic at hand.
Ukraine crossed the Dnipro River. How signiuficant? Zelensky talked to Xi. How significant? Ukraine appears almost driven from Bakhmut (This time for sure) How significant? Wagner forces have had big time conflicts with the Gazprom private army. How significant?
-
FunFact: Back when electricity was new, a generator was bought at Edison company, another from a German manufacturer.
As a result, until today, Japan has a 60Hz and a 50Hz grid. And probably because of that, nearly all bigger household electronic (remember Japans production in the 70s?) can work with both.
Ah Japan, I love you for always doing the extremes that nobody else does!
It's 400 cycles per second (Hz) on ships and airplanes. (At least it used to be.) This saves weight in transformer laminations.
Sorry - We are veering from the topic at hand.
Ukraine crossed the Dnipro River. How signiuficant? Zelensky talked to Xi. How significant? Ukraine appears almost driven from Bakhmut (This time for sure) How significant? Wagner forces have had big time conflicts with the Gazprom private army. How significant?
The latest I've heard about Bakhmut is that the Russians haven't made *any* gains in several days, and that their daily troop losses over the last couple of weeks have dropped by 30% (according to the Ukrainian military). There have also been lots of reports of the Russians shifting to a purely defensive posture. All these would tend to indicate that their entire winter offensive got them bupkis, and now Ukraine has the initiative.
Yesterday, the UKR military requested that everyone stop posting information online for a while to maintain OPSEC. That usually means something big-ish is going down or about to go down.
Will they attack, or is this a feint? If they attack, where will it be? Across the Dniper River? South toward Melitopol to cut the land bridge? A big sweep across the northern flank to take Svatove?
-
I wonder if the crossing of the Dniper is intended to get Russian troops flooding there only to later head down towards Melitopol and cut them off from supplies?
Seems risky to operate a big counter offensive across a river.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
-
I wonder if the crossing of the Dniper is intended to get Russian troops flooding there only to later head down towards Melitopol and cut them off from supplies?
Seems risky to operate a big counter offensive across a river.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Intended or not, Russia has to take that back (or at least contain), it's way to dangerous for both their intended defense line and Crimea connections.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
My opinion is not enough. The only really game changing equipment deployed to date seems to have been HIMARS and HARMS back in June/July, everything else seems more like game sustaining equipment or minor improvements around the edges. The crazy number of different weapons systems sent is a motley crew. The proof is in the pudding though, and if Ukraine has reclaimed territory at least equal to what Russia has taken since 2022 within the next two months then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I am disappointed: too little training, too few systems, too little standardization, too late, insufficient range. We can and should have been doing better.
Longer term I still don't see any hope for Russia though. Russia's fundamental position is one of fragility, and they will continue to grow weaker. Ukraine's position is one of fundamental antifragility, and they will continue to grow stronger. When the West's low end and second hand equipment is depleted, they'll just start sending the new and modern equipment. That trend will continue for at least a couple more years, and Putin's only hope for victory is to delay beyond that. With the current trends there won't be anything left of the Russian army or two successor iterations (we are already through the first iteration) by then, so I don't really see how that's possible. The big thing is the unnecessarily large and protracted suffering of the Ukrainian people.
-
There are probably a long list of reasons why this is a bad idea but I'd like to see the UN or NATO set up a protection line. Crowd the Russians a little. A no fly zone for example. A civilian protection zone. A thou not pass zone. Russia broke international law so enforce it.
And alot more public "you brought this on yourself" statements about Russia, to Russia. Also, more statements calling the Russian government out for their lies. Make sure that the Russian civilians hear this via the internet or radio including shortwave for the far eastern most parts of the country.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
My opinion is not enough. The only really game changing equipment deployed to date seems to have been HIMARS and HARMS back in June/July, everything else seems more like game sustaining equipment or minor improvements around the edges. The crazy number of different weapons systems sent is a motley crew. The proof is in the pudding though, and if Ukraine has reclaimed territory at least equal to what Russia has taken since 2022 within the next two months then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I am disappointed: too little training, too few systems, too little standardization, too late, insufficient range. We can and should have been doing better.
Longer term I still don't see any hope for Russia though. Russia's fundamental position is one of fragility, and they will continue to grow weaker. Ukraine's position is one of fundamental antifragility, and they will continue to grow stronger. When the West's low end and second hand equipment is depleted, they'll just start sending the new and modern equipment. That trend will continue for at least a couple more years, and Putin's only hope for victory is to delay beyond that. With the current trends there won't be anything left of the Russian army or two successor iterations (we are already through the first iteration) by then, so I don't really see how that's possible. The big thing is the unnecessarily large and protracted suffering of the Ukrainian people.
Munitions are the most important thing we can provide. Equipment is nice, but meaningless without the munitions for it. The US has gotten used to precision strikes and trying to limit the amount of munitions used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere over the last 20+ years. The war in Ukraine is not that kind of fight. It's artillery and rockets and missiles and lots of them.
Thousands of anti-tank guided missiles (Javelins, NLAWs, etc.) may have cost tens or hundreds of millions but destroyed billions of dollar's worth of Russian equipment (not to mention thousands of casualties).
Newer equipment is typically going to take longer to train on, have fewer pieces of equipment available, have fewer munitions and spare parts available, and more likely to break down. Think of a car from the 1980s vs one today. Far more electronics and computers to break down and less reliance on sturdy mechanical systems.
-
There are probably a long list of reasons why this is a bad idea but I'd like to see the UN or NATO set up a protection line. Crowd the Russians a little. A no fly zone for example. A civilian protection zone. A thou not pass zone. Russia broke international law so enforce it.
And alot more public "you brought this on yourself" statements about Russia, to Russia. Also, more statements calling the Russian government out for their lies. Make sure that the Russian civilians hear this via the internet or radio including shortwave for the far eastern most parts of the country.
A no-fly zone is the first act in a war. The only way to enforce it is to shoot down enemy planes - which means killing enemy pilots. That's an act of war and neither the US, UN, or NATO want to cross that line. Providing materiel to Ukraine has been effective and so far and at little or no risk to all those supporting Ukraine.
I agree, far more could be done on the information front. Call out Russia at every international event and treat them like a pariah. Alas, there are too many countries that can't/won't cut themselves off from the Russian energy spigot. It's a critical resource and there's simply no way to quickly uncouple all those physical/economic/political links that have been built up over decades.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
I'm in the same boat with you--if we're giving them 100 Bradley IFVs, why not 200? 500? 1,000? We have twice that many sitting in depots. Yeah, I get that they're not all operational and will take time to get back in shape and to take the best equipment out, but at the same time, it'd be a fantastic opportunity for Ukraine to learn the maintenance on them at the same time.
All this equipment is intended for two purposes: to beat Russia, and to beat China. Bradleys and HIMARS and ATACMS and M1 Abrams are all intended to destroy the Russian military. It doesn't matter whether it's Americans or Ukrainians manning them if they are serving that purpose.
As for the oft-invoked invoked "fear of Russian escalation"? Um, guys, they've already invaded a sovereign country, slaughtered whole populations of innocent people, kidnapped tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Ukrainians, leveled entire cities, tried to freeze out the entire population, militarized a nuclear power plant, "recruited" tens of thousands of cannon fodder troops from their prisons, raped, tortured, murdered, dug out 60+-year-old tanks from storage, attempted to cause a worldwide grain shortage, plundered millions of tons of grain on top of that, and ruined who-knows-how-much land for the next year's crops. They've indiscriminately bombed schools, hospitals, theaters, and apartment buildings.
Which leaves me with this question: what do they have left to escalate to? The only thing I can think of is nuclear or chemical weapons, and you only get to play that card once. So what would be the "red line" that would cause him to go that far? Russia has rattled that saber many times over the past year, and never followed through. Sending HIMARS didn't do it. The continuous stream of intel didn't. MiG-29s didn't. Stingers and Javelins didn't do it, and neither has 100 Bradleys. Would 100 more Bradleys do it? What about 100 Abrams? A few dozen ATACMS? A squadron of F-18s?
I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik--this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cripple Russia as a global power for generations, if not permanently. Russia is already getting squeezed hard by the combination of a declining population, a corrupt culture, and competition in the oil & gas industry. Now, add in sanctions that have further hit their O&G revenue, the hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men fleeing the country, and the additional hundreds of thousands wounded or killed in Ukraine. The longer the war drags out, the weaker Russia becomes, and the harder and longer it will be for Russia to recover, if they ever do. And the cost to the US? A modest donation of a bunch of backup, out-of-date, second-hand, mothballed, expiring, phased-out, and/or otherwise not-top-tier equipment. A total cost of ...about 7% of our annual defense budget to completely wipe out Russia as a military power? That's a bargain of the century. Ok, there's been the cost of flying all those ELINT and SIGINT birds over Poland, Romania, and the Black Sea, but that has provided an absolute bonanza of both intel and training, so I'm hesitant to include that in the cost. From this cold-hearted point of view, sure, the people of Ukraine are suffering and dying as a result of us slow-walking the military aid, but if our goal is our own long-term benefit, then utterly destroying Russia's ability to project power for the next fifty years at someone else's (Ukraine's) expense is a unique opportunity. I've heard it said that international policy and diplomacy is mind-bogglingly complicated and nuanced.
2 cont'd) You could also take the very cynical view that this war has eliminated Russia's ability to market, let alone build and export, military hardware, to the great benefit of the US military industrial complex. Or that restricting their ability to profit from oil and gas means our own O&G companies can pad their profits. Or the same for agricultural exports. This is a whole rabbit hole of speculation and conspiracy-theorizing you could chase down, if you were so inclined.
Maybe, we're dragging it out until we finally get Sweden admitted to NATO? Because if Russia is beat, there's no rush to expand NATO?
Maybe it's a signal to China that "Ukraine's beating Russia with our table scraps. Are you sure you want to threaten Taiwan?"
Maybe it's a legitimate concern about how many Ukrainian troops can be pulled from the country to train on the equipment? Or a limitation in how many we can train at a time?
Maybe we don't want people to see our fighter jets get shot down by Russian SAMs?
Maybe there's a concern about what happens at the end of the war and Ukraine wins? Do we ask for 'em back?
Maybe there's a concern that Ukraine will become a bad actor after they beat Russia?
-
Great post, @zolotiyeruki. I'm inclined to believe that a lack of ability to train up AFU personnel fast enough is the primary issue.
It will be interesting to see how WW1 type fortifications hold up against AFU combined-arms (ie, drop a string of JDAMs down the whole trench line that's been surveyed by drone to cover advancing ground troops). The AFU trenches have been pretty effective against Soviet-era roll-forward-en-masse tactics but AFAIK the Russians don't really have the precision weapon/drone capabilities to do anything else (except hit apartment buildings and such, of course).
It boggles my mind that Russia has essentially used up it's cruise missile stock on civilian targets, and continues to launch the same sort of strikes to the same lack of effect. Either their intelligence is so poor that they can't find military targets to shoot at, or they're still convinced it's a winning tactic despite more than a year of lessons to the contrary. Bizarre either way.
-W
-
Great post, @zolotiyeruki. I'm inclined to believe that a lack of ability to train up AFU personnel fast enough is the primary issue.
It will be interesting to see how WW1 type fortifications hold up against AFU combined-arms (ie, drop a string of JDAMs down the whole trench line that's been surveyed by drone to cover advancing ground troops). The AFU trenches have been pretty effective against Soviet-era roll-forward-en-masse tactics but AFAIK the Russians don't really have the precision weapon/drone capabilities to do anything else (except hit apartment buildings and such, of course).
It boggles my mind that Russia has essentially used up it's cruise missile stock on civilian targets, and continues to launch the same sort of strikes to the same lack of effect. Either their intelligence is so poor that they can't find military targets to shoot at, or they're still convinced it's a winning tactic despite more than a year of lessons to the contrary. Bizarre either way.
-W
Ukraine knows where Russia's munitions factories are. It just seems like with all these Ukrainian - Russian speakers that can fade into the Russian woodwork that they could attack those munitions factories in Russia and really diminish Russia's capacity to continue to wage war. Those factories already can't keep up. Eliminate the source and the supply of Russian armaments will dry up even faster than it does now. This would have the added effect of making Russian civilians have a greater awareness that their government has dragged them into an unnecessary war. I get the impression that the average Russian is somewhat oblivious to the fact that their country is engaged in a horrible war. Bring the war to their doorstep.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
Not nearly enough. This is one of the few wars post WWII where the right side and the wrong side are clearly defined. Russia is not trying to win hearts and minds. They are leveling cities, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, kidnapping children, torturing prisoners, etc. It needs to end, and it needs to end sooner rather than later. Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs. I agree with that. But I think we should also revisit our defense priorities. One of our primary geopolitical goes is currently being ground (slowly) into dust. This can only work to our benefit and certainly changes our defense needs. We should consider accelerating our flow of arms to Ukraine even if it temporarily lowers our defense readiness becomes it only works to our benefit long term.
You can say what you want about American hegemony, and I heartily agree that American power has been grossly misused in the past. However since WWII, America has done a lot of good work promoting democracy, rules based order, and human rights throughout the world. Counterexamples are noted and entered into evidence without objection. Point remains though, more people are better off siding with America than China or Russia. This is a golden opportunity to send a clear message which is the correct side to be on. Russia is an agent of chaos and taking her down a notch is surely a good thing.
A common objection is cost. Here again, a large portion of our defense budgets have been spent in anticipation of a conflict with Russia. Why not use those weapons for their intended purpose? We can certainly afford it. Even now aid to Ukraine is tiny portion of the defense budget. We announced sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, enough for a brigade. We should send enough for a division. We have thousands of Abrams in storage that have already been paid for. Yes, I realize there are export restrictions. Who made those rules? We did. Therefore we can change them. Or at a minimum start prepping large numbers of tanks for export. And yes, there is only one factory that does that work. But we can open another one. Yes, that will take time but today is the second best time to plant a tree and all that.
As @Michael in ABQ point out, Ukraine and Russia are using ammunition at rate faster than the world can produce it. That's because they are fighting a WWI-style slug fest. The solution is combined arms warfare, which means aircraft. We absolutely should be providing modern aircraft and even more air defense capabilities. Combined arms requires training which requires time. Second best time is today.
I'm a fan of history, and one thing history shows is that if you decide to go war, never use half measures because half measures in war wind up costing more in the long term. Some nuance is required here. We're not actually at war, we've only taken sides in a war. But we along with our allies and partners should be providing Ukraine with the tools she needs to win the war as quickly as possible.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik-.....
I think a significant factor is simple bureaucratic inertia.
My last deployment I was involved in getting about $15 of military equipment to a partner country military. From the start of that program with a 4-star general and ambassador shaking hands with the President of the country and promising military aid to actually getting vehicles and weapons delivered was about three years. In this case it was all brand-new vehicles and weapons - plus a couple of shipping containers full of spare parts. There was some other individual soldier equipment that was just excess stocks from some depot (old BDU and DCU pattern clothing/gear that was phased out 10-20 years ago). The latter arrived a lot faster as no one really cared about it. But when you're talking about providing machine guns and ammunition and vehicles to a foreign military there's a lot more involved.
The HIMARs could be flown in as there were only 10-20 of them and a C-17 can carry 3 or 4 at a time. So it only took a few flights to get them to Poland and then to Ukraine. That's not feasible with tens or hundreds of APCs and tanks. Those have to be loaded on a ship. At either end they're generally moved via rail - sometimes by truck. Logistically it's a lot more work. Then you throw in all the paperwork and approvals, and you can easily add additional months.
Ultimately, it's still up to the president and congress making the decision to authorize all of this for Ukraine. Some of that is probably informed by the reality on the ground - we don't want to promise to deliver 1,000 Javelin Missiles only to find out that only 500 are available. The defense industry in the US (and Europe) has optimized for profit - not production capacity. Just in time inventory means there's probably one factory making a lot of these munitions and the capacity was enough to support whatever contracts were in place. The US doesn't have huge warehouse full of munitions like the Soviets did. There's enough produced each year to meet the projected training needs but that's far less than would be necessary in the type of war in Ukraine.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs. I agree with that.
This is a point that I disagree with. If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs. I agree with that.
This is a point that I disagree with. If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.
Hasn't it largely been proven that Russia isn't a threat already though? China's coming invasion of Taiwan would seem to be the real concern.
-
This is a point that I disagree with. If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.
That's actually what I'm saying. We should take this opportunity to rethink what our defense needs truly are. I believe we can safely partially deplete our stocks of many systems simply because it takes Russia out of the picture.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
Part of the rationale for why aid from the US is trickling somewhat slowly is that we have to maintain our own defense needs. I agree with that.
This is a point that I disagree with. If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.
Hasn't it largely been proven that Russia isn't a threat already though? China's coming invasion of Taiwan would seem to be the real concern.
I see the Ukraine war as a front in a broader conflict being advanced by countries challenging the US-led unipolar world order. To the extent Russia is decisively stopped in Ukraine (through both military force and diplomatic/economic means), the stronger message that would send to China on the resiliency of the western alliance. The manner in which the US and Europe have been stingy with sending arms to Ukraine suggest they are not really serious about Ukraine winning the war (I think it's likely if Trump or Hillary were president, Putin would not have invaded). And look at the whinging over Ukrainian grain undercutting European supplies...this lack of seriousness could easily be the green light for China to mount an invasion.
-
What are people's thoughts on the level of military support provided to Ukraine? Enough? Not enough? Just right?
My opinion is not enough. The only really game changing equipment deployed to date seems to have been HIMARS and HARMS back in June/July, everything else seems more like game sustaining equipment or minor improvements around the edges. The crazy number of different weapons systems sent is a motley crew. The proof is in the pudding though, and if Ukraine has reclaimed territory at least equal to what Russia has taken since 2022 within the next two months then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I am disappointed: too little training, too few systems, too little standardization, too late, insufficient range. We can and should have been doing better.
Longer term I still don't see any hope for Russia though. Russia's fundamental position is one of fragility, and they will continue to grow weaker. Ukraine's position is one of fundamental antifragility, and they will continue to grow stronger. When the West's low end and second hand equipment is depleted, they'll just start sending the new and modern equipment. That trend will continue for at least a couple more years, and Putin's only hope for victory is to delay beyond that. With the current trends there won't be anything left of the Russian army or two successor iterations (we are already through the first iteration) by then, so I don't really see how that's possible. The big thing is the unnecessarily large and protracted suffering of the Ukrainian people.
Munitions are the most important thing we can provide. Equipment is nice, but meaningless without the munitions for it. The US has gotten used to precision strikes and trying to limit the amount of munitions used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere over the last 20+ years. The war in Ukraine is not that kind of fight. It's artillery and rockets and missiles and lots of them.
Thousands of anti-tank guided missiles (Javelins, NLAWs, etc.) may have cost tens or hundreds of millions but destroyed billions of dollar's worth of Russian equipment (not to mention thousands of casualties).
Newer equipment is typically going to take longer to train on, have fewer pieces of equipment available, have fewer munitions and spare parts available, and more likely to break down. Think of a car from the 1980s vs one today. Far more electronics and computers to break down and less reliance on sturdy mechanical systems.
I am satisfied with the munition quantity and quality. I know Ukraine complains it is insufficient, but at far as I know that is a typical complaint in war. I'm even ok with the sheer numbers of equipment, but the types are both too many and too few. The armored vehicle supply is like an absurd used car lot got put on a boat. There are Peugeots and Yugos, Fords and Ferraris, vintage Beetles and vintage Bentleys, Teslas and maybe even a few Kias. Not just certain types of models and years either, it is like the entire lot just got sent over in pairs and half dozens and bakers dozens, amounting to hundreds and thousands. That in itself is a logistics, maintenance, and training nightmare. Then there is not enough types: not much with long range has been sent, or aircraft outside old soviet junk, both of which would reduce the need for other munitions. Even if it took 12 months, there is no reason it couldn't be there after 16 months except lack of will and foresight. Waiting until Russia has mostly exhausted its missile supply, and then sending Patriots a couple months after that, I mean really? All around, just really?
-
I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik--this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cripple Russia as a global power for generations, if not permanently.
Those are my leading contenders in that order, in addition to as michael in ABQ suggests beaucratic inertia and incompetence. 1) I can understand playing it safe, but if dictators can say "let me conquer the world, or I will nuke the world!" well fuck we can't let them even think they can get away with that. Might as well send everything we can now. 2) Is immoral. The goal should be minimizing harm to Ukraine, not maximizing damage to Russia even if they richly deserve it.
-
This is a point that I disagree with. If we use up our intended-for-Russia equipment to destroy Russia's military, then we (in theory) wouldn't have to worry about our own stockpiles of that type of equipment, since Russia would no longer be a threat.
That's actually what I'm saying. We should take this opportunity to rethink what our defense needs truly are. I believe we can safely partially deplete our stocks of many systems simply because it takes Russia out of the picture.
Yes. The US could just hand over all equipment and munitions in the European theater to Ukraine, and say "Peace Out". Russia would get shellacked and be unable to invade Europe for decades. No European state has a military capable of projecting power on its tiny neighbor 10km away, so with Russia out of the picture, there'd be no use for the US military to be there anyway.
-
Why do they seem so stingy about supplying jet aircraft? Since the time of Vietnam, the US has excelled in what it's air force can do. Decent air power could do a lot to neutralize the Russians It doesn't even have to be US made stuff. The Saab Gripen could give Ukraine a lot of bang for the buck.
-
And look at the whinging over Ukrainian grain undercutting European supplies..
Nobody is whining about that. Europe can easily buy it's wheat somewhere else. It's about all those millions elsewhere that can't and are starving.
It might be unimaginable for you, but food prices are a real power factor in many places of the world. The "Arab Spring" was fueld by many factors, but a main factor was bread prices, especially in Egypt.
Why do they seem so stingy about supplying jet aircraft?
Aircrafts are extremely complicated to maintain, especially in a war far away from supply, and about the least cost-effective weapon that is.
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.
-
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.
Sorry, the swede in me caught that. What is a Gripen in this context?
-
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.
Sorry, the swede in me caught that. What is a Gripen in this context?
Swedish for Griffon, a multi-role fighter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
-
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.
Sorry, the swede in me caught that. What is a Gripen in this context?
Swedish for Griffon, a multi-role fighter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
Thanks, I know the SAAB Gripen very well. I hear it almost daily. :)
I just didin't get the reference when you said "5 Gripen vs 10 planes". I just misunderstood or didn't read the missile part. Sorry.
-
Just adding my appreciation to this discussion from those of us laypersons who find it hard to get a clear picture of what's happening in Ukraine.
-
I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik--this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cripple Russia as a global power for generations, if not permanently.
Those are my leading contenders in that order, in addition to as michael in ABQ suggests beaucratic inertia and incompetence. 1) I can understand playing it safe, but if dictators can say "let me conquer the world, or I will nuke the world!" well fuck we can't let them even think they can get away with that. Might as well send everything we can now. 2) Is immoral. The goal should be minimizing harm to Ukraine, not maximizing damage to Russia even if they richly deserve it.
For #2, The argument could be made that by crippling Russia for generations, millions and millions of people will lead better lives. Less destabilization, fewer wars, less need to spend money on defense in Europe, freer trade, etc. Will that actually happen, or is Russia actually a stabilizing force in some areas that would now fall into anarchy? I don't know.
(Note: I am not advocating for this position at all! Just exploring that line of thinking)
-
Saw this on Twitter, can't vouch for the credibility:
“Ukraine has received a signal from some NATO countries that they are ready to start training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets,” Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1652336730933010434
-
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.
Sorry, the swede in me caught that. What is a Gripen in this context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
-
Saw this on Twitter, can't vouch for the credibility:
“Ukraine has received a signal from some NATO countries that they are ready to start training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets,” Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1652336730933010434
Genuinely curious - how long would it take to train an experienced military pilot on a new fighter aircraft like the F-16? Are we talking a couple months or years?
-
Saw this on Twitter, can't vouch for the credibility:
“Ukraine has received a signal from some NATO countries that they are ready to start training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets,” Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1652336730933010434
Genuinely curious - how long would it take to train an experienced military pilot on a new fighter aircraft like the F-16? Are we talking a couple months or years?
If they are experienced fighter pilots months, but many of them. If they start right now, they might be able to deliver Christmas presents to Putin. I think I read 9 month normally for training from Sujoi to F-16.
-
For example, giving Ukraine 5 Gripens with 100 anti-AAA missiles is more effective for air capabilities than giving 10 planes with anti-air munitions.
Sorry, the swede in me caught that. What is a Gripen in this context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
Yes, yes, I understood later. Read too quick.
With the risk of semi-doxing myself, I live about a mile from where they are made. If Russia decides to nuke the factory, I'll probably check out permanently from this forum (and from life).
-
Saw this on Twitter, can't vouch for the credibility:
“Ukraine has received a signal from some NATO countries that they are ready to start training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets,” Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba said.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1652336730933010434
Genuinely curious - how long would it take to train an experienced military pilot on a new fighter aircraft like the F-16? Are we talking a couple months or years?
I can't find the quote right now, but somebody in the Air Force gave a timeline that was more than a couple months, but less than a year for an experienced pilot. There are too few Gripens in the world for them to be an alternative despite being a good aircraft for the purpose. Everyone seems to agree that F-16s would also be a good choice due to overall availability and ease of support; however, I don't think we'd want to give them airframes that are too old in which we'd have concerns over their reliability, and Lockheed's production line is full of orders for other nations. Austin said if we were to take aircraft out of storage it'd take a year to refurbish them. I can't speak for the nations that have offered their active duty F-16s though.
There's also the question of what these new planes would be used for. Russia's air defenses are still formidable and a campaign to destroy them with F-16s and HARMs would take months. Unless Ukraine can get extremely long range air to air missiles that are pretty new even to NATO, taking on Russian fighters isn't really in the cards unless those Russian planes are getting close to the front line. They'd be a good hedge against wearing out their MiG fleet dealing with the cruise missile threat and help them get started on what we all know will eventually be a western-built Ukrainian Air Force.
-
Air power is not going to make a significant difference in this war. Short of the entire US Air Force being devoted to destroying Russia's air force and all of their various anti-aircraft defenses there's nothing we can give Ukraine that will make a meaningful difference. Both sides are effectively at a stalemate with Russia having the upper hand, but barely. Neither side is flying aircraft deep into enemy territory. They're staying low and close to the front as anything else risks getting shot down by the robust anti-aircraft systems on both sides.
Getting Ukranian pilots trained on a new aircraft, plus getting all the support for those aircraft in place will takes many months, maybe a year or more. Even so, 50 or 100 F-16s isn't going to turn the tide of the war.
-
Air power is not going to make a significant difference in this war. Short of the entire US Air Force being devoted to destroying Russia's air force and all of their various anti-aircraft defenses there's nothing we can give Ukraine that will make a meaningful difference. Both sides are effectively at a stalemate with Russia having the upper hand, but barely. Neither side is flying aircraft deep into enemy territory. They're staying low and close to the front as anything else risks getting shot down by the robust anti-aircraft systems on both sides.
Getting Ukranian pilots trained on a new aircraft, plus getting all the support for those aircraft in place will takes many months, maybe a year or more. Even so, 50 or 100 F-16s isn't going to turn the tide of the war.
There's one way it would: if they use air power like the US. Use the F-16s to fire HARMs to take out all of Russia's SAMs. Then they can fly high and drop all sorts of precision guided munitions with impunity.
-
Air power is not going to make a significant difference in this war. Short of the entire US Air Force being devoted to destroying Russia's air force and all of their various anti-aircraft defenses there's nothing we can give Ukraine that will make a meaningful difference. Both sides are effectively at a stalemate with Russia having the upper hand, but barely. Neither side is flying aircraft deep into enemy territory. They're staying low and close to the front as anything else risks getting shot down by the robust anti-aircraft systems on both sides.
Getting Ukranian pilots trained on a new aircraft, plus getting all the support for those aircraft in place will takes many months, maybe a year or more. Even so, 50 or 100 F-16s isn't going to turn the tide of the war.
There's one way it would: if they use air power like the US. Use the F-16s to fire HARMs to take out all of Russia's SAMs. Then they can fly high and drop all sorts of precision guided munitions with impunity.
In addition, longer range air-to-air munitions will force the Russians further back when air launching their various missiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Air-to-surface_missiles_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Air-to-air_missiles_of_Russia
-
Air power is not going to make a significant difference in this war. Short of the entire US Air Force being devoted to destroying Russia's air force and all of their various anti-aircraft defenses there's nothing we can give Ukraine that will make a meaningful difference. Both sides are effectively at a stalemate with Russia having the upper hand, but barely. Neither side is flying aircraft deep into enemy territory. They're staying low and close to the front as anything else risks getting shot down by the robust anti-aircraft systems on both sides.
Getting Ukranian pilots trained on a new aircraft, plus getting all the support for those aircraft in place will takes many months, maybe a year or more. Even so, 50 or 100 F-16s isn't going to turn the tide of the war.
There's one way it would: if they use air power like the US. Use the F-16s to fire HARMs to take out all of Russia's SAMs. Then they can fly high and drop all sorts of precision guided munitions with impunity.
Ukraine doesn't have our electronic warfare capabilities to jam SAMs nor our fleet of stealth aircraft. Going head to head against modern air defenses is very difficult even when you have the tools. Russia may have a couple thousand launchers so taking out all of them isn't happening any time soon. Pretty much only the US Air Force can pull off that kind of campaign.
-
I have a couple of thoughts about why the military supply, at least from the US, has been so slow to ramp up:
1) By gradually increasing it, there's no huge step change that Putin can claim push him over the edge and "made" him use nukes.
2) Cold, calculated realpolitik--this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cripple Russia as a global power for generations, if not permanently.
Those are my leading contenders in that order, in addition to as michael in ABQ suggests beaucratic inertia and incompetence. 1) I can understand playing it safe, but if dictators can say "let me conquer the world, or I will nuke the world!" well fuck we can't let them even think they can get away with that. Might as well send everything we can now. 2) Is immoral. The goal should be minimizing harm to Ukraine, not maximizing damage to Russia even if they richly deserve it.
For #2, The argument could be made that by crippling Russia for generations, millions and millions of people will lead better lives. Less destabilization, fewer wars, less need to spend money on defense in Europe, freer trade, etc. Will that actually happen, or is Russia actually a stabilizing force in some areas that would now fall into anarchy? I don't know.
(Note: I am not advocating for this position at all! Just exploring that line of thinking)
Yes, it's unknowable and involves really yucky math/logic. No matter the decisions made, someone will be suffering and a portion of the world will think it's wrong. I feel bad for all the civilians and lower ranking military personnel who are pawns. I also feel bad for the decisionmakers as there is not a good feeling that comes with a "win" that involves such wanton destruction and loss of life (made in order to prevent potentially much worse destruction and loss of life).
"Explain to me how it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle rather than a dozen at dinner." - Tywin Lannister after the Red Wedding and ignoring the fallout implications.
You hear stories about Japanese civilians allegedly talking about how the atomic bombs "saved" Japanese lives in terms of the longer game as they would've never given up otherwise. E.g. Kill ~200k but prevent 1 million deaths that would/could have resulted in further battles and the naval blockade and other Pacific theater plans.
Hate to bring up the dreaded word "externalities" on this forum but it would seem that much of the arguing about the effects (when assessing this conflict in retrospect) deals with quite a bit of goalpost moving. I.e. If you're just talking Ukraine or if Ukraine+Russia or if you destabilize other economic regions that were dependent on Russia in the past (one publication could include these numbers while another omits them and then who is right?). Whose goalposts are the standard to measure by? Now it's just politics to determine which externalities and blowback/aftermath will count.
Also, what's considered the best strategy today might not be years from now. Referencing WW2 again, at the time in 1945 a Gallup poll showed that 85% of Americans were in favor of dropping atomic bombs. More modern studies show the approval rating for the atomic actions in Japan to be barely above 50%. Now, is this recall bias? If we had a similar situation today involving nuclear weapons, would Americans become more hawkish and make the same deal that we did in 1945? Not that civilians get to vote anyway but I think the Vietnam War was a wake up call to elected leaders that you can't just unilaterally make military decisions that are so unpopular. Well you can, you're just going to piss off people and alter/facilitate/catalyze a lot of social/societal change that could be unintended.
I waffle about what the best course of action is. A weak silver lining is that this and many other dreadful situations occurring around the globe are reminders of just how precious not only life, but peaceful life with freedom really is and I never want to take it for granted. Just sad all around, I hope the path forward ultimately does involve the long-term mitigation of suffering when including all humans, not just the ones we're slightly more culturally/socially/economically aligned with at that point in time.
-
And look at the whinging over Ukrainian grain undercutting European supplies..
Nobody is whining about that. Europe can easily buy it's wheat somewhere else. It's about all those millions elsewhere that can't and are starving.
I mean this:
Poland, Hungary ban grain and food imports from Ukraine (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-government-bans-grain-food-imports-ukraine-2023-04-15/)
-
So,.....I've been looking at stated losses of Russian soldiers. This is updated daily by the Ukrainian government. I know. I know. Some people don't believe those numbers. That's OK. Let's assume that there is some rough correctness to these numbers.
Today the Russian deaths in the "Special Military Operation" are a total of 191,940 people. In the last 24 hours, the Russian deaths are stated as 520. Now, to me, I grew up in a small town in the sparsely populated North. These seem like big numbers to me. The Ukrainian government has been stating that Russians have been losing about 500 men a day for months. It's not a 1:1 thing either. The ratio of Ukrainians killed to Russians killed has been given all sorts of numbers, but 5 Russians dead for each Ukrainian has been stated.
There is lots of babble about the upcoming Ukrainian offensive. Each day while the babble goes on another 500 or so Russian soldiers gets killed. It just seems to me that all these Russians being killed takes a big bite out of Russia's ability to fight back. Is it better for Ukraine to wait a bit before charging over the dragon's teeth into the jaws of the dragon?
On the other hand, Russia is doing a real cattle drive for more soldiers. Their horde has been diminished, but more meat is being assembled to charge the front. They must realize that a large amount of their armaments have been destroyed and their offensive capabilities get weaker as time goes by. The Russian offensive of the Winter did not go so well, but perhaps Russia will surprise the world with a Spring Summer offensive of their own.
Whose side is time on?
-
What I've seen stated is that the majority of the 20k deaths on the Russian side this year are Wagnerites, and the majority of those were prison convicts, i.e. probably the worst troops Russia has. Up to this point, Russia has been disproportionately conscripting convicts and ethnic minorities from the far-flung, extra-poor areas of the country. Not exactly their best and brightest. They've also lost most of their best-trained troops, and have even deployed many units whose function was to train new recruits. They've lost 2000 tanks and 10k total vehicles. Also, several hundred thousand military-service-aged young men have fled the country. That's just on the "staffing the military" side.
Then add in the economic side of things. Russia already has a labor shortage, and is facing a demographic time bomb--the current 0-20 cohort is something like 30% smaller than the 20-40 cohort. Their oil and gas exports have been cut dramatically (they've basically lost the entire European market), and what they *can* sell must be sold at a discount.
Ukraine has also taken tremendous casualties, but they have more tanks, trucks, and armored vehicles now than they did a year ago. Ukraine has lost a huge portion of their population as refugees, but manpower for the army doesn't seem to be a bottleneck for them at this point. They have much *better* equipment than they did a year ago (HIMARS, HARMS, Bradleys, Leopards, all the various SAMs, GLSDBs, western cold weather gear, body armor, etc), and the West has been helping train infantry, not just the tank crews.
From what I've heard, it sounds like Ukraine is fighting Russia to a stalemate while keeping a whole lot of troops in reserve, prepping for an offensive. It appears that Russia has "culminated," i.e. they've passed the peak of their ability to conduct offensive operations, and so it's more a question of "how effectively can Ukraine conduct their own offensive?"
The longer Ukraine waits to begin an offensive in earnest, the more time Russia has to further entrench and supply their forces on the front line. But at the same time, the better Ukraine's forces get, as more troops are trained and more equipment arrives. At the same time, the longer the Russian troops sit in their trenches waiting for an attack that may never come, the lower the morale will get. At the same time, the longer it takes, the more likely people in the west will lose interest and start looking at the next shiny thing. But Russia's economy will continue to decline. But so will Ukraine's. You can go back and forth all day.
In my opinion, if Ukraine can stage their equipment right and surprise Russia in whatever direction, I'd say they should attack ASAP. Momentum is a real thing, and if they can manage their logistics better than they did during the earlier Kharkhiv offensive (where they sort of stalled out short of Svatove), they could cause a rout and roll up a whole bunch of the occupied areas. But there's a reason why I'm sitting behind a desk doing engineering stuff and not a tactician :)
-
I'm wondering what Ukraine's end goal is at this point. They are doing well defending their country . . . but Russia can/will continue this for an extended period. The entire economy of Ukraine is destroyed at this point, as is an increasing amount of infrastructure. Rebuilding efforts will take years and butt-tons of money. And based on Russia's previous actions regarding ceasefires and negotiations it seems more likely that Russia would break such an agreement than keep it.
-
The best case scenario for Ukraine is to:
1) Defeat Russia and expel them from the country entirely
2) Join the EU and/or NATO to ensure future defense from Russian aggression.
Russia has shown their true colors at this point, and settling for anything else will mean the eventual end of Ukraine. Period.
If Ukraine agrees to a ceasefire and cedes the occupied territories to Russia, Russia will just rearm and come back later.
If Ukraine surrenders entirely....well, we saw what the Russians did in Bucha, Mariupol, etc. Mass executions, mass kidnapping, torture, rape, pillaging, the whole nine yards.
I *suppose* there's a third option--wait Russia out while continuing to rearm. Hope Putin dies and his successor pulls out, and/or the Russian military apparatus continues to decay to nothing, at which point Ukraine can waltz in and retake their land, but at that point, the only people in that land would presumably be those aligned with Russia. I mean, people are already making that argument about Crimea and Donbas. But that option risks the west getting bored and losing interest, and in the meantime, like you say, Ukraine's economy is in even worse condition than before, Russia keeps trying to hit power stations, Ukraine's people get more comfortable in their host countries, etc. It's a different form of national destruction, but it's national destruction nonetheless.
So really, it's a Hobbs' choice. Anything short of full expulsion of Russia to the pre-2014 borders means the end of Ukraine.
Well, you could argue that Ukraine could cede territory to the Russians and then join NATO with new national borders.
-
...
And based on Russia's previous actions regarding ceasefires and negotiations it seems more likely that Russia would break such an agreement than keep it.
You are giving a good part of a possible answer.
It is in the interest of Ukraine to degrade Russian capabilities to the degree that Russia is unable to effectively break such agreements.
The effects of destroying Russian conventional capabilities to that degree combined with the fact that Soviet equipment stockpiles are being eroded (with Russia effectively incapable of rebuilding it) are are several-fold:
1. Obviously, getting Russia to the point that it is not capable of resuming hostilities at scale is in the interest of Ukraine and also everyone else´s.
2. Massive degradation of Russian conventional capabilities renders its nuclear capabilities more and more irrelevant, except for terrorist activities.
3. Ukraine´s chances of admission to NATO increase with every piece of Russian equipment destroyed because of the associated receding nuclear threat.
4. Russia´s inability to effectively threaten Ukraine conventionally for some time after the end of the war makes Ukraine´s accession to NATO membership attractive to NATO as Russia would need even more time, if NATO membership is granted, to recover sufficient capabilities to initiate hostilities with any chance of success (and that is probably not even in the cards, ever).
5. The more Russian capabilities are reduced the more time there is for Russia´s nuclear weaponry to deteriorate beyond being functional. Until the nuclear arsenal has deteriorated beyond repair, Russia does not present an offensive threat but retains deterrent capabilities and that would be fine with everyone as nobody wants to attack Russia.
So that is my take (in very general terms) in a nutshell and I believe this explains in part why Ukraine is pursuing attritional warfare at this time.
-
I'm wondering what Ukraine's end goal is at this point. They are doing well defending their country . . . but Russia can/will continue this for an extended period. The entire economy of Ukraine is destroyed at this point, as is an increasing amount of infrastructure. Rebuilding efforts will take years and butt-tons of money. And based on Russia's previous actions regarding ceasefires and negotiations it seems more likely that Russia would break such an agreement than keep it.
I think it has to be restoration of their borders prior to the initial invasion in 2014. Anything short of that will leave Ukraine in the same position as Georgia and Moldova where Russia troops occupy a breakaway portion of the country leaving a frozen conflict that Russia can choose to reignite at any time. At a minimum, they have to recapture everything that Russia took in the latest offensive that started last year. Retaking Crimea and the Donbass may not be feasible but on the other hand Russia is only going to get weaker as time goes on while the US and Europe can supply Ukraine for years to come.
-
...
I think it has to be restoration of their borders prior to the initial invasion in 2014. Anything short of that will leave Ukraine in the same position as Georgia and Moldova where Russia troops occupy a breakaway portion of the country leaving a frozen conflict that Russia can choose to reignite at any time. At a minimum, they have to recapture everything that Russia took in the latest offensive that started last year. Retaking Crimea and the Donbass may not be feasible but on the other hand Russia is only going to get weaker as time goes on while the US and Europe can supply Ukraine for years to come.
Yes, and driving Russia out of all occupied areas would make for Ukraine becoming a NATO member a much more attractive proposition for NATO.
I believe that NATO would have a hard time to admit a country with a frozen conflict within its borders - NATO is a defensive alliance and admitting a nation with legitimate claims to territories occupied by a belligerent adversary would be an unresolvable issue, unless the character of NATO changes in very undesirable ways.
-
Whose side is time on?
Militarily, time has always favored Ukraine. In the absolute sense, they are getting stronger and Russia is getting weaker and that trend will continue for years. Ironically, it's in both sides propaganda interest to claim the opposite. Russia: "We're going to win eventually, so why even bother sending Ukraine anything? It will just make the cost higher for everyone." Ukraine: "If this drags on it favors Russia, so we need more ammo NOW before its too late!"
Societally and economically, while things will continue to get worse for Russia and are already very bad for Ukraine, its more of a draw.
-
Whose side is time on?
Militarily, time has always favored Ukraine. In the absolute sense, they are getting stronger and Russia is getting weaker and that trend will continue for years. Ironically, it's in both sides propaganda interest to claim the opposite. Russia: "We're going to win eventually, so why even bother sending Ukraine anything? It will just make the cost higher for everyone." Ukraine: "If this drags on it favors Russia, so we need more ammo NOW before its too late!"
Societally and economically, while things will continue to get worse for Russia and are already very bad for Ukraine, its more of a draw.
In a way, I'm not sure it's a draw. The longer Russia squats on Ukraine's land, the more settled in things get for everybody. It becomes the status quo. People who fled get used to their new surroundings and may actually prefer them. Russia begins to restart the enterprises in the invaded lands and offers steadu employment to the remaining people. Russians move in for new opportunities in these lands. The teaching of the young includes Russian propaganda. People don't want war. People just want to live their lives. There are many of us in many lands that don't care a rat's ass about government and politics. We just want to live our lives. People tire of war. It may be easier to accept the status quo of Russian rule rather to struggle against it. This is particularly true if they develop the lands and create opportunities for the locals.
Their occupation may not lead to enslavement. They've been doing this invasion thing since Viking days. It's worked pretty well for them judging by the size of their country. Time, may, in fact be on Russia's side.
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
If this drags on, it may indeed favor Russia.
-
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
The demographic problem isn't going away, and is getting worse even if incrementally. Will Russia have enough men in a generation's time?
-
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
The demographic problem isn't going away, and is getting worse even if incrementally. Will Russia have enough men in a generation's time?
The demographic problem is enormous and will echo through Russia for decades. In the more medium term, sanctions are starting to bite and are notoriously sticky (they don’t go away). They’ve pissed off their biggest customers (Europe) of their largest export (gas and oil) and now they are divesting away at a remarkable pace. I personally wouldn’t bet global consumption of fossil fuels will be as high in the 2030s as it is now, even if Russia can get out from under its $60/barrel cap sooner. Russia spent a quarter century attracting western business, and in less than a year almost all of that is gone, leaving it with a far less diversified economy.
In short, it’s hard to overstate just how extreme the economic headwinds will be for Russia in the next couple decades.
-
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
The demographic problem isn't going away, and is getting worse even if incrementally. Will Russia have enough men in a generation's time?
The demographic problem is enormous and will echo through Russia for decades. In the more medium term, sanctions are starting to bite and are notoriously sticky (they don’t go away). They’ve pissed off their biggest customers (Europe) of their largest export (gas and oil) and now they are divesting away at a remarkable pace. I personally wouldn’t bet global consumption of fossil fuels will be as high in the 2030s as it is now, even if Russia can get out from under its $60/barrel cap sooner. Russia spent a quarter century attracting western business, and in less than a year almost all of that is gone, leaving it with a far less diversified economy.
In short, it’s hard to overstate just how extreme the economic headwinds will be for Russia in the next couple decades.
I've pondered the causes of this strange war. The reasons stated by Russia seem ridiculous. However, Russia statements often don't match reality so its not surprising. One commentator stated that one of the reasons Russia started this war was their demographic problem. They don't really need the agriculture, gas fields, industrial capacity or almost any resource Ukraine had to offer. However, Ukraine had about 40 million people. These are hard working clever educated people. A great many of these people speak Russian or could quickly learn due to language similarities. The folks are generally of the same religion and share much commonality with Russian culture. There is a thousand years of shared history. People of Ukrainian origin can assimilate more easily into Russian culture.
So - Putin saw the demographic problem and here were all these people "free" for the taking. The extra land was just frosting on the cake. The kids are being shipped to Russia and most are learning to fit in well. They will grow up as low paid loyal Russian workers much as Russian serfs have done for a thousand years. Lucky for him lack of morality has never been a problem.
It was preferred over the idea of invading Angola.
-
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
The demographic problem isn't going away, and is getting worse even if incrementally. Will Russia have enough men in a generation's time?
The demographic problem is enormous and will echo through Russia for decades. In the more medium term, sanctions are starting to bite and are notoriously sticky (they don’t go away). They’ve pissed off their biggest customers (Europe) of their largest export (gas and oil) and now they are divesting away at a remarkable pace. I personally wouldn’t bet global consumption of fossil fuels will be as high in the 2030s as it is now, even if Russia can get out from under its $60/barrel cap sooner. Russia spent a quarter century attracting western business, and in less than a year almost all of that is gone, leaving it with a far less diversified economy.
In short, it’s hard to overstate just how extreme the economic headwinds will be for Russia in the next couple decades.
I've pondered the causes of this strange war. The reasons stated by Russia seem ridiculous. However, Russia statements often don't match reality so its not surprising. One commentator stated that one of the reasons Russia started this war was their demographic problem. They don't really need the agriculture, gas fields, industrial capacity or almost any resource Ukraine had to offer. However, Ukraine had about 40 million people. These are hard working clever educated people. A great many of these people speak Russian or could quickly learn due to language similarities. The folks are generally of the same religion and share much commonality with Russian culture. There is a thousand years of shared history. People of Ukrainian origin can assimilate more easily into Russian culture.
So - Putin saw the demographic problem and here were all these people "free" for the taking. The extra land was just frosting on the cake. The kids are being shipped to Russia and most are learning to fit in well. They will grow up as low paid loyal Russian workers much as Russian serfs have done for a thousand years. Lucky for him lack of morality has never been a problem.
It was preferred over the idea of invading Angola.
I’m sure this kind of calculation made sense following the bloodless annexation of Crimea in 2014. If the entirety of Ukraine could have been absorbed within a few weeks of light to moderate fighting (as many predicted at the time) then the demographic rewards could have been huge. In hindsight it didn’t go that way and now both sides are deep into a bloody slugfest with no painless way out.
I wonder if Putin needs a lesson in the “sunk cost fallacy”.
-
There are plenty of Africans and South/Central Americans who would love to move somewhere with jobs and safety from gangs.
Then again, I guess they're not white/Eastern Orthodox so Russia presumably wouldn't have wanted them.
Even if getting Ukraine had been easy/bloodless, Ukraine has the same set of demographic problems as Russia, basically. So I still don't get it.
-W
-
The Russian Federation is an empire run by a kleptocratic oligarchy the members of which are continually maneuvering to gain more influence, power and money, behavior that is actively encouraged by the dictator.
For a political entity of this type, Ukraine is simply a potential source of more loot.
At the end of the day, the motivation for trying to subdue Ukraine is not much different than the reasons for which drug cartels engage in violence against rivals.
-
The Russian Federation is an empire run by a kleptocratic oligarchy the members of which are continually maneuvering to gain more influence, power and money, behavior that is actively encouraged by the dictator.
For a political entity of this type, Ukraine is simply a potential source of more loot.
At the end of the day, the motivation for trying to subdue Ukraine is not much different than the resons drug cartels engage in violence against rivals.
Pirates, yeh, them I can understand,......Arrrrh Matey!
-
There are plenty of Africans and South/Central Americans who would love to move somewhere with jobs and safety from gangs.
Then again, I guess they're not white/Eastern Orthodox so Russia presumably wouldn't have wanted them
I can't say if things have changed much in the last 20 years with regards to racism in Russia, but when I lived there, it was *not* a good place to live if your skin was dark. Getting beat up in the street by a few hooligans with nothing else to do was a very real thing.
-
Whose side is time on?
Militarily, time has always favored Ukraine. In the absolute sense, they are getting stronger and Russia is getting weaker and that trend will continue for years. Ironically, it's in both sides propaganda interest to claim the opposite. Russia: "We're going to win eventually, so why even bother sending Ukraine anything? It will just make the cost higher for everyone." Ukraine: "If this drags on it favors Russia, so we need more ammo NOW before its too late!"
Societally and economically, while things will continue to get worse for Russia and are already very bad for Ukraine, its more of a draw.
In a way, I'm not sure it's a draw. The longer Russia squats on Ukraine's land, the more settled in things get for everybody. It becomes the status quo. People who fled get used to their new surroundings and may actually prefer them. Russia begins to restart the enterprises in the invaded lands and offers steadu employment to the remaining people. Russians move in for new opportunities in these lands. The teaching of the young includes Russian propaganda. People don't want war. People just want to live their lives. There are many of us in many lands that don't care a rat's ass about government and politics. We just want to live our lives. People tire of war. It may be easier to accept the status quo of Russian rule rather to struggle against it. This is particularly true if they develop the lands and create opportunities for the locals.
Their occupation may not lead to enslavement. They've been doing this invasion thing since Viking days. It's worked pretty well for them judging by the size of their country. Time, may, in fact be on Russia's side.
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
If this drags on, it may indeed favor Russia.
So far, areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia have very much led to enslavement, torture, murder, and mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children. (See Bucha or Kherson). I don't think Ukrainians will tire of this existential fight for their homes, their freedom, and their lives. Currently in areas occupied by the Russians such as Crimea and Melitopol there is a robust guerrilla campaign being waged by Ukrainians, they are not interested in accepting the status quo, which is the complete erasure of everything Ukrainian.
-
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
The demographic problem isn't going away, and is getting worse even if incrementally. Will Russia have enough men in a generation's time?
The demographic problem is enormous and will echo through Russia for decades. In the more medium term, sanctions are starting to bite and are notoriously sticky (they don’t go away). They’ve pissed off their biggest customers (Europe) of their largest export (gas and oil) and now they are divesting away at a remarkable pace. I personally wouldn’t bet global consumption of fossil fuels will be as high in the 2030s as it is now, even if Russia can get out from under its $60/barrel cap sooner. Russia spent a quarter century attracting western business, and in less than a year almost all of that is gone, leaving it with a far less diversified economy.
In short, it’s hard to overstate just how extreme the economic headwinds will be for Russia in the next couple decades.
I've pondered the causes of this strange war. The reasons stated by Russia seem ridiculous. However, Russia statements often don't match reality so its not surprising. One commentator stated that one of the reasons Russia started this war was their demographic problem. They don't really need the agriculture, gas fields, industrial capacity or almost any resource Ukraine had to offer. However, Ukraine had about 40 million people. These are hard working clever educated people. A great many of these people speak Russian or could quickly learn due to language similarities. The folks are generally of the same religion and share much commonality with Russian culture. There is a thousand years of shared history. People of Ukrainian origin can assimilate more easily into Russian culture.
So - Putin saw the demographic problem and here were all these people "free" for the taking. The extra land was just frosting on the cake. The kids are being shipped to Russia and most are learning to fit in well. They will grow up as low paid loyal Russian workers much as Russian serfs have done for a thousand years. Lucky for him lack of morality has never been a problem.
It was preferred over the idea of invading Angola.
I truly believe that Putin believes himself to be a great Tsar like Peter the Great. His military interventions so far have been relatively small and against far weaker opponents (2nd Chechen war, war with Georgia, saving Assad from Syrian rebels), or lucky (taking Crimea without a fight), and so he thinks he's a military genius. His well paid advisors and generals reinforce this and tell him that the Russian Military he's spent hundreds of billions on is very powerful, and Ukraine's is so weak. He's getting old and wants to make a big mark in history before he goes. Then Angela Merkel steps down from Germany after 18 years, the US is embroiled with internal politics and a botched pullout from Afghanistan, and he decides the time to go is never going to get better than this.
-
Yes, he wants to stand as Putin the Great in the middle of Alexander and Catarina. Reuniting Russia by taking over the scam state(s) would make it so, he thinks.
-
Wagner threatening to leave Bakhmut. It seems either Russia will have to put up the ammunition to keep holding Bakhmut or give it up.
I think this may be the beginning of Russia's retreat of their territory north of Luhansk and will instead try to fortify their 2014 borders of Donetsk. If Wagner doesn't have ammunition to keep Bakhmut, then certainly the Russian military can't hold it either.
-
I think it's more likely that the Russian ministry of defence has been withholding ammunition from Wagner because of factional infighting. There is little love lost between Wagner leader Prigozhin and defence minister Shoigu, to name but two of the many strongmen. The Russian ministry of defence and Wagner have repeatedly clashed over who will get all the glory (and therefore political influence) for conquering Bakhmut. They've constantly been trying to one-up eachother. Shoigu supposedly has a mercenary company of his own by the way: Patriot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(company)), which is of course a competitor of Wagner's. Think of Russia less as a modern state like the USA and more as a feudal kingdom. The czar's continued rule depends on his playing the various dukes and counts off against each other so none of them gets powerful enough to make a bid for the throne. Putin could improve Russia's chances in the war by consolidating military power in one commander but will likely do no such thing because it would threaten his rule and his life.
I wouldn't be so sure this bodes a Russian collapse in the north. A Wagner collapse maybe, but I'll believe that too when I see it. Putin probably can't let Wagner get too weak because then who will be the countervailing power against the ministry of defence? There are other candidates, sure, but Prigozhin is a known quantity that Putin has seen fit to keep around so far.
-
If Wagner pulls out of Bakhmut, that leaves Russia with a weak point at that location, where Ukraine has an elevated concentration. That's dangerous for Russia.
-
True! Here's hoping Wagner does pull out and Ukraine can exploit the resulting weak point.
-
True! Here's hoping Wagner does pull out and Ukraine can exploit the resulting weak point.
Either that, or Russia has to pull units from other areas, leaving those areas weakened against an impending Ukrainian offensive.
-
Whose side is time on?
Militarily, time has always favored Ukraine. In the absolute sense, they are getting stronger and Russia is getting weaker and that trend will continue for years. Ironically, it's in both sides propaganda interest to claim the opposite. Russia: "We're going to win eventually, so why even bother sending Ukraine anything? It will just make the cost higher for everyone." Ukraine: "If this drags on it favors Russia, so we need more ammo NOW before its too late!"
Societally and economically, while things will continue to get worse for Russia and are already very bad for Ukraine, its more of a draw.
In a way, I'm not sure it's a draw. The longer Russia squats on Ukraine's land, the more settled in things get for everybody. It becomes the status quo. People who fled get used to their new surroundings and may actually prefer them. Russia begins to restart the enterprises in the invaded lands and offers steadu employment to the remaining people. Russians move in for new opportunities in these lands. The teaching of the young includes Russian propaganda. People don't want war. People just want to live their lives. There are many of us in many lands that don't care a rat's ass about government and politics. We just want to live our lives. People tire of war. It may be easier to accept the status quo of Russian rule rather to struggle against it. This is particularly true if they develop the lands and create opportunities for the locals.
Their occupation may not lead to enslavement. They've been doing this invasion thing since Viking days. It's worked pretty well for them judging by the size of their country. Time, may, in fact be on Russia's side.
The world may be happy with Russia if they let the border lines be drawn like Korea, the former East Germany, Vietnam, etc. They will have the 1/5 of land they took from Ukraine. Russia can wait. In a generation, they can go after the rest of Ukraine. They do not think like the West.
If this drags on, it may indeed favor Russia.
True, things are much worse for Ukraine right now. But they aren't really getting worse, and they've improved since March 2022. The trend is level-ish if you consider that the situation in the occupied territories continues to get worse. Russia is obviously in a better position on the inside, but their situation is rapidly worsening. Their society is weaker, more brittle, and less transparent. While it's pretty obvious how bad things are for Ukraine, even most Russians likely do not have a good understanding of what things are like in their own country. We don't even have a guess how it will play out inside Russia, but there is a good chance that their social and economic system is on path to shatter even before a Ukrainian military victory. For both military and social/economic/political systems the trend is what matters, and I think that both trends favor Ukraine.
-
I think it's more likely that the Russian ministry of defence has been withholding ammunition from Wagner because of factional infighting. There is little love lost between Wagner leader Prigozhin and defence minister Shoigu, to name but two of the many strongmen. The Russian ministry of defence and Wagner have repeatedly clashed over who will get all the glory (and therefore political influence) for conquering Bakhmut. They've constantly been trying to one-up eachother. Shoigu supposedly has a mercenary company of his own by the way: Patriot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(company)), which is of course a competitor of Wagner's. Think of Russia less as a modern state like the USA and more as a feudal kingdom. The czar's continued rule depends on his playing the various dukes and counts off against each other so none of them gets powerful enough to make a bid for the throne. Putin could improve Russia's chances in the war by consolidating military power in one commander but will likely do no such thing because it would threaten his rule and his life.
I wouldn't be so sure this bodes a Russian collapse in the north. A Wagner collapse maybe, but I'll believe that too when I see it. Putin probably can't let Wagner get too weak because then who will be the countervailing power against the ministry of defence? There are other candidates, sure, but Prigozhin is a known quantity that Putin has seen fit to keep around so far.
Agree with the depiction of Russia as a feudal state, with Putin as king and a revolving cast of lower royalty that are trying to improve their positions, Game of Thrones style.
Russian MOD leadership (Gerisimov & Shoigu) and Wagner (Prigozhin) are blood enemies. I actually think they hate each other far more than either hates the Ukrainians. The only reason it has not erupted into full civil war yet is because the king likes it this way, playing them off against each other. When Putin dies, I think it is very likely that a bloody civil war will result, with multiple sides (Russian MOD, Wagner, FSB, Kadyrov Chechens, etc). That will result in a definitive end of Russia's war on Ukraine.
As far as Wagner really retreating from Bakhmut - I don't think Prigozhin is going to telegraph an actual retreat ahead of time. This is just his latest attempt at trying to embarrass the MOD and maybe get them to give him more ammo.
-
As far as Wagner really retreating from Bakhmut - I don't think Prigozhin is going to telegraph an actual retreat ahead of time. This is just his latest attempt at trying to embarrass the MOD and maybe get them to give him more ammo.
He also said he wouldn't do it until the day after the parade next week which gives them time to compromise or he's using this as cover for something else. If he actually packed up his forces - where would they go? Home? Or just a more quiet sector of the front? If Wagner were to withdraw from the war, then Prighozin stops being a celebrity and fades into the background. Bakhmut is 95% in Russian hands and he's been complaining about ammo for months. There has to be something more to this that we're not seeing yet.
-
Prigozhin's threat of withdrawal is looking more and more like empty words...
Ukraine says no sign of Russia’s Wagner force Bakhmut withdrawal
Ukraine military officials say Wagner fighters are being sent to Bakhmut to reinforce their positions, not withdraw.
The Ukrainian military has brushed aside claims by the head of Russia’s Wagner mercenary force that he will withdraw his fighters from the battle for the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, saying the mercenaries were holding firm and receiving reinforcements.
Ukraine’s military said on Friday that Wagner fighters were reinforcing positions in Bakhmut with the likely intention to try and seize the destroyed city before Russia marks the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II on May 9.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/6/ukraine-says-no-sign-of-russias-wagner-force-bakhmut-withdrawal
-
Prigozhin's threat of withdrawal is looking more and more like empty words...
Ukraine says no sign of Russia’s Wagner force Bakhmut withdrawal
Ukraine military officials say Wagner fighters are being sent to Bakhmut to reinforce their positions, not withdraw.
The Ukrainian military has brushed aside claims by the head of Russia’s Wagner mercenary force that he will withdraw his fighters from the battle for the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, saying the mercenaries were holding firm and receiving reinforcements.
Ukraine’s military said on Friday that Wagner fighters were reinforcing positions in Bakhmut with the likely intention to try and seize the destroyed city before Russia marks the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II on May 9.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/6/ukraine-says-no-sign-of-russias-wagner-force-bakhmut-withdrawal
Russians are an odd lot. When they say black then it's white. When they it's up then look down.
-
Russians are an odd lot. When they say black then it's white. When they it's up then look down.
"All war is based on deception" - Sun Tzu
Though I suppose if you always do the exact opposite of what you say that's not really deceptive...
-
Russians are an odd lot. When they say black then it's white. When they it's up then look down.
"All war is based on deception" - Sun Tzu
Though I suppose if you always do the exact opposite of what you say that's not really deceptive...
You'd think they would use something high-tech, like a Magic 8 Ball, to help make their lies a bit more random.
-
But then they wouldn't know themselves what they would be doing, right?
Anyway, Wagner has announced not immediate retreat but Progishin said they will retreat on the 10th, while blaming the ministry for the high Wagner losses since they have been cut of from ammunition supplies and they now need to lick their wounds.
Now, that is very intersting, isn't it? That has increase the fire on the ministry from the Russian war bloggers who also fear that the front will not hold with normal Russian troops.
Taking this into account it looks like this is a genius move by Prigoshin. Getting his troops out at or before the Ukrainian attack, while being able to blame the collapse of the front on his internal arch enemy Shoigu, hist can put himself up as the backstabbed hero.
-
But then they wouldn't know themselves what they would be doing, right?
Anyway, Wagner has announced not immediate retreat but Progishin said they will retreat on the 10th, while blaming the ministry for the high Wagner losses since they have been cut of from ammunition supplies and they now need to lick their wounds.
Now, that is very intersting, isn't it? That has increase the fire on the ministry from the Russian war bloggers who also fear that the front will not hold with normal Russian troops.
Taking this into account it looks like this is a genius move by Prigoshin. Getting his troops out at or before the Ukrainian attack, while being able to blame the collapse of the front on his internal arch enemy Shoigu, hist can put himself up as the backstabbed hero.
And in today's news they're saying the MoD is promising the shells and Wagner will stay put. I had a feeling it was all a show.
-
Might be. But personally I think it really was a power fight. The complains are too old to be a theater for the Ukrainian offense.
And who knows? In 3 days Wagner might be out of the region. THEN I will accept the theater theory ;)
-
And in today's news they're saying the MoD is promising the shells and Wagner will stay put. I had a feeling it was all a show.
I'm pretty sure it was a bluff. Obviously, there are tons we don't know, but Prigozhin made a big show of wanting more ammo or he would pick up his toys and go. And then Prigozhin magically gets more ammo. I can't see a reason why Prigozhin would publicly try to embarrass the Russian MOD (posing in front of killed soldiers no less) unless he thought he would benefit. Kadyrov has been yapping a lot too, recently. I don't know the political situation here, but clearly the Russian MOD isn't fully in control of its contractors. It is also clear that there is competion between the various factions for equipment and ammunition. Defense minister Shoigu has his own PMC, which presumably is in competition for ammunition with regular Russian forces and other contractors.
I suspect this lack of unity and apparently backbiting will cause problems if and when the Ukrainians gain the advantage.
-
And in today's news they're saying the MoD is promising the shells and Wagner will stay put. I had a feeling it was all a show.
I'm pretty sure it was a bluff. Obviously, there are tons we don't know, but Prigozhin made a big show of wanting more ammo or he would pick up his toys and go. And then Prigozhin magically gets more ammo. I can't see a reason why Prigozhin would publicly try to embarrass the Russian MOD (posing in front of killed soldiers no less) unless he thought he would benefit. Kadyrov has been yapping a lot too, recently. I don't know the political situation here, but clearly the Russian MOD isn't fully in control of its contractors. It is also clear that there is competion between the various factions for equipment and ammunition. Defense minister Shoigu has his own PMC, which presumably is in competition for ammunition with regular Russian forces and other contractors.
I suspect this lack of unity and apparently backbiting will cause problems if and when the Ukrainians gain the advantage.
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
For all we know, this drama about "look at us, we're infighting" might just be a ploy to direct the Ukranian counteroffensive toward Bakmut instead of toward more vulnerable directions.
-
And in today's news they're saying the MoD is promising the shells and Wagner will stay put. I had a feeling it was all a show.
I'm pretty sure it was a bluff. Obviously, there are tons we don't know, but Prigozhin made a big show of wanting more ammo or he would pick up his toys and go. And then Prigozhin magically gets more ammo. I can't see a reason why Prigozhin would publicly try to embarrass the Russian MOD (posing in front of killed soldiers no less) unless he thought he would benefit. Kadyrov has been yapping a lot too, recently. I don't know the political situation here, but clearly the Russian MOD isn't fully in control of its contractors. It is also clear that there is competion between the various factions for equipment and ammunition. Defense minister Shoigu has his own PMC, which presumably is in competition for ammunition with regular Russian forces and other contractors.
I suspect this lack of unity and apparently backbiting will cause problems if and when the Ukrainians gain the advantage.
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
For all we know, this drama about "look at us, we're infighting" might just be a ploy to direct the Ukranian counteroffensive toward Bakmut instead of toward more vulnerable directions.
The big difference is US contractors weren't doing the front-line fighting. They were mostly support with some providing security - usually for other contractors. I'm not sure if Wagner has mechanics, cooks, commo technicians, or just infantry.
-
And in today's news they're saying the MoD is promising the shells and Wagner will stay put. I had a feeling it was all a show.
I'm pretty sure it was a bluff. Obviously, there are tons we don't know, but Prigozhin made a big show of wanting more ammo or he would pick up his toys and go. And then Prigozhin magically gets more ammo. I can't see a reason why Prigozhin would publicly try to embarrass the Russian MOD (posing in front of killed soldiers no less) unless he thought he would benefit. Kadyrov has been yapping a lot too, recently. I don't know the political situation here, but clearly the Russian MOD isn't fully in control of its contractors. It is also clear that there is competion between the various factions for equipment and ammunition. Defense minister Shoigu has his own PMC, which presumably is in competition for ammunition with regular Russian forces and other contractors.
I suspect this lack of unity and apparently backbiting will cause problems if and when the Ukrainians gain the advantage.
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
Putin has relied on proxies a great deal in this war. The separatists provided a few divisions at the beginning of the war (largely destroyed now), and most of the Bakhmut operation has been done with Wagner. The Russian public doesn't blink when these two groups are cut to pieces, but when an active duty division runs away leaving their tanks behind or a barracks full of mobiks gets hit by a GMLRS there's calls for blood on Telegram and state controlled media.
-
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
For all we know, this drama about "look at us, we're infighting" might just be a ploy to direct the Ukranian counteroffensive toward Bakmut instead of toward more vulnerable directions.
Perhaps, but Prigozhin has been screaming for months that the Russian MoD is incompetent. In fact, he pulled almost this same exact stunt a few months ago. That can't be good for the homefront. Also the Discord leaks indicated the MoD doesn't like Prigozhin and doesn't know what to do about him. So I think the evidence points to a genuine fracture in Russian forces.
-
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
For all we know, this drama about "look at us, we're infighting" might just be a ploy to direct the Ukranian counteroffensive toward Bakmut instead of toward more vulnerable directions.
Perhaps, but Prigozhin has been screaming for months that the Russian MoD is incompetent. In fact, he pulled almost this same exact stunt a few months ago. That can't be good for the homefront. Also the Discord leaks indicated the MoD doesn't like Prigozhin and doesn't know what to do about him. So I think the evidence points to a genuine fracture in Russian forces.
I hope it also indicates that what Prigozhin has been yowling about is true. I do hope the Russians are short on ammunition.
-
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
For all we know, this drama about "look at us, we're infighting" might just be a ploy to direct the Ukranian counteroffensive toward Bakmut instead of toward more vulnerable directions.
Perhaps, but Prigozhin has been screaming for months that the Russian MoD is incompetent. In fact, he pulled almost this same exact stunt a few months ago. That can't be good for the homefront. Also the Discord leaks indicated the MoD doesn't like Prigozhin and doesn't know what to do about him. So I think the evidence points to a genuine fracture in Russian forces.
Could it be that the Ukraine war will continue to be fought until Prigozhin dies in the war?
-
Missed this... Ukraine is getting some aircraft. Good.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/8/7401225/
-
Isn't reliance on contractors to cut costs and multiply forces the same general theory as the US military applied in Iraq and Afghanistan? Putin wanted to copy that performance?
I think you are thinking wrong here. This is not about what Putin wants, it's what those who keep him in power want. No one rules alone. Putin can't afford to (openly) get rid of someone like Prigozhin. Means they guy can do whatever he wants as long as he achieves his goals - or at least more than Putin thinks he can with others.
Also keep in mind that there never was a mention of Putin, only of the MoD.
For a dictator, there are 3 things he needs from his second-in-command's: loyality, loyality and loyality.
(Also read the book in my sig.)
-
Meanwhile in parts of Europe, Russian information warfare is taking the form of provocateurs highjacking protests or staging fake ones of their own.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/05/07/how-russia-is-staging-fake-protests-in-europe-to-discredit-ukraine_6025808_4.html
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-staging-protests-for-anti-ukraine-propaganda-report/a-65544741
I'm glad this has been revealed by the press. I can't help but think this must be just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Meanwhile in parts of Europe, Russian information warfare is taking the form of provocateurs highjacking protests or staging fake ones of their own.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/05/07/how-russia-is-staging-fake-protests-in-europe-to-discredit-ukraine_6025808_4.html
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-staging-protests-for-anti-ukraine-propaganda-report/a-65544741
I'm glad this has been revealed by the press. I can't help but think this must be just the tip of the iceberg.
Quite the contrast. Folks protesting the war in Russia gives them 15 years in the hoosegow.
-
It sounds like over the past couple of days, Ukraine has made some counterattacks on the flanks around Bakhmut, and as of an hour ago, there's some footage of a significant attack going on.
-
It sounds like over the past couple of days, Ukraine has made some counterattacks on the flanks around Bakhmut, and as of an hour ago, there's some footage of a significant attack going on.
Ukraine appears to have made at least 4 successful, reasonably large counterattacks in the area - generally each is measured in kilometers.
Denys gives a good overview, as usual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUkAv6tGQ3I
So far, the ongoing battle for Bakhmut is amazingly similar to the defense of Stalingrad in WW2 (both were ~90% seized by the attackers before the counterattack, both were long, grinding, brutal battles. Russia threw tons of untrained, underequipped soldiers into the meat grinder.)
What Russia seems to have failed to notice in this parallel, is that they are playing the role of the Nazis in the Stalingrad scenario. It did not end well for the Nazis.
-
It sounds like over the past couple of days, Ukraine has made some counterattacks on the flanks around Bakhmut, and as of an hour ago, there's some footage of a significant attack going on.
Ukraine appears to have made at least 4 successful, reasonably large counterattacks in the area - generally each is measured in kilometers.
Denys gives a good overview, as usual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUkAv6tGQ3I
So far, the ongoing battle for Bakhmut is amazingly similar to the defense of Stalingrad in WW2 (both were ~90% seized by the attackers before the counterattack, both were long, grinding, brutal battles. Russia threw tons of untrained, underequipped soldiers into the meat grinder.)
What Russia seems to have failed to notice in this parallel, is that they are playing the role of the Nazis in the Stalingrad scenario. It did not end well for the Nazis.
Yes - However they are true to form in throwing dozens of untrained, under-equipped soldiers into the meat grinder. Is it the worst of both worlds?
Reported Russian losses (not by Russia) are 196,920 Russian deaths in the "Special Military Operation."
-
It looks like Ukraine has just used the newly acquired British Storm Shadow cruise missiles to hit into Luhansk. I wonder how many of these weapons the Brits handed over.
-
It looks like Ukraine has just used the newly acquired British Storm Shadow cruise missiles to hit into Luhansk. I wonder how many of these weapons the Brits handed over.
The UK has consistently been first to send new, supposedly "escalatory" equipment that Ukraine wants - NLAWs before the invasion, Challenger tanks when no other country would provide NATO tanks, and now Storm Shadows, with ~150 mile range. This should put all of Crimea within range. Wikipedia says the the UK bought 700-1000 in 1996, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow) but it's unclear to me if that it was a single buy. Even if Ukraine only gets ~200 it will give the Russians plenty to be concerned about.
Hopefully the US provides ATACAMS once the Ukrainians prove that they won't hit any random civilian Russian cities with these Storm Shadows (you know, the way the Russians hit random civilian Ukrainian cities with cruise missiles and hypersonics...)
-
It looks like Ukraine has just used the newly acquired British Storm Shadow cruise missiles to hit into Luhansk. I wonder how many of these weapons the Brits handed over.
Saw a Russian post earlier claiming it was a Hrim rocket rather than a Storm Shadow, but it's still early to tell. That said, the attack was definitely accompanied by ADM-160 MALD missiles (miniature air-launched decoy). These are American missiles that project electronic signatures pretending to be other aircraft or missiles to a SAM radar to fool them or get them to give away their positions.
https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1657066925002838016?t=jHjhj_cUiyOFoXXvsYzQuA&s=19 (https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1657066925002838016?t=jHjhj_cUiyOFoXXvsYzQuA&s=19)
Another interesting bit from Bakhmut the last couple days is that Ukraine's counterattacks on the city's northern flank involved the Russian Arctic 200th motorized brigade. This is one of many brigades that have been destroyed at least once already in this war and re-populated by mobilized troops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO6OUTELkjo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO6OUTELkjo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9BLzC512iM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9BLzC512iM)
The Ukrainian units are the same ones that have been defending Bakhmut for months. They've been consistently rotating their troops so that in a three-battalion brigade, only one battalion is on the line at a time. It keeps the other units fresh and available for moments like these. The counterattack force that has been training and forming for months still hasn't made an appearance, but there have been skirmishes all along the frontline from Kherson to Kharkiv.
-
It looks like Ukraine has just used the newly acquired British Storm Shadow cruise missiles to hit into Luhansk. I wonder how many of these weapons the Brits handed over.
Saw a Russian post earlier claiming it was a Hrim rocket rather than a Storm Shadow, but it's still early to tell. That said, the attack was definitely accompanied by ADM-160 MALD missiles (miniature air-launched decoy). These are American missiles that project electronic signatures pretending to be other aircraft or missiles to a SAM radar to fool them or get them to give away their positions.
https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1657066925002838016?t=jHjhj_cUiyOFoXXvsYzQuA&s=19 (https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1657066925002838016?t=jHjhj_cUiyOFoXXvsYzQuA&s=19)
Another interesting bit from Bakhmut the last couple days is that Ukraine's counterattacks on the city's northern flank involved the Russian Arctic 200th motorized brigade. This is one of many brigades that have been destroyed at least once already in this war and re-populated by mobilized troops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO6OUTELkjo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO6OUTELkjo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9BLzC512iM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9BLzC512iM)
The Ukrainian units are the same ones that have been defending Bakhmut for months. They've been consistently rotating their troops so that in a three-battalion brigade, only one battalion is on the line at a time. It keeps the other units fresh and available for moments like these. The counterattack force that has been training and forming for months still hasn't made an appearance, but there have been skirmishes all along the frontline from Kherson to Kharkiv.
There has been lots of talk of a Ukrainian counter-offensive this spring, and speculation as to where it is going to happen.
It appears to be happening in Bakhmut.
-
It also appears to be happening in a dozen different places - the increased smoking accidents for example.
We haven't seen any decisive attack so far. Imho we are barely in the middle of the probing phase, and as I wrote above somewhere, I expect Bakhmut to be not he primary goal and more a "grab if you can, but definitely make a lot of noise" because of it's propaganda value (and vulnerability) for both sides.
Also, if Ukraine can wedge Wagner troops away from the official military (very unlikely though) that would be a huge win, even if there is no territory gain for the moment.
-
It also appears to be happening in a dozen different places - the increased smoking accidents for example.
We haven't seen any decisive attack so far. Imho we are barely in the middle of the probing phase, and as I wrote above somewhere, I expect Bakhmut to be not he primary goal and more a "grab if you can, but definitely make a lot of noise" because of it's propaganda value (and vulnerability) for both sides.
Also, if Ukraine can wedge Wagner troops away from the official military (very unlikely though) that would be a huge win, even if there is no territory gain for the moment.
One of the reasons for making the offensive in Bakhmut is that because Russia has been concentrating on advancing there it may not have put in place all the defences that it has elsewhere, making it a point of vulnerability for the Ukrainians to exploit. That also helps to explain why Ukraine have so busily telegraphed their coming offensive, not something that is usually sensible - it's a massive piece of misdirection that has kept Russian troops and materiel spread out along the rest of the line of engagement and away from the offensive in Bakhmut, making that offensive less effective and a bigger vulnerability if the offensive fails, as it appears to have done.
All very clever on the Ukrainians' part if I'm right. And explains their determination to hold Bakhmut and the price they've been prepared to pay to do it.
-
It looks like Ukraine has just used the newly acquired British Storm Shadow cruise missiles to hit into Luhansk. I wonder how many of these weapons the Brits handed over.
The call on Storm Shadow appears to be correct. Also, Ukraine used another one in Luhansk today destroying another command post.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1657317762157477888?t=ZUxODPXY2y7FrzTzkgSS3g&s=19 (https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1657317762157477888?t=ZUxODPXY2y7FrzTzkgSS3g&s=19)
In the space of a couple hours, Russia lost two fighter-bombers and two helicopters over Russian territory just over the border near Bryansk. Telegram chatter points to Ukrainian missiles, whether it was from man-portable systems infiltrated in or larger launchers from Chernihiv hasn't been determined.
https://twitter.com/faytuks/status/1657373825435049984?s=46&t=Qr_snr_t9l0WWVQPAOe9jQ (https://twitter.com/faytuks/status/1657373825435049984?s=46&t=Qr_snr_t9l0WWVQPAOe9jQ)
-
It seems to me that Ukraine will have one of the best equipped and most seasoned armed forces in the world. It would be silly not to include them in NATO at this conclusion of this invasion.
-
There has been lots of talk of a Ukrainian counter-offensive this spring, and speculation as to where it is going to happen.
It appears to be happening in Bakhmut.
Maybe, but so far it seems to just be existing forces with existing weapons. Nobody has credibly identified a Leopard*, Bradley, Marder, etc. as part of the fighting in Bakhmut - so the newly formed brigades for the main counterattack apparently haven't been deployed.
Ukraine is apparently pushing probing attacks on at least 95km of the front. Russia seems to be collapsing around Bakhmut, but that could largely just be due to thoroughly ground-down and demoralized troops fleeing. Russia has been grinding at Bakhmut for something like 10 months specializing in "meat wave" attacks.
Could the current activity in Bakhmut be the eventual place for the main counteroffensive since the Russians seem weak there? Sure.
Could the current activity in Bakhmut be a "fixing attack" intended to keep the Russians focused there and thinner elsewhere, trying to set up a repeat of the Kharkiv counter offensive where Russians over-concentrated in Kherson? Sure.
...plus the aforementioned "ground down and demoralized Russian troops fleeing" noted above.
Lots of possibilities here - and I'm not trying to undervalue what the Ukranians have accomplished in Bakhmut - apparently they have liberated of 20 square km in a handful of days and largely have focused on taking tactically advantageous terrain.
*Notwithstanding the T-whatevers with "LEOPARD" spray-painted on the turret....
-
There has been lots of talk of a Ukrainian counter-offensive this spring, and speculation as to where it is going to happen.
It appears to be happening in Bakhmut.
Maybe, but so far it seems to just be existing forces with existing weapons. Nobody has credibly identified a Leopard*, Bradley, Marder, etc. as part of the fighting in Bakhmut - so the newly formed brigades for the main counterattack apparently haven't been deployed.
Ukraine is apparently pushing probing attacks on at least 95km of the front. Russia seems to be collapsing around Bakhmut, but that could largely just be due to thoroughly ground-down and demoralized troops fleeing. Russia has been grinding at Bakhmut for something like 10 months specializing in "meat wave" attacks.
Could the current activity in Bakhmut be the eventual place for the main counteroffensive since the Russians seem weak there? Sure.
Could the current activity in Bakhmut be a "fixing attack" intended to keep the Russians focused there and thinner elsewhere, trying to set up a repeat of the Kharkiv counter offensive where Russians over-concentrated in Kherson? Sure.
...plus the aforementioned "ground down and demoralized Russian troops fleeing" noted above.
Lots of possibilities here - and I'm not trying to undervalue what the Ukranians have accomplished in Bakhmut - apparently they have liberated of 20 square km in a handful of days and largely have focused on taking tactically advantageous terrain.
*Notwithstanding the T-whatevers with "LEOPARD" spray-painted on the turret....
Is the Earth still soaked?
What's still in the pipeline? There's supposed to be a lot of GLSDB glide bombs being manufactured.
Are they still waiting for the proper tools and materials to do the job?
-
There has been lots of talk of a Ukrainian counter-offensive this spring, and speculation as to where it is going to happen.
It appears to be happening in Bakhmut.
Maybe, but so far it seems to just be existing forces with existing weapons. Nobody has credibly identified a Leopard*, Bradley, Marder, etc. as part of the fighting in Bakhmut - so the newly formed brigades for the main counterattack apparently haven't been deployed.
Ukraine is apparently pushing probing attacks on at least 95km of the front. Russia seems to be collapsing around Bakhmut, but that could largely just be due to thoroughly ground-down and demoralized troops fleeing. Russia has been grinding at Bakhmut for something like 10 months specializing in "meat wave" attacks.
Could the current activity in Bakhmut be the eventual place for the main counteroffensive since the Russians seem weak there? Sure.
Could the current activity in Bakhmut be a "fixing attack" intended to keep the Russians focused there and thinner elsewhere, trying to set up a repeat of the Kharkiv counter offensive where Russians over-concentrated in Kherson? Sure.
...plus the aforementioned "ground down and demoralized Russian troops fleeing" noted above.
Lots of possibilities here - and I'm not trying to undervalue what the Ukranians have accomplished in Bakhmut - apparently they have liberated of 20 square km in a handful of days and largely have focused on taking tactically advantageous terrain.
*Notwithstanding the T-whatevers with "LEOPARD" spray-painted on the turret....
Is the Earth still soaked?
What's still in the pipeline? There's supposed to be a lot of GLSDB glide bombs being manufactured.
Are they still waiting for the proper tools and materials to do the job?
The ground has dried out quite a bit, but not evenly across the front. It's still pretty wet on the Russian-controlled side of the front. Swedish CV90s were discussed a few months ago, but are not expected to show up until late summer and GLSDB went into production just this year so their quantity is a big question mark. Bradleys have been spotted on Ukrainian highways, but only one or two at a time. Ukraine is keeping it close to the chest whether they're still waiting on equipment, weather, training, or feeling out Russian responses before they make the big jump.
-
LOL I just saw on ISW that Russia is deploying 4 new brigades to Bakhmut. How dumb can you get? It constantly seems like they are trying to lose on purpose.
In other news I am glad that European countries are finally taking an interest in European defense over the past week, with a big German arms transfer and long range missiles from England and France. I think that every storm shadow missile delivered multiplies Ukraines odds of failure by 0.995.
-
In other news I am glad that European countries are finally taking an interest in European defense over the past week, with a big German arms transfer and long range missiles from England and France. I think that every storm shadow missile delivered multiplies Ukraines odds of failure by 0.995.
Unfortunately, Hungary/Orban just blocked $500M of EU aid to Ukraine.
-
In other news I am glad that European countries are finally taking an interest in European defense over the past week, with a big German arms transfer and long range missiles from England and France. I think that every storm shadow missile delivered multiplies Ukraines odds of failure by 0.995.
Unfortunately, Hungary/Orban just blocked $500M of EU aid to Ukraine.
Here's what Reuters said:
BUDAPEST, May 16 (Reuters) - Hungary did not approve the disbursement of the next tranche of military support for Ukraine provided under the EU's European Peace Facility (EPF), a government spokesman's office said on Tuesday.
The EPF, created in 2021, is an off-budget instrument aimed at enhancing the EU's ability to prevent conflicts, build peace and strengthen international security.
"Hungary does not agree with the fact that the European Union, along with other existing tools, uses the European Peace Facility solely with regard to Ukraine as this does not allow sufficient funds to be channelled to promote the EU's interests in other areas," the government spokesman's office said in an email response to Reuters about an Italian media report on the matter.
It said other areas where the funds could be used included the Balkans or North Africa.
"For the Hungarian government it is crucial that these issues should be clarified, and that's why it did not approve the disbursement of the next tranche from the EPF," the spokesman's office added.
The EU has provided a total of about 3.6 billion euros for military support for Ukraine so far under the EPF.
Hungary, which is member of the EU and also NATO, has refused to provide any military equipment to its neighbour Ukraine, which was invaded by Russian forces in February 2022.
Hungary has also repeatedly criticised EU sanctions against Russia, which all 27 EU countries must also unanimously approve, but eventually supported all the agreed measures so far.
Hungary has been in a dispute with Brussels, as the bloc has suspended any payments of EU recovery funds until Budapest's nationalist government implements reforms to improve judicial independence and tackle corruption.
In power since 2010, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has clashed with the EU and its executive arm, the European Commission, over Budapest restricting the rights of migrants, as well as tightening state controls over non-governmental organizations, academics, media and courts.
I would think the people of Hungary who suffered under the Soviet Union would empathize with the people of Ukraine. I would also think the other members of the EU would put the pressure on Orban. I think he needs them more than they need him. But, I don't live there.
-
I would think the people of Hungary who suffered under the Soviet Union would empathize with the people of Ukraine. I would also think the other members of the EU would put the pressure on Orban. I think he needs them more than they need him. But, I don't live there.
Yes, you'd think Hungarians would empathise with Ukrainians. And many of them surely do. Orbán practically controls the media though, and abuses them to spin a narrative about Russia being big and scary and Hungary having to look out for its own interests first and foremost. 'Hungary first', if you will. Plus plenty of red herrings about jewish plots, EU overreach and immigrants to distract from the war. It seems most Hungarians are willing to believe the lies, sadly. Taking Russia's side suits Orbán because unlike the European Commission, Putin will never come calling about the state of human rights, corruption or the rule of law in Hungary. It conveniently means Orbán's cronies can continue stealing public funds and his approval ratings won't suffer under higher energy prices caused by sanctions against Russia.
I'd assess EU countries are nearly unanimously fed up with Hungary under Orbán. Presssure is almost certainly being applied behind the scenes as we speak, but I'm not privy to how or by whom. I do know the EU has been withholding € 7.5 billion in subsidies to Hungary over rule of law concerns since November of last year (https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/11/30/brussels-to-announce-decision-to-cut-75-billion-of-eu-funds-to-hungary-over-rule-of-law-co) so you might say the thumbscrews have been on for a while now.
-
Arguably Hungary and Turkyie have no business being in an EU made up primarily of democracies. The realpolitik however, is that each has strategic importance. The EU judges itself to be better off in constant arguments and paralysis with these authoritarian states than it is letting them slip into the Russian orbit. They are the EU's soft underbelly and the reason why the EU cannot be said to stand for a common set of values, but for now it's better to leave them in and hope for positive change than it is to alienate them and have the Russians take over.
The autocrats of each country judge this to be a survivable balance. The EU is there as a handy political excuse for all problems, leverage against the EU is easy to exploit, there's a lot more autonomy than in Russia's colonial relationship with Belarus, and all it takes is to bring in various subsidies is a few warm gestures toward Putin.
-
Arguably Hungary and Turkyie have no business being in an EU made up primarily of democracies. The realpolitik however, is that each has strategic importance. The EU judges itself to be better off in constant arguments and paralysis with these authoritarian states than it is letting them slip into the Russian orbit. They are the EU's soft underbelly and the reason why the EU cannot be said to stand for a common set of values, but for now it's better to leave them in and hope for positive change than it is to alienate them and have the Russians take over.
The autocrats of each country judge this to be a survivable balance. The EU is there as a handy political excuse for all problems, leverage against the EU is easy to exploit, there's a lot more autonomy than in Russia's colonial relationship with Belarus, and all it takes is to bring in various subsidies is a few warm gestures toward Putin.
Just to clarify, Turkey is not a full EU member. Here's what my laptop says:
Relations between the European Union (EU) and Turkey were established in 1959, and the institutional framework was formalised with the 1963 Ankara Agreement. Albeit not officially part of the European Union, Turkey is one of the EU's main partners and both are members of the European Union–Turkey Customs Union.
They could get closer to being EU members if their long time president is ousted in the upcoming runoff election, but people oddly favor the familiar.
-
Turkey isn't in the EU but it is in NATO.
I suspect this is where CB's confusion lies given recent headlines about how Turkey is blocking Sweden's entry to NATO because these decisions require complete consensus of current members similarly to how Hungary has been holding up various EU policies.
-
Yea, NATO is what I meant. Apparently wasn't awake yet. The partial overlap with the EU is a bit messy. Neither organization can claim to represent human rights and democracy while having Orwellian-authoritarian members.
It must be unnerving and problematic to have reps from Orban and Erdogen attending NATO meetings and then going to talk to the Russians. It probably limits information sharing between NATO countries.
Now that we're back to a NATO/Russia cold war, these pressures between having disloyal insiders versus giving away strategic land can only intensify. The temptation so far has been to wait for an election or coup to solve the problem, but patience must be wearing thin after all these years. Also, the whole quiet debate needs to address the issue of what happens if other countries like France or Italy or the US elect right-wing authoritarians who dismantle state safeguards, persecutes minorities, or cozies up to Russia. Could NATO be principled against the dictators if that meant giving up strategic advantages, or does that defeat the whole purpose of a defense alliance? If the dictator nations start blocking NATO initiatives or are found to be playing both sides, a case will build to make the alliance more ideological.
-
Yea, NATO is what I meant. Apparently wasn't awake yet. The partial overlap with the EU is a bit messy. Neither organization can claim to represent human rights and democracy while having Orwellian-authoritarian members.
It must be unnerving and problematic to have reps from Orban and Erdogen attending NATO meetings and then going to talk to the Russians. It probably limits information sharing between NATO countries.
Now that we're back to a NATO/Russia cold war, these pressures between having disloyal insiders versus giving away strategic land can only intensify. The temptation so far has been to wait for an election or coup to solve the problem, but patience must be wearing thin after all these years. Also, the whole quiet debate needs to address the issue of what happens if other countries like France or Italy or the US elect right-wing authoritarians who dismantle state safeguards, persecutes minorities, or cozies up to Russia. Could NATO be principled against the dictators if that meant giving up strategic advantages, or does that defeat the whole purpose of a defense alliance? If the dictator nations start blocking NATO initiatives or are found to be playing both sides, a case will build to make the alliance more ideological.
I guess it can happen to any country. Trump had a bit of those tendencies. Some may even say Biden does.
-
Bakhmut urban area pushed back to just a few blocks remaining in Ukrainian hands; however, Ukrainian counterattacks have pushed the flanks in the fields around the city substantially.
https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1659145035588288512 (https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1659145035588288512)
Blue is what Ukraine has been confirmed to have reclaimed this week. This is with the battalions already assigned to the area. The new counteroffensive brigades have not shown up.
The West's desire to see F-16s in the Ukrainian air force seems to be growing quite a bit this week as well. It would still take several months to train the pilots and mechanics, and there may be only a dozen or so used planes available in Europe, but that's the hot news item this week.
A few nights ago Russia launched 18 missiles of various types at Kyiv, ostensibly with the task of destroying a Patriot system. The strike package included six Kinzhal hypersonic missiles that until the arrival of Patriot, Ukraine had no defense against. Ukraine claims to have shot down every missile, with a single Patriot launcher sustaining damage from falling debris that was repaired in two days.
Also, today's rumor in the Beltway is that Ukraine got one of their Patriot systems close enough to the border and shot down those four Russian aircraft last weekend. If true, its possible that the missile barrage on Kyiv was a revenge attack against the Patriot. Neither side has elaborated on what happened to those planes.
-
This is a pretty good summary of Putin, Prigozhin and Bahkmut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdmKFrDOso
-
Also, today's rumor in the Beltway is that Ukraine got one of their Patriot systems close enough to the border and shot down those four Russian aircraft last weekend. If true, its possible that the missile barrage on Kyiv was a revenge attack against the Patriot. Neither side has elaborated on what happened to those planes.
If revenge is a part of the Russian military strategy calculation, then they are doomed.
-
From their actions so far, the Ukranians are willing to take big risks and bold moves to win the war (Kerch Bridge, Moskava, Russian AWACS in Belarus, etc etc) I would not be surprised that there was a Patriot system hidden close to the Russian border waiting for its chance to take out 4 Russian aircraft.
Fortunately for the Ukranians, Putin is obsessed with revenge, and he is micromanaging this war to that end. I mean, the Russians launched cruise missles at Ternopil, Ukraine for the first time last week right before contestants from there went on stage at Eurovision. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65586701)
-
Also, today's rumor in the Beltway is that Ukraine got one of their Patriot systems close enough to the border and shot down those four Russian aircraft last weekend. If true, its possible that the missile barrage on Kyiv was a revenge attack against the Patriot. Neither side has elaborated on what happened to those planes.
If revenge is a part of the Russian military strategy calculation, then they are doomed.
Reacting to embarrassments has been very much part of Russian strategy. Ukraine pulls off something, and a Russian cruise missile attack (mostly on civilians) can be expected in a couple days along with a statement that they did exactly what Ukraine did but bigger. Ukraine hits a depot with HIMARS, then Russia says it hit a bigger depot and destroyed a dozen HIMARS. Ukraine destroys a Russian division headquarters, then Russia claims to have destroyed a headquarters with 200 NATO officers in it. And on it goes. About this time last year, Lithuania crowd-sourced the purchase of a Turkish TB-2 drone to be donated to Ukraine. Russia claimed to have destroyed it the same day it was delivered to Lithuania.
-
Also, today's rumor in the Beltway is that Ukraine got one of their Patriot systems close enough to the border and shot down those four Russian aircraft last weekend. If true, its possible that the missile barrage on Kyiv was a revenge attack against the Patriot. Neither side has elaborated on what happened to those planes.
If revenge is a part of the Russian military strategy calculation, then they are doomed.
Reacting to embarrassments has been very much part of Russian strategy. Ukraine pulls off something, and a Russian cruise missile attack (mostly on civilians) can be expected in a couple days along with a statement that they did exactly what Ukraine did but bigger. Ukraine hits a depot with HIMARS, then Russia says it hit a bigger depot and destroyed a dozen HIMARS. Ukraine destroys a Russian division headquarters, then Russia claims to have destroyed a headquarters with 200 NATO officers in it. And on it goes. About this time last year, Lithuania crowd-sourced the purchase of a Turkish TB-2 drone to be donated to Ukraine. Russia claimed to have destroyed it the same day it was delivered to Lithuania.
So maybe from a propaganda angle, any loss is one-to-one accounted for by an equivalent or magnified revenge attack. This helps Russian people mentally account for the war as a tie instead of as a steady string of losses (which to either Russia or Ukraine, it actually is).
There's a revenge theme in the Ukrainian propaganda too. Except on the Ukrainian side it makes more sense, by redirecting feelings of victimization toward a total war stance. To Russians, the logic of revenge merely teaches them to fear the wrath of the state and take a wait-and-see approach to the war.
-
So - There was an attack across the border at Belgorod.
https://www.dw.com/en/sabotage-group-crossed-into-russia-belgorod-governor-says/a-65698484 (https://www.dw.com/en/sabotage-group-crossed-into-russia-belgorod-governor-says/a-65698484)
Elsewhere, I heard this was done by the "Freedom of Russia Legion."
What ramifications will this have? Is this group active in other locations within Russia? Will this force Russia to divert resources away from the "Special Military Operation?"
I wish these guys luck in similar future endeavors.
-
For a group of Russian dissidents/freedom fighters with a single old tank and maybe a half-dozen Humvees, it's impressive that they've penetrated miles into Russia, and apparently are causing locals to flee in panic. They're at least halfway to a depot which apparently held (or possibly still holds) tactical nuclear weapons.(!).
Another branch of the group apparently launched a large freedom flag over Moscow as well:
https://www.businessinsider.com/liberty-of-russia-legion-appears-fly-opposition-flag-over-moscow-2023-5
-
There's no way to be sure of course, but I seriously doubt if this is a homegrown Russian resistance movement. To me it looks like Ukraine giving Russia a taste of its own medicine from Crimea and the Donbass in 2014. 'little green men' all over again, only in reverse.
An adviser to Ukrainian president Zelensky tweeted this:
@Podolyak_M
The only driving political force in a totalitarian country of tightened screws is always an armed guerrilla movement. #Ukraine is watching the events in the #Belgorod region of #Russia with interest and studying the situation, but it has nothing to do with it. As you know, tanks are sold at any Russian military store, and underground guerrilla groups are composed of Russian citizens.
https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1660630391068164096?s=20
He seems to be both establishing plausible deniability and hinting at Ukrainian involvement in the same message. A resistance movement doesn't just materialise out of thin air with guns blazing.
-
There's no way to be sure of course, but I seriously doubt if this is a homegrown Russian resistance movement.
We've known about a dedicated unit of Russians who defected to Ukraine in February, 2022 - a few days after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. From the beginning they have declared their intention to overthrow Putin and have recruited other native Russians to the unit. This is the same unit which has entered Russia recently. I'm not seeing any reason to doubt their veracity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Russia_Legion
Regarding Zelenskyy's comments - Ukraine has consistently been trolling Russia. This is pretty obvious trolling.
-
There's no way to be sure of course, but I seriously doubt if this is a homegrown Russian resistance movement. To me it looks like Ukraine giving Russia a taste of its own medicine from Crimea and the Donbass in 2014. 'little green men' all over again, only in reverse.
The dildo of consequences seldom arrives lubed.
-
I've seen it commented that the "you can buy a tank at any russian army/navy surplus store" is a poke-in-the-eye at Russia, who supposedly said similar things back in 2014 about the Little Green Men.
-
There's no way to be sure of course, but I seriously doubt if this is a homegrown Russian resistance movement. To me it looks like Ukraine giving Russia a taste of its own medicine from Crimea and the Donbass in 2014. 'little green men' all over again, only in reverse.
You are probably correct. However, despite Putin's powerful propaganda to keep the Russian people supporting him, actions do speak louder than words.
- All those people who fled the country must have caused some negative consequences for those left behind
- Those tens of thousands of young men who have died and are wounded surely does not give Russians a positive impression of Putin
- The reasons for fighting this war will appear foolish to many who look beyond the foolish propaganda. This must leave a sour taste in their mouths.
- Russians can no longer purchase foreign products that were preciously part of their lives
- Higher taxes are being implemented
- There are laws preventing free speech
- Putin's government has lied to the people again and again
There are probably a lot more reasons the average Russian would find great dissatisfaction with Putin. I just think it may not be too difficult to get support for a resistance movement within Russia.
-
Sounds like the "offensive" part of the offensive has started. Still probing attacks, since no western tanks have been spotted. (I expect them to be used after a breakthrough or at least a possible hole for maximum effect fo the limited assets.)
https://kyivindependent.com/russia-reports-ukrainian-ground-attacks-in-donetsk-oblast-in-possible-launch-of-counteroffensive/
At 1:31 a.m. Kyiv time, the Russian Defense Ministry, which famously floundered in silence in response to Ukraine’s lightning counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast last year, reported a “large-scale offensive on five sectors of the front in the southern Donetsk area.”
According to Russian sources, Ukraine has also stepped up attacks around Bakhmut...
Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin claimed that part of the village of Berkhivka had been partly “lost” to Ukrainian forces. If true, this would amount to an advance of around two kilometers from where the contact line stood a day earlier, on June 4.
-
There's no way to be sure of course, but I seriously doubt if this is a homegrown Russian resistance movement. To me it looks like Ukraine giving Russia a taste of its own medicine from Crimea and the Donbass in 2014. 'little green men' all over again, only in reverse.
You are probably correct. However, despite Putin's powerful propaganda to keep the Russian people supporting him, actions do speak louder than words.
- All those people who fled the country must have caused some negative consequences for those left behind
- Those tens of thousands of young men who have died and are wounded surely does not give Russians a positive impression of Putin
- The reasons for fighting this war will appear foolish to many who look beyond the foolish propaganda. This must leave a sour taste in their mouths.
- Russians can no longer purchase foreign products that were preciously part of their lives
- Higher taxes are being implemented
- There are laws preventing free speech
- Putin's government has lied to the people again and again
There are probably a lot more reasons the average Russian would find great dissatisfaction with Putin. I just think it may not be too difficult to get support for a resistance movement within Russia.
I can only imagine what the average Russian sees/thinks/feels, but their predicament seems eerily similar to the US climate for a few years after 9/11. The media was in a full-fledged hoo-rah! patriotic tizzy and there were little yellow ribbon magnets stuck to people's SUVs to "support our troops". To criticize the special military operations was tantamount to supporting the enemy, who were "terrorists".
When I told people the lack of WMD usage in the first days of the Iraq invasion proved there were no WMDs, I was told they'll turn up later. When I told my friends there was a good chance these wars turn into a Vietnam-like stalemate where the US loses the day we withdraw, I was told that was the most ridiculous idea ever. People laughed when I suggested 50,000 casualties was a reasonable estimate. It was closer to 60k, but that was still an impressive estimate in circa 2003 (Iraq official outcome: 4,431 dead soldiers, 31,994 wounded soldiers, "at least" 1,487 dead "contractors" --- Afghanistan official outcome: 2,402 dead soldiers, 20,713 wounded, 1,822 dead "contractors"). News coverage showed massive million-dollar bombs blowing up mud huts we were told were full of "terrorists" who were resisting the American occupations, but I always wondered if that was true.
The US anti-war marches of that era were minuscule, similar to what we saw in Russia before all their bravest activists were arrested. Smart people would just throw up their hands and say "it's stupid and everyone will see in the end" and yet the end didn't come until nearly two decades and several trillion dollars down the toilet later, so they were more proven ineffectual than proven right.
Prominent political figures who should have known better, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and John Kerry, supported the wars perhaps more out of fear of taking an unpopular position. George W. Bush's popularity skyrocketed and he won a 2nd term (with the popular vote this time too!). This same script is playing out in Russia today. It is boosting Putin's popularity and grip on power, not damaging it. The Ukraine war could still be being fought a decade or more from now, and it could cost the lives of 300k-400k people - many more if Ukraine loses and a genocide occurs, which is a real possibility.
I see no reason to believe the Russian political left is any more alive or effective than the American political left.
-
To head off things regarding the dam failure, I am a civil engineer. The dam was almost certainly destroyed by large explosives placed under water on the downstream face. There are no dam maintenance activities whose neglect would cause sudden catastrophic failure after just two years of neglect. High water did not contribute to the failure but it did contribute to the size of the flood. Damage from minor shelling around the dam earlier did not contribute to the failure. Russia did it.
-
To head off things regarding the dam failure, I am a civil engineer. The dam was almost certainly destroyed by large explosives placed under water on the downstream face. There are no dam maintenance activities whose neglect would cause sudden catastrophic failure after just two years of neglect. High water did not contribute to the failure but it did contribute to the size of the flood. Damage from minor shelling around the dam earlier did not contribute to the failure. Russia did it.
Opinions on whether packing the generator room with explosives is also plausible?
-
To head off things regarding the dam failure, I am a civil engineer. The dam was almost certainly destroyed by large explosives placed under water on the downstream face. There are no dam maintenance activities whose neglect would cause sudden catastrophic failure after just two years of neglect. High water did not contribute to the failure but it did contribute to the size of the flood. Damage from minor shelling around the dam earlier did not contribute to the failure. Russia did it.
Opinions on whether packing the generator room with explosives is also plausible?
Could have been! I was just looking at photo/video of the water flow through the breach, and not a layout of the existing facility. I don’t know where the generator room was. It looks like the failure was far down the structure and not from the top or as a result of surficial damage. It would be possibly easier to place a large volume of explosives in a critical area in a generator room depending where it was. It could also have been a result of drilled holes filled with explosives in the concrete or under the dam like what would happen in a quarry. I don’t know the exact method, just that it allowed explosives to be placed deep, and was not for example any kind of missile or charge on or near the top, if it was then an absurdly large charge would have to have been used.
-
To head off things regarding the dam failure, I am a civil engineer. The dam was almost certainly destroyed by large explosives placed under water on the downstream face. There are no dam maintenance activities whose neglect would cause sudden catastrophic failure after just two years of neglect. High water did not contribute to the failure but it did contribute to the size of the flood. Damage from minor shelling around the dam earlier did not contribute to the failure. Russia did it.
Opinions on whether packing the generator room with explosives is also plausible?
Well, if you put enough in there it will certainly work.
But from my very limited understanding dam mechanic understanding, you don't want to punch a hole in the dam where most of the blast is distributed upwards and the water can flow though without doing additional damage.
What you want is a damage at the feet, preferably under the dam, where the water pressure will erode the ground and the whole structure will collapse. Think medieval sieges where you collapse town walls by building mines under them and collape (later blast) them.
(again, disclaimer, that's only my extrapolation, no knowlegde about dams)
-
I think Russia did it, but it does put at risk the canal providing water to Crimea - which was arguably one of the reasons they launched this latest invasion in the first place. I'm not sure of the exact dynamics of that canal if the Dnipro River will still be high enough to provide water without the reservoir from the dam. If not, they may have just shot themselves in the foot (not out of the question given their history).
Destroying the dam does make any sort of Ukrainian advance along that whole Kherson front nearly impossible as the lower ground on the Russian-held side to the south will now be flooded making it impossible to bring in any meaningful number of vehicles or supplies - since the bridge over the top of the dam is also destroyed and there's no way to get a pontoon bridge across it now. I'll bet Russia is going to reposition many of those troops further north to help blunt any Ukrainian offensives. Also, the water level behind the dam was at the highest level since at least 2020 making the effects even more devastating. Since Russia has controlled the dam and the amount of water being released for over a year this would point to a deliberate act on their part.
-
To head off things regarding the dam failure, I am a civil engineer. The dam was almost certainly destroyed by large explosives placed under water on the downstream face. There are no dam maintenance activities whose neglect would cause sudden catastrophic failure after just two years of neglect. High water did not contribute to the failure but it did contribute to the size of the flood. Damage from minor shelling around the dam earlier did not contribute to the failure. Russia did it.
Opinions on whether packing the generator room with explosives is also plausible?
Well, if you put enough in there it will certainly work.
But from my very limited understanding dam mechanic understanding, you don't want to punch a hole in the dam where most of the blast is distributed upwards and the water can flow though without doing additional damage.
What you want is a damage at the feet, preferably under the dam, where the water pressure will erode the ground and the whole structure will collapse. Think medieval sieges where you collapse town walls by building mines under them and collape (later blast) them.
(again, disclaimer, that's only my extrapolation, no knowlegde about dams)
It's not too uncommon for dams to have penstocks to route the water from the dams some distance away. This is where the generators will be to take advantage of more "head." (water pressure) However, this dam looks like a relies on river volume more than pressure. Pictures showed that it was the main body of the dam that was damaged. If I remember right, the dams I worked at had Tainter Gates which may have been easy to blow.
-
I think Russia did it, but it does put at risk the canal providing water to Crimea - which was arguably one of the reasons they launched this latest invasion in the first place. I'm not sure of the exact dynamics of that canal if the Dnipro River will still be high enough to provide water without the reservoir from the dam. If not, they may have just shot themselves in the foot (not out of the question given their history).
Destroying the dam does make any sort of Ukrainian advance along that whole Kherson front nearly impossible as the lower ground on the Russian-held side to the south will now be flooded making it impossible to bring in any meaningful number of vehicles or supplies - since the bridge over the top of the dam is also destroyed and there's no way to get a pontoon bridge across it now. I'll bet Russia is going to reposition many of those troops further north to help blunt any Ukrainian offensives. Also, the water level behind the dam was at the highest level since at least 2020 making the effects even more devastating. Since Russia has controlled the dam and the amount of water being released for over a year this would point to a deliberate act on their part.
A year ago we talked about this and I followed the Crimea canal, it draws its water from just a few hundred yards or so upstream of the dam. It looks to me like the canal follows a tenuous path which is barely possible hydraulically even with the intake there, so it will definitely no longer divert water to Crimea. The canal barely had enough fall to work as it was, I bet 5 more feet and it would have been marginal, 10 more feet and it would have been impossible.
I assume Crimea will still be able to get domestic water up to about 100 gpm per capita daily, this will just end agriculture. It will effectively end agriculture for all of Ukraine in the dnipro basin at a lower elevation than the dam as well which is a pretty big area. That effect will be economically much larger than loss of hydropower or water to Crimea.
I thought that Ukraine could have done something like that in the winter just before a deep cold snap, because the flood would wash away Russian defenses and then freeze hard enough to drive a tank on within a few days, but I don’t think it makes sense for them now.
Reasons it was Russia:
Wanton ill considered reckless destruction has been a Russian hallmark
Economic and ecologic effects very disproportionately affect Ukraine even if Russia keeps Crimea
Tactically I can’t see any advantage for Ukraine in this, so given the costs it especially makes no sense
Also this really pisses me off. There had better be a hard and large international response to this. This is on the scale of dynamiting one of the larger dams in the western US (maybe not quite Hoover dam level). Millions of people will be severely impacted by this for years. And also planning of an overwhelming response of Russia plans the same for a nuclear plant.
-
Another reason it was Russia: you don't blow up roads between you and the enemy when you're advancing. And Russia ain't advancing. You do it when you're retreating, to slow down your pursuers.
Or if you're just reckless and wonton destruction is your M.O.
-
Another reason it was Russia: you don't blow up roads between you and the enemy when you're advancing. And Russia ain't advancing. You do it when you're retreating, to slow down your pursuers.
Or if you're just reckless and wonton destruction is your M.O.
It does imply they don't expect to hold the land. It's the scorched earth policy from WW2.
-
Another reason it was Russia: you don't blow up roads between you and the enemy when you're advancing. And Russia ain't advancing. You do it when you're retreating, to slow down your pursuers.
Or if you're just reckless and wonton destruction is your M.O.
Right! Which is the most obvious. Anyway I’ve seen many news agencies playing the both sides we can’t really be sure what happened and we can’t find any subject experts because we don’t care game, which is philosophical, moral, and professional bullshit.
-
Another reason it was Russia: you don't blow up roads between you and the enemy when you're advancing. And Russia ain't advancing. You do it when you're retreating, to slow down your pursuers.
Or if you're just reckless and wonton destruction is your M.O.
Right! Which is the most obvious. Anyway I’ve seen many news agencies playing the both sides we can’t really be sure what happened and we can’t find any subject experts because we don’t care game, which is philosophical, moral, and professional bullshit.
Will this action finally influence some countries that have been "on the fence?" How will the Hungarian leader view this act? How about the Indians and the Chinese? I don't expect the Indians and Chinese to stop buying oil. I do expect that they shouldn't give Russia any slack. The Iranian government has been assisting Russia. They are supposed to be a theocracy. How can they countenance the murder of innocent people like this? Some say there is no morality in geopolitics, but that's bull. I wonder if even old Lukashenko may be a little less buddy buddy with the Russian regime.
-
Another reason it was Russia: you don't blow up roads between you and the enemy when you're advancing. And Russia ain't advancing. You do it when you're retreating, to slow down your pursuers.
Or if you're just reckless and wonton destruction is your M.O.
Right! Which is the most obvious. Anyway I’ve seen many news agencies playing the both sides we can’t really be sure what happened and we can’t find any subject experts because we don’t care game, which is philosophical, moral, and professional bullshit.
Will this action finally influence some countries that have been "on the fence?" How will the Hungarian leader view this act? How about the Indians and the Chinese? I don't expect the Indians and Chinese to stop buying oil. I do expect that they shouldn't give Russia any slack. The Iranian government has been assisting Russia. They are supposed to be a theocracy. How can they countenance the murder of innocent people like this? Some say there is no morality in geopolitics, but that's bull. I wonder if even old Lukashenko may be a little less buddy buddy with the Russian regime.
Well, regarding the Iranian government, have you missed all the violence against their own people? Why should they have a problem with Russia killing innocents when they're doing it themselves?
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-protests-death-count-human-rights-report/32224340.html
-
This is the article that set me off: https://apnews.com/article/russia--war-kakhovka-dam-flood-evacuation-eecc9952c2d9f500c38b0a873f69438c
Russian officials blamed Ukrainian bombardment in the contested area, where the river separates the two sides.
It was not possible to reconcile the conflicting claims.
really?
David Helms, a retired American scientist who has monitored the reservoir, said in an email it wasn’t clear if the damage was deliberate or simple neglect by occupying Russian forces.
“Retired man with BS in herpetology (FSU ‘72) who recently spent nearly 20 minutes on twitter researching the topic tries to explain how large Ukrainian dam sprouts two massive leaks in structurally and geographically diverse locations simultaneously, claims it could have been natural causes, says AP”.
-
I think Russia did it, but it does put at risk the canal providing water to Crimea - which was arguably one of the reasons they launched this latest invasion in the first place. I'm not sure of the exact dynamics of that canal if the Dnipro River will still be high enough to provide water without the reservoir from the dam. If not, they may have just shot themselves in the foot (not out of the question given their history).
Destroying the dam does make any sort of Ukrainian advance along that whole Kherson front nearly impossible as the lower ground on the Russian-held side to the south will now be flooded making it impossible to bring in any meaningful number of vehicles or supplies - since the bridge over the top of the dam is also destroyed and there's no way to get a pontoon bridge across it now. I'll bet Russia is going to reposition many of those troops further north to help blunt any Ukrainian offensives. Also, the water level behind the dam was at the highest level since at least 2020 making the effects even more devastating. Since Russia has controlled the dam and the amount of water being released for over a year this would point to a deliberate act on their part.
Regarding Crimea, since Ukraine initially cut off the canal some years ago the Russians established a couple reservoirs downstream which should support their consumption needs for a while. They've pretty much given up on agriculture on the peninsula with the supply line being in doubt.
For Ukrainian agriculture, this flood is devastating. The potable and irrigation water supply for all of Kherson and most of Zap oblasts may now be gone. Several grain storage sites were also flooded out yesterday.
-
Another reason it was Russia: you don't blow up roads between you and the enemy when you're advancing. And Russia ain't advancing. You do it when you're retreating, to slow down your pursuers.
Or if you're just reckless and wonton destruction is your M.O.
Right! Which is the most obvious. Anyway I’ve seen many news agencies playing the both sides we can’t really be sure what happened and we can’t find any subject experts because we don’t care game, which is philosophical, moral, and professional bullshit.
Will this action finally influence some countries that have been "on the fence?" How will the Hungarian leader view this act? How about the Indians and the Chinese? I don't expect the Indians and Chinese to stop buying oil. I do expect that they shouldn't give Russia any slack. The Iranian government has been assisting Russia. They are supposed to be a theocracy. How can they countenance the murder of innocent people like this? Some say there is no morality in geopolitics, but that's bull. I wonder if even old Lukashenko may be a little less buddy buddy with the Russian regime.
Well, regarding the Iranian government, have you missed all the violence against their own people? Why should they have a problem with Russia killing innocents when they're doing it themselves?
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-protests-death-count-human-rights-report/32224340.html
Yeh - I guess if you've got the idea that you're chosen by God to lead people stuff like empathy and guilt are no longer in the picture.
The old Czars had that idea too. Maybe Putin has adopted it.
-
As a side note regarding agriculture, it looks like the Americans were planning to buy European wheat due to the severe drought in Kansas. Now that that's unlikely, I'm expecting $6-$7 prices for a loaf of bread soon.
-
As a side note regarding agriculture, it looks like the Americans were planning to buy European wheat due to the severe drought in Kansas. Now that that's unlikely, I'm expecting $6-$7 prices for a loaf of bread soon.
Not to say that won't happen, but the actual cost of the wheat in an average loaf of bread is probably 10-20 cents. Even if the price of wheat doubles it shouldn't have much effect on grocery store prices.
-
As a side note regarding agriculture, it looks like the Americans were planning to buy European wheat due to the severe drought in Kansas. Now that that's unlikely, I'm expecting $6-$7 prices for a loaf of bread soon.
Not to say that won't happen, but the actual cost of the wheat in an average loaf of bread is probably 10-20 cents. Even if the price of wheat doubles it shouldn't have much effect on grocery store prices.
That may be the case, but bakers always increase the price of bread by 20% if the wheat price rises by 30% and lower it by 5% when the wheat price falls by 50%.
Just like oil companies. The price here at the gas station is still near the price of the all time high.
-
As a side note regarding agriculture, it looks like the Americans were planning to buy European wheat due to the severe drought in Kansas. Now that that's unlikely, I'm expecting $6-$7 prices for a loaf of bread soon.
Not to say that won't happen, but the actual cost of the wheat in an average loaf of bread is probably 10-20 cents. Even if the price of wheat doubles it shouldn't have much effect on grocery store prices.
That may be the case, but bakers always increase the price of bread by 20% if the wheat price rises by 30% and lower it by 5% when the wheat price falls by 50%.
Just like oil companies. The price here at the gas station is still near the price of the all time high.
So then bakers' prices are more influenced by the price oil than by the cost of the raw materials? Sounds... reasonable.
-
Not to say that won't happen, but the actual cost of the wheat in an average loaf of bread is probably 10-20 cents. Even if the price of wheat doubles it shouldn't have much effect on grocery store prices.
That may be the case, but bakers always increase the price of bread by 20% if the wheat price rises by 30% and lower it by 5% when the wheat price falls by 50%.
Just like oil companies. The price here at the gas station is still near the price of the all time high.
You just described every industry that's affected by the price of commodities.
-
Rescue operations on the right bank still ongoing. All signs point to Russia leaving the civilians on the left bank to die.
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1666499315987013632?t=9tIlODr0gbIVzKraxB0OWg&s=19 (https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1666499315987013632?t=9tIlODr0gbIVzKraxB0OWg&s=19)
-
Another one that hit close to home. A friend here in Sweden is a transnistrian man with a ukrainian wife and aparantly both the place where they met and her childhood home are now under water. :(
-
As a side note regarding agriculture, it looks like the Americans were planning to buy European wheat due to the severe drought in Kansas. Now that that's unlikely, I'm expecting $6-$7 prices for a loaf of bread soon.
Not to say that won't happen, but the actual cost of the wheat in an average loaf of bread is probably 10-20 cents. Even if the price of wheat doubles it shouldn't have much effect on grocery store prices.
Short answer: Yup, sounds right to me.
Gratuitously long answer:
Figure a 20 oz loaf of bread (550 grams)
The bread is about 1/3 water and 2/3 flour by weight so 370 grams of flour.
About 75% of the weight of raw wheat makes it into white flour, the rest is lost/repurposed so call it 500 grams of raw wheat.
A bushel of wheat weighs 60 lbs (27,200 grams)
So 54 loafs of bread per bushel.
Kansas City hard red winter wheat (the kind we'd want to make bread flour) is currently trading for 7.87 bushel.
So 14.5 cents of wheat per loaf of bread.
-
As a side note regarding agriculture, it looks like the Americans were planning to buy European wheat due to the severe drought in Kansas. Now that that's unlikely, I'm expecting $6-$7 prices for a loaf of bread soon.
Not to say that won't happen, but the actual cost of the wheat in an average loaf of bread is probably 10-20 cents. Even if the price of wheat doubles it shouldn't have much effect on grocery store prices.
Short answer: Yup, sounds right to me.
Gratuitously long answer:
Figure a 20 oz loaf of bread (550 grams)
The bread is about 1/3 water and 2/3 flour by weight so 370 grams of flour.
About 75% of the weight of raw wheat makes it into white flour, the rest is lost/repurposed so call it 500 grams of raw wheat.
A bushel of wheat weighs 60 lbs (27,200 grams)
So 54 loafs of bread per bushel.
Kansas City hard red winter wheat (the kind we'd want to make bread flour) is currently trading for 7.87 bushel.
So 14.5 cents of wheat per loaf of bread.
But there's another confounding factor - human action.
Price and demand aren't rational. If you tell a large number of people that there's limited supply of anything they'll freak out and buy 10x what they need, actually causing the shortage that they fear. Remember pandemic toilet paper? There was no shortage, just fear. Which then created a shortage.
-
Yes, in principle you can get a shortage just from fear.
With the pandemic there actually WAS a shortage of (consumer sized) toilet paper. People had been doing roughly 1/3 of their toilet paper using in offices and other public locations that use those giant rolls as wide across as my forearm is long which were manufactured on different lines. Part of why it took so long to catch up with the fear-driven panic buying was that we really did need to scale up production of the rolls that fit inside a person's house.
Similarly, the pandemic also created a shortage of flour in grocery stories. Not because we had a shortage of wheat or a shortage of flour, but because we weren't set up the package so much flour in the little 5, 10, or 20 lb packages people buy for at home baking during a pandemic when bread making was a trend for a while.
Now with the specific example of Ukraine, if the original russian invasion and blockade and constant headlines about what a disaster this was going to be for the global food supply didn't sure a wave of panic buying of bread, it seems hard to imagine that the dam bursting is going to be the piece of news that tips the public over into panic buying bread and milk like it's the day before a big snowstorm.
-
That reminds me . . . I need to buy some flour and milk. :P
-
The dam blast may have been a brilliant tactical move, swamping large contingents of Ukraine's Western-donated equipment and washing out Ukranian-held bridges just as the Ukrainians were poised to attack. This way of seeing things does suggest Russia would let the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant melt down if they wanted to create a defensive buffer for the repositioning of troops. A 30km radioactive zone, plus washouts of the Southern bridges would force the Ukrainian offensive to more Northern regions, allowing Russia to concentrate their troops, and it would reduce the risk that Crimea could be cut off from Dombas.
-
Rescue operations on the right bank still ongoing. All signs point to Russia leaving the civilians on the left bank to die.
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1666499315987013632?t=9tIlODr0gbIVzKraxB0OWg&s=19 (https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1666499315987013632?t=9tIlODr0gbIVzKraxB0OWg&s=19)
It's like everything they do seems to have a disregard for human life.
-
The dam blast may have been a brilliant tactical move, swamping large contingents of Ukraine's Western-donated equipment and washing out Ukranian-held bridges just as the Ukrainians were poised to attack. This way of seeing things does suggest Russia would let the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant melt down if they wanted to create a defensive buffer for the repositioning of troops. A 30km radioactive zone, plus washouts of the Southern bridges would force the Ukrainian offensive to more Northern regions, allowing Russia to concentrate their troops, and it would reduce the risk that Crimea could be cut off from Dombas.
The Ukrainian held side of the river is at a higher elevation so relatively little of it is flooding. There were only two bridges downstream from the dam (one road and one rail) both of which were previously destroyed. Had Russia waited until Ukraine had pontoon bridges up and a bridgehead established on the south bank then it would have been a devastating blow. However, there's no way of knowing if Ukraine even intended to try and push forward on that front or concentrate on the more northern regions.
-
Rescue operations on the right bank still ongoing. All signs point to Russia leaving the civilians on the left bank to die.
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1666499315987013632?t=9tIlODr0gbIVzKraxB0OWg&s=19 (https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1666499315987013632?t=9tIlODr0gbIVzKraxB0OWg&s=19)
It's like everything they do seems to have a disregard for human life.
I always assumed that there were at least simple two reasons people feared the USSR. One was a loss of wealth for the wealthy and for everyone else - a careless disregard for life.
-
A lot of visual updates today regarding Ukraine's counteroffensive.
This was the front line a week ago:
https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1664066207622766594?cxt=HHwWhICxwcbZ-ZcuAAAA (https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1664066207622766594?cxt=HHwWhICxwcbZ-ZcuAAAA)
Update attached. Before you say "they've hardly moved," the blue circles and lines are visually confirmed areas of Ukrainian control. There are a few other places currently being debated and attacks are ongoing. Also, other attachment shows the defenses they need to get through consisting of trenches and mines. Ukraine has kept hush about the offensive since it started and today released images of troops walking through identifiable villages. The casual walking implies the frontline is further south. Russian sources have been doing most of the talking so there's a lot of unconfirmed bits and pieces out there. Ukrainian troops appear to be advancing or attempting to in five or six places along the front. Its going to be a hard slog until they can get through those minefields.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1rRKs40IEbGRsV0Fhky25l5OkPJ_vUvQ&ll=47.91756075549135%2C37.60901257402208&z=10 (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1rRKs40IEbGRsV0Fhky25l5OkPJ_vUvQ&ll=47.91756075549135%2C37.60901257402208&z=10)
Map of Russian defenses in Ukraine based on satellite photos.
-
Yes, advancing, but with terrible losses it looks like. No wonder with 3 lines of defense build over half a year. Let's hope someone is lucky and can punch a hole into the defenses somwhere.
-
Yes, advancing, but with terrible losses it looks like. No wonder with 3 lines of defense build over half a year. Let's hope someone is lucky and can punch a hole into the defenses somwhere.
We really don't know what the losses are yet. Russia keeps posting the same handful of Leopards and Bradleys that were knocked out on the 7th/8th and a couple trucks, but that's really been it for anything confirmed. It looks like in those vehicles, most of the crews survived and were evacuated. Most of them hit mines and just blew tracks, though at least one was hit by artillery or a missile. Assuming they haven't been hit by artillery while they're sitting out they can probably be towed back later.
Breaching operations, river crossings, and beach landings are the most difficult things an army can do. They requires a lot of covering artillery, careful coordination between engineer vehicles, tanks, infantry, and air support if you can manage it. Even then there will be significant casualties because it can be a slow process while the enemy is watching and shooting at you.
Several villages along the Mokri Yali river have been taken (center circle on my map, but double it in a southerly direction) as of tonight. It's raining for the next couple days which may have grounded Russian helicopters.
-
Yes, advancing, but with terrible losses it looks like. No wonder with 3 lines of defense build over half a year. Let's hope someone is lucky and can punch a hole into the defenses somwhere.
We really don't know what the losses are yet. Russia keeps posting the same handful of Leopards and Bradleys that were knocked out on the 7th/8th and a couple trucks, but that's really been it for anything confirmed.
Well, I have seen others. But the main reason is simply looking at the numvers the Ukraine ministry says for enemy losses. (Which have been, as far as you can judge from outside, have been remarkedly correct.)
If you double that number - a conservative approach for an attacker running into a well prepared defender - it's terrible. Ukraine can sustain that rate of loss maybe a month and then their new attack brigades are bleeded.
-
Yes, advancing, but with terrible losses it looks like. No wonder with 3 lines of defense build over half a year. Let's hope someone is lucky and can punch a hole into the defenses somwhere.
We really don't know what the losses are yet. Russia keeps posting the same handful of Leopards and Bradleys that were knocked out on the 7th/8th and a couple trucks, but that's really been it for anything confirmed.
Well, I have seen others. But the main reason is simply looking at the numvers the Ukraine ministry says for enemy losses. (Which have been, as far as you can judge from outside, have been remarkedly correct.)
If you double that number - a conservative approach for an attacker running into a well prepared defender - it's terrible. Ukraine can sustain that rate of loss maybe a month and then their new attack brigades are bleeded.
Approximate Russian losses on 6-12-23. Total deaths in the "Special Military Operation are 216,180 with another 540 dying for the bizarre cause in the last 24 hours. I hope Ukraine is using tactics where they don't see double that. I'm hoping their repo team can recover all the stolen land.
-
Yes, advancing, but with terrible losses it looks like. No wonder with 3 lines of defense build over half a year. Let's hope someone is lucky and can punch a hole into the defenses somwhere.
We really don't know what the losses are yet. Russia keeps posting the same handful of Leopards and Bradleys that were knocked out on the 7th/8th and a couple trucks, but that's really been it for anything confirmed.
Well, I have seen others. But the main reason is simply looking at the numvers the Ukraine ministry says for enemy losses. (Which have been, as far as you can judge from outside, have been remarkedly correct.)
If you double that number - a conservative approach for an attacker running into a well prepared defender - it's terrible. Ukraine can sustain that rate of loss maybe a month and then their new attack brigades are bleeded.
… an attacker running into a well prepared defender…
-
Can’t work. This is too exciting. I hope it doesn’t turn out to be a big nothing burger.
-
Seems Ukraine hit the most used of the 3 crimean connections to the mainland, the Eastern road bridge and made a hole in it. Russia now has to take a longer route for supplies.
Also Russia fears that the what was once a a big lake until they destroyed the dam will now turn into a 200km long, basically undefended additional front line when the area has dried enough.
Meanwhile ever more Ukrainian soldiers have to be buried...
-
Probably not the collapse of Russia or it’s regime, I don’t think Prigozhin has the resources for that on his own. It might open some chances for Ukraine though. Just need to see how things play out.
-
Probably not the collapse of Russia or it’s regime, I don’t think Prigozhin has the resources for that on his own. It might open some chances for Ukraine though. Just need to see how things play out.
It could be someone else out there to light the fuse of a revolution bomb. I realize Russians have been programmed like Pavlov's dogs for their entire lives, but just the same all animals yearn for a type of freedom. What happened to those Freedom of Russia Legions that marched into Belgorod? It's like there's been a news blackout regarding them. Were they wiped out? Are they still sitting there on the edge of Russia teasing the Russian bear?
-
Probably not the collapse of Russia or it’s regime, I don’t think Prigozhin has the resources for that on his own. It might open some chances for Ukraine though. Just need to see how things play out.
It could be someone else out there to light the fuse of a revolution bomb. I realize Russians have been programmed like Pavlov's dogs for their entire lives, but just the same all animals yearn for a type of freedom. What happened to those Freedom of Russia Legions that marched into Belgorod? It's like there's been a news blackout regarding them. Were they wiped out? Are they still sitting there on the edge of Russia teasing the Russian bear?
Kind of funny. I made the above comment on this fine sunny day. Then I took a good walk. I looked at the news after the walk. It looks like Prigozhin tried to light the revolution fuse during my walk. I guess he read my comment. I don't think he will get far with this revolution thing. He sort of still supports Putin at the same time he is doing the revolution thing. At any rate, I hope it forces Russia to pull troops out of Ukraine for security. Less Russians in Ukraine, the better.
-
For those who haven't seen the news, Prigozhin is claiming that the Russian army attacked the Wagner group and killed a whole bunch of them, and Prigozhin is promising some sort of response. I've seen some speculation that maybe the video is a deep fake, but if it's legit....hoo boy, things could get messy for the Russian side. Knock on wood!
-
Welp, Wagner seized Rostov. It will take everything the Russian state has to snuff this out, which will leave little for Ukraine. Basically their options are: 1) lose the war against Ukraine, like within a week 2) Russia capitulates to Prigozhin by the end of the weekend.
-
Welp, Wagner seized Rostov.
I don't know how credible the talking head Peter Zeihan is, but in his talks about this part of Russia before he has claimed that Rostov-on-Don is also Russias main logistics hub for keeping control of places like Chechnya, Dagestan, and the russian-occupied parts of Georgia. Combine this with the current tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan and this can get even more interesting.
-
plenty of popcorn all around, lol
-
So far it seems that there is little appetite for Russian troops for large-scale fighting between them, Rostov seems to have been taken without a shot being fired. This might a dispute at the top levels which may not trickle down to the massed troops. If so, then some targeted assassinations at the top might resolve it one way or the other.
None of the people at the top on either side of this dispute has the option of cutting and running: they are all war criminals with no safe haven outside Russia. That argues that the dispute will have to be resolved one way or the other pretty quickly.
In the meantime Russian troops in Ukraine are essentially leaderless and Ukraine has been hitting their logistics hard so their continued level of supplies must be in doubt. The potential for big changes all around is significant.
-
Succession ŕ la russe, first course.
-
Perhaps this is somewhat of an opportunity for Putin to sacrifice Defense Minister Shoigu to get out of this ill-advised war without shouldering total blame. Too bad that won't happen.
-
Succession ŕ la russe, first course.
Second course: reports of mutinies in the Russian MoD
-
Succession ŕ la russe, first course.
Second course: reports of mutinies in the Russian MoD
Third course: reports of the Russian front collapsing near Bakhmut
-
Succession ŕ la russe, first course.
Second course: reports of mutinies in the Russian MoD
Third course: reports of the Russian front collapsing near Bakhmut
Fourth course: A business jet often used by Lukashenko and his family and top brass left Belarus for Turkey this past night in a strange way. Perhaps Europes last dicator is on the run, or he just tries to move his family to safety.
-
I don't know how I should feel about this. It's potentially good for Ukraine in the short term but what happens if he wins?
-
I don't know how I should feel about this. It's potentially good for Ukraine in the short term but what happens if he wins?
Local analysts near me speculates that this will be the birth of Russia's Dolkstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) no matter who wins the internal Russian kerfuffle. But that's on a 20 year time span.
-
Prigozhin's Wagner group has executed civilians, and Putin has ordered air strikes to kill civilians. In my view, the best outcome for Ukraine is both men dead.
Flight tracking shows Putin's private jet left Moscow shortly before 3pm (Moscow time). In the middle of a coup, no dictator sends their private jet away without them.
-
Amazingly enough, the traffic info on Google Maps shows a part of the current struggles. The M2 and M4 highways south of Moscow are shown as blocked at the Oka river. This is in line with reporting on Twitter of the current status. This is 1,5 hours from the city center of Moscow by a regular car according to the same source.
-
Fourth course: A business jet often used by Lukashenko and his family and top brass left Belarus for Turkey this past night in a strange way. Perhaps Europes last dicator is on the run, or he just tries to move his family to safety.
The commitment is to theft and self-enrichment, not the country or governing.
-
As of 11:30 central time, several thousand Wagner troops are maybe an hour from Moscow and have received little resistance. They've shot down five Russian helicopters and a surveillance airplane. Of the three rail lines that go from Russia into Ukraine, Wagner controls one of them.
-
Multiple media outlets now report that Wagner stands down.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-66006142
-
Succession ŕ la russe, first course.
Second course: reports of mutinies in the Russian MoD
Third course: reports of the Russian front collapsing near Bakhmut
Fourth course: A business jet often used by Lukashenko and his family and top brass left Belarus for Turkey this past night in a strange way. Perhaps Europes last dicator is on the run, or he just tries to move his family to safety.
Apparently Putin´s chef found Putin´s goose not to be fully cooked - yet.
So we´ll have to wait a little longer for the main course.
-
Succession ŕ la russe, first course.
Second course: reports of mutinies in the Russian MoD
Third course: reports of the Russian front collapsing near Bakhmut
Fourth course: A business jet often used by Lukashenko and his family and top brass left Belarus for Turkey this past night in a strange way. Perhaps Europes last dicator is on the run, or he just tries to move his family to safety.
Apparently Putin´s chef found Putin´s goose not to be fully cooked - yet.
So we´ll have to wait a little longer for the main course.
It looks like they reached some kind of an agreement... let's see if it holds.
-
Yeah, disappointing. Seems they realized that if they let this go on for a few days more, it doesn't matter who wins because they will be austed for losing against Ukraine.
Local analysts near me speculates that this will be the birth of Russia's Dolkstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) no matter who wins the internal Russian kerfuffle. But that's on a 20 year time span.
DolCH not Dolk.
-
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1672694538735955969 (https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1672694538735955969)
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1672694353796513793 (https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1672694353796513793)
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1672692778604670986 (https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1672692778604670986)
https://twitter.com/maryilyushina/status/1672694698602016768 (https://twitter.com/maryilyushina/status/1672694698602016768)
Updates on what the arrangement appears to be. It's a headscratcher and not telling how this plays out.
-
DolCH not Dolk.
Sorry, my Swedish crept in. Here it's "Dolkstötslegenden". I was proud enough to get the ß in there even though I don't have it on my keyboard. :)
-
Into Belarus?
I wonder if anybody in that country was asked if they wanted a hot blooded, murderous bastard with a private army.
If you want to triuple think, that looks like a long orchestrated manouvre to let Wagner into Belrus and let them attack from there - of course without any intent or knowledge of Russia. We are enemies after all! Don't look at me, if Wagner goes to Kyiev!
DolCH not Dolk.
Sorry, my Swedish crept in. Here it's "Dolkstötslegenden". I was proud enough to get the ß in there even though I don't have it on my keyboard. :)
I like how Swedish makes everything into plural (For a German).
-
Into Belarus?
I wonder if anybody in that country was asked if they wanted a hot blooded, murderous bastard with a private army.
If you want to triuple think, that looks like a long orchestrated manouvre to let Wagner into Belrus and let them attack from there - of course without any intent or knowledge of Russia. We are enemies after all! Don't look at me, if Wagner goes to Kyiev!
Luka brokered the deal, so he must think he's getting something out of it. It sounds like some to be determined part of Wagner gets conscripted into the army, and the rest either go home or go work for another PMC in Africa.
-
Great, that MAGA Shaman ran a better insurrection attempt than Prigozhin.
-
Aside from Belarus, how does this deal make Putin look anything but weak? Drop criminal charges and move to Belarus? If it's true that Putin's power is based on an appearance of strength, etc, he's going to be dead in short order.
-
Great, that MAGA Shaman ran a better insurrection attempt than Prigozhin.
Yeah that was pretty sad. It still created about a weeks worth of Ukrainian strategic disruptions, and maybe hastened the demise of the regime by a month, but all in all I rate that one 2/10.
However it was rational. The Russian people and international community (China, EU, & Africa especially) would never have accepted Prigozhin, and his supplies would have run out after a few days.
-
Aside from Belarus, how does this deal make Putin look anything but weak? Drop criminal charges and move to Belarus? If it's true that Putin's power is based on an appearance of strength, etc, he's going to be dead in short order.
So they made a deal that the Wagnerites are "excused" from this event and Prigozhin was allowed exile in Belarus. Looking at history, just how honorable have the Russians been keeping deals? Is it very possible that the world will never hear from Prigozhin again? Is it possible that the Wagnerites will show up on the front lines of the Ukrainian war? If they move forward they are shot. If they move backwards they are shot by other Russians. I don't think Putin wants these people running around. He will have plans for them.
-
Aside from Belarus, how does this deal make Putin look anything but weak? Drop criminal charges and move to Belarus? If it's true that Putin's power is based on an appearance of strength, etc, he's going to be dead in short order.
Progozhin is likely to fall out a window any day now, or possibly get a polonium injection. Something that will make it clear to everyone who did it without being 'clear'.
-
I'm sure Progozhin will be dead soon. Soon however is not now, and if Putin needs to look strong, is that's sufficient? I'm not a dictator nor Russian. But I suspect this isn't good for Putin, regardless if Progozhin turns up dead in 2 weeks.
-
Prigozhin gave strong vibes of the criminal Riddick (Vin Diesel) killing and thus becoming the emperor of the Necromongers in Chronicles of Riddick. Too bad he didn't come out on top, would have made a great meme. "you keep what you kill"
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F23000000%2FVin-in-The-Chronicles-of-Riddick-vin-diesel-23061591-900-506.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=18138fc6889b4df66d36575cc524a0a6485c2c18bb06e47022ea61f04655c05c&ipo=images)
-
Prigozhin gave strong vibes of the criminal Riddick (Vin Diesel) killing and thus becoming the emperor of the Necromongers in Chronicles of Riddick. Too bad he didn't come out on top, would have made a great meme. "you keep what you kill"
Given that he was executing prisoners with a sledgehammer and bragging about it, I'm glad he wasn't successful. If nothing else, it brought the war home to all the Russians who are ignoring it and going about their business. It's real and a lot of people are dying.
-
So, for you knowledgeable guys/gals out there: What was this pseudo-coup? FSB psyops with Wagner Group to identify anti-Putin resistance combined with open, but Russian deniable troup deployment to the Northern Ukraine borders via Belarus? *puzzled*
ETA: I can't believe that either party would be stupid enough to just run this "exercise" on a whim ... esp. if all the agencies knew about it up front.
-
So, for you knowledgeable guys/gals out there: What was this pseudo-coup? FSB psyops with Wagner Group to identify anti-Putin resistance combined with open, but Russian deniable troup deployment to the Northern Ukraine borders via Belarus? *puzzled*
ETA: I can't believe that either party would be stupid enough to just run this "exercise" on a whim ... esp. if all the agencies knew about it up front.
So, you think it was a trick to draw non Putin supporters out into the open so they could be identified and dealt with? Wow! Maybe it all was a master plan of Putin's and his old friend Prigozhin. Lukashenko might have been in on it too. A masterful false flag operation of a sort. Nothing in Russia seems quite honest. Black is white and up is down.
-
Great, that MAGA Shaman ran a better insurrection attempt than Prigozhin.
Wut? Wagner literally captured whole cities and destroyed attacking aircraft. Rostov-on-Don alone has a population of over a million people.
Prighozin definitely abandoned the effort very quickly - but the effectiveness of what they did was very high.
-
So, for you knowledgeable guys/gals out there: What was this pseudo-coup? FSB psyops with Wagner Group to identify anti-Putin resistance combined with open, but Russian deniable troup deployment to the Northern Ukraine borders via Belarus? *puzzled*
ETA: I can't believe that either party would be stupid enough to just run this "exercise" on a whim ... esp. if all the agencies knew about it up front.
So, you think it was a trick to draw non Putin supporters out into the open so they could be identified and dealt with? Wow! Maybe it all was a master plan of Putin's and his old friend Prigozhin. Lukashenko might have been in on it too. A masterful false flag operation of a sort. Nothing in Russia seems quite honest. Black is white and up is down.
Maybe Lukashenko was tired of working under the orders of the Russian military leadership & demanded change before his mercenary organization was destroyed by Ukraine? Starting a revolution is kind of a big deal so it had to be something serious...
-
So, for you knowledgeable guys/gals out there: What was this pseudo-coup? FSB psyops with Wagner Group to identify anti-Putin resistance combined with open, but Russian deniable troup deployment to the Northern Ukraine borders via Belarus? *puzzled*
ETA: I can't believe that either party would be stupid enough to just run this "exercise" on a whim ... esp. if all the agencies knew about it up front.
I think it was a combination of:
1) Dedicated-for-life employee of mob rage quitting and destroying some stuff out of pique when demoted
2) Hope that enough elites and commoners might join in to make something meaningful happen, but then they didn't
-
I think this marks the beginning of the end. Coup attempts and large scale mutinies are typically associated with the 4th quarter of fascist states losing wars. I'm surprised Putin pushed it this far, either his working knowledge of Russian history is terrible, or his grip on reality is.
-
I think this marks the beginning of the end. Coup attempts and large scale mutinies are typically associated with the 4th quarter of fascist states losing wars. I'm surprised Putin pushed it this far, either his working knowledge of Russian history is terrible, or his grip on reality is.
I'd say the latter. Everyone (even regular people) engage in motivated reasoning. But people in power have even less checks/balances against runaway self-aggrandizing.
-
Great, that MAGA Shaman ran a better insurrection attempt than Prigozhin.
Wut? Wagner literally captured whole cities and destroyed attacking aircraft. Rostov-on-Don alone has a population of over a million people.
Prighozin definitely abandoned the effort very quickly - but the effectiveness of what they did was very high.
The MAGA crew had leading politicians running for their lives and almost succeeded in stopping the transfer of power using crude weapons and their muscles. They had commitment. Wagner took their armor for a drive and made a U-turn because of a phone call. No commitment. Exactly what you expect from mercenaries.
-
Perhaps promises of a payoff were made by Putin. Cash or resources. Still expecting Prigozhin to fall out a window/have a plane crash/develop a sudden illness...
-
Deutsche Bank tells investors some of their Russian shares are missing
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/deutsche-bank-tells-investors-some-their-russian-shares-are-missing-2023-06-26/ (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/deutsche-bank-tells-investors-some-their-russian-shares-are-missing-2023-06-26/)
Germany's largest bank said in a note dated June 9 and viewed by Reuters that it had uncovered a shortfall in the shares that back the depositary receipts (DRs) the bank had issued before the Ukraine invasion. The shares have been held in Russia by a different depositary bank.
In the circular, Deutsche attributed the shortfall to a decision by Moscow to allow investors to convert some of the DRs into local stock. The conversion was carried out without the German bank's "involvement or oversight" and Deutsche was unable to reconcile the company shares with the depositary receipts.
Western investors keep lining up to plow money into Moscow, and then having their assets nationalized. Western oil companies have lost untold billions of their investors' money to Russian oligarchs.
-
Western investors keep lining up to plow money into Moscow, and then having their assets nationalized. Western oil companies have lost untold billions of their investors' money to Russian oligarchs.
For me this is a reminder for why investing in emerging economies carries additional risk. During periods of relative global tranquility, seemingly everyone wants to hop on this bandwagon, and from one point of view it makes so much sense - these are economies primed for expansion, where tens-of-millions of people may suddenly join the middle class in just a few years. I'm thinking of the all the 'BRIC' talk (Brazil, Russia, India & China) of the early 2000s.
Just in the last decade there's been plenty to spook investors in these markets.
-
The deal between Prigozhin and Putin strikes me as one sided, and I suspect there are secret details we don't know about. Consider Putin's position - he can't seem weak, but doesn't want to lose his most effective military leader. Prigozhin can't stand the Russian defense minister. What if they secretly found a solution that makes everyone happy, instead?
For example: Prigozhin could move Wagner group into Belarus and attack Ukraine from there. This would make Putin seem clever instead of weak, while Prigozhin no longer has to deal with the Russian defense minister he hates. An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive. I understand why Ukraine celebrated the situation yesterday, but I think they should keep a careful eye on the location of Wagner mercenaries and their equipment.
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
Especially by a mercenary group that could barely hold Bahkmut let alone an entire front.
-
Washington Post is reporting that Prigozhin will be operating out of Belarus. Also skimming the article, it sounds like Russia is trying to brush everything under the rug, at least publicly.
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
Especially by a mercenary group that could barely hold Bahkmut let alone an entire front.
It's usually a good idea to attack an enemy from multiple directions, especially when existing lines of control are so heavily defended. A northern front would divert Ukraine's resources and turn their offensive into a defensive. Remember, Russia has more resources, money, production capability, and people. A war that lasts several years will exhaust Ukraine before it exhausts Russia.
Wagner's mercenaries have been called the most effective of Russia's fighting forces for eeking out a (costly, futile) victory in Bakmut. It will be interesting to see if the dissolution of Wagner and the absorption of the mercenaries can be done quickly, or if the whole affair has drawn resources away from the front just in time for a Ukrainian offensive. It will also be interesting to see if Russian coordination and leadership problems will extend to the mercenaries now that they are under government command.
Overall, the failed coup is bad news for Ukraine and the West. Putin's most serious (only?) challenger has been dispatched and exiled. Disjointed Russian command structures will be unified. The prospect for an extended Russian crisis that allows the Ukranians a chance to advance is gone. And, as noted above, there may have been anti-Putin forces within the military that were exposed and purged.
-
How did Lukashenko convince Prigozhin to stop his advance?
Lukashenko -"You are a course and foul man, but you do love your troops. You respect them."
Prigozhin - "I make this march for them. Too many have died needlessly."
Lukashenko - "Putin has ordered that military databases be improved. It's amazing that this was done so quickly. We have the names of all your men, their wives and their children. It would certainly be a shame if anything were to happen to all these innocent people."
Prigozhin - A silent cold stare
Lukashenko - "I'm glad you understand. We will come to an agreement."
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
Especially by a mercenary group that could barely hold Bahkmut let alone an entire front.
It's usually a good idea to attack an enemy from multiple directions, especially when existing lines of control are so heavily defended. A northern front would divert Ukraine's resources and turn their offensive into a defensive. Remember, Russia has more resources, money, production capability, and people. A war that lasts several years will exhaust Ukraine before it exhausts Russia.
Wagner's mercenaries have been called the most effective of Russia's fighting forces for eeking out a (costly, futile) victory in Bakmut. It will be interesting to see if the dissolution of Wagner and the absorption of the mercenaries can be done quickly, or if the whole affair has drawn resources away from the front just in time for a Ukrainian offensive. It will also be interesting to see if Russian coordination and leadership problems will extend to the mercenaries now that they are under government command.
Overall, the failed coup is bad news for Ukraine and the West. Putin's most serious (only?) challenger has been dispatched and exiled. Disjointed Russian command structures will be unified. The prospect for an extended Russian crisis that allows the Ukranians a chance to advance is gone. And, as noted above, there may have been anti-Putin forces within the military that were exposed and purged.
I have to disagree with most of these. Ukraine is in an antifragile state and will continue to grow stronger for the foreseeable future, while Russia is in a fragile state and will continue to grow weaker, until a breeze blows it over.
It has never been a good plan for Russia to attack from Belarus, as shown by the disaster of a first attempt when Russia was far stronger and Ukraine weaker. Ukraine would be on the defense with inside lines, while Wagner would have a terrible time managing supplies against a defense in depth. Ukraine would defeat the attack with a small number of its lower tier forces and quickly divert unused supplies to the main effort after. This would only be good for quickly disposing of Wagner in a way attempting to show some kind of honor to the plebes.
The rest of Europe the US and their allies are backing Ukraine, which means it has far, far more resources and productive capacity than Russia. Russia is behaving in a way such that this support will never dwindle. They will continue to bomb civilian targets, explode dams, may well explode a nuclear plant, and make threats and provocations which will guarantee continued western assistance at similar or greater levels.
Russia does not have a warfighting population advantage. It has a larger population, but the balance of casualties is nearly the same proportion. As Ukraine gains more Western equipment and Russia loses their first line equipment, the trend of casualty ratios will continue to increase in Ukraine's favor (offense vs offense and defense vs defense). Russia shares borders with no friendly nations, but numerous hostile ones. It is full of internal enemies. It has a very low population density and requires more people just to hold the country together. Ukraine is relatively compact and has no internal or external enemies except Russia and can dedicate everything to that task. Russia will certainly fall from a lack of soldiers before Ukraine will.
None of these are particularly close IMO, they all favor Ukraine by a good margin.
It's bad the mutiny failed so soon, but still far better than having not happened. Russia lost many valuable aircraft and an oil depot, supplies were disrupted for days, the attention of command was diverted at a critical period at the most critical place, a good portion of Russia's better soldiers can now no longer be relied on or integrated anytime soon. Several regular units declared for Prigozhin and now can't be trusted. Confidence is shaken, attention distracted. Purging people previously thought reliable will be a blow to the Russian army just as much as if Ukraine had eliminated the same people.
-
How did Lukashenko convince Prigozhin to stop his advance?
Lukashenko -"You are a course and foul man, but you do love your troops. You respect them."
Prigozhin - "I make this march for them. Too many have died needlessly."
Lukashenko - "Putin has ordered that military databases be improved. It's amazing that this was done so quickly. We have the names of all your men, their wives and their children. It would certainly be a shame if anything were to happen to all these innocent people."
Prigozhin - A silent cold stare
Lukashenko - "I'm glad you understand. We will come to an agreement."
In Soviet Russia, excel file saves you!
(If your name is Putin.)
:P
-
According to the latest feed from CNN:
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday thanked the Wagner Group fighters who made the "right decision" and halted their advance.
"I thank those soldiers and commanders of the Wagner Group who made the only right decision — they did not go for fratricidal bloodshed, they stopped at the last line," Putin said in an address to the nation.
He also said those fighters would have the "opportunity to continue serving Russia by entering into a contract with the Ministry of Defense or other law enforcement agencies, or to return to your family and friends. Whoever wants to can go to Belarus."
This would suggest that Prigozhen's mutiny had its own little mutiny, and that's what stopped their trip to Moscow in the end. However, I find it unlikely that former Wagner soldiers will be able to simply walk away from the Ukraine war without being drafted or coerced into another "contract" as Putin implied. If Putin let them walk, that would be a reduction in force of thousands (tens of thousands?) of soldiers. I find that outcome unlikely. Is Putin really that eager to demilitarize and scatter the Wagner units while the military tracks down uninvolved and untrained people to draft?
-
The deal between Prigozhin and Putin strikes me as one sided, and I suspect there are secret details we don't know about. Consider Putin's position - he can't seem weak, but doesn't want to lose his most effective military leader. Prigozhin can't stand the Russian defense minister. What if they secretly found a solution that makes everyone happy, instead?
For example: Prigozhin could move Wagner group into Belarus and attack Ukraine from there. This would make Putin seem clever instead of weak, while Prigozhin no longer has to deal with the Russian defense minister he hates. An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive. I understand why Ukraine celebrated the situation yesterday, but I think they should keep a careful eye on the location of Wagner mercenaries and their equipment.
There are tons of things we don't know about this situation.
We do know that earlier this month Russian MOD announced plans to incorporate Wagner fighters into the regular military. That would diminish Prigozhin's portfolio considerably. So this was likely about Prigozhin trying to force Shiogu's hand to let Prigozhin stay in charge. This likely would have required Putin's sign-off, which Putin didn't give. But Putin allowed Prigozhin to escape to Belarus and operate Wagner from there where he is close to the action, but not actually in Russia where he can cause more trouble.
I find it extremely unlikely Wagner will try to attack from Belarus. That would bring Belarus into the war, which they don't seem to want to do and Priozhin would still have to deal with Shiogu who is supplying him. I don't see Shiogu supplying so much as BB gun at this point.
I think the simplest explanation is best: Prigozhin used his leverage to escape with his life and the ability to run Wagner, at least in overseas operations.
-
Much of the MSM coverage of this is terrible. I haven't had time to read much analysis on what happened and what it all means but this was the first article (https://unherd.com/2023/06/the-prigozhin-roadshow-isnt-over/) I ran across that actually provided a solid context for the current situation. A lot still doesn't make sense and we are missing critical information.
The idea that this whole thing was a sneaky way of opening up a Belarus front is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. It's not like Russia can keep troop movements secret in the age of spy satellites, so if Wagner divisions start forming in Belarus, this will not have provided any cover for such an operation.
-
The whole episode has me baffled as well. The idea of it being a false flag or a sneaky way to move Wagner to Belarus makes zero sense on any level. Six helicopters, a plane, and an oil refinery seem like a pretty steep price to pay in exchange for...what? Prigozhin, as bad as he is, doesn't strike me as being the type to blindly rush into something ("Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan"), and the sudden pullback when on the verge of victory (of some sort) was unexpected.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Prigozhin overplayed his hand and Putin pulled out some sort of pocket aces. I've seen it speculated that Putin may have made some stronger-than-expected retaliatory threats to Prigozhin, and offered him a face-saving exile into Belarus. I don't quite understand what would prompt Prigozhin to trust Putin to keep his end of any bargain, though. Prigozhin will likely never feel safe the rest of his life.
As for the effect on Ukraine, I want to say that this is a win. A fresh, well-supplied Russian army bogged down within a couple dozen miles after entering Ukraine. Ukraine has had a *year* to fortify that northern border, and they've been doing it extensively. The terrain there, as I understand it, limits movement to the roads pretty well, and Ukraine is guarding (and mining) those roads.
The net effect, as I see it, is that Wagner is out of the fight for the time being, and that's a big loss to Russia. These are a lot of the better-trained, better-equipped, and more experienced and effective fighters Russia has, and now they're on the sidelines. Putin is trying to get a lot of them under Shoigu's command, but even if he gets some, he's lost a lot. Maybe he plans to strip Wagner of all their equipment and send it to the regular troops?
In other news, it sounds like Ukraine has crossed the Dnipro River at Kherson, and is expanding a bridgehead. That's also big trouble for Russia, who recently shifted a lot of forces away from the Kherson region to reinforce areas further east.
-
The rumor mill is rife with what will become of Wagner's troops. Depending on who you're watching, up to 8000 may move to Belarus to do who knows what. Some other number may stay in Ukraine the be dispersed across the Russian army. Putin's brief speech earlier seemed to reinforce that these are the options; however, nobody has mentioned what has become of all the heavy weapons Wagner took to Rostov and Moscow. Are we to believe that a rebel force that shot down seven aircraft with expensive and effective air defense systems and deployed tanks against Russian cities is going to keep them? The idea of this being a complex move to gift Belarus with Wagner as a second army to strike at Kyiv would be the most politically destabilizing and complex way to make this happen when Putin could have simply asked Prigozhin to pick up and move. Likewise the notion of rebels with blood on their hands getting to walk away is a headscratcher. The follow-up/fallout to this ordeal just isn't making any sense yet, no matter which way you try to orient it.
-
Much of the MSM coverage of this is terrible. I haven't had time to read much analysis on what happened and what it all means but this was the first article (https://unherd.com/2023/06/the-prigozhin-roadshow-isnt-over/) I ran across that actually provided a solid context for the current situation. A lot still doesn't make sense and we are missing critical information……snip..
I have found that https://www.understandingwar.org/ has a decent daily summary.
I’m also headscratching about this whole episode, and being bald, I can’t afford to do that much.
I remember a lecture at college, where the speaker noted that wars start because someone thinks they can win.
For the start of this war, I could readily see how Putin thought he could win.
Prigozhin, I’m clueless on the thought process. Maybe a prevention of the loss of control of the Wagoner Group?
-
Well, I won't say about wars, but rebellions start if the cost of enduring is higher than the cost of rebellion. Of course that's individual and subjective, but it has it's own dynamics.
That what you see in Iran. Just one more death, basically a daily occurance, that ignites the pressure chamber. The pressure builds up and there is one spark, unpredicatable and some people are out that aren't stopped immediately and others see: Oh, you can be successfull. And the protest swells.
That's what ended the GDR. Gorbatschovs decision to not send in the Russian tanks was the decisive point. People no longer had to fear to be shot, and there were too many to put in prison by then. (Most of the people protesting didn't even want the GDR to end, just reforms.) That's how the protests swelled from a few hundred to hundreds of thousands in several cities. (And before that the security troops refusing to beat or even shoot citizens).
The for me most likely events are that Shoigu had "won" against Wagner by having them incorporated into the army. The power base would have evaporated and as a loser in what is basically a mafia society, the life expectancy of Wagner's leader was very short.
So the cost of rebellion was seen as lower than the cost of enduring. I am pretty sure he hoped the normal army would help his troops or at least not stop him, Wagner being the hero of Bakhmut and all that.
But the support was not as big as he hoped so he ended, since risk of rebellion (near certain death) now seemed higher than risk of enduring (promise to be left in power somewhere).
But I really really want to know the deal he made with Putin.
-
I don't consider it a real coup attempt because they are mercenaries with no real ideology or commitment other than being tired of getting shot at from behind and deprived of supplies by the Russian military. So yeah, just a liar's phone call is all it took to end it. These guys have messed-up personal reasons for being hired killers. Being dumped-on by Russia's military probably did inspire some solidarity amongst them. Yet we all know there is no honor amongst thieves. The Russian people for the most part don't give two hoots about any of it. Are they more brainwashed or afraid? Hard to tell. Eventually they may rise up, if times get worse for them.
-
The whole episode has me baffled as well. The idea of it being a false flag or a sneaky way to move Wagner to Belarus makes zero sense on any level. Six helicopters, a plane, and an oil refinery seem like a pretty steep price to pay in exchange for...what? Prigozhin, as bad as he is, doesn't strike me as being the type to blindly rush into something ("Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan"), and the sudden pullback when on the verge of victory (of some sort) was unexpected.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Prigozhin overplayed his hand and Putin pulled out some sort of pocket aces. I've seen it speculated that Putin may have made some stronger-than-expected retaliatory threats to Prigozhin, and offered him a face-saving exile into Belarus. I don't quite understand what would prompt Prigozhin to trust Putin to keep his end of any bargain, though. Prigozhin will likely never feel safe the rest of his life.
I never claimed Prigozhin's actions were a "false flag" operation. He directly contradicted Putin's statements about the war, shot down Russian aircraft and sent troops on the road to Moscow. I don't think it was a "false flag" operation. I suspect he was after a government official (forgot which one) who managed to escape from Rostov-on-Don before Prigozhin took over the city.
What I claimed is that given the above, Putin and Prigozhin talked about a resolution that is best for Russia. Both of them believe in their country, and in this war (and in killing innocents!). The announced deal was Prigozhin going to Belarus, which left out what happens to Wagner mercenaries.
I predicted that Prigozhin will bring Wagner mercenaries with him, which I have since seen in a news story. Wagner mercenaries have been offered the choice to join the regular Russian army, or join Prigozhin in Belarus. That makes much more sense than the original deal, and I expect many Wagner mercenaries will follow Prigozhin into Belarus.
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
I was wrong not to separate strategy and execution. A surprise counter-attack is an excellent strategy for Russia. Russia has failed miserably at executing anything except civilians. So the idea of a counter-attack to draw off Ukraine is good strategy, but based on the past year, it would be executed poorly and run into superior weapons.
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
I was wrong not to separate strategy and execution. A surprise counter-attack is an excellent strategy for Russia. Russia has failed miserably at executing anything except civilians. So the idea of a counter-attack to draw off Ukraine is good strategy, but based on the past year, it would be executed poorly and run into superior weapons.
Resources aren’t infinite though, which matters. Russia already seems stretched pretty thin, particularly with armored vehicles. To pull off a counter-attack that is anything less than a slaughter for Russia they would need to divert a sizeable sum of heavy infinity from elsewhere, decreasing their defensive capabilities. Ukraine would need to divert a comparably smaller number of troops to defend territory they already control and have already fortified.
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
I was wrong not to separate strategy and execution. A surprise counter-attack is an excellent strategy for Russia. Russia has failed miserably at executing anything except civilians. So the idea of a counter-attack to draw off Ukraine is good strategy, but based on the past year, it would be executed poorly and run into superior weapons.
Resources aren’t infinite though, which matters. Russia already seems stretched pretty thin, particularly with armored vehicles. To pull off a counter-attack that is anything less than a slaughter for Russia they would need to divert a sizeable sum of heavy infinity from elsewhere, decreasing their defensive capabilities. Ukraine would need to divert a comparably smaller number of troops to defend territory they already control and have already fortified.
While taking advantage of the weakened defenses wherever Russia pulled the troops/equipment from.
Realistically, it's entirely possible they'll go for a strategy that is unwise. Not like Russia doesn't have a history of that.
-
This is leaving Ukraine for a moment, but in my understanding Wagner is also heavily involved in many African nations. I wonder what will happen there if Wagners role and organization is changed?
-
This is leaving Ukraine for a moment, but in my understanding Wagner is also heavily involved in many African nations. I wonder what will happen there if Wagners role and organization is changed?
Well - Wagner had a pretty good thing going there extracting resources from Africa. It sort of reminds me of the Empire - Colony thing. These guys in charge of Russia have a lot of experience with that sort of thing. They know a good deal when they see it. I've worked as a government contractor when the contracts changed. My new employer wasn't much different than the old employer. I think it will be about the same for the Wagner people in Africa.
But there are other viewpoints by the experts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJMIocVeEk8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJMIocVeEk8)
-
An attack from Belarus would be an excellent counter-offensive, forcing Ukraine to go on defense partially. That would draw troops away from their own offensive.
I'm questioning why this would be "an excellent counter-offensive". Conventional wisdom says it's much harder to attack than defend, and Russia failed miserably in the early months of this conflict trying to attack from multiple regions at once. This was back when they had all the transport and armored carriers, and before the Ukrainians had been provided with advanced weapon systems. It lead to a vastly over-extended Russian military that suffered catastrophic casualties and then quickly lost most of its gains.
What makes you think an additional front by Russia would go better this time?
I was wrong not to separate strategy and execution. A surprise counter-attack is an excellent strategy for Russia. Russia has failed miserably at executing anything except civilians. So the idea of a counter-attack to draw off Ukraine is good strategy, but based on the past year, it would be executed poorly and run into superior weapons.
Resources aren’t infinite though, which matters. Russia already seems stretched pretty thin, particularly with armored vehicles. To pull off a counter-attack that is anything less than a slaughter for Russia they would need to divert a sizeable sum of heavy infinity from elsewhere, decreasing their defensive capabilities. Ukraine would need to divert a comparably smaller number of troops to defend territory they already control and have already fortified.
Satellite images show an area being cleared in Belarus. Given the timing of thousands of Wagner mercenaries offered exile in Belarus, I think it's for them. And if public satellite images show that much, you can bet the U.S. military is monitoring Wagner's new base already.
You're right about resources - Russia won't provide them. Wagner just marched on Moscow after publicly fueding with the Russian Defense Minister. He's not going to reward that behavior. Belarus saw the attempted revolt, and won't want to arm these mercenaries in its border, either. I expect resources to be scarce for Wagner.
At this point, it does not seem like the makings of a surprise attack. I also expect the U.S. is monitoring the area for new vehicles and weapons systems. Even if Wagner orders weapon systems from some other country, they should be detected before they get used at the border with Ukraine.
Another poster brought up "false flag" operations, and I clarified I did not feel this was a false flag operation. If Wagner gets no resources, that's further evidence against the "false flag" theory. Why have a fake revolt and then do nothing with it? Again, that was another poster, but figured it was related and worth mentioning.
-
If Wagner is being consolidated under the Russian MoD, it doesn't make sense to under-supply them any more. Prigozhin is history, and was lucky to escape with his head (so far). Once the ex-Wagner mercenaries are official Russian soldiers, there will be no excuse for playing favorites.
Plus, several months of journalism from multiple sources gives the overwhelming impression China is supplying Russia. That means the Russians are not going to run out of ammo or basic equipment anytime soon.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is facing political pushback from some sectors of the American political scene and could be cut off if the political winds blow a certain way next year. Also worth noting is that the US has done basically nothing to prevent Russia from influencing those political winds like they did in 2016. Twitter in particular is essentially unmoderated now and has no way to deal with a disinfo campaign.
-
If Wagner is being consolidated under the Russian MoD, it doesn't make sense to under-supply them any more. Prigozhin is history, and was lucky to escape with his head (so far). Once the ex-Wagner mercenaries are official Russian soldiers, there will be no excuse for playing favorites.
Plus, several months of journalism from multiple sources gives the overwhelming impression China is supplying Russia. That means the Russians are not going to run out of ammo or basic equipment anytime soon.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is facing political pushback from some sectors of the American political scene and could be cut off if the political winds blow a certain way next year. Also worth noting is that the US has done basically nothing to prevent Russia from influencing those political winds like they did in 2016. Twitter in particular is essentially unmoderated now and has no way to deal with a disinfo campaign.
Prigozhin appears to be in charge of feeding the Russian army; so seeing how that works out now will be interesting.
https://www.newsweek.com/putins-chef-wagner-group-yevgeny-prigozhin-sued-rotten-food-1776138
-
Ukraine, on the other hand, is facing political pushback from some sectors of the American political scene and could be cut off if the political winds blow a certain way next year. Also worth noting is that the US has done basically nothing to prevent Russia from influencing those political winds like they did in 2016. Twitter in particular is essentially unmoderated now and has no way to deal with a disinfo campaign.
Don't let the media fool you on this one. There are a very few republicans opposing military aid to Ukraine, but the overwhelming majority (including the leadership) support Ukraine, and the democrats all appear to be in Ukraine's favor as well.
Prigozhin appears to be in charge of feeding the Russian army; so seeing how that works out now will be interesting.
https://www.newsweek.com/putins-chef-wagner-group-yevgeny-prigozhin-sued-rotten-food-1776138
Not any more: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/07/01/wagner-mutiny-yevgeny-prigozhin-vladimir-putin-chef-no-more/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/07/01/wagner-mutiny-yevgeny-prigozhin-vladimir-putin-chef-no-more/)
-
So we now have to call him Putin's ex-cook?
That will get confusing in a few months when we will have to call him Putin's ex ex-cook.
-
Ukraine, on the other hand, is facing political pushback from some sectors of the American political scene and could be cut off if the political winds blow a certain way next year. Also worth noting is that the US has done basically nothing to prevent Russia from influencing those political winds like they did in 2016. Twitter in particular is essentially unmoderated now and has no way to deal with a disinfo campaign.
Don't let the media fool you on this one. There are a very few republicans opposing military aid to Ukraine, but the overwhelming majority (including the leadership) support Ukraine, and the democrats all appear to be in Ukraine's favor as well.
You may be right. I see stories on Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's got to be an abnormality.
-
If Wagner is being consolidated under the Russian MoD, it doesn't make sense to under-supply them any more. Prigozhin is history, and was lucky to escape with his head (so far). Once the ex-Wagner mercenaries are official Russian soldiers, there will be no excuse for playing favorites.
Wagner mercenaries have a choice - stay in Russia / join the military, or go with Prigozhin into Belarus. Also worth noting some Wagner came from Russian prisons - recruited from behind bars. They have a really strong motivation to leave Russia, which I expected many of them to do. But we don't need to speculate :
"Satellite images analyzed by The Associated Press on Saturday showed what appeared to be a newly built military-style camp in Belarus, with statements from a Belarusian guerrilla group and officials suggesting it may be used to house fighters from the Wagner mercenary group."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-wagner-ukraine-mercenary-mercenaries-lukashenko-82d304924c6531b95fba279acd783a84
-
If Wagner is being consolidated under the Russian MoD, it doesn't make sense to under-supply them any more. Prigozhin is history, and was lucky to escape with his head (so far). Once the ex-Wagner mercenaries are official Russian soldiers, there will be no excuse for playing favorites.
Wagner mercenaries have a choice - stay in Russia / join the military, or go with Prigozhin into Belarus. Also worth noting some Wagner came from Russian prisons - recruited from behind bars. They have a really strong motivation to leave Russia, which I expected many of them to do. But we don't need to speculate :
"Satellite images analyzed by The Associated Press on Saturday showed what appeared to be a newly built military-style camp in Belarus, with statements from a Belarusian guerrilla group and officials suggesting it may be used to house fighters from the Wagner mercenary group."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-wagner-ukraine-mercenary-mercenaries-lukashenko-82d304924c6531b95fba279acd783a84
What would be the point of such a camp?
If the soldiers were being conscripted into the Russian military, that would seem to be a violation of their Wagner contracts which they fulfilled by fighting in Ukraine and they should now be free men, right? Putin's comments seem to imply he gave them exactly such a gift, but I suspect the reality on the ground is something different. Maybe the Wagner army's exile to Belarus was a condition Prigozhin negotiated to prevent the Wagner soldiers from being declared free civilians - and then immediately conscripted. I.e. they're out of prison for having served in Ukraine for their required tour of duty, but if they step into Russia they are subject to being sent back to the front lines, which is not what they signed up for. They'd have been better off in prison!
To retain command of his soldiers, maybe Prigozhin had to give them what they wanted: He had to get them out of the situation where they were being undermined and shot at from behind by the Russian army and also get them out of being forced to fight in that same army. If that's the situation on the ground, Prigozhin has led his soldiers to the promised land where they can wait out the war in a camp subsidized by ...?
Maybe Belarus is subsidizing the mercenary camp because if there were ever a threat to Lukashenko's government such as a military coup or a takeover attempt by Putin, the mercenaries would be incentivized to intervene on his behalf to preserve their ability to stay in Belarus. Pure speculation, but it seems to fit the facts so far.
-
What would be the point of such a camp?
If the soldiers were being conscripted into the Russian military, that would seem to be a violation of their Wagner contracts which they fulfilled by fighting in Ukraine and they should now be free men, right?
Without looking it up, I am pretty sure their deal with the Russian justice system is that they are free when the war is over (or even only when the war is won).
It's not, so they are still, in the minimum, required to be Wagner soldiers. Or join the normal Russian army, as per Putins offer.
They'd have been better off in prison!
According to what I heard about Russian prisons, I would not be so sure about that ;) At least in the war you can fuck them back.
-
There are the neighbors nobody wants. Idle convicts fresh from war hanging around a camp next to your village.
-
The Military Industrial Complex owns the GOP. There’s zero chance they will decide to stop supplying arms to Ukraine. Only the MAGA’s rabid idiots will vote against supporting Ukraine.
-
Help for Ukraine = higher taxes for the MAGA folks in their mind. I could see the MTG types ranting and railing against helping Ukraine further. Ukraine prob ought to worry about Trump getting the White House again. Decisions made without facts or reason all over.
-
Help for Ukraine = higher taxes for the MAGA folks in their mind. I could see the MTG types ranting and railing against helping Ukraine further. Ukraine prob ought to worry about Trump getting the White House again. Decisions made without facts or reason all over.
Hmm … 18 months til the next inauguration, and this war is just over 16 months so far. I’m guessing the Ukrainians are more focused on what the next 1-3 months will look like and aren’t spending too much time wondering about 2025. When your daily existence is in question there’s not much room to think about “what-ifs” that are years away.
-
You are likely right.
-
Interesting analysis of sanctions and the probability of the Russians publishing falsified economic data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaiaI_NvqyU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaiaI_NvqyU)
TL;DW: Russia is probably in recession based on externally visible data, but it's hard to tell because the economy switched to a war footing.
-
...
I think it has to be restoration of their borders prior to the initial invasion in 2014. Anything short of that will leave Ukraine in the same position as Georgia and Moldova where Russia troops occupy a breakaway portion of the country leaving a frozen conflict that Russia can choose to reignite at any time. At a minimum, they have to recapture everything that Russia took in the latest offensive that started last year. Retaking Crimea and the Donbass may not be feasible but on the other hand Russia is only going to get weaker as time goes on while the US and Europe can supply Ukraine for years to come.
Yes, and driving Russia out of all occupied areas would make for Ukraine becoming a NATO member a much more attractive proposition for NATO.
I believe that NATO would have a hard time to admit a country with a frozen conflict within its borders - NATO is a defensive alliance and admitting a nation with legitimate claims to territories occupied by a belligerent adversary would be an unresolvable issue, unless the character of NATO changes in very undesirable ways.
There is a lot of noise about accession to NATO membership status for Ukraine.
I posted this some time ago and nothing has changed. NATO article 5 effectively makes it impossible for a country to join while being under occupation of a hostile force.
The idea that accession could be possible while hostilities are ongoing is nonsensical.
There is simply no way to admit a country that is either occupied or is in an ongoing conflict without changing the spirit and character of NATO.
In the long run, Ukraine is much better off with NATO remaining a firmly defensive alliance.
-
In the long run, Ukraine is much better off with NATO remaining a firmly defensive alliance.
I think NATO is much better off remaining a firmly defensive alliance. Ukraine though . . . they may well cease to exist.
-
In the long run, Ukraine is much better off with NATO remaining a firmly defensive alliance.
I think NATO is much better off remaining a firmly defensive alliance. Ukraine though . . . they may well cease to exist.
Ukraine the country? Possibly. Ukraine the people? No. Not without wholesale genocide.
Want an example? Texas, and the subset of the population who can't seem to forget that for a brief time Texas was an independent country. 177 years ago.
-
In the long run, Ukraine is much better off with NATO remaining a firmly defensive alliance.
I think NATO is much better off remaining a firmly defensive alliance. Ukraine though . . . they may well cease to exist.
Don´t forget that the G7 countries have made official long term commitments for military support of Ukraine.
Most of the G7 are NATO members and other nations are invited to join the agreement.
The commitments signify the end of piecemeal support for Ukraine and remove political uncertainty to an important degree.
This is as close as Ukraine can get to be considered an ally without yet being a NATO member.
This outcome was absolutely foreseeable and all the commotion was just politics to sell the inevitable to whoever it had to be sold to:
G7 countries pledge long-term support for Ukraine
Capitals will discuss bilaterally with Kyiv on arms deliveries and recovery aid.
G7 countries — and whoever else wants to join — are now expected to “immediately” start discussing with Kyiv to define the gist of those long-term security commitments, the aim of which is to “ensure a sustainable force capable of defending Ukraine now and deterring Russian aggression in the future.”
To do so, G7 countries pledge to continue sending military land, air and sea equipment, help foster Ukraine’s defense industrial base, train their forces, share intelligence and provide cyber defense support. In terms of weaponry, “air defense, artillery and long-range fires, armored vehicles, and other key capabilities, such as combat air” would be prioritized. Bilateral agreements would also include reconstruction and recovery efforts.
https://www.politico.eu/article/embargo-g7-countries-pledge-long-term-support-to-ukraine/
-
In the long run, Ukraine is much better off with NATO remaining a firmly defensive alliance.
I think NATO is much better off remaining a firmly defensive alliance. Ukraine though . . . they may well cease to exist.
Ukraine the country? Possibly. Ukraine the people? No. Not without wholesale genocide.
You do not seem to have listened to Putin and the Tv stations. There are literally (and on official line) talk shows about how "we" have to kill every Ukrainian that does think of himself as Ukrainian (or non-Russian). The discussion is not IF buit more about HOW, like is destroying a dam to flood away a big cities better than wasting so many of our soldiers, or should we simply throw an atomic bomb?
Not that I say you should watch them. It makes me sick after just 2 minutes. The aggressivenes in tone and words alone would be unthinkable in German TV. Like one of Fox News bestest on steroids (and often looking that).
-
In the long run, Ukraine is much better off with NATO remaining a firmly defensive alliance.
I think NATO is much better off remaining a firmly defensive alliance. Ukraine though . . . they may well cease to exist.
Ukraine the country? Possibly. Ukraine the people? No. Not without wholesale genocide.
You do not seem to have listened to Putin and the Tv stations. There are literally (and on official line) talk shows about how "we" have to kill every Ukrainian that does think of himself as Ukrainian (or non-Russian). The discussion is not IF buit more about HOW, like is destroying a dam to flood away a big cities better than wasting so many of our soldiers, or should we simply throw an atomic bomb?
Not that I say you should watch them. It makes me sick after just 2 minutes. The aggressivenes in tone and words alone would be unthinkable in German TV. Like one of Fox News bestest on steroids (and often looking that).
I have listened, and was also sickened. Even without translation you can feel it.
You have forgotten that a culture, a people, is not confined to a country. There are millions of Ukrainians living outside of Ukraine. There is no way that every single Ukrainian across the world can be killed. Many, perhaps most, still within Ukraine could escape if the worst happened.
How many Jews were saved from Hitler? Yes, millions of Jews were killed. But not all of them.
-
Ukraine the country? Possibly. Ukraine the people? No. Not without wholesale genocide.
Want an example? Texas, and the subset of the population who can't seem to forget that for a brief time Texas was an independent country. 177 years ago.
And California was a republic for about 20 minutes and they still put it on the flag when it was created 100 years later.
-
Bumping. This was an interesting and informative conversation.
-
Bumping. This was an interesting and informative conversation.
I keep an eye on it every day and there hasn't been any significant changes to talk about. Ukraine is pushing the line a hundred meters a day, and both sides are trading drones strikes across the line. Russia continues to bleed artillery at a significant rate, but not enough yet to really shut them up. The cluster bomb artillery that we sent appears to be working very well. Russia appears to have decided to start a missile campaign against Ukraine's grain storage/transfer infrastructure in the last week. So far enough grain to feed a million people has been destroyed.
-
Now that Twitter has blocked public access I'm no longer following the OSINT accounts I used to check every few days. I was tempted to create an account just for that but frankly the news in the last few months was things are pretty much just grinding along with little movement on either side but some videos of artillery or drone strikes. Russia has built multiple defensive lines and Ukraine hasn't been able to make a real breakthrough that they can exploit - precisely because of the defense in depth and ability for both sides to see what the other is doing in near real-time.
The days of massing troops in secret for a big offensive push are over and both sides can rapidly reposition forces (relative to what was possible in other large scale conflicts like WW1 or WW2).
It's become a war of attrition and while Ukraine has received massive amounts of munitions and materiel from allies in the west, Russia started with huge stockpiles of Soviet-era munitions and materiel and has been able to continue producing some and sourcing others from Iran, China, North Korea, etc.
-
You can make a Mastodon account... several of the twitter accounts crosspost there. For instance, @warmapper@mstdn.social continues to track daily changes in territory.
-
Yeah, that's about the size of it for now. If it weren't for the minefields, Ukraine would have a much easier time blowing through the defenses.
I'm a bit more optimistic than @Michael in ABQ , though--although Russia started a counter-counter-offensive in the north, it didn't get very far, and Ukraine is pushing it back. Ukraine is still advancing by a few sq km per day in the south and southeast, which isn't the kind of dramatic thunder run like they had last year in Kharkiv and Kherson, but it's important to note that the line of contact is only moving one direction--in Ukraine's favor.
It's also important to keep the big picture in mind, and not get too focussed on the fighting at the front. Russia's position is getting gradually eroded--Ukraine took out a fair chunk of the Kerch Strait road bridge a couple weeks ago, and a few days ago they took out the rail link near Chonhar, both of which will have a significant, negative impact on Russian logistics. We don't know what Ukraine's casualty rate is, but Russia's losing about 500 men/day. Russian counter-battery fire is way down, and they're losing a couple dozen artillery pieces daily. I've seen reports that the Russian soldiers on the front lines haven't been rotated out in quite some time, and they're tired and unhappy. And the further Ukraine progresses southward toward Melitopol, the closer they get to having the whole land-bridge between Russia and Crimea under fire control. If/when they reach that point, Russian logistics in the southern Kherson region are going to be in big trouble.
And Russia doesn't seem to be able to target military installations with their missiles and drones. They're going after grain silos. That means that either
A) Russia has destroyed every more-militarily-useful target (hah!), or
B) Russia doesn't know where those military targets are (maybe, maybe not. They have intelligence sources, but Ukraine's been good about keeping stuff on the move), or
C) Russia knows that attempting to hit military targets will fail (probable), or
D) Russia is just going scorched earth (would be true to form), or
E) Russia is simply trying to weaken the general Ukrainian economy to the point where Ukraine falls apart, or
F) it's a case of "we gotta do something to appear strong!"
None of those possibilities would indicate that Russia is improving their position.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
[MOD NOTE: User has been warned.]
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
No. No, we are NOT going to do that. They are human beings, they are deserving of compassion and kindness, just like ANY OTHER HUMAN. Either you acknowledge the humanness and worth of ALL humans, regardless of their circumstances, or you degrade all human dignity.
Dehumanization leads only to bad things. DO NOT do it.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
No. No, we are NOT going to do that. They are human beings, they are deserving of compassion and kindness, just like ANY OTHER HUMAN. Either you acknowledge the humanness and worth of ALL humans, regardless of their circumstances, or you degrade all human dignity.
Dehumanization leads only to bad things. DO NOT do it.
@Sibley,
Well said. Thank you.
-
Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Why should you be opposed to a war against Nazis just to end up in a horrible prison for years?
Not to mention that the south Russians, instead of being happy to be saved, dared to shoot at us!! They must be punished like the children that won't hear what their parents say, that they are!
-
Lots of thoughts in that past month...
I don't think Ukraine really was counting on the original move of their summer offensive to succeed, or only as a long shot. I do think it caused Russia to show a few cards and was likely the proximate cause of the dam destruction. Note that Ukraine started destroying Russian logistics only after the attack failed. If they wanted to increase the odds they'd have started with logistics. Nevertheless, I also don't feel it was a feint. What's the point of feinting? Everyone can see every move now, and there isn't much point. They were serious and if they weren't stopped they'd have gone all the way. What they were really doing was giving themselves options.
Regarding options, and since investing is a big part of this forum, what kind of options? I am not an options expert at all, but I think they are buying puts: paying now for the option to force a sale later at a more favorable price. Buying puts requires real money, and in this "market" exercising the option also costs a large amount of money. They might run out of money with nothing to show, or the puts might expire. Nevertheless, this strategy allows them pay a large number of relatively small costs in a carefully controlled fashion, and if the price is right, they can potentially reap a windfall. So far they haven't found a strike price they are satisfied with, but I think they will.
Russia has kept up longer than I expected them to. I did not expect them to literally lose their entire army and all Soviet inheritance in a failed war against the formerly most Russophile nation. It is so stupid on every level. Also Ukraine has not proved as capable as I had hoped. Partly I think that while Ukraine is very capable on the technical and strategic levels, they don't seem quite there on the levels in between. Another factor is that, so far as I can tell, "western" nations have not helped nearly as much as I would have thought or hoped. Many obviously useful weapons systems are not present, only in small numbers, or dribbled out very late. Training is small or late and to date Ukraine hasn't even developed a long range missile with secret tips which would be more than fair since North Korea has obviously been receiving many tips.
I still think all trends point to Ukraine winning (I originally thought 15 months if Ukraine was good, 30 if they were just average but expected they were good). The deciding factor in the war will be Russian equipment. Once they are out of Soviet stocks their production will not be able to maintain supplies at a level necessary for the current combat intensity, and they'll be out. As an example, if it takes Russia 5 tanks per day to be on offense, 3 per day to be on defense, and 1 per day is their production capacity, then once their stock is exhausted they can no longer fight effectively at the necessary intensity for either. Which isn't too say tanks are the weak point, but some sort of Russian equipment is. The "western" nations obviously have a huge advantage in equipment and production unless China supplies Russia with major items in major quantities. The Oryx list is a great way to track the fortunes of the war, and based on that this summer's offensive seems to be going relatively better than last summer's. I still think that Russia will lose as a result of insufficient material to meet their goals before the Oryx list gets to 20,000. Of course they won't have to stop fighting unless Ukraine is allowed to carry on into Russia, but they will no longer be able to hold onto any part of Ukraine.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
No. No, we are NOT going to do that. They are human beings, they are deserving of compassion and kindness, just like ANY OTHER HUMAN. Either you acknowledge the humanness and worth of ALL humans, regardless of their circumstances, or you degrade all human dignity.
Dehumanization leads only to bad things. DO NOT do it.
And responsibility. Animals are deserving of compassion and kindness, but humans also get responsibility.
-
https://vxtwitter.com/MalcontentmentT/status/1687324100967202817 (https://vxtwitter.com/MalcontentmentT/status/1687324100967202817)
https://vxtwitter.com/teoyaomiquu/status/1687346322708262912?s=46&t=JvLJ9zNTciGz_hXfHEgE1Q (https://vxtwitter.com/teoyaomiquu/status/1687346322708262912?s=46&t=JvLJ9zNTciGz_hXfHEgE1Q)
There were reports a few days ago of Ukrainian sea drone attacks on several Russian targets. An oil terminal outside Novorossiysk is allegedly burning as of today (first video), and the second is the Olenegorsky transport ship hit in open water near the Crimean coast.
-
Note that Ukraine started destroying Russian logistics only after the attack failed.
No, they did start earlier. Last year. But the Russians are not dumb orcs, even if you name them so. They can think: If Himars shoots X miles, we place our depots X miles + 1. And we also spread them out more.
That's what they did.
What you are likely referring to are strikes outside Himars range. That was only possible because of the British Storm shadows.
If Ukraine had gotten them at the start of the year, together with the planes and helicopters and the 500 tanks they said they needed or the offensive (they got around 100) they would probably be through the lines now.
Partly I think that while Ukraine is very capable on the technical and strategic levels, they don't seem quite there on the levels in between.
IMHO they have shown to be quite capable on all levels. It needs quite a bit of tactical proficiency to advance through a mine field without air support while shelled by countless numbers of artillery? Oh, did I say arty? Which level do you think belongs arty and counter-arty fire belongs to?
Ukraine hasn't even developed a long range missile
They have. Even one for marine (that's what supposedly sank Moaskva.)
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
Wow, that is wildly inappropriate, and just plain wrong. I lived in Russia for two years as a young adult. Most people there are just...normal people, trying to support themselves and their families, in a country that is run by criminal organizations. Yes, Russia has big problems with alcoholism, crime, corruption, poverty, demographics, hooliganism, and a bad economy. And yeah, some of their people have shown the worst mankind has to offer over the past 18 months. But when I lived there, such people were very rare and not representative of the population as a whole.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
Wow, that is wildly inappropriate, and just plain wrong. I lived in Russia for two years as a young adult. Most people there are just...normal people, trying to support themselves and their families, in a country that is run by criminal organizations. Yes, Russia has big problems with alcoholism, crime, corruption, poverty, demographics, hooliganism, and a bad economy. And yeah, some of their people have shown the worst mankind has to offer over the past 18 months. But when I lived there, such people were very rare and not representative of the population as a whole.
One should probably also learn about just how heavy handed the state control of media and internet is in Russia before judging the humanity of the average person there based on their attitudes towards this war special operation.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
Wow, that is wildly inappropriate, and just plain wrong. I lived in Russia for two years as a young adult. Most people there are just...normal people, trying to support themselves and their families, in a country that is run by criminal organizations. Yes, Russia has big problems with alcoholism, crime, corruption, poverty, demographics, hooliganism, and a bad economy. And yeah, some of their people have shown the worst mankind has to offer over the past 18 months. But when I lived there, such people were very rare and not representative of the population as a whole.
One should probably also learn about just how heavy handed the state control of media and internet is in Russia before judging the humanity of the average person there based on their attitudes towards this war special operation.
I guess one aspect of this thing is that Russians are fed information from the gangsters that run the government. They tell the average Ivan what they want them to hear and the version of reality that they want them to hear. Most people just live their lives and do not question what they are told. They drink the Kool Aid. Old Putin understood this and shut any alternative news sources down quite some time ago. I guess I just expect too much enlightenment from them.
-
So,.....how about these drones that have been hitting buildings in Moscow. Russia calls them pinpricks, but given they are in the middle of a big city thousands must have seen those pinpricks. Will that have some sort of psychological effect on the Russian people? Really, I'm starting to wonder if Russians are human. The people left in Russia seem to have no empathy for what they do to the Ukrainians.
Russians have been burning more enlistment centers, but the stated reasons are rather bizarre. They don't seem opposed to this war.
Russians are barely human. Russia never went through the Enlightenment and is essentially a Khanate. Russians don't have the sort of whig historiography common in the west where human endeavors are viewed generally as a march towards improvement and progress. This means the Russians are massively fatalistic and resigned in their dispositions. Many are not evil but are merely Oblomovs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblomov) or useful idiots or too poor to care about any broader ideals.
Wow, that is wildly inappropriate, and just plain wrong. I lived in Russia for two years as a young adult. Most people there are just...normal people, trying to support themselves and their families, in a country that is run by criminal organizations. Yes, Russia has big problems with alcoholism, crime, corruption, poverty, demographics, hooliganism, and a bad economy. And yeah, some of their people have shown the worst mankind has to offer over the past 18 months. But when I lived there, such people were very rare and not representative of the population as a whole.
I strongly disagree that they are "just normal people" as if centuries of cultural and institutional evolution in a country is an irrelevant footnote. I think also of the the fallacy of the last Iraq War with the ostensible goal of "winning hearts and minds" and bringing democracy to a country lacking the historical prerequisites for anything resembling such, though I suppose things are going better there than they did in Afghanistan which ultimately had nothing to show for 20 years of US administration. It's a bit of a corollary to Pinker's rejection of the notion of a blank slate condition in humans due to our minds being heavily constrained by the forces of evolutionary psychology. Culture is similarly very deep and hard to change.
Yes, there are good Russians. I didn't mean to say they were bad; just that they tend to have a different set of values and norms deeply rooted in their culture. As just one example, Russia has centuries of political repression in its history so its no wonder people are not comfortable or accustomed to questioning political authority in the country, which certainly helps maintain the status quo wrt current events.
I admit I made the point as harshly as possible, though that was an attempt to make it as much as a counterpoint to cultural blank slate thinking as I could for emphasis. Russia has had occasional flirtations with western ideals even if ultimately they did not properly take root. The Russian coat of arms with the two headed eagle is a good symbol of the tension between liberal western and illiberal values. Contrast the largely autocratic history of Russia with that of the US where classical liberal ideals have held sway for 250 years, having been inherited from even older traditions incubated in Great Britain. Coming from one tradition versus another carries with it a lot of implicit attitudes and assumptions that are hard to unwind. It took me a long time to realize how deeply these implicit worldviews run even though I'm half Russian and for a long time had trouble reconciling attitudes of my American vs Russian family. Things make a lot more sense to me now.
-
There's a huge delta between saying that someone doesn't share the same cultural values as westerners and saying that they are barely human. Western values and culture are not defining features of humanity. People in Russia, and Iraq, and Kenya, and anywhere else are "just normal people" and unfortunately having large parts of ones outlook on the world be defined by the culture one grew up in is actually a common characteristic of "just normal people" around the world.
You and I may not like the way other people think or behave in other cultures, and if you had simply said that there is no way they would be able to adapt to our values without major cultural shifts (which are probably impossible in one lifetime) then probably more people would agree with you. But to deny a person's humanity because of that disagreement in cultural values is totally senseless. One could, in fact, argue that it's us westerners that are less human than many other cultures, since upholding liberal values is not something that comes naturally to humanity.
-
Ukraine's naval drone attack on the Russian warship seems like an impressive feat. Hopefully, we will see many more of these attacks.
Something is so satisfying about watching a cheap weapon destroy such a huge expensive warship.
-
Ukraine's naval drone attack on the Russian warship seems like an impressive feat. Hopefully, we will see many more of these attacks.
Something is so satisfying about watching a cheap weapon destroy such a huge expensive warship.
Video of the tanker hit.
https://vxtwitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1687683453045665792 (https://vxtwitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1687683453045665792)
-
There's a huge delta between saying that someone doesn't share the same cultural values as westerners and saying that they are barely human. Western values and culture are not defining features of humanity. People in Russia, and Iraq, and Kenya, and anywhere else are "just normal people" and unfortunately having large parts of ones outlook on the world be defined by the culture one grew up in is actually a common characteristic of "just normal people" around the world.
You and I may not like the way other people think or behave in other cultures, and if you had simply said that there is no way they would be able to adapt to our values without major cultural shifts (which are probably impossible in one lifetime) then probably more people would agree with you. But to deny a person's humanity because of that disagreement in cultural values is totally senseless. One could, in fact, argue that it's us westerners that are less human than many other cultures, since upholding liberal values is not something that comes naturally to humanity.
Part f being human is to feel. To kill without the feeling of remorse is lacking something fundamental.
-
Part f being human is to feel. To kill without the feeling of remorse is lacking something fundamental.
The way human beings around the world talk themselves into killing without remorse is to first convince each other that the people they will be killing "aren't really human the way you and I are."
-
Ukraine's naval drone attack on the Russian warship seems like an impressive feat. Hopefully, we will see many more of these attacks.
Something is so satisfying about watching a cheap weapon destroy such a huge expensive warship.
Video of the tanker hit.
https://vxtwitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1687683453045665792 (https://vxtwitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1687683453045665792)
A landing craft (being used as a ferry as a backup to the Kerch Strait bridge), and a tanker. Nice.
Russia claimed that the tanker is mostly fine and intact, and only lost its ability to move under its own power. The point of impact for that USV doesn't seem consistent with that, since the propellers and engines tend to be, you know, in the back of ships.
-
There's a huge delta between saying that someone doesn't share the same cultural values as westerners and saying that they are barely human. Western values and culture are not defining features of humanity. People in Russia, and Iraq, and Kenya, and anywhere else are "just normal people" and unfortunately having large parts of ones outlook on the world be defined by the culture one grew up in is actually a common characteristic of "just normal people" around the world.
You and I may not like the way other people think or behave in other cultures, and if you had simply said that there is no way they would be able to adapt to our values without major cultural shifts (which are probably impossible in one lifetime) then probably more people would agree with you. But to deny a person's humanity because of that disagreement in cultural values is totally senseless.
As I explained, I was playing off of Pecunia's line about the potential inhumanity of the Russians for the purpose of hyperbole (and I thought the rules were you were allowed to denigrate a group if you were a member, as I am--at least, half-way!). To reiterate, I object to the notion there is any concept of a "normal human" if we consider culture a crucial component of humanity. Ignoring culture, I suppose we could list boring biological facts that unify us as a species, but such an exercise isn't going to help elucidate the situation in Ukraine.
One could, in fact, argue that it's us westerners that are less human than many other cultures, since upholding liberal values is not something that comes naturally to humanity.
I completely agree with this. Humans are savage by nature: look at the astonishing homicide rates, as estimated by the aforementioned Pinker, in hunter gatherer societies. Or consider Jarred Diamond's description of tribal warfare (The World Until Yesterday) in Papua New Guinea, and how the institution of state governance brought an end to that warfare, to the great relief of the tribes in question. It was due to a set of very peculiar cultural mutations that occurred in the western world that allowed for the codification of human rights and establishment of liberal democracies, and I would say the "WEIRD" acronym can be taken literally to some extent.
-
There's a huge delta between saying that someone doesn't share the same cultural values as westerners and saying that they are barely human. Western values and culture are not defining features of humanity. People in Russia, and Iraq, and Kenya, and anywhere else are "just normal people" and unfortunately having large parts of ones outlook on the world be defined by the culture one grew up in is actually a common characteristic of "just normal people" around the world.
You and I may not like the way other people think or behave in other cultures, and if you had simply said that there is no way they would be able to adapt to our values without major cultural shifts (which are probably impossible in one lifetime) then probably more people would agree with you. But to deny a person's humanity because of that disagreement in cultural values is totally senseless.
As I explained, I was playing off of Pecunia's line about the potential inhumanity of the Russians for the purpose of hyperbole (and I thought the rules were you were allowed to denigrate a group if you were a member, as I am--at least, half-way!). To reiterate, I object to the notion there is any concept of a "normal human" if we consider culture a crucial component of humanity. Ignoring culture, I suppose we could list boring biological facts that unify us as a species, but such an exercise isn't going to help elucidate the situation in Ukraine.
Would you fucking stop with trying to dig yourself out of that hole? There is no potential inhumanity. Russian people are as human as you are. So unless you're outing yourself as a cylon or something, cut it out.
And don't give me some bullcrap about following the rules. You're presumably a human, they are human, we are ALL HUMAN. And if you're not human, then get the hell off my planet.
There certainly can be a discussion of historical and cultural implications in behavior and actions, but the guy (or cylon) who said that an entire country isn't human doesn't have any moral standing to take part in that conversation.
-
(Text was required.)
-
Contrast the largely autocratic history of Russia with that of the US where classical liberal ideals have held sway for 250 years, having been inherited from even older traditions incubated in Great Britain.
Yeah, that's a good proof of point. The US had centuries of religious fanatics going there, so now you have a genetical base for being stupid sheeples following their mullah priest into whatever inhuman thing he wants. Making abortions a jailable offense, denying medical help on the base of whatever you read out of a book (not to mention the insurance thing), banning books about science because critical thinking might hurt children... I wonder when the Republicans will tell us the world is flat.
The thing is that people get "trained" by their culture, even their language, and especially a war, but that does not mean they can't stop being that way. And just because as a Russian recruit to the army you have to literally stick out your arse in many cases does not mean that you automatically start a war.
Current Russian culture is that of a Mafia, including the brutality everywhere and schoolchildrne wearing military uniforms. But as a German I can assure you that this does not mean you are destined to do wars once you get rid of the warmongers.
Russia claimed that the tanker is mostly fine and intact, and only lost its ability to move under its own power.
Even if that is true, it still means the tanker will be unable to transport fuel during the offensive. That's good enough.
-
Contrast the largely autocratic history of Russia with that of the US where classical liberal ideals have held sway for 250 years, having been inherited from even older traditions incubated in Great Britain.
Yeah, that's a good proof of point. The US had centuries of religious fanatics going there, so now you have a genetical base for being stupid sheeples following their mullah priest into whatever inhuman thing he wants. Making abortions a jailable offense, denying medical help on the base of whatever you read out of a book (not to mention the insurance thing), banning books about science because critical thinking might hurt children... I wonder when the Republicans will tell us the world is flat.
The thing is that people get "trained" by their culture, even their language, and especially a war, but that does not mean they can't stop being that way. And just because as a Russian recruit to the army you have to literally stick out your arse in many cases does not mean that you automatically start a war.
Current Russian culture is that of a Mafia, including the brutality everywhere and schoolchildrne wearing military uniforms. But as a German I can assure you that this does not mean you are destined to do wars once you get rid of the warmongers.
Russia claimed that the tanker is mostly fine and intact, and only lost its ability to move under its own power.
Even if that is true, it still means the tanker will be unable to transport fuel during the offensive. That's good enough.
"Yeah, that's a good proof of point. The US had centuries of religious fanatics going there, so now you have a genetical base for being stupid sheeples following their mullah priest into whatever inhuman thing he wants. Making abortions a jailable offense, denying medical help on the base of whatever you read out of a book (not to mention the insurance thing), banning books about science because critical thinking might hurt children... I wonder when the Republicans will tell us the world is flat. "
Just where does it come from?
"German-Americans make up the largest self-reported ancestry group within the United States accounting for roughly 49 million people and approximately 17% of the population of the US."
-
Yeah, we only kept the sensible people here, that's why Germany was the world leader in philosophy and tech in the 19th century. ;)
-
Yeah, we only kept the sensible people here, that's why Germany was the world leader in philosophy and tech in the 19th century. ;)
Be careful - There have been a lot of smart Germans of all stripes. You left yourself open to cherry picking there. Now back to the Ukrainian war.
We've argued the validity of the reported Russian deaths before. Whatever the exact number, Russia has sent a lot of people to meet the grim reaper.
The latest report from Ukraine is 249,700 deaths. The number who has joined this total in the past 24 hours is 590. Tomorrow the report will be over a quarter million dead. This war is running on inertia. Russia has essentially lost the NATO thing. They have no basis for this war. Even countries like Saudi Arabia have arranged a summit to stop this brutal war. Russia will be the pariah of nations for a generation.
-
Yeah, we only kept the sensible people here, that's why Germany was the world leader in philosophy and tech in the 19th century. ;)
Be careful - There have been a lot of smart Germans of all stripes. You left yourself open to cherry picking there. Now back to the Ukrainian war.
We've argued the validity of the reported Russian deaths before. Whatever the exact number, Russia has sent a lot of people to meet the grim reaper.
The latest report from Ukraine is 249,700 deaths. The number who has joined this total in the past 24 hours is 590. Tomorrow the report will be over a quarter million dead. This war is running on inertia. Russia has essentially lost the NATO thing. They have no basis for this war. Even countries like Saudi Arabia have arranged a summit to stop this brutal war. Russia will be the pariah of nations for a generation.
If the Saudis could arrange a private meeting with Putin I'm sure they could find a way to end the war. The Saudis don't mind getting their hands dirty.
-
You are extremely optimistic to think the war ends with Putin's death.
-
Yeah, we only kept the sensible people here, that's why Germany was the world leader in philosophy and tech in the 19th century. ;)
Be careful - There have been a lot of smart Germans of all stripes. You left yourself open to cherry picking there. Now back to the Ukrainian war.
We've argued the validity of the reported Russian deaths before. Whatever the exact number, Russia has sent a lot of people to meet the grim reaper.
The latest report from Ukraine is 249,700 deaths. The number who has joined this total in the past 24 hours is 590. Tomorrow the report will be over a quarter million dead. This war is running on inertia. Russia has essentially lost the NATO thing. They have no basis for this war. Even countries like Saudi Arabia have arranged a summit to stop this brutal war. Russia will be the pariah of nations for a generation.
I can't remember the exact quote, but it's something like "wars all start differently but all wars end the same: sitting at a table and talking".
Such a waste, on all sides and in all ways.
-
This book:
Russia Against Modernity 1st Edition
by Alexander Etkind
might be of interest to anyone interested in an in-depth view into the background and the causes of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.
The author is Russian and teaches at the Central European University in Vienna.
I have not read the book yet, but I'm familiar with the subject and the review below suggests that the book will provide that in-depth view.
Gaia vs. Leviathan: Why Is Russia at War With the Modern World?
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 20 Issue: 124
By: Vadim Shtepa
August 2, 2023
In June 2023, Polity Press published a new book by Alexander Etkind, a professor at Central European University in Vienna, entitled Russia Against Modernity. In the book, Etkind presents the invasion of Ukraine as only part of the Russian state’s larger war against global progress—namely, the environmental, social and cultural challenges of the 21st century.
The Russian professor explains the scope of his research in this way: “Why is Russia opposed to modernity? Because it is completely dependent on the export of its carbon raw materials. Any energy transition programs deprive the Russian Federation of its usual sources of income. This is the essence of this confrontation” (Holod.media, April 15).
https://jamestown.org/program/gaia-vs-leviathan-why-is-russia-at-war-with-the-modern-world/
-
This book:
Russia Against Modernity 1st Edition
by Alexander Etkind
might be of interest to anyone interested in an in-depth view into the background and the causes of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.
The author is Russian and teaches at the Central European University in Vienna.
I have not read the book yet, but I'm familiar with the subject and the review below suggests that the book will provide that in-depth view.
Gaia vs. Leviathan: Why Is Russia at War With the Modern World?
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 20 Issue: 124
By: Vadim Shtepa
August 2, 2023
In June 2023, Polity Press published a new book by Alexander Etkind, a professor at Central European University in Vienna, entitled Russia Against Modernity. In the book, Etkind presents the invasion of Ukraine as only part of the Russian state’s larger war against global progress—namely, the environmental, social and cultural challenges of the 21st century.
The Russian professor explains the scope of his research in this way: “Why is Russia opposed to modernity? Because it is completely dependent on the export of its carbon raw materials. Any energy transition programs deprive the Russian Federation of its usual sources of income. This is the essence of this confrontation” (Holod.media, April 15).
https://jamestown.org/program/gaia-vs-leviathan-why-is-russia-at-war-with-the-modern-world/
This also explains part of why the US Republican Party is sympathetic to Russia. They too are fossil fuel dependent. There are other reasons as well.
-
This also explains part of why the US Republican Party is sympathetic to Russia. They too are fossil fuel dependent. There are other reasons as well.
Well, Trump was recruited as a Soviet asset by the KGB in the 1980s.
That's why Trumpism is simply the American version of Putinism and the grand plan is the capture of the institutions by a mob-like political movement aligned with fossil fuel interests and other assorted oligarchs.
The increasing inability to deny the climate catastrophe has them all furious and under a lot of pressure to seize power ASAP.
Unfortunately, for these malicious actors, the first great climate war is not only not going well, but has massively accelerated the adoption of policies aimed at fossil fuel independence.
Russia experiences this as an existential threat as it sees the ruthless pursuit of its foreign interests as a God-given right, and any interference as aggression that must be countered violently, if necessary.
Is it an existential threat to the Russian imperial project?
Yes, it is - they got that right for a change.
-
This also explains part of why the US Republican Party is sympathetic to Russia. They too are fossil fuel dependent. There are other reasons as well.
Well, Trump was recruited as a Soviet asset by the KGB in the 1980s.
That's why Trumpism is simply the American version of Putinism and the grand plan is the capture of the institutions by a mob-like political movement aligned with fossil fuel interests and other assorted oligarchs.
The increasing inability to deny the climate catastrophe has them all furious and under a lot of pressure to seize power ASAP.
Unfortunately, for these malicious actors, the first great climate war is not only not going well, but has massively accelerated the adoption of policies aimed at fossil fuel independence.
Russia experiences this as an existential threat as it sees the ruthless pursuit of its foreign interests as a God-given right, and any interference as aggression that must be countered violently, if necessary.
Is it an existential threat to the Russian imperial project?
Yes, it is - they got that right for a change.
All that frozen land of Russia is non productive. Do they think that will change if the planet warms up? I've read that Russia wishes to control shipping in the Arctic Ocean. Do they really want global warming to continue?
How many windmills, geothermal plants, solar power installations, transmission lines and nuclear plants could have been built with the resources expended on this stupid war?
I imagine archeologists from outer space talking to one another. (Maybe they are Cylons) Their discussion will feature the fact that the human species could have saved itself if not for the resources expended on the "Special Military Operation."
-
Well, Trump was recruited as a Soviet asset by the KGB in the 1980s.
That's why Trumpism is simply the American version of Putinism and the grand plan is the capture of the institutions by a mob-like political movement aligned with fossil fuel interests and other assorted oligarchs.
The increasing inability to deny the climate catastrophe has them all furious and under a lot of pressure to seize power ASAP.
Unfortunately, for these malicious actors, the first great climate war is not only not going well, but has massively accelerated the adoption of policies aimed at fossil fuel independence.
Russia experiences this as an existential threat as it sees the ruthless pursuit of its foreign interests as a God-given right, and any interference as aggression that must be countered violently, if necessary.
Is it an existential threat to the Russian imperial project?
Yes, it is - they got that right for a change.
All that frozen land of Russia is non productive. Do they think that will change if the planet warms up? I've read that Russia wishes to control shipping in the Arctic Ocean. Do they really want global warming to continue?
Good luck with controlling shipping in the arctic with the naval resources Russia has.
There is also no way for Russia to establish a coastal presence at scale.
The vastness of the land and the difficulty to build roads and maintain them is just mind boggling.
Thawing is making things actually even worse for them because there is even less time in the year for moving stuff.
How many windmills, geothermal plants, solar power installations, transmission lines and nuclear plants could have been built with the resources expended on this stupid war?
That would be a counterfactual analysis but the structural problems preventing the resources used in that way make it more a fantasy than a real exercise.
I imagine archeologists from outer space talking to one another. (Maybe they are Cylons) Their discussion will feature the fact that the human species could have saved itself if not for the resources expended on the "Special Military Operation."
Maybe, but although we know now that this "special operation" is a turning point of some sort, we do not know yet where we are turning.
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
The higher they are, they harder they fall? No Russian hospital window for him. How lucky.
One less bad person. Good.
Power vacuum in Wagner or will Putin anoint the successor, or does Wagner cease ops and fold?
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
The higher they are, they harder they fall? No Russian hospital window for him. How lucky.
One less bad person. Good.
Power vacuum in Wagner or will Putin anoint the successor, or does Wagner cease ops and fold?
I just saw this too! I always thought it was strange Prigozhin was just "let go" after the events of the last few weeks...and always thought he would pay the piper at some point.
Guess my hunch was correct in the end!
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
The higher they are, they harder they fall? No Russian hospital window for him. How lucky.
One less bad person. Good.
Power vacuum in Wagner or will Putin anoint the successor, or does Wagner cease ops and fold?
I just saw this too! I always thought it was strange Prigozhin was just "let go" after the events of the last few weeks...and always thought he would pay the piper at some point.
Guess my hunch was correct in the end!
Too bad we won't allow Trump the opportunity to flee to Russia, Russia, Russia. Putin would happily give him the ending he deserves. LOL!
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
Whoa, that's big news, although I have to wonder why it took so long. Definitely a "When you strike at a king, you must kill him" situation.
It doesn't help Ukraine, though. What's left of Wagner will, at best, be left as status quo. On the other hand, Putin could complete the push to subsume them under the Russian army.
Too bad we won't allow Trump the opportunity to flee to Russia, Russia, Russia. Putin would happily give him the ending he deserves. LOL!
But people keep telling me that Trump is a Russian stooge!
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
What are you talking about???!1 The plane had an unfortunate crash and it's under investigation by the Russian authorities. So we won't know the cause until that investigation is complete... although the WSJ is saying witnesses saw the contrail of a SAM heading towards the plane... that was probably just something else.
-
Isn't being stuck in Russia a bad enough ending?
-
Hospital window, plane window, whatever. The important thing is that the defenestration was successfully accomplished.
No matter how many fingers point at Putin, no provable link will be established.
Ooops, we fired a missile, it was an accident, honest….err… nope no missile was ever used…..
I’m a little worried that my spell check includes defenestration.
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
Whoa, that's big news, although I have to wonder why it took so long. Definitely a "When you strike at a king, you must kill him" situation.
It doesn't help Ukraine, though. What's left of Wagner will, at best, be left as status quo. On the other hand, Putin could complete the push to subsume them under the Russian army.
Too bad we won't allow Trump the opportunity to flee to Russia, Russia, Russia. Putin would happily give him the ending he deserves. LOL!
But people keep telling me that Trump is a Russian stooge!
Stooges outlive their usefulness too. Trump has had financial dealings with Russia. He may know something that is best kept quiet for Putin's interests.
-
Hospital window, plane window, whatever. The important thing is that the defenestration was successfully accomplished.
No matter how many fingers point at Putin, no provable link will be established.
Ooops, we fired a missile, it was an accident, honest….err… nope no missile was ever used…..
I’m a little worried that my spell check includes defenestration.
I would be disppointed if customs that survived for millenia were not in there.
But really, did nobody tell Putin that you don't open windows on an airplane?
-
Hospital window, plane window, whatever. The important thing is that the defenestration was successfully accomplished.
No matter how many fingers point at Putin, no provable link will be established.
Ooops, we fired a missile, it was an accident, honest….err… nope no missile was ever used…..
I’m a little worried that my spell check includes defenestration.
I would be disppointed if customs that survived for millenia were not in there.
But really, did nobody tell Putin that you don't open windows on an airplane?
Fake news. You can open windows on an airplane with a SAM. And it appears that Putin was briefed on this.
-
You know you are in the doghouse when you aren't just defenestrated, and you aren't just killed in a regrettable accident at home along with your family, but rather an entire planeload of people, pilots and all, inexplicably falls from the sky because you happen to be on it.
-
Death is ruled natural causes - man was not naturally meant to fly.
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
The higher they are, they harder they fall? No Russian hospital window for him. How lucky.
One less bad person. Good.
Power vacuum in Wagner or will Putin anoint the successor, or does Wagner cease ops and fold?
I just saw this too! I always thought it was strange Prigozhin was just "let go" after the events of the last few weeks...and always thought he would pay the piper at some point.
Guess my hunch was correct in the end!
Same day as General Surovikin gets demoted, too. That demotion probably looks pretty good right about now... for a little while at least.
-
You know you are in the doghouse when you aren't just defenestrated, and you aren't just killed in a regrettable accident at home along with your family, but rather an entire planeload of people, pilots and all, inexplicably falls from the sky because you happen to be on it.
This is the first plane crash that's due to passenger error.
-
You know you are in the doghouse when you aren't just defenestrated, and you aren't just killed in a regrettable accident at home along with your family, but rather an entire planeload of people, pilots and all, inexplicably falls from the sky because you happen to be on it.
It looks like of the 7 passengers (there were also two pilots and a flight attendant), three were Prigozhin and two of his senior officers. Dmitri Utkin was Wagner's founder, second in command, and also the guy who led the convoy that nearly reached Moscow. If you've seen photos of a scary bald guy with SS tattoos, that's him. Valeryi Chekalov was head of Wagner internal security, was responsible for Wagner's income from Syrian oil, and bought a lot of their weaponry. The other passengers were their bodyguards and longtime members of Wagner.
The video being circulated purporting to be his plane's crash shows the aircraft falling almost straight down with a puff of smoke just behind the plane that looks a lot like a missile detonation. It looks like a large piece of wing is missing during the fall.
https://twitter.com/echofm_online/status/1694390751839314029 (https://twitter.com/echofm_online/status/1694390751839314029)
-
My response to that footage is this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ustFrvYRjoM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ustFrvYRjoM)
-
Note that Ukraine started destroying Russian logistics only after the attack failed.
No, they did start earlier. Last year. But the Russians are not dumb orcs, even if you name them so. They can think: If Himars shoots X miles, we place our depots X miles + 1. And we also spread them out more.
That's what they did.
What you are likely referring to are strikes outside Himars range. That was only possible because of the British Storm shadows.
If Ukraine had gotten them at the start of the year, together with the planes and helicopters and the 500 tanks they said they needed or the offensive (they got around 100) they would probably be through the lines now.
Nevertheless, a noticeable concerted effort to degrade logistics and artillery began immediately after. They could have just waited. They knew the missiles were coming.
Partly I think that while Ukraine is very capable on the technical and strategic levels, they don't seem quite there on the levels in between.
IMHO they have shown to be quite capable on all levels. It needs quite a bit of tactical proficiency to advance through a mine field without air support while shelled by countless numbers of artillery? Oh, did I say arty? Which level do you think belongs arty and counter-arty fire belongs to?
Technical
Ukraine hasn't even developed a long range missile
They have. Even one for marine (that's what supposedly sank Moaskva.)
They have not since the start of the renewed invasion. Their anti-ship missile used was developed and produced before February 2022. The only other they have managed is a modified Soviet air defense missile. And I'm disappointed because this is something which Russia has been covertly aiding other countries with, it is low hanging escalation fruit to help Ukraine speed up the design to produce one within 1.5 years.
-
Putin finally killed Prigozhin:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/wagner-mercenary-boss-yevgeny-prigozhin-killed-in-plane-crash.html)
ISW thinks Putin was 'almost certainly' behind it:
Putin almost certainly ordered the Russian military command to shoot down Prigozhin’s plane. Elements of the Russian military, especially Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov, would be extremely unlikely to execute Prigozhin without Putin’s order. The entirety of the Russian political and security sphere likely viewed Prigozhin’s continued survival following Wagner’s rebellion as at Putin’s discretion. ISW will make further assessments based on the assumption that Putin ordered Prigozhin’s assassination unless evidence to the contrary emerges. ISW’s previous standing assessment that Putin was unlikely to kill Prigozhin for fear of angering Wagner personnel has thus been invalidated.[20]
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-23-2023
An analyst on Dutch tv yesterday also addressed the possibility of Shoygu and Gerasimov or even someone lower down the chain of command being behind it. Prigozhin had plenty of enemies, especially after the mutiny. In that case the lesson to be drawn from this would be that Putin is weaker still than he was believed to be and may very well continue to lose power. Putin will have to protest his innocence to maintain some semblance of legitimacy (such as it is), only without actually convincing people because that would make him look weak. Interesting how dictatorships work.
I'm inclined to agree with ISW on the basis that it makes little sense for a subordinate to take the risk of attempting an assasination on their own when orders to do so seem just around the corner.
-
You would think that the Wagner group’s higher-ups would have had enough sense not to fly together.
-
I was thinking of the crew and stewardess. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the Wagner higher-ups. They had to know what we know - that Putin's rivals are doomed at some point.
Or maybe Russians don't know that. Mixed signals from their media, omission of facts by the media, outright lies from the government....
-
Folks, we're wrong. The Kremlin just said any discussion of Putin having a role in this unfortunate plane crash is an "absolute lie". Also Lukashenko, the President of Belarus, says he "can't imagine Putin's involvement."
Case closed.
-
I would assume that the pilot was from Wagner, and there was no "Stewardess" on that private plane where the big hats were planning their future (wasted effort, really).
-
It'll be interesting to see how the power dynamics change. I read some interesting stuff that Wagner and the MOD were checks on each other to stop one of the military leaders from overthrowing Putin. They hated each other and wouldn't allow the other to gain power and Putin would intentionally play them against each other to prevent one of them coming against him. With Wagner leaderless right now the MOD could have gained more power. Chaos within Russia's military leadership is only good news for Ukraine.
-
It'll be interesting to see how the power dynamics change. I read some interesting stuff that Wagner and the MOD were checks on each other to stop one of the military leaders from overthrowing Putin. They hated each other and wouldn't allow the other to gain power and Putin would intentionally play them against each other to prevent one of them coming against him. With Wagner leaderless right now the MOD could have gained more power. Chaos within Russia's military leadership is only good news for Ukraine.
Would not the FSB (KGB) be a counter to any action by the Ministry of Defense (MOD)?
-
It'll be interesting to see how the power dynamics change. I read some interesting stuff that Wagner and the MOD were checks on each other to stop one of the military leaders from overthrowing Putin. They hated each other and wouldn't allow the other to gain power and Putin would intentionally play them against each other to prevent one of them coming against him. With Wagner leaderless right now the MOD could have gained more power. Chaos within Russia's military leadership is only good news for Ukraine.
Would not the FSB (KGB) be a counter to any action by the Ministry of Defense (MOD)?
Wagner reported directly to Putin unlike in most countries where military contractors fall under the military. Also, most countries don't allow contractors to have heavy equipment like tanks.
-
I'd be willing to bet that putin knew who was next in line after the plane went down. Those 'arrangements" are likely well laid.
-
This week was a good week for those rooting for Russia to fail.
Still, I can't help but be disappointed in the support provided to Ukraine by Europe and the USA. It seems that Putin and Russia can do anything and those nations are too timid to counter. In terms of Europe, does nobody remember the French president who got paid to say what Putin wanted? The bribes and disinformation and lies? Murdered people? Forgot the "Catalonian separatists" and how close Spain came to being Ukraine 2? And what has any European government done to respond? Why are they trying so hard to avoid Russian defeat, when Russia and Putin have worked their asses off every day to destroy Europe? Europe half deserves (or half of Europe deserves, tending toward the west and south, and center) to live under the Russian Empire just for being so pathetic.
On to the US. I thought Biden was perfect in the first half of 2022. The real time intelligence information which united Ukrainians behind themselves, and the world behind Ukraine when Russia proved to be false. The slowly escalating weapons deliveries which both led yet followed world opinion, ultimately resulting in HIMARS which single handedly crushed Russian ambitions. Then he slacked. The next half of 2022 resulted in minimal to no extra capabilities, but at least gave the appearance of action. The first half of 2023 resulted in no new capabilities, merely a sustainment of what had been done in 2022. For why? Russia has been attacking the US with every capability, direct and indirect, throughout Putin's tenure. George W Bush gazed deep into his soul, Barrack H Obama offered to suck his dick, and Trump wholeheartedly did both as long as he got paid. And this is how the "leader of the free world" responds, milquetoast compromise and waffling? The US could singlehandedly turn over enough conventional weapons systems to conclude the war in a few months, to the great benefit of themselves and the world, and at likely no additional cost within five years considering the benefits and money saved by not demilitarizing all the stuff. (Side note, I've seen a military munitions disposal site and can vouch that it is every bit as efficient and hardworking as the DMV, if the DMV good build a fence around themselves to nobody could audit them and see what they were doing. IE nap time 6 hours per day, goof off 90 minutes, work for 30 minutes). And what the fuck is up with the Republicans? We need a Reagan or McCain , and they roll a dozen snake eyes. Half their primary candidates are national socialists, and most of the rest seem to be closet Stalinists.
Pretty disappointed all around. We could do so much more at minimal cost, while hugely benefiting ourselves at the world in the process.
-
I'm surprised it's taken this long for Ukraine to get access to F16s.
My view on the current state of the war is that the Russians probably realise deep down that they're not going to take much more territory now that Wagner and Surovikin are out of the picture. I suspect they now have a strategy to hold the captured territory until governments supporting Ukraine start winding down support and pushing for a peace deal...at least for the short term.
It's interesting that Ukrainian forces have managed incursions into Crimea.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66603644
I wonder if we'll see a big push by Ukrainian forces in the autumn just before conditions become inconducive to a Russian counter-attack. I've seen on Liveuamap that there's been some small gains in the Zaporizhzhia oblast. If they can capture Tokmak (or at least areas around the rail line passing through it), that'll hamper Russian logistics. Best case is probably to reach Melitopol before the ground starts getting muddy, but that might be a stretch.
As for Wagner post-Prigozhin...the question may be the loyalties of the Wagner soldiers, and if Wagner dissolves or someone else comes up to take control.
-
I'm surprised it's taken this long for Ukraine to get access to F16s.
My view on the current state of the war is that the Russians probably realise deep down that they're not going to take much more territory now that Wagner and Surovikin are out of the picture. I suspect they now have a strategy to hold the captured territory until governments supporting Ukraine start winding down support and pushing for a peace deal...at least for the short term.
It's interesting that Ukrainian forces have managed incursions into Crimea.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66603644
I wonder if we'll see a big push by Ukrainian forces in the autumn just before conditions become inconducive to a Russian counter-attack. I've seen on Liveuamap that there's been some small gains in the Zaporizhzhia oblast. If they can capture Tokmak (or at least areas around the rail line passing through it), that'll hamper Russian logistics. Best case is probably to reach Melitopol before the ground starts getting muddy, but that might be a stretch.
As for Wagner post-Prigozhin...the question may be the loyalties of the Wagner soldiers, and if Wagner dissolves or someone else comes up to take control.
It does seem like Ukraine is pushing to recapture Crimea more so than Donbas. There may be some talks internally or at least the feeling that Ukraine also does not have much breathing room even with large amounts of weapons. If they are going to give away some land for a spot in NATO, it's going to be Luhansk.
-
I think that's more because crimea is a huge thread to any offensive (because you need to divert a lot of troops for defense) anywhere else and because it's a lot easier to starve (literally and figurativly) Russian forces there, where everythign depends on one bridge, than where Russia has literally a hundred mile long border.
Don't forget there has been a low level war in the Donbass for nearly a decade before the last Russian invasion. This area is not easy to get and keep under control.
-
Also with control of Crimea it would be pretty easy for Ukraine to blockade all of Russia’s Black Sea ports, which are vital for its international trade. Ukraine would then have leverage to end the war on its terms. The Donbas would not be as defensible and would not confer any additional leverage. That’s really the only way I see to do it also (barring a political collapse in Russia) otherwise it would not be possible to force the return of kidnapped people deep inside Russia.
-
Also with control of Crimea it would be pretty easy for Ukraine to blockade all of Russia’s Black Sea ports, which are vital for its international trade. Ukraine would then have leverage to end the war on its terms. The Donbas would not be as defensible and would not confer any additional leverage. That’s really the only way I see to do it also (barring a political collapse in Russia) otherwise it would not be possible to force the return of kidnapped people deep inside Russia.
Yes and they could do some nasties to the Russians on the Sea of Azov too.
-
On to the US. I thought Biden was perfect in the first half of 2022. The real time intelligence information which united Ukrainians behind themselves, and the world behind Ukraine when Russia proved to be false. The slowly escalating weapons deliveries which both led yet followed world opinion, ultimately resulting in HIMARS which single handedly crushed Russian ambitions. Then he slacked. The next half of 2022 resulted in minimal to no extra capabilities, but at least gave the appearance of action. The first half of 2023 resulted in no new capabilities, merely a sustainment of what had been done in 2022.
HIMARS got all the headlines, but there's a LOT of other stuff. We've now sent 150-ish Bradly IFVs, a whole lotta Patriot missile complexes, and I imagine the intelligence support is continuing. There's a lot of unglamorous stuff, too--trucks, night-vision goggles, infantry equipment. And recently cluster artillery shells, which are *way* more effective against infantry and trenchlines. So even though things haven't progressed as quickly as a lot of us would hope, there's a lot happening that doesn't get the publicity. And while other EU nations have at times dragged their feet, there's no denying the effectiveness of Storm Shadow.
I, too, wish Ukraine were fully equipped with hundreds of F-16s, not for the jets themselves, but for all the amazing weapons they can carry--SDBs, laser-guided bombs, fully-functional HARMs, etc. But in order for Ukraine to fully employ the jets, they have to be trained. And not just the pilots, but the whole support infrastructure as well--maintenance is a doozy for modern fighters.
-
So,......you would think it wouldn't be too long and Ukraine will be getting the Saab-Boeing glide bombs (GLSDB). They already have some sort of glide bombs, but I don't believe any of these have shipped.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/us-suspends-delivery-of-himars-launched-glsdb-smart-bombs-to-taiwan/ (https://www.eurasiantimes.com/us-suspends-delivery-of-himars-launched-glsdb-smart-bombs-to-taiwan/)
-
So,......you would think it wouldn't be too long and Ukraine will be getting the Saab-Boeing glide bombs (GLSDB). They already have some sort of glide bombs, but I don't believe any of these have shipped.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/us-suspends-delivery-of-himars-launched-glsdb-smart-bombs-to-taiwan/ (https://www.eurasiantimes.com/us-suspends-delivery-of-himars-launched-glsdb-smart-bombs-to-taiwan/)
I thing GLSDBs were only tested last year for the first time, so I wouldn't count on them arriving soon.
-
On to the US. I thought Biden was perfect in the first half of 2022. The real time intelligence information which united Ukrainians behind themselves, and the world behind Ukraine when Russia proved to be false. The slowly escalating weapons deliveries which both led yet followed world opinion, ultimately resulting in HIMARS which single handedly crushed Russian ambitions. Then he slacked. The next half of 2022 resulted in minimal to no extra capabilities, but at least gave the appearance of action. The first half of 2023 resulted in no new capabilities, merely a sustainment of what had been done in 2022.
HIMARS got all the headlines, but there's a LOT of other stuff. We've now sent 150-ish Bradly IFVs, a whole lotta Patriot missile complexes, and I imagine the intelligence support is continuing. There's a lot of unglamorous stuff, too--trucks, night-vision goggles, infantry equipment. And recently cluster artillery shells, which are *way* more effective against infantry and trenchlines. So even though things haven't progressed as quickly as a lot of us would hope, there's a lot happening that doesn't get the publicity. And while other EU nations have at times dragged their feet, there's no denying the effectiveness of Storm Shadow.
I, too, wish Ukraine were fully equipped with hundreds of F-16s, not for the jets themselves, but for all the amazing weapons they can carry--SDBs, laser-guided bombs, fully-functional HARMs, etc. But in order for Ukraine to fully employ the jets, they have to be trained. And not just the pilots, but the whole support infrastructure as well--maintenance is a doozy for modern fighters.
I never mentioned F-16. In fact your list of things provided is basically my list of complaints. Cluster munitions should have been sent much earlier. You don't have to know anything about the military to understand that they would be far more effective per shot for many uses than single war heads. Just think that a regular shell attenuates to the 3 power away from its detonation, and approximately half of that is aimed straight up, and you can see why. Further even vaguely paying attention you would know that the US plans to decommission its entire stock, and that decommissioning millions of cluster munitions will cost billions of dollars. In terms of cost effectiveness, a munition that is more effective yet saves money is obvious, and would have had a huge impact. The US should have started delivering them a year ago, with the plan to deliver the entire stock over the next 24 months, with Ukraine agreeing to later dispose any that didn't meet their standards. There is no excuse not to have done that.
Bradleys. I think someone made a rule that no more than double digits should ever be operational in Ukraine at once, and you can count total Bradleys destroyed or damaged by subtracting 99 from the number delivered. It's stupid to have a policy of defeating the entire Russian army, and yet limit deliveries to less than four digits. Ditto for air defenses of all types. It was so obviously useful, and strung out for so long, and still present in a fraction the numbers needed. Tanks. The slow delivery of tiny numbers of largely obsolete models is embarrassing. Again, trying to take on all of the Russian army without more than double digits of any tank model is just terrible policy. This is especially so because they are just gathering dust, and 80% of anything earmarked for use against Russia can just be sent over without thought, because that is what it's purpose is! Longer range weapons. Really obvious how useful they would be. Provided slow, late and in tiny numbers. I understand this halfway because it's the first item in the paragraph that could conceivably be more useful anywhere else ever. Still, it would be so useful in Ukraine that it's stupid to not have provided even a few hundred. F-16: great, they're mostly like the other items on this list. they are just a different variety of artillery, air defense, and long range munitions. There is a bunch, they aren't getting newer, there would be minimal to no additional cost to send a few hundred (vs maintaining and disposing), why not?
Also, general policy. Russia has been making huge trouble and killing a very many people in many terrible ways all over the place. There is no doubt that large swathes of the world are right now worse off because of them, and I doubt anyone at all is better except a few corrupt individuals numbering in the thousands on the backs of others. This is ongoing right now, and not just in Ukraine. Why is everyone so reluctant to return the favor? What are they waiting for, "Catalonian separatists" to appear in their countries?
-
On to the US. I thought Biden was perfect in the first half of 2022. The real time intelligence information which united Ukrainians behind themselves, and the world behind Ukraine when Russia proved to be false. The slowly escalating weapons deliveries which both led yet followed world opinion, ultimately resulting in HIMARS which single handedly crushed Russian ambitions. Then he slacked. The next half of 2022 resulted in minimal to no extra capabilities, but at least gave the appearance of action. The first half of 2023 resulted in no new capabilities, merely a sustainment of what had been done in 2022.
HIMARS got all the headlines, but there's a LOT of other stuff. We've now sent 150-ish Bradly IFVs, a whole lotta Patriot missile complexes, and I imagine the intelligence support is continuing. There's a lot of unglamorous stuff, too--trucks, night-vision goggles, infantry equipment. And recently cluster artillery shells, which are *way* more effective against infantry and trenchlines. So even though things haven't progressed as quickly as a lot of us would hope, there's a lot happening that doesn't get the publicity. And while other EU nations have at times dragged their feet, there's no denying the effectiveness of Storm Shadow.
I, too, wish Ukraine were fully equipped with hundreds of F-16s, not for the jets themselves, but for all the amazing weapons they can carry--SDBs, laser-guided bombs, fully-functional HARMs, etc. But in order for Ukraine to fully employ the jets, they have to be trained. And not just the pilots, but the whole support infrastructure as well--maintenance is a doozy for modern fighters.
I never mentioned F-16. In fact your list of things provided is basically my list of complaints. Cluster munitions should have been sent much earlier. You don't have to know anything about the military to understand that they would be far more effective per shot for many uses than single war heads. Just think that a regular shell attenuates to the 3 power away from its detonation, and approximately half of that is aimed straight up, and you can see why. Further even vaguely paying attention you would know that the US plans to decommission its entire stock, and that decommissioning millions of cluster munitions will cost billions of dollars. In terms of cost effectiveness, a munition that is more effective yet saves money is obvious, and would have had a huge impact. The US should have started delivering them a year ago, with the plan to deliver the entire stock over the next 24 months, with Ukraine agreeing to later dispose any that didn't meet their standards. There is no excuse not to have done that.
Bradleys. I think someone made a rule that no more than double digits should ever be operational in Ukraine at once, and you can count total Bradleys destroyed or damaged by subtracting 99 from the number delivered. It's stupid to have a policy of defeating the entire Russian army, and yet limit deliveries to less than four digits. Ditto for air defenses of all types. It was so obviously useful, and strung out for so long, and still present in a fraction the numbers needed. Tanks. The slow delivery of tiny numbers of largely obsolete models is embarrassing. Again, trying to take on all of the Russian army without more than double digits of any tank model is just terrible policy. This is especially so because they are just gathering dust, and 80% of anything earmarked for use against Russia can just be sent over without thought, because that is what it's purpose is! Longer range weapons. Really obvious how useful they would be. Provided slow, late and in tiny numbers. I understand this halfway because it's the first item in the paragraph that could conceivably be more useful anywhere else ever. Still, it would be so useful in Ukraine that it's stupid to not have provided even a few hundred. F-16: great, they're mostly like the other items on this list. they are just a different variety of artillery, air defense, and long range munitions. There is a bunch, they aren't getting newer, there would be minimal to no additional cost to send a few hundred (vs maintaining and disposing), why not?
Also, general policy. Russia has been making huge trouble and killing a very many people in many terrible ways all over the place. There is no doubt that large swathes of the world are right now worse off because of them, and I doubt anyone at all is better except a few corrupt individuals numbering in the thousands on the backs of others. This is ongoing right now, and not just in Ukraine. Why is everyone so reluctant to return the favor? What are they waiting for, "Catalonian separatists" to appear in their countries?
People are really afraid of nuclear bombs. The Russians know this and it allows them to get away with crazy uncivilized behavior. I think if it wasn't for the nukes the world would have "re-educated" Russia forcefully a generation ago.
-
Cluster munitions should have been sent much earlier. You don't have to know anything about the military to understand that they would be far more effective per shot for many uses than single war heads. Just think that a regular shell attenuates to the 3 power away from its detonation, and approximately half of that is aimed straight up, and you can see why. Further even vaguely paying attention you would know that the US plans to decommission its entire stock, and that decommissioning millions of cluster munitions will cost billions of dollars. In terms of cost effectiveness, a munition that is more effective yet saves money is obvious, and would have had a huge impact. The US should have started delivering them a year ago, with the plan to deliver the entire stock over the next 24 months, with Ukraine agreeing to later dispose any that didn't meet their standards. There is no excuse not to have done that.
If you only look at it from the standpoint of an US army procurement officer, then yes.
But you forget that there are other countries in there supplying, and for most of them it's illegal to use or export cluster munitions.
Not to mention the fears of "this will escalate the war and Putin will make it worse!". Regerdless of how based in reality those fears were, they existed and exist.
As far as your thousands of tanks etc go, there are 2 problems:
A) giving them is a LOT easier than keeping them in workable condition, especially if you don't have the trained crews. Also: Munitions and their logistics.
B) You need someone to drive them, preferably in a way that they are useful. Tanks aren't known to be self-driving automatics.
That is especially true for any aircraft.
Could there have been higher numbers delivered at an earlier point? Yes, and should have.
But as it is it is already amazing how good the Ukrainians work with the pletora of weapon models they have (or so military trainers and logistic officers have said several times). Just having more of them might not have made such a difference, and certainly not 10 times more.
-
On to the US. I thought Biden was perfect in the first half of 2022. The real time intelligence information which united Ukrainians behind themselves, and the world behind Ukraine when Russia proved to be false. The slowly escalating weapons deliveries which both led yet followed world opinion, ultimately resulting in HIMARS which single handedly crushed Russian ambitions. Then he slacked. The next half of 2022 resulted in minimal to no extra capabilities, but at least gave the appearance of action. The first half of 2023 resulted in no new capabilities, merely a sustainment of what had been done in 2022.
HIMARS got all the headlines, but there's a LOT of other stuff. We've now sent 150-ish Bradly IFVs, a whole lotta Patriot missile complexes, and I imagine the intelligence support is continuing. There's a lot of unglamorous stuff, too--trucks, night-vision goggles, infantry equipment. And recently cluster artillery shells, which are *way* more effective against infantry and trenchlines. So even though things haven't progressed as quickly as a lot of us would hope, there's a lot happening that doesn't get the publicity. And while other EU nations have at times dragged their feet, there's no denying the effectiveness of Storm Shadow.
I, too, wish Ukraine were fully equipped with hundreds of F-16s, not for the jets themselves, but for all the amazing weapons they can carry--SDBs, laser-guided bombs, fully-functional HARMs, etc. But in order for Ukraine to fully employ the jets, they have to be trained. And not just the pilots, but the whole support infrastructure as well--maintenance is a doozy for modern fighters.
I never mentioned F-16. In fact your list of things provided is basically my list of complaints. Cluster munitions should have been sent much earlier. You don't have to know anything about the military to understand that they would be far more effective per shot for many uses than single war heads. Just think that a regular shell attenuates to the 3 power away from its detonation, and approximately half of that is aimed straight up, and you can see why. Further even vaguely paying attention you would know that the US plans to decommission its entire stock, and that decommissioning millions of cluster munitions will cost billions of dollars. In terms of cost effectiveness, a munition that is more effective yet saves money is obvious, and would have had a huge impact. The US should have started delivering them a year ago, with the plan to deliver the entire stock over the next 24 months, with Ukraine agreeing to later dispose any that didn't meet their standards. There is no excuse not to have done that.
Bradleys. I think someone made a rule that no more than double digits should ever be operational in Ukraine at once, and you can count total Bradleys destroyed or damaged by subtracting 99 from the number delivered. It's stupid to have a policy of defeating the entire Russian army, and yet limit deliveries to less than four digits. Ditto for air defenses of all types. It was so obviously useful, and strung out for so long, and still present in a fraction the numbers needed. Tanks. The slow delivery of tiny numbers of largely obsolete models is embarrassing. Again, trying to take on all of the Russian army without more than double digits of any tank model is just terrible policy. This is especially so because they are just gathering dust, and 80% of anything earmarked for use against Russia can just be sent over without thought, because that is what it's purpose is! Longer range weapons. Really obvious how useful they would be. Provided slow, late and in tiny numbers. I understand this halfway because it's the first item in the paragraph that could conceivably be more useful anywhere else ever. Still, it would be so useful in Ukraine that it's stupid to not have provided even a few hundred. F-16: great, they're mostly like the other items on this list. they are just a different variety of artillery, air defense, and long range munitions. There is a bunch, they aren't getting newer, there would be minimal to no additional cost to send a few hundred (vs maintaining and disposing), why not?
Also, general policy. Russia has been making huge trouble and killing a very many people in many terrible ways all over the place. There is no doubt that large swathes of the world are right now worse off because of them, and I doubt anyone at all is better except a few corrupt individuals numbering in the thousands on the backs of others. This is ongoing right now, and not just in Ukraine. Why is everyone so reluctant to return the favor? What are they waiting for, "Catalonian separatists" to appear in their countries?
People are really afraid of nuclear bombs. The Russians know this and it allows them to get away with crazy uncivilized behavior. I think if it wasn't for the nukes the world would have "re-educated" Russia forcefully a generation ago.
Patton really advocated war against Russia immediately after WW2 when the armies were in europe and america had the bomb and russia didn't. Truman didn't want to keep going for lots of reasons.
-
On to the US. I thought Biden was perfect in the first half of 2022. The real time intelligence information which united Ukrainians behind themselves, and the world behind Ukraine when Russia proved to be false. The slowly escalating weapons deliveries which both led yet followed world opinion, ultimately resulting in HIMARS which single handedly crushed Russian ambitions. Then he slacked. The next half of 2022 resulted in minimal to no extra capabilities, but at least gave the appearance of action. The first half of 2023 resulted in no new capabilities, merely a sustainment of what had been done in 2022.
HIMARS got all the headlines, but there's a LOT of other stuff. We've now sent 150-ish Bradly IFVs, a whole lotta Patriot missile complexes, and I imagine the intelligence support is continuing. There's a lot of unglamorous stuff, too--trucks, night-vision goggles, infantry equipment. And recently cluster artillery shells, which are *way* more effective against infantry and trenchlines. So even though things haven't progressed as quickly as a lot of us would hope, there's a lot happening that doesn't get the publicity. And while other EU nations have at times dragged their feet, there's no denying the effectiveness of Storm Shadow.
I, too, wish Ukraine were fully equipped with hundreds of F-16s, not for the jets themselves, but for all the amazing weapons they can carry--SDBs, laser-guided bombs, fully-functional HARMs, etc. But in order for Ukraine to fully employ the jets, they have to be trained. And not just the pilots, but the whole support infrastructure as well--maintenance is a doozy for modern fighters.
I never mentioned F-16. In fact your list of things provided is basically my list of complaints. Cluster munitions should have been sent much earlier. You don't have to know anything about the military to understand that they would be far more effective per shot for many uses than single war heads. Just think that a regular shell attenuates to the 3 power away from its detonation, and approximately half of that is aimed straight up, and you can see why. Further even vaguely paying attention you would know that the US plans to decommission its entire stock, and that decommissioning millions of cluster munitions will cost billions of dollars. In terms of cost effectiveness, a munition that is more effective yet saves money is obvious, and would have had a huge impact. The US should have started delivering them a year ago, with the plan to deliver the entire stock over the next 24 months, with Ukraine agreeing to later dispose any that didn't meet their standards. There is no excuse not to have done that.
Bradleys. I think someone made a rule that no more than double digits should ever be operational in Ukraine at once, and you can count total Bradleys destroyed or damaged by subtracting 99 from the number delivered. It's stupid to have a policy of defeating the entire Russian army, and yet limit deliveries to less than four digits. Ditto for air defenses of all types. It was so obviously useful, and strung out for so long, and still present in a fraction the numbers needed. Tanks. The slow delivery of tiny numbers of largely obsolete models is embarrassing. Again, trying to take on all of the Russian army without more than double digits of any tank model is just terrible policy. This is especially so because they are just gathering dust, and 80% of anything earmarked for use against Russia can just be sent over without thought, because that is what it's purpose is! Longer range weapons. Really obvious how useful they would be. Provided slow, late and in tiny numbers. I understand this halfway because it's the first item in the paragraph that could conceivably be more useful anywhere else ever. Still, it would be so useful in Ukraine that it's stupid to not have provided even a few hundred. F-16: great, they're mostly like the other items on this list. they are just a different variety of artillery, air defense, and long range munitions. There is a bunch, they aren't getting newer, there would be minimal to no additional cost to send a few hundred (vs maintaining and disposing), why not?
Also, general policy. Russia has been making huge trouble and killing a very many people in many terrible ways all over the place. There is no doubt that large swathes of the world are right now worse off because of them, and I doubt anyone at all is better except a few corrupt individuals numbering in the thousands on the backs of others. This is ongoing right now, and not just in Ukraine. Why is everyone so reluctant to return the favor? What are they waiting for, "Catalonian separatists" to appear in their countries?
People are really afraid of nuclear bombs. The Russians know this and it allows them to get away with crazy uncivilized behavior. I think if it wasn't for the nukes the world would have "re-educated" Russia forcefully a generation ago.
Patton really advocated war against Russia immediately after WW2 when the armies were in europe and america had the bomb and russia didn't. Truman didn't want to keep going for lots of reasons.
Yeh - I guess General MacArthur wanted to do the same thing to Red China during the Korean conflict.
-
And in the latest development, Ukrainan drones have attacked an airbase in Pskov. The attack has according to initial reports taken out at least four Iljusjin Il-76 transport airplanes belonging to the VDV.
Pskov is far far away Ukraine. Check a map. Five other places in Russia was also hit by Ukraine this past night. This is ... interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-drones-attack-russian-air-base-near-estonia-2023-08-30/
Now I just wait for one of these drones to hit Putins little datcha on the Black Sea coast. If you need a refresher, here is Navalnys documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI (yes, English subtitles are available).
-
And in the latest development, Ukrainan drones have attacked an airbase in Pskov. The attack has according to initial reports taken out at least four Iljusjin Il-76 transport airplanes belonging to the 76:th VDV.
Pskov is far far away Ukraine. Check a map. Five other places in Russia was also hit by Ukraine this past night. This is ... interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-drones-attack-russian-air-base-near-estonia-2023-08-30/
Now I just wait for one of these drones to hit Putins little datcha on the Black Sea coast. If you need a refresher, here is Navalnys documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI (yes, English subtitles are available).
You know the coolest thing about these latest drone attacks is that the drones are made from Australian cardboard. You just can't make this stuff up.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035)
What's next rubber band engines?
-
A video I watched this morning pointed out that the IL-76's were a huge help to Russia last summer when the Ukrainians were blitzing in the north. The IL-76s moved lots of heavy machinery to that area of the front to help blunt the assault.
Ukraine is getting closer and closer to having the entire width of the land bridge under fire control, i.e. they can hit any transportation line with artillery, rockets, HIMARS, or something similar. Given Russia's struggles with logistics, and given how Ukraine is hitting chokepoints like the Chongar bridge, the southern Kherson region is going to become very difficult for Russia to support. And the further Ukraine penetrates southward from Robotyne and around Tokmak, the worse it's going to get.
-
And in the latest development, Ukrainan drones have attacked an airbase in Pskov. The attack has according to initial reports taken out at least four Iljusjin Il-76 transport airplanes belonging to the 76:th VDV.
Pskov is far far away Ukraine. Check a map. Five other places in Russia was also hit by Ukraine this past night. This is ... interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-drones-attack-russian-air-base-near-estonia-2023-08-30/
Now I just wait for one of these drones to hit Putins little datcha on the Black Sea coast. If you need a refresher, here is Navalnys documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI (yes, English subtitles are available).
You know the coolest thing about these latest drone attacks is that the drones are made from Australian cardboard. You just can't make this stuff up.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035)
What's next rubber band engines?
WTF! Playing with explosive toys, quite literally.
Also this shows Russia's military hardware can be taken out by a wee aircraft supposedly from The Continent Down Under.
Putin's going to love this and make someone disappear from a hospital window, or a plane window, or any window.
-
You know the coolest thing about these latest drone attacks is that the drones are made from Australian cardboard. You just can't make this stuff up.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035)
What's next rubber band engines?
Those cardboard drones may not have been used or even existing for that newspaper article do to it's job of messing with the head of the Russians. :)
-
You know the coolest thing about these latest drone attacks is that the drones are made from Australian cardboard. You just can't make this stuff up.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21035)
What's next rubber band engines?
Those cardboard drones may not have been used or even existing for that newspaper article do to it's job of messing with the head of the Russians. :)
Just the same - It's fun to believe. I remember playing with Balsa wood toy planes as a kid so it's rather easy.
-
Holy crap, has anyone ever read a complete list of all the initiatives the Ukrainians have taken to reduce corruption?
https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/20938 (https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/20938)
This needs to be the platform for US politicians if they want my vote! Instead we're moving in the opposite direction.
-
Holy crap, has anyone ever read a complete list of all the initiatives the Ukrainians have taken to reduce corruption?
https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/20938 (https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/20938)
This needs to be the platform for US politicians if they want my vote! Instead we're moving in the opposite direction.
They have quite the incentive, with EU and NATO membership being on the table.
Aftermath of the drone attack on Pskov airfield: https://twitter.com/reshetz/status/1697368961703161887?s=46&t=gYfuVHvKmZFgorOIfb8VfA (https://twitter.com/reshetz/status/1697368961703161887?s=46&t=gYfuVHvKmZFgorOIfb8VfA)
Two IL-76 transports burned to the ground, and two others damaged on their wing/fuselage that will keep them grounded for a while.
Regarding the "cardboard" drones, allegedly they were used to attack Kursk airport and may have damaged several aircraft and radar. They deliver shrapnel rather than high explosives, so figuring out what they've actually damaged will be very difficult.
https://vxtwitter.com/NOELreports/status/1697229084957216873 (https://vxtwitter.com/NOELreports/status/1697229084957216873)
-
Thank you @Travis that was interesting photos.
-
If you only look at it from the standpoint of an US army procurement officer, then yes.
But you forget that there are other countries in there supplying, and for most of them it's illegal to use or export cluster munitions.
Not to mention the fears of "this will escalate the war and Putin will make it worse!". Regerdless of how based in reality those fears were, they existed and exist.
The USA alone has millions of cluster munitions in storage which we will never use. If they don't go to Ukraine they will cost us billions of dollars in disposal costs.
Whether France or whomever bans cluster munitions is irrelevant. The US hasn't joined the ban, nor has Poland, Ukraine or Russia. Ship the munitions to Poland, then use rail to get them to Ukraine.
We should flag any batches with high dud rates so that Ukraine can break them down and use the submunitions for arming drones. Dud rate is reduced a lot with individual use.
-
Reznikov out as Ukrainian Minister of Defense. He's been under fire for months for a couple of procurement scandals that span uniforms, rations, and some aspects of the defense industry. I don't know much yet about his replacement except that apparently he has very strong anti-corruption credentials.
https://www.twitter.com/archer83able/status/1698413078302347712 (https://www.twitter.com/archer83able/status/1698413078302347712)
In more tactical news, the TB-2 drone may be making a comeback in parts of the theater, presumably where large holes have been made in Russian air defenses.
https://twitter.com/heroiam_slava/status/1698339598651322610?s=46&t=1wvN3l-k86NHIutheYmYPg (https://twitter.com/heroiam_slava/status/1698339598651322610?s=46&t=1wvN3l-k86NHIutheYmYPg)
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1698441184056574412 (https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1698441184056574412)
-
There are probably going to be consequences for Elon Musk at some point:
@TheDeadDistrict
Since then Musk saved the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Russia ships fired 801 "Kalibr" missiles at Ukraine.
What a bloody idiot.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1700436197359673653
-
What are the consequences of not participating in the war as a civilian?
-
There are probably going to be consequences for Elon Musk at some point:
@TheDeadDistrict
Since then Musk saved the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Russia ships fired 801 "Kalibr" missiles at Ukraine.
What a bloody idiot.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1700436197359673653
Looks like the post has already been removed
-
There are probably going to be consequences for Elon Musk at some point:
@TheDeadDistrict
Since then Musk saved the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Russia ships fired 801 "Kalibr" missiles at Ukraine.
What a bloody idiot.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1700436197359673653
Looks like the post has already been removed
Not for me - here is a screenshot (and I´m not sure that the number is correct. I've seen others saying that there were more than a thousand. But that does not change the fact that Russia was able to preserve assets due to Musk's actions, and these assets are often used for war crimes against civilians.):
-
What are the consequences of not participating in the war as a civilian?
Basically, it comes down to that UAF is in a contract with Starlink, and it does not make a difference if the service is provided for free or not.
If Starlink had simply provided the services as the contractor it is this would not have been an issue, and neither would have been termination of the contract within whatever terms or even just sufficient advance warning.
However, by inserting himself into an ongoing military operation, and likely sabotaging it, he stepped outside of the contractor role.
So the issue is precisely the opposite of what you are saying: Musk became a civilian illegally participating in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Musk is an idiot and probably does not yet understand the consequences.
At the moment it looks like Musk was/is in contact with the Kremlin and doesn't understand that he is an actor in a Russian intelligence operation.
-
What are the consequences of not participating in the war as a civilian?
Basically, it comes down to that UAF is in a contract with Starlink, and it does not make a difference if the service is provided for free or not.
If Starlink had simply provided the services as the contractor it is this would not have been an issue, and neither would have been termination of the contract within whatever terms or even just sufficient advance warning.
However, by inserting himself into an ongoing military operation, and likely sabotaging it, he stepped outside of the contractor role.
So the issue is precisely the opposite of what you are saying: Musk became a civilian illegally participating in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Musk is an idiot and probably does not yet understand the consequences.
At the moment it looks like Musk was/is in contact with the Kremlin and doesn't understand that he is an actor in a Russian intelligence operation.
I am aware that Musk was "going to war".
That is why I am confused. The Russians can certainly complain about it, but not if he stops it.
Onhte other side, the Ukrainians might not like it, but there is no low forcing an American citizen into a war between 2 countries that aren't the US.
So what consequences?
-
Good grief.
There is apparently nobody around Elon Musk able to tell him to shut up.
Here we have this guy who takes it upon himself to recognize the territorial claims of Russia, thereby preventing the destruction of the Russian Black Sea fleet and enabling mass murder of Ukrainian civilians, who defends his actions with having prevented an escalation in the war.
And this oligarch thinks that becoming an actor in this major international war, beyond enabling Russian propaganda on his social network, is a good idea.
Here is a tweet Musk sent out yesterday:
-
What are the consequences of not participating in the war as a civilian?
Basically, it comes down to that UAF is in a contract with Starlink, and it does not make a difference if the service is provided for free or not.
If Starlink had simply provided the services as the contractor it is this would not have been an issue, and neither would have been termination of the contract within whatever terms or even just sufficient advance warning.
However, by inserting himself into an ongoing military operation, and likely sabotaging it, he stepped outside of the contractor role.
So the issue is precisely the opposite of what you are saying: Musk became a civilian illegally participating in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Musk is an idiot and probably does not yet understand the consequences.
At the moment it looks like Musk was/is in contact with the Kremlin and doesn't understand that he is an actor in a Russian intelligence operation.
I am aware that Musk was "going to war".
That is why I am confused. The Russians can certainly complain about it, but not if he stops it.
Onhte other side, the Ukrainians might not like it, but there is no low forcing an American citizen into a war between 2 countries that aren't the US.
So what consequences?
I posted a tweet from Musk above.
He obviously believes that there is no problem with a private actor engaging in recognizing illegal territorial claims by Russia and making this recognition the basis for essentially protecting an entire fleet from destruction.
This is crazy - but, at the end of the day, it will fall to people like this guy to accept Musk's excuses or not:
-
Here is more about Musk's activities as a Kremlin asset:
Musk, Starlink and hypocrisy: Elon's "Benedict Arnold" moment shows U.S. can't have it both ways
Are we going to regulate tech billionaires so they don't determine the outcome of Ukraine's fight, or nah?
By RAE HODGE
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 7:29PM (EDT
"How am I in this war?" Musk asked Isaacson. "Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes."
I can answer that question for Musk. He's in this war because he aggressively lobbied for — and four months ago successfully won — a Pentagon contract. Specifically, Musk was contracted to provide the Ukraine with battlefield communications via Starlink so Ukraine could defend against Russian invasion and root out occupiers of its territory — territory like the Crimean coast.
But that doesn't seem to matter to Musk now that he's seemingly crowned himself Ukraine's de-facto turn-coat.
"Both sides should agree to a truce. Every day that passes, more Ukrainian and Russian youth die to gain and lose small pieces of land, with borders barely changing. This is not worth their lives," he tweeted Thursday.
Musk wanted in this war, and now that he's in it, he's admitted to sabotaging the side that contracted him. And none of us should be surprised. In October 2022, Musk proposed just letting Russia have, via referendum, whatever Ukrainian territory it had already invaded and occupied. One wonders if Musk would agree to hand over half of SpaceX in appeasement if some gun-toting maniacs broke into his launch sites.
https://www.salon.com/2023/09/08/musk-starlink-and-hypocrisy-elons-benedict-arnold-moment-shows-us-cant-have-it-both-ways/
-
So what are the penalties for accepting a military support pentagon contract and then unilaterally making decisions that go against the interests of the pentagon?
-
So what are the penalties for accepting a military support pentagon contract and then unilaterally making decisions that go against the interests of the pentagon?
There are two sides to it. One would be the US perspective and I do not know the penalties for that. If the US were officially at war with Russia, this would be treasonous conduct and I believe the maximum penalty for such offenses is capital punishment, AFAIK.
The second perspective is the Ukrainian. I think we can be reasonably sure that Ukraine has identified Musk as a Russian asset. Ukraine will likely continue to engage in intelligence operations, information warfare, and diplomatic efforts.
There is also talk about the illegality of a private citizen engaging in acts of war and Ukraine might pursue that in the courts.
Elon Musk and the west’s fascist fifth column
NICK COHEN
SEP 9, 2023
Who the hell does he think he is? No one has elected Musk, and yet he is running his own foreign policy and providing military aid to a hostile foreign power.
Silicon Valley is proving to be one hell of a lesson to those who thought that democracy and capitalism inevitably grow together. Musk is an ally of democracy’s enemies, and not just an ideological ally but a practical ally who is able through his businesses to provide concrete support to the Kremlin. Musk can ally with Putin without embarrassment because his very business success has inflated his self-importance, and made him think that he ought to be seen and deserves to be seen by the world a colossus who bestrides the narrow world.
https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/elon-musk-and-the-wests-fascist-fifth?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
-
So what are the penalties for accepting a military support pentagon contract and then unilaterally making decisions that go against the interests of the pentagon?
I believe the Starlink coverage in question was being provided to the Ukrainian government either on their dime or the Pentagon's, but since then the contract has shifted to be in more DoD control. The current contract probably has clauses like "this is a weapon system and Ukraine can use it however the DoD wants." If Musk messed with that, there would be civil and maybe criminal consequences. Last year he made the case that putting Starlink on a drone made it a weapon system and therefore outside the TOS. He didn't have a problem when it was clearly being used as a battlefield comms system to move forces and call artillery. Then we got Tweets from him that he talked personally to Putin, parroted Russia's talking points, and told Miles Chong in a Tweet that he wants to find a way to end the war because it bothers him on a personal level. Aside from lighting a match under future DoD contracts, he's also positioned himself as a private citizen trying to affect foreign policy. Neither are healthy long term positions to take.
-
Musk is having conversations with a hostile foreign power and then taking actions that negatively impact a U.S. ally? Isn’t this espionage?
-
Musk is having conversations with a hostile foreign power and then taking actions that negatively impact a U.S. ally? Isn’t this espionage?
For all that we know, Musk did it in pursuit of of his own interest.
Espionage implies spying for some state entity.
Calling him a rogue actor is probably more accurate.
-
Elon Musk needs his wings clipped.
This piece pretty much sums it up:
The U.S. Government Can’t Allow Elon Musk the Power to Intervene in Wars
INVESTIGATE, CONGRESS
The billionaire’s interference in Ukrainian military operations shows he’s a national security risk. No private citizen should have that much power.
Nicholas Grossman
Sep. 09, 2023 12:28PM EDT
Congress should exercise its oversight powers and look into both SpaceX’s actions in Ukraine and the extent of American dependence on Musk’s company.
At minimum, it’s an information security risk.
Isaacson says Musk texted him about the Ukrainian sea drones headed to Crimea as he was trying to decide what to do. No one should be telling journalists about secret military operations as they’re happening.
Elon Musk especially shouldn’t be in position to, given his direct contact with foreign officials, and his apparent affinity for online trolls, including contributors to Russian state media outlet RT.
He’s free to associate with whomever he wants, and to express his opinions about the war (even if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and has vast means to spread his thoughts widely).
But a defense contractor controlled by one volatile personality, who is at best ignorant of international power politics and susceptible to Russian propaganda, and does not respect that national security decisions are up to governments rather than him personally, is not someone the United States should consider a reliable business partner.
The ultimate problem here is not that Musk made bad decisions for bad reasons—though he did—it’s that no private individual should be in position to make decisions like that at all.
The only one who should be able to control equipment in American military operations is America.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-government-cant-allow-elon-musk-the-power-to-intervene-in-wars?ref=home
-
Maybe the real lesson is that the American military has gone too far in outsourcing vital segments to 3rd party contractors.
Outsourcing was accelerated under Bush/Cheney and made many people very wealthy. Now here we are wondering how Musk was able to make a unilateral military decision.
Just like it was discovered during Covid that we'd made ourselves vulnerable in areas like microchips which are mostly made outside the U.S. and the current administration responded by funding production in the U.S. again, I think we need a hard look at what should and should not be allowed to be done by non-military actors.
-
Again, putting aside that he seems to have a contract with the US DoD, there is nothing you can do agaisnt a civilian not taking part in a fight.
THe the only question is: How is a breach of contract with the military legally punishable? Normally, if you don't do as per contract, the money does not get paid and you might have to pay for monetary damage.
But what is the monetary damage of not providing a foreign military with data access for the DoD?
I think that is untrodden territory, because nothing like that happened before, it was normally the military that had the better tech, and that it is about the benefit of a third party does not make it easier.
-
You seem to be assuming that monetary consequences are the only possibility. I am not sure of that at all. If the CIA or someone has a strong enough incentive to weaken Russia, and Musk is interfering with that then someone may take more definitive action. Plenty of examples in history.
-
You seem to be assuming that monetary consequences are the only possibility. I am not sure of that at all. If the CIA or someone has a strong enough incentive to weaken Russia, and Musk is interfering with that then someone may take more definitive action. Plenty of examples in history.
I was speaking about legally.
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
He was bald when he was working on PayPal. Turns out enough money can buy some very good hair plugs.
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
He was bald when he was working on PayPal. Turns out enough money can buy some very good hair plugs.
So he just needs the hairless cat and the pinkie ring?
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
This is the post of the week as far as I'm concerned.
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
This is the post of the week as far as I'm concerned.
Someone fill me in on the meaning of this. I'm in the dark.
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
This is the post of the week as far as I'm concerned.
Someone fill me in on the meaning of this. I'm in the dark.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PoyshKSdYHw/VVU34sYI30I/AAAAAAAAJNg/J8GrGVi4CGI/s1600/Dr-Evil-2[1].jpg)
-
You seem to be assuming that monetary consequences are the only possibility. I am not sure of that at all. If the CIA or someone has a strong enough incentive to weaken Russia, and Musk is interfering with that then someone may take more definitive action. Plenty of examples in history.
I do wonder if the financial sanctions damage the dollar's standing as the reserve currency. It's not like the other 'BRICS' countries didn't notice how the US froze $billions of Russian-owned US Treasuries and other securities. If we weaponize the US dollar and associated debt instruments, we are also lessening its global appeal to many who don't always agree with US policy.
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
This is the post of the week as far as I'm concerned.
I had to wipe off the laptop screen after I read that. Luckily it was just water, but still, I don't often percussively guffaw at online material like that post made me.
-
Musk needs to move to Russia if he likes it so much
-
Musk needs to move to Russia if he likes it so much
O.o and here so many people tried to not provoke Russia into escalating the war!
-
I'm surprised that all this military satellite traffic isn't encrypted better. Why should Musk be able to see the Ukrainian information transiting the satellites in the first place?
If I was a corporate or government user, I would want assurances that my traffic was not readable by anyone anywhere along the network.
-
I'm surprised that all this military satellite traffic isn't encrypted better. Why should Musk be able to see the Ukrainian information transiting the satellites in the first place?
If I was a corporate or government user, I would want assurances that my traffic was not readable by anyone anywhere along the network.
I don't think he is. The issue is that he geofenced the terminals from functioning past a certain point on the map. A satellite service provider knows when traffic is going across their network, but not what the data actually contains unless it was unencrypted.
-
I'm surprised that all this military satellite traffic isn't encrypted better. Why should Musk be able to see the Ukrainian information transiting the satellites in the first place?
If I was a corporate or government user, I would want assurances that my traffic was not readable by anyone anywhere along the network.
I don't think he is. The issue is that he geofenced the terminals from functioning past a certain point on the map. A satellite service provider knows when traffic is going across their network, but not what the data actually contains unless it was unencrypted.
This is correct. Starlink is geographically throttled based on where they can operate within the laws/governing structure of the nation they are over. This is a baseline structural feature of the program. That said, the implementation adverse to Ukraine in this way is suspect.
-
Musk needs to move to Russia if he likes it so much
So he provides a global satellite communications system for free to Ukraine at the beginning of the war which is critical in allowing them to continue fighting.
Then he eventually asks that they pay for this service (or let the Pentagon pay on their behalf) since he is running a business, not a charity.
He defends the network from Russian cyber attacks/electronic warfare so Ukraine can continue using it.
He also asks Ukraine to not directly integrate this service into weapons systems to prevent further escalation.
So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?
-
Musk needs to move to Russia if he likes it so much
So he provides a global satellite communications system for free to Ukraine at the beginning of the war which is critical in allowing them to continue fighting.
Then he eventually asks that they pay for this service (or let the Pentagon pay on their behalf) since he is running a business, not a charity.
He defends the network from Russian cyber attacks/electronic warfare so Ukraine can continue using it.
He also asks Ukraine to not directly integrate this service into weapons systems to prevent further escalation.
So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?
The part where he spoke to Putin directly? Which is being reported.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spoke-vladimir-putin-before-ukraine-peace-plan-report-2022-10
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told-pentagon-staff-he-spoke-to-putin-before-starlink-call#xj4y7vzkg - its paywalled unfortunately.
There's also the fact that he should have thought about it before he gave the Ukrainians access. If he didn't want to be involved, that's fine, but that means you stay out of it to start with. Yes, I'm well aware that he did it as a publicity stunt to help grow the business. Just because he's an idiot doesn't mean that there's no consequences in yanking access because its convenient.
From my limited googling, he wasn't under the same type of contract at least last fall as he is now. That might help him. What's not going to help him is the military deciding that it's critical technology and taking steps to ensure continued availability. I'm sure they can lock him into some airtight contracts. And I can not imagine that someone in charge isn't aware of his character.
-
Just mention that right from the start Starlink was geofenched to not work on Russian (occupied) territory - one to prevent Russians using it (in occupied territory), second to not "help an attack on Russia."
Defense yes, attack no. Not different from the many states not delivering long range attack missiles or demanding from Ukraine to not go on Russian soil.
This is not new.
-
So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?
Sibley's article sums it up, but depending on the source he either talked to Putin or the Russian Ambassador, and then started Tweeting the Kremlin's talking points almost word for word denouncing Ukraine's claims to Crimea and that in the name of peace, Russia was entitled to everything it captured and was continuing to demand. He hasn't backed down from this position at all in the last year.
On the front, Ukraine continues to push one small field at a time south-southeast past Robotyne with possible further penetrations near Novomaiorske further east in that sector. Sources are reporting (but no visual confirmations) that Ukraine has recaptured Optyne just north of the Donetsk airport, and may have completely secured Klichivka and Adviika near Bakhmut.
Ukraine and Sweden appear to be making long term arrangements to build 1,000 CV-90 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. This is probably half of what Ukraine needs to replace their Soviet-era BMPs and will take the better part of a decade to fulfill.
https://gagadget.com/en/tanks/312301-ukraine-together-with-sweden-plans-to-produce-1000-cv90-infantry-fighting-vehicles-for-the-afu (https://gagadget.com/en/tanks/312301-ukraine-together-with-sweden-plans-to-produce-1000-cv90-infantry-fighting-vehicles-for-the-afu)
Russia is rumored to be looking at restarting production of the T-80. Since 2000 they've only maintained a single factory for refurbishment and spare parts. They haven't cast a new hull from scratch since then. Brand new T-90 production appears to be in the low 10s per month, and its possible that they simply can't scale it any higher and need a second line of production.
https://twitter.com/militarnyi_en/status/1701158640080589083 (https://twitter.com/militarnyi_en/status/1701158640080589083)
Report coming out of the Russian technical/scientific community that they are still unable to work the bugs out of the T-14's engine meaning they can't mass produce the tank.
https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1701210132690919431 (https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1701210132690919431)
And reports that the need for Russia to refurbish its existing fleet and keep the war going is squeezing out funds for any modernization.
https://twitter.com/thedeaddistrict/status/1700587319126863989 (https://twitter.com/thedeaddistrict/status/1700587319126863989)
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/09/08/russias-out-of-control-military-spending-en (https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/09/08/russias-out-of-control-military-spending-en)
And a French think tank ran the latest numbers on Russian tank production, tank refurbishment from storage, losses, and put together several projections for the future of their tank force. One scenario has the Russian industrial base running out of tanks to refurbish at the end of 2024 and anything after that has to be new production.
https://institutactionresilience.fr/publications.php (https://institutactionresilience.fr/publications.php)
-
I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.
This is the post of the week as far as I'm concerned.
I had to wipe off the laptop screen after I read that. Luckily it was just water, but still, I don't often percussively guffaw at online material like that post made me.
Been there done that.
Can’t make this stuff up
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1436415954762805254
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Satellites with “lasers” in “space” [strokes white cat]
Refers to new at the time Starlink v1.5 with inter-satellite laser links.
-
Well it would seem that the story about Musk intervening on the part of the Russians is a false claim that appears in a new biography, with extracts published in the Washington Post.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biographer-admits-suggestion-spacex-head-blocked-ukraine-drone-attack-was-wrong
Not a fan of Musk, but neither am I a fan of misrepresentation.
-
Well it would seem that the story about Musk intervening on the part of the Russians is a false claim that appears in a new biography, with extracts published in the Washington Post.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biographer-admits-suggestion-spacex-head-blocked-ukraine-drone-attack-was-wrong
Not a fan of Musk, but neither am I a fan of misrepresentation.
Regardless of the biography, the tweets are out there.
-
Ukraine just hit Sevastopol naval base with cruise missiles. Damage likely to include a Kilo class submarine and a Ropucha class transport ship. Situation still ongoing, fires burning as of these reports. This would be the same base Elon didn't want touched.
Fuel or munitions cooking off
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1701765467738644810 (https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1701765467738644810)
The Ropucha burning in the background
https://t.me/s/razvozhaev/3849 (https://t.me/s/razvozhaev/3849)
Geolocation of the fires puts them right on top of the two ships sitting in drydock
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1701774908403904799?s=20 (https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1701774908403904799?s=20)
-
Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!
Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.
-
Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!
Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.
Ukraine's luck with the sea drones hasn't been very high (with or without Musk), but whatever cruise missile they've started using is racking up the high-value kills across Crimea.
-
Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!
Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.
Ukraine's luck with the sea drones hasn't been very high (with or without Musk), but whatever cruise missile they've started using is racking up the high-value kills across Crimea.
I think you are counting too much hard hits there.
This war is a military economy attrition war, not the US storming the desert.
The drones might have only sunken one ship and damaged half a dozen or so - but they demontrated that Ukraine can effectivly attack everywhere in the Black Sea.
For the dollar price of a hand full of cruise missiles (which Ukraine didn't even have), they have not only driven warships away from the coast, preventing close range support, but more or less grounded them. For a single digit million cost, Russia lost the use of billions (of dollar) of warships.
Effectivly that might even be better than destroying them, because destroyed ships don't cost money and crew to maintain.
-
It appears the two craft that were hit were already dry docked for repairs, i.e. not actively involved in the conflict.
It's still absolutely a win, though, because it'll mean they won't be involved in the conflict basically ever, now. And it makes the dry docks unavailable for other ships until Russia can clear them out again.
-
It appears the two craft that were hit were already dry docked for repairs, i.e. not actively involved in the conflict.
It's still absolutely a win, though, because it'll mean they won't be involved in the conflict basically ever, now. And it makes the dry docks unavailable for other ships until Russia can clear them out again.
The sea drones didn't even exist a few months ago. I've heard improvements are being made. There may even be a largely submarine drone. I would think the antenna would have to poke out of the water, but that would be hard to spot.
-
So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?
I'd say this is pretty definitive, though admittedly not admissible in court.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/russias-vladimir-putin-praises-elon-musk-as-an-outstanding-person.html
-
Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!
Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.
Ukraine's luck with the sea drones hasn't been very high (with or without Musk), but whatever cruise missile they've started using is racking up the high-value kills across Crimea.
I think you are counting too much hard hits there.
This war is a military economy attrition war, not the US storming the desert.
The drones might have only sunken one ship and damaged half a dozen or so - but they demontrated that Ukraine can effectivly attack everywhere in the Black Sea.
For the dollar price of a hand full of cruise missiles (which Ukraine didn't even have), they have not only driven warships away from the coast, preventing close range support, but more or less grounded them. For a single digit million cost, Russia lost the use of billions (of dollar) of warships.
Effectivly that might even be better than destroying them, because destroyed ships don't cost money and crew to maintain.
Yes, I was only counting confirmed kills with that comment. That's not to discount the strategic impact the drone fleet has had on Russian operations. They don't go out into the water nearly as much. They've had to set up the Kerch bridge like it's a besieged castle. And they're probably putting a lot of hours on patrol helicopters looking for them.
So according to Ukrainian military sources, the strike was done by StormShadow cruise missiles. The Ropucha is a charred mess. The Kilo is more difficult to determine, but the drydock it is sitting in is covered in scorch marks so heat damage is likely. These drydocks may simply become permanent parking spaces for these two ships.
Possibly related to this strike, Russian forces abandoned an oil platform in the Black Sea a few days ago. Ukrainian Marines captured it and a surveillance radar intact. It's possible that capture played a role in this strike. Ukraine has also been picking off radars and SAM launchers across Crimea the last few weeks.
Edit: The green circles shown in the satellite photos are the impact craters from the missiles. Difficult to see, but I'm being told the sub took a direct hit with missile possibly going through the sub and detonating underneath it (StormShadows have two warheads).
https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1701909431846387916 (https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1701909431846387916)
https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1701997074911224343?s=46 (https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1701997074911224343?s=46)
-
So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?
I'd say this is pretty definitive, though admittedly not admissible in court.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/russias-vladimir-putin-praises-elon-musk-as-an-outstanding-person.html
Putin made the comments at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia, as he spoke about Russia’s space program.
“Elon Musk ... is undoubtedly an outstanding person. It must be admitted. I think the whole world admits it. He is an active, talented businessman,” Putin said, according to a Reuters translation.
So Putin admitting that SpaceX/Elon Musk have completely revolutionized (and dominated) the global rocket/space launch industry makes Musk on Russia's side? SpaceX now handles about 80% of the global launch market - much of it taken from Russia's space program.
This is yet another sign he is clearly on Russia's side by taking away a valuable source of hard currency and decimating their rocket launch industry. /s
It's kind of hard to argue with calling him a talented businessman when he's become the richest person in the world through starting and running multiple businesses, including two simultaneously that dominate their industries (SpaceX and Tesla).
-
Musk has de facto recognized Crimea not being part of Ukraine.
The praise Putin is heaping on Musk is actually a threat to Musk not to change his stance on this.
Putin is a skilled operator when it comes to keeping oligarchs in line and there is no reason to think that he looks at Musk any differently than as being just another oligarch.
In Putin's world oligarchs exist as long as they are useful to him and make efforts to stay in his good graces.
Putin's statements about Musk and Trump, at this point, do not mean more than that they continue to enjoy his goodwill and also that his opinion about them matters.
Given the low opinions the majority of westerners have of Putin, his praise is not necessarily good for the praised as it really represents an assertion that they are in Russia's sphere of influence and that Putin's opinion still matters.
Of course, Putin knows that characters like Musk and Trump respond to flattery - so there is that.
But there are also windows and polonium tea ...
Of course, reminding his assets in such a public manner of the loyalty owed to Putin can be interpreted as a sign of weakness.
-
So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?
These parts:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000? (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?)
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577083012914651142? (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577083012914651142?)
Musk seems to think that Ukraine actually fighting back to retake its own sovereign territory is "escalation."
His ideas about a "peace plan" were very close to the Russian Foreign Ministry's demands which both him and FM called on Ukraine to stop fighting, stay out of NATO, Crimea is and has always been Russia, and that the occupied territories would have votes on which country to join. Calls for ceasefires and referendums imply that a) Russia gets to keep what it has captured and b) assumes that Russia's word is worth the paper its printed on and c) votes conducted in militarily occupied territory could ever be legitimate. Russia already held votes with the ballots handed out by armed soldiers in territories with fractions of their pre-war populations and declared them all now Russia anyways.
Russia's negotiating position since the war started has been "just give us everything we want and we swear we won't attack you [again]." Musk's Tweets from that time went right down that checklist and he's never suggested that Russia should have to give up anything for this proposed peace.
That's why he appears pro-Russian.
-
All-In Summit: Elon Musk on Ukraine, X, the creator economy, China, AI, & more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqJ5-kkUGk
Elon Musk told the panel on the 'All-In' Podcast Summit yesterday.....
This point underlined the broader geopolitical considerations he takes into account in his business ventures, which brings us back to Starlink and the recent controversy over Ukraine demanding him enable the satellite web service for an attack on Crimea.
Musk made it clear that Walter Isaacson - his biographer - had misunderstood the situation and that the initial decision to not allow access to Starlink around the Crimean border was due to sanctions from the Biden administration.
"Starlink have provided connectivity to Ukraine since the beginning of the war and as the Ukrainian government has said, Starlink was instrumental in the defense of Ukraine - although the media forgets to mention that."
Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."
The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.
-
...
Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."
That's nonsense. Crimea is not Russia.
The argument would only be valid if Crimea actually was recognized as Russian territory.
The issue is that Musk recognizes Crimea as Russian territory because he is cowering before Putin.
Crimea is Ukraine and there is no lawyering that could possibly get around that reality.
-
...
Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."
That's nonsense. Crimea is not Russia.
The argument would only be valid if Crimea actually was recognized as Russian territory.
The issue is that Musk recognizes Crimea as Russian territory because he is cowering before Putin.
Crimea is Ukraine and there is no lawyering that could possibly get around that reality.
Agreed.
100 countries in the UN (including the US . . . where Musk lives) voted not to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, leading to a resolution calling upon states not to recognize changes in status of Crimean region after Russia invaded and occupied the territory.
https://press.un.org/en/2014/ga11493.doc.htm (https://press.un.org/en/2014/ga11493.doc.htm)
-
The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.
I'm calling 100% BS. Crimea is not recognized by the USA as part of Russia.
I get tired of the Elon show spouting BS all the time. From full self driving, to COVID, to Mars, he's constantly spouting BS and he is constantly wrong. He is one of those people who should be assumed to be FOS unless proven otherwise.
-
Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!
Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.
Is that a nuclear powered sub?
-
Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!
Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.
Is that a nuclear powered sub?
All the boats in the Black Sea are diesels.
-
At least in the EU, there were post 2014 but before 2022 some restrictions that applied specifically to disallow business which included or affected Crimea (and possibly the occupied eastern parts of Ukraine, I don't remember). Don't quote me on details, as my work at that time did not include anything getting even close to providing communication services or anything else war related, but we had some historical sales to Russian companies made pre-2014 so I read up on parts of the restrictions.
That didn't mean that Crimea was recognized by the EU nations as part of Russia, but there was still legal hurdles regarding that land mass. Bigger hurdles in fact than just doing business with say a company fully located in S:t Petersburg or Moscow.
I wouldn't be surprised if some legal text from the US also would put this at least in a grey area. Laws often have unintended consequences.
-
The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.
I'm calling 100% BS. Crimea is not recognized by the USA as part of Russia.
I get tired of the Elon show spouting BS all the time. From full self driving, to COVID, to Mars, he's constantly spouting BS and he is constantly wrong. He is one of those people who should be assumed to be FOS unless proven otherwise.
Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.
There are literally thousands of pages of sanctions between Executive Orders, the Department of State, and the Department of Treasury (probably some UN or EU sanctions as well). However, below are some key documents that seem to support Musk's claim that it would violate the current sanctions regime to provide satellite communication services to the Crimea region of Ukraine that is currently occupied by Russia. Most of the sanctions documents explicitly reference Donetsk and Luhansk (specifically the occupied portions that declared themselves the DNR and LNR) but also refer to other regions of Ukraine which are collectively the "Covered Regions" as determined by the Secretary of Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State.
https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions
https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/8976/download?inline
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order 13685 of December 19, 2014
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and
Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 9
Exportation of Certain Services and Software
Incident to Internet-Based Communications Authorized
(d) This general license does not authorize....
(3) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of commercial-grade Internet
connectivity services or telecommunications transmission facilities (such as dedicated satellite
links or dedicated lines that include quality of service guarantees);
https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/918691/download?inline
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order of February 21, 2022 [EO 14065]
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect
to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of
Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 19
Authorizing Transactions Related to Telecommunications and Mail
(2) This general license does not authorize:
(i) The provision, sale, or lease of telecommunications equipment or technology; or
(ii) The provision, sale, or lease of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities
(such as satellite or terrestrial network activity).
I couldn't find any map or specific list of what those "covered regions" are currently. It's reasonable to assume Crimea and other occupied parts of Ukraine are included since the original Executive Orders the began the sanctions regime were written in 2014 when the DNR and LNR were the only occupied areas. This FAQ from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (US Treasury) dated March 2, 2022 explicitly includes Crimea.
https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/501
This general license does not authorize U.S. persons to engage in transactions with the Federal Security Service, except for the limited purposes described above, nor does it authorize the exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” or “Luhansk People’s Republic” (DNR/LNR) regions of Ukraine, or such other regions of Ukraine as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, pursuant to Executive Order 14065, or to the Crimea region of Ukraine.
Executive Order 14065
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/21/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-continued-russian-efforts-to-undermine-the-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-of-ukraine/
@PeteD01 @GuitarStv @Telecaster I think this lays it out pretty conclusively.
-
All the sanctions are against Russian concerns and interests in the occupied areas including Crimea and are put in place specifically to thwart Russia´s attempts to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.
Ukrainian interests and concerns in the occupied areas are not mentioned anywhere that I can see.
Obviously, Starlink could not provide telecom services to Russian entities without running afoul of sanctions.
Interpreting the sanctions as applying to Ukraine as well seems nonsensical as there is no way Ukraine can undermine its own sovereignty while conducting military operations on its own, albeit temporarily occupied, territory.
Again, the sanctions are against Russia, not Ukraine.
-
So what are the penalties for accepting a military support pentagon contract and then unilaterally making decisions that go against the interests of the pentagon?
You seem to have the timeline backwards.
We're rehashing something that happened a year ago. There was no Pentagon/DoD contract for Starlink in Ukraine.
Now that there is a Pentagon contract, we are not privy to the details.
Hopefully it has a mechanism to allow Starlink usage bu Ukraine in Russian-controlled territory, and integrated into weapons. But we would just be guessing.
-
Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.
Fair enough. But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government. It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.
And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here. Musk has a long history of tall tales. Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?
-
Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.
Fair enough. But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government. It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.
And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here. Musk has a long history of tall tales. Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?
He's been told something by USG that could bite his ass later once Starlink isn't required. So he's getting ahead and slowly telling facts in order to control narrative. Game of optics.
-
Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.
Fair enough. But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government. It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.
And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here. Musk has a long history of tall tales. Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?
He's been told something by USG that could bite his ass later once Starlink isn't required. So he's getting ahead and slowly telling facts in order to control narrative. Game of optics.
First of all, it is not Crimea that is being sanctioned but all activities and persons connected to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine - big difference:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/21/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-continued-russian-efforts-to-undermine-the-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-of-ukraine/
Funny thing is that the withholding/turning off of critical Starlink services over part of Ukrainian territory (Crimea) during a Ukrainian military operation against Russia is precisely the kind of behavior that the sanctions are covering, because the failure of providing the service constitutes de facto recognition of Russian territorial claims, thus undermining sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Musk is trying to turn this on its head in the clumsiest way possible - he apparently thinks everybody is even more befuddled than he is.
-
I'm going to point out the elephant in the room here.
Michael - You're a Musk fanboy/girl, and probably also a Russian fanboy/girl. Admit it. And if you want to dispute that, then you need to take a BIG step back and re-evaluate your thinking and positions. Otherwise, please stop hiding behind rationalization and just be honest.
There is a difference between Russia the country and Russians the people, so don't make that mistake. But Russia the country is NOT an ally of the US. And Elon Musk is also a fanboy of Putin/Russia.
-
And Elon Musk is also a fanboy of Putin/Russia.
I don't think fanboy of Putin, Musk is. I think there's kompromat. That is Putin's modus operandi.
-
Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.
Fair enough. But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government. It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.
And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here. Musk has a long history of tall tales. Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?
He's been told something by USG that could bite his ass later once Starlink isn't required. So he's getting ahead and slowly telling facts in order to control narrative. Game of optics.
First of all, it is not Crimea that is being sanctioned but all activities and persons connected to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine - big difference:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/21/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-continued-russian-efforts-to-undermine-the-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-of-ukraine/
Funny thing is that the withholding/turning off of critical Starlink services over part of Ukrainian territory (Crimea) during a Ukrainian military operation against Russia is precisely the kind of behavior that the sanctions are covering, because the failure of providing the service constitutes de facto recognition of Russian territorial claims, thus undermining sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Musk is trying to turn this on its head in the clumsiest way possible - he apparently thinks everybody is even more befuddled than he is.
The stated intention of the sanctions may be to stop "Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine" but when you get into the technical details it is not that simple - and rarely is with sweeping legislation, Executive Orders, and federal regulations by multiple departments/agencies. It's not like the federal government is known for excelling at taking a whole of government approach across different agencies and here you have at a minimum DoD, Treasury, State, and the White House.
I provided explicit examples directly from the sanction documents supporting the position the providing satellite internet services to Russian occupied territory (to include Crimea) would violate those sanctions. I'll leave it at that.
-
I'm going to point out the elephant in the room here.
Michael - You're a Musk fanboy/girl, and probably also a Russian fanboy/girl. Admit it. And if you want to dispute that, then you need to take a BIG step back and re-evaluate your thinking and positions. Otherwise, please stop hiding behind rationalization and just be honest.
There is a difference between Russia the country and Russians the people, so don't make that mistake. But Russia the country is NOT an ally of the US. And Elon Musk is also a fanboy of Putin/Russia.
I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry. I would love to see us go back to the moon and land on Mars and at this rate, SpaceX will almost certainly do that before NASA gets around to it (and at a fraction of the cost). I also appreciate that the reason he bought Twitter was basically because they shut down the account for the Babylon Bee, a conservative satire site that I enjoy.
That being said, I've been serving in the US Army my entire adult life (over 20 years at this point) so I'm not a Russian fanboy. I fully support providing materiel to Ukraine so that they can fight Russia instead of using US troops to do that fighting directly. This is a core US military strategy going back to at least WW1 to have our allies provide the majority of the manpower to fight wars in Eurasia since the US can never deploy enough troops to fight a protracted land war in Eurasia where the bulk of the world's population lives. Our comparative advantage is not manpower, it's intelligence, logistics, and having a deep industrial base to product munitions/equipment - all the things we're using to support Ukraine and fight Russia.
I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.
It's quite the logical leap to say that he is a Russian asset/fanboy/spy because he provided a key tool to help Ukraine fight back the initial Russian invasion - and also destroyed their market for satellite launches which used to provided hundreds of millions of dollars a year in hard currency and provided Russia with global prestige and soft power. It was Elon Musk and SpaceX that started launching US astronauts back into space so we didn't have to pay $80 million a seat to get access to the ISS. With friends like those, Russia doesn't need anymore enemies.
-
I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry.
Fake News!
The only revolution he did was to throw out security protocolls. Others private companies started before him, and - for example - China and India have way bigger programs.
I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.
Fake News.
Also "the left" does not hate him for revealing anything, but for being the biggest arsehole in this solar system after the Olympus Mons.
That he only talked about his clearly impossible "Hyperloop" to prevent ecology friendly and very much needed High Speed Rail service in the Bay area is only one of the examples for that.
-
I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.
Just to weigh in on this - through European eyes, I'm a social democrat, so through US Conservative eyes, I'm a Molotov cocktail away from being a lefty wokerati. That said, me and those among my friends who I'd define as "lefties" hate him for union busting, worker exploitation, institutional racism, habitual lying, general amoral business practices (I mean, sure, it's a feature of unfettered capitalism, but he also flaunts regulator/SEC rules) and platforming and boosting of hard-right/neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. There's also his pumping and dumping of crypto currencies, even though he's smart enough to know they are not actually currencies/assets, and transphobia (his own trans* kid has disowned him). I think it's the combination of all of those factors that make us despise him. The Starlink stuff has thrown into stark relief that he also has the power to significantly weaken the USA's position when it comes to technology/foreign policy, and we see how long they let him get away with that. I have my popcorn in the microwave.
-
I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry.
Fake News!
The only revolution he did was to throw out security protocolls. Others private companies started before him, and - for example - China and India have way bigger programs.
I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.
Fake News.
Also "the left" does not hate him for revealing anything, but for being the biggest arsehole in this solar system after the Olympus Mons.
That he only talked about his clearly impossible "Hyperloop" to prevent ecology friendly and very much needed High Speed Rail service in the Bay area is only one of the examples for that.
Yep, India just did a successful moon mission, so it's not like NASA/SpaceTxitter is the only game in town. That hyperloop/The Boring Company nonsense is widely laughed at. So wow, Elon Musk invented tunnels - except less safe and with far lower capacity. Well done, what a genius.
-
The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.
I'm calling 100% BS. Crimea is not recognized by the USA as part of Russia.
I get tired of the Elon show spouting BS all the time. From full self driving, to COVID, to Mars, he's constantly spouting BS and he is constantly wrong. He is one of those people who should be assumed to be FOS unless proven otherwise.
Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.
There are literally thousands of pages of sanctions between Executive Orders, the Department of State, and the Department of Treasury (probably some UN or EU sanctions as well). However, below are some key documents that seem to support Musk's claim that it would violate the current sanctions regime to provide satellite communication services to the Crimea region of Ukraine that is currently occupied by Russia. Most of the sanctions documents explicitly reference Donetsk and Luhansk (specifically the occupied portions that declared themselves the DNR and LNR) but also refer to other regions of Ukraine which are collectively the "Covered Regions" as determined by the Secretary of Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State.
https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions
https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/8976/download?inline
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order 13685 of December 19, 2014
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and
Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 9
Exportation of Certain Services and Software
Incident to Internet-Based Communications Authorized
(d) This general license does not authorize....
(3) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of commercial-grade Internet
connectivity services or telecommunications transmission facilities (such as dedicated satellite
links or dedicated lines that include quality of service guarantees);
https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/918691/download?inline
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order of February 21, 2022 [EO 14065]
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect
to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of
Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 19
Authorizing Transactions Related to Telecommunications and Mail
(2) This general license does not authorize:
(i) The provision, sale, or lease of telecommunications equipment or technology; or
(ii) The provision, sale, or lease of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities
(such as satellite or terrestrial network activity).
After taking some time to study these documents, I think that this is on the surface a fair point but it starts to fall apart once you dig into the particulars of what has been going on.
First, based on the language used, it seems that Musk was following the law as written. The document clearly states that it applies "to persons in the Crimea region of Ukraine".
But Musk had been providing these services with full support and approval of the US and the US military (who were instrumental and indispensable in distributing Starlink terminals to the Ukrainians)*. It seems pretty unreasonable to assume that he would suddenly and out of the blue decide that this law was a major roadblock. The first time that Musk indicated that there was any problem was after directly hearing from the Russian ambassador that Russia would respond with nuclear weapons if Ukraine attacked Crimea. Again, Musk didn't cite any laws holding him back. He explicitly said “If the Ukrainian attacks had succeeded in sinking the Russian fleet, it would have been like a mini Pearl Harbor and led to a major escalation,” and “Trying to retake Crimea will cause massive death, probably fail and risk nuclear war. This would be terrible for Ukraine and Earth.” when asked why he wouldn't enable use of Starlink in Crimea.
Then Musk cut his Starlink service to non-Crimea areas of Ukraine that were held by Russians. This action was certainly not required by legislation. An excerpt of the communication between Musk and Fedorov (the deputy prime minister of Ukraine) about this:
Fedorov: The exclusion of these territories is absolutely unfair. I come from Vasylivka village in Zaporizhzhia region, my parents and friends live there. Now this village is occupied by Russian troops, and there is complete lawlessness and outrage—the residents are impatiently waiting for liberation. . . . At the end of September, we noticed that Starlink does not work in the liberated villages, which makes it impossible to restore the critical infrastructure of these territories. For us it is a matter of life and death.
Musk: Once Russia is fully mobilized, they will destroy all infrastructure throughout Ukraine and push far past the current territories. NATO will have to intervene to prevent all of Ukraine falling to Russia. At that point, risk of WW3 becomes very high.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-russia-invasion/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-russia-invasion/)
I don't believe that Musk is a Russian operative . . . but it sounds very much like the Russians figured out what Musk was afraid of and successfully pressured him to stop supporting Ukraine by playing on those fears. To me, this really highlights why it's important that unelected wealthy individuals should be handled through foreign affairs agency contacts - and not given free access to military secrets and free reign to make decisions over combat operations.
* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology. It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine. Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor. That's why we're talking about it at all.
-
* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology. It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine. Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor. That's why we're talking about it at all.
Can I call that Fake News too?
It's not like this system was new. A German - who else ;) - wanted to build it years earlier. But he wasn't a billionaire, only a professor, and could not get others to pay for the huge upfront costs.
-
I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry.
Fake News!
The only revolution he did was to throw out security protocolls. Others private companies started before him, and - for example - China and India have way bigger programs.
He developed the first reusable orbital rocket launch system with the Falcon 9 and cut the price of launching payloads to space by a huge amount. From roughly $7,000 per Kg to $1,000-2,000 per Kg. Once Starship is launching regularly it could drop by an order of magnitude down to $200 per Kg.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/
China and India launch less each year than SpaceX. They may spend more money, but that's the only measure in which you could say they're bigger programs. Also, those are government programs while SpaceX is mostly private launches with some contracted to the government through NASA or the Department of Defense.
https://payloadspace.com/2022-orbital-launches/
-
* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology. It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine. Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor. That's why we're talking about it at all.
Can I call that Fake News too?
It's not like this system was new. A German - who else ;) - wanted to build it years earlier. But he wasn't a billionaire, only a professor, and could not get others to pay for the huge upfront costs.
Nothing I wrote is fake. Don't get me wrong - Musk isn't a super genius and has certainly been involved in terrible ideas and failures during his life. But there's a sizable difference between developing a concept and making it reality - in this instance Musk's company was well ahead of any other competitor.
-
I don't believe that Musk is a Russian operative . . . but it sounds very much like the Russians figured out what Musk was afraid of and successfully pressured him to stop supporting Ukraine by playing on those fears. To me, this really highlights why it's important that unelected wealthy individuals should be handled through foreign affairs agency contacts - and not given free access to military secrets and free reign to make decisions over combat operations.
They clearly got him to err on the side of caution in the gray areas and work to eventually shift these kinds of decisions out of SpaceX's hands and into the US governments. Which I agree is how it should be.
I recall many "should we give Ukraine a specific advanced weapons system or will that antagonize Russia too much" debates in Congress since this war started. It's not exactly reassuring that the pace of technological change (and the slow pace of administrative responses) can lead a company and it's CEO to face similar decisions instead of the government, but here we are.
* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology. It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine. Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor. That's why we're talking about it at all.
In fairness, we're also talking about it because SpaceX has contributed around $100,000,000 of their own resources to the survival of Ukrainians, with the first free terminals deployed just 2 days after the invasion started. The tech is badass but so was the willingness to rush it into the hands of the people who needed it.
-
In fairness, we're also talking about it because SpaceX has contributed around $100,000,000 of their own resources to the survival of Ukrainians, with the first free terminals deployed just 2 days after the invasion started. The tech is badass but so was the willingness to rush it into the hands of the people who needed it.
Yep. And a lot of Ukraine's success can be directly traced to their ability to communicate in the field. That donation has really helped out. Musk can be both a giant asshole, and a great humanitarian. Like Shaft, he's a complicated man.
-
All-In Summit: Elon Musk on Ukraine, X, the creator economy, China, AI, & more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqJ5-kkUGk
Elon Musk told the panel on the 'All-In' Podcast Summit yesterday.....
This point underlined the broader geopolitical considerations he takes into account in his business ventures, which brings us back to Starlink and the recent controversy over Ukraine demanding him enable the satellite web service for an attack on Crimea.
Musk made it clear that Walter Isaacson - his biographer - had misunderstood the situation and that the initial decision to not allow access to Starlink around the Crimean border was due to sanctions from the Biden administration.
"Starlink have provided connectivity to Ukraine since the beginning of the war and as the Ukrainian government has said, Starlink was instrumental in the defense of Ukraine - although the media forgets to mention that."
Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."
The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.
yes this right here. He is saying that Crimea is part of Russia, not Ukraine, which is Putin/Russia's stance, since they have occupied it since 2014. All reports state that Musk unilaterally refused the ability for Ukraine to use Starlink in Crimea. He states because he is afraid of nuclear escalation. Another Putin talking point. And because of this, while the Pentagon is silent, is apparently: writing up contracts. And reassessing the idea of having it where private individuals can essentially shut down essential or critical components to US military strategy based on their whims, etc. I don't know whether he is a Putin asset (Putin is acting as if he is), or it's just a head game to him. I DO remember when he donated Starlink to Ukraine when their communications infrastructure was destroyed, and that was a great thing he did.
Most military experts believe, that this is a war of attrition at this point. The shorter the war, the less bloodshed and loss and damage to infrastructure etc will take place. So Musk doing this, drags the war out longer, increasing the death count on both sides and reducing the ability for both countries to recover after the war. That's why in this situation, he's not a good guy.
And based on reports https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/elon-musks-refusal-to-provide-starlink-support-for-ukraine-attack-in-crimea-raises-questions-for-pentagon
-
...
And reassessing the idea of having it where private individuals can essentially shut down essential or critical components to US military strategy based on their whims, etc. I don't know whether he is a Putin asset (Putin is acting as if he is), or it's just a head game to him.
...
Musk is definitely a Russian asset.
Anyone who is afraid of or can be intimidated by Putin automatically becomes a potential asset to him/Russia.
At the most hands-off one can be an agent of influence (media figures, intellectuals, politicians etc.) and spread Russian propaganda or take Russian positions without direct contact and instruction from Russian agents. (examples: Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk)
Then there are actors that can be manipulated into acting on behalf of Russia based on monetary incentives, blackmail or threats of violence. (example: Elon Musk, the typical deep cover spy etc.)
And at the extreme end of closeness to Russia are those agents that are on the payroll often under diplomatic cover.
The categories of course overlap but Musk definitely makes it beyond the level of an agent of influence as he is using his wealth to actively create social media space for Russian interests varying from support of the war against Ukraine to political destabilization of the US.
He also has demonstrated that he is responsive to Russian threats which makes him very valuable for Russia without even being an operative on their payroll.
Donald Trump is also a valuable Russian asset - he was recruited over forty years ago:
‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy
The KGB ‘played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality’, Yuri Shvets, a key source for a new book, tells the Guardian
Fri 29 Jan 2021
Shvets, a KGB major, had a cover job as a correspondent in Washington for the Russian news agency Tass during the 1980s. He moved to the US permanently in 1993 and gained American citizenship. He works as a corporate security investigator and was a partner of Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in London in 2006.
Unger describes how Trump first appeared on the Russians’ radar in 1977 when he married his first wife, Ivana Zelnickova, a Czech model. Trump became the target of a spying operation overseen by Czechoslovakia’s intelligence service in cooperation with the KGB.
Three years later Trump opened his first big property development, the Grand Hyatt New York hotel near Grand Central station. Trump bought 200 television sets for the hotel from Semyon Kislin, a Soviet émigré who co-owned Joy-Lud electronics on Fifth Avenue.
According to Shvets, Joy-Lud was controlled by the KGB and Kislin worked as a so-called “spotter agent” who identified Trump, a young businessman on the rise, as a potential asset. Kislin denies that he had a relationship with the KGB.
Then, in 1987, Trump and Ivana visited Moscow and St Petersburg for the first time. Shvets said he was fed KGB talking points and flattered by KGB operatives who floated the idea that he should go into politics.
The ex-major recalled: “For the KGB, it was a charm offensive. They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book
-
For me I knew Trump was an asset when he had a Russian actors p at his own inauguration! Not just the public events, but the private, only people close to him, parties. I believe they paid for some of the inauguration expenses as well. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/special-counsel-eyeing-russians-granted-unusual-access-trump/story%3fid=56232847
-
It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately. I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow.
From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks. Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles. Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder. I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.
-
It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately. I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow.
From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks. Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles. Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder. I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.
I hadn't posted anything yet about the latest missile strike in Crimea because there's a lot of rumors going around about several of the casualties being senior Russian officers.
Essentially, Ukraine topped off a week of strategic strikes on Russian radars and air defense systems across Crimea and the destruction of two ships in port with 2-3 direct hits on the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. The first hit the center of the complex, and the second hit one of the buildings wings. There's some debate whether there was a third. If there was, it was a double-tap on the middle of the building. With Stormshadows being dual-warhead missiles to punch through bunkers, the detonations likely went all the way through the ground floor.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1705272408620277986?s=42&t=A7DytLVGBZcjjSW1SvVgEw (https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1705272408620277986?s=42&t=A7DytLVGBZcjjSW1SvVgEw) Impacts
https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1705657899689681195?s=46 (https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1705657899689681195?s=46) Aftermath
The rumors now are casualty figures. Depending on who is reporting, its several dozen. Amongst the rumored dead/wounded are the commander of the Black Sea fleet, and the senior ground commander for the Russian southern front. If the rumors turn out to be true, its possible Ukraine knew of their whereabouts and went after them.
While Zelensky was making his rounds in D.C. this week, his chief of intelligence Lieutenant General Budanov was also in the US and gave an interview on recent operations.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room)
This week's aid announcement from Biden included more tranches of small arms and artillery ammo, air defense systems and missiles, and the ATACMS ballistic missile. Supposedly that last one was supposed to be a secret until they started raining down on Russian positions, but someone leaked it. Also, US M1 Abrams tanks are supposed to be in Ukraine next week.
-
It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately. I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow.
From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks. Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles. Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder. I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.
They'll cave like they always do. Even if there's a government shut down it will be meaningless like every other time. It's all just theater so Congress can look like they're doing something.
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
-
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
Isn't a whole bunch of the materiel sent to Ukraine older stuff that the DoD was paying to store, and saves on decommissioning costs? It's one thing for politicians to say $x in aid was sent (or complain about $x being spent) but potentially that was the original cost from years/decades ago on kit well and truly depreciated on their books.
Does anyone know when the weather in Ukraine starts to get wet and mud becomes an issue again? Surely the challenge is for Ukraine to make as much progress on the ground before the weather intervenes and Russia rebuilds their defences over the winter.
-
It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately. I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow.
From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks. Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles. Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder. I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.
They'll cave like they always do. Even if there's a government shut down it will be meaningless like every other time. It's all just theater so Congress can look like they're doing something.
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
I think they are both war parties...The Military Industrial Complex is said to be deeply entrenched.
Some Republicans have become truly bizarre. They don't want to help Ukrainians become free, but want to help dictatorial Russia. At the same time, they wish to cut successful Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. All in the name of cutting taxes for rich people, I guess.
-
It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately. I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow.
From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks. Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles. Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder. I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.
They'll cave like they always do. Even if there's a government shut down it will be meaningless like every other time. It's all just theater so Congress can look like they're doing something.
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
I think they are both war parties...The Military Industrial Complex is said to be deeply entrenched.
Some Republicans have become truly bizarre. They don't want to help Ukrainians become free, but want to help dictatorial Russia. At the same time, they wish to cut successful Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. All in the name of cutting taxes for rich people, I guess.
I think finding a coherent message in the GOP's platform is a Sisyphean task.
The GOP's strategy is to do whatever short-term thinking its billionaire donor class is asking it to do. It's not a way of building a unified political theory, it's simply what can I say and do today that gets me more power tomorrow.
Of course cutting taxes at the top end is always up there, but it doesn't necessarily explain all spending decisions. Russia is a huge gold mine for many American oligarchs. The original Koch himself got his start building oil refineries for the Russians and Nazis 80 years ago. There are lots of big GOP names that want to see a Russia take over of Ukraine in order to get their piece of the spoils.
-
It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately. I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow.
From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks. Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles. Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder. I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.
They'll cave like they always do. Even if there's a government shut down it will be meaningless like every other time. It's all just theater so Congress can look like they're doing something.
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
I think they are both war parties...The Military Industrial Complex is said to be deeply entrenched.
Some Republicans have become truly bizarre. They don't want to help Ukrainians become free, but want to help dictatorial Russia. At the same time, they wish to cut successful Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. All in the name of cutting taxes for rich people, I guess.
I think finding a coherent message in the GOP's platform is a Sisyphean task.
The GOP's strategy is to do whatever short-term thinking its billionaire donor class is asking it to do. It's not a way of building a unified political theory, it's simply what can I say and do today that gets me more power tomorrow.
Of course cutting taxes at the top end is always up there, but it doesn't necessarily explain all spending decisions. Russia is a huge gold mine for many American oligarchs. The original Koch himself got his start building oil refineries for the Russians and Nazis 80 years ago. There are lots of big GOP names that want to see a Russia take over of Ukraine in order to get their piece of the spoils.
Now that made sense. Russia is basically run by pirates. American pirates can understand the actions of the Russian pirates where their thinking is a mystery to the rest of us. I sure can't figure why Putin would send over 250,000 of his countrymen to their deaths for land Russia didn't need. Now a Pirate Captain might be willing to sacrifice a good part of his crew as the booty would be divided amongst fewer men.
-
Isn't a whole bunch of the materiel sent to Ukraine older stuff that the DoD was paying to store, and saves on decommissioning costs? It's one thing for politicians to say $x in aid was sent (or complain about $x being spent) but potentially that was the original cost from years/decades ago on kit well and truly depreciated on their books.
Yes, the USA has literally millions of cluster munitions stockpiled (biggest category being ~3M 155mm artillery shells) which have a net negative value - we're never going to use them, and we are paying to store and paying to dispose of them (slowly). Shipping them to Ukraine will literally reduce US military costs. Same with a bunch of other stuff - we're not sending the current version Bradley, we're sending old ones we were never going to upgrade, but were still being maintained. We have thousands of old-version Abrams. If the ATACMs being sent is the cluster version - I believe all of those are past expiration date as well (M39 definitely, might be a few M39A1 not yet expired) though there has been a program to convert a small percentage of them to the M57E1 edition with unitary warhead.
Once the next generation missile (PrSM) is rolled out in sufficient quantity, all the ATACAMs are outdated and headed for disposal. PrSM has much longer range*, better seekers (even before the 2025 seeker update known as Increment 2) and you can fit two in a HIMARS pod instead of one ATACMS. PrSM is currently in early low-volume production of Increment 1. I believe it's officially deployed to the US Army, just not many yet.
*499km, but that's likely a software limit which will be lifted since the US and Russia dissolved that particular ballistic missile treaty. Increment 4 is supposed to exceed 1,000km with a new propulsion system upgrade. Edit: Found a reputable source, Increment 1 now has an official range of 650km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/army-taps-teams-to-build-new-precision-strike-missile-for-targets-beyond-1000-km/
-
Plus it gives the Pentagon an excuse to ask new military gear to replace what was sent to Ukraine. The factories must be thrilled.
-
Plus it gives the Pentagon an excuse to ask new military gear to replace what was sent to Ukraine. The factories must be thrilled.
A lot of research that passes to non military applications has been done by the military. Other than NASA where else does the government support applied science in such a manner? It's kind of a morbid thing, but what other human endeavor but war has produced such innovation? Even this internet thing I'm sending this silly message into is an example of such applied science.
-
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
Isn't a whole bunch of the materiel sent to Ukraine older stuff that the DoD was paying to store, and saves on decommissioning costs? It's one thing for politicians to say $x in aid was sent (or complain about $x being spent) but potentially that was the original cost from years/decades ago on kit well and truly depreciated on their books.
Does anyone know when the weather in Ukraine starts to get wet and mud becomes an issue again? Surely the challenge is for Ukraine to make as much progress on the ground before the weather intervenes and Russia rebuilds their defences over the winter.
The anti-Ukraine side of the GOP has convinced many of their constituents that we've shipped countless billions in cash to Ukraine. We've given very little actual money to Ukraine, with most of it as credits to spend on US weapons contracts. Europe is doing most of the direct funding. Just like with the "oh my god, the DoD lost $6 billion in Ukraine," it was an accounting error because we're applying a value to equipment sent over which can be subjective. We didn't actually lose anything.
The rains will start in 2-3 weeks and get really heavy in November. I'm told that southern Zap province where the fighting is heaviest should not be affected as much by the mud as it has in other areas of the country. If it does, Ukraine has shown they are adept at light infantry fighting which shouldn't be affected quite as badly by the rain compared to heavy vehicles.
-
It's interesting how in the last decade or so the Democrats have become the war party - something the Republican party has long held as a pillar that they were the party for strong national defense. Frankly sending arms to an ally to fight Russia on our behalf while placing zero US military personnel at risk seems like a no-brainer from a strategic perspective - especially when you consider that all of that materiel is built in the US and provides lots of jobs. After all the Department of Defense is the government's most effective jobs program since it employs several million people directly and indirectly - usually with relatively high wages.
Isn't a whole bunch of the materiel sent to Ukraine older stuff that the DoD was paying to store, and saves on decommissioning costs? It's one thing for politicians to say $x in aid was sent (or complain about $x being spent) but potentially that was the original cost from years/decades ago on kit well and truly depreciated on their books.
Does anyone know when the weather in Ukraine starts to get wet and mud becomes an issue again? Surely the challenge is for Ukraine to make as much progress on the ground before the weather intervenes and Russia rebuilds their defences over the winter.
The anti-Ukraine side of the GOP has convinced many of their constituents that we've shipped countless billions in cash to Ukraine. We've given very little actual money to Ukraine, with most of it as credits to spend on US weapons contracts. Europe is doing most of the direct funding. Just like with the "oh my god, the DoD lost $6 billion in Ukraine," it was an accounting error because we're applying a value to equipment sent over which can be subjective. We didn't actually lose anything.
Yes, basically this.
Government accounting is not like a business where there is a real cost to buy equipment/material and there is usually a market value that can be calculated based on depreciation, resale, or salvage (or a negative value for disposal in some cases).
What is the value of a tank when literally the only buyer is the Department of Defense? Even if the manufacturer is given permission to export it, the actual value gets very squishy. I helped deliver tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment to an allied military. That country paid $0. Some of it was brand new and straight from the factory, other stuff was clearly pulled from old supplies and basically had zero value (i.e. old uniforms that were phased out 20 years ago). How much did it really cost the US taxpayer for all of that? Good luck trying to figure it out.
A lot of times when there is an announcement that some country sold arms to another country, there's a bunch of requirements that some of that money is spent on assembling or maintaining those arms in the country that is buying them. Or the US gives money to an ally - but with the condition that it can only be used to buy weapons from the US. So did we really give them a billion dollars, or was it a billion dollar gift card that can only be spent at Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc.
-
Plus it gives the Pentagon an excuse to ask new military gear to replace what was sent to Ukraine. The factories must be thrilled.
Oh, absolutely. Next-generation Abrams upgrade got fast tracked so fast that they cancelled the current upgrade. Just going to a standard, modular communications architecture (like CANbus in cars or the Abrams X demonstrator) will save over a ton of weight.
PrSM range increase I noted above is fast tracked for 2027... I'm sure there's plenty more.
There are massive increases in shell production already being ramped.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/09/06/us-army-scraps-abrams-tank-upgrade-unveils-new-modernization-plan/
-
Plus it gives the Pentagon an excuse to ask new military gear to replace what was sent to Ukraine. The factories must be thrilled.
A lot of research that passes to non military applications has been done by the military. Other than NASA where else does the government support applied science in such a manner? It's kind of a morbid thing, but what other human endeavor but war has produced such innovation? Even this internet thing I'm sending this silly message into is an example of such applied science.
Completely agree. Every war or prep for war yields amazing technological advances. Yes, kind of morbid.
-
Good News!
Ukrainian forces have broken through the last fortification line near Werbowe. It's unclear how much forces and how wide and if they can even hold their position - but it's an important first.
Judging by the fact that Russia is throwing all reserves into the fight, including a newly formed unit that was supposed to still train for several months, this might be the decisive point of the offensive.
From what I can stitch together (and remember, fog of war, propaganda etc.) the Russian troops seem now to be at the breaking point and we might see some (relativly speaking) far and fast gains of the Ukrainians starting in a week or so (just barely in time before the mud season). I do believe they still have the manpower to do it - and certainly the moral superiority.
-
Good News!
Ukrainian forces have broken through the last fortification line near Werbowe. It's unclear how much forces and how wide and if they can even hold their position - but it's an important first.
Judging by the fact that Russia is throwing all reserves into the fight, including a newly formed unit that was supposed to still train for several months, this might be the decisive point of the offensive.
From what I can stitch together (and remember, fog of war, propaganda etc.) the Russian troops seem now to be at the breaking point and we might see some (relativly speaking) far and fast gains of the Ukrainians starting in a week or so (just barely in time before the mud season). I do believe they still have the manpower to do it - and certainly the moral superiority.
I guess I don't understand this mud season thing. Here's what the internet says:
In Russia and Ukraine, there's a season known as “rasputitsa.” Twice a year, when the snow melts in the spring and when drenching rains pour in the fall, the soil turns into thick mud — making it difficult to move cargo and heavy machinery cross-country.
Do the roads have no gravel? Are they all unpaved? Is the land like a gumbo where tie soil sticks to everything? Is there immense rain like a monsoon? Since Ukraine is an agricultural powerhouse, I would assume the soil is clay and not rocky sand.
-
The paved roads will be fine, and the gravel roads will probably still be usable, but if you're trying to attack and can only follow roads, it makes the defenders' job a whole lot easier. And the fields simply become a quagmire for anything driving through them.
That said, I've heard it stated several times that rasputitsa affects the south/southeast regions of Ukraine (where the current counteroffensive is concentrated) far less than it affects the north and northeast areas. If so, it's conceivable that Ukraine will be able to continue their counteroffensive through the fall.
-
Good News!
Ukrainian forces have broken through the last fortification line near Werbowe. It's unclear how much forces and how wide and if they can even hold their position - but it's an important first.
Judging by the fact that Russia is throwing all reserves into the fight, including a newly formed unit that was supposed to still train for several months, this might be the decisive point of the offensive.
From what I can stitch together (and remember, fog of war, propaganda etc.) the Russian troops seem now to be at the breaking point and we might see some (relativly speaking) far and fast gains of the Ukrainians starting in a week or so (just barely in time before the mud season). I do believe they still have the manpower to do it - and certainly the moral superiority.
I guess I don't understand this mud season thing. Here's what the internet says:
In Russia and Ukraine, there's a season known as “rasputitsa.” Twice a year, when the snow melts in the spring and when drenching rains pour in the fall, the soil turns into thick mud — making it difficult to move cargo and heavy machinery cross-country.
Do the roads have no gravel? Are they all unpaved? Is the land like a gumbo where tie soil sticks to everything? Is there immense rain like a monsoon? Since Ukraine is an agricultural powerhouse, I would assume the soil is clay and not rocky sand.
You try to stay off the roads if you're in range of enemy weapons since you present an easier target. The soil in Ukraine runs very deep and retains water so there are part of the country where tanks and wheeled vehicles will dig themselves 2-3 feet into mud. Below are a couple examples of what the conditions can look like, but I couldn't find any mud photos of where they're fighting now.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/10/russia-is-about-to-face-ukraines-infamous-mud-again.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/10/russia-is-about-to-face-ukraines-infamous-mud-again.html) mud in Izyum last fall when Russia retreated from that region.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/how-ukraines-mud-became-a-secret-weapon-in-its-defense-against-russia.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/how-ukraines-mud-became-a-secret-weapon-in-its-defense-against-russia.html) mud near Kyiv in the spring
-
Donald Trump is also a valuable Russian asset - he was recruited over forty years ago:
That guy is selling a book. Could be true, but a book saying Trump wasn't an asset would sell much either. So I'm not sure if I believe that source by itself.
But we can apply Occam's razor. Trump has been blackmailed at least twice that we know of, once by Stormy Daniels and once by Karen McDougal. So we know he's vunerable to blackmail, at least. Prior to Trump's inagulation, Obama specifically warned Trump about Flynn's contacts with Russia, yet Trump appointed him as National Security Advisor anyway. Early in Trump's term, acting attorney general Sally Yates warned Trump in a memo that Flynn had been untruthful in reporting his contacts with Russia, and was a security risk. Trump did not act on that information until the memo was leaked by a member of his staff.
Why would you appoint a guy who was deeply suspected to be a national security risk to that postion? There are probably hundreds if not thousands of people qualified for that job. Find somebody who is like Ceaser's wife, beyond any suspicion.
Next, shortly before Trump's meeting with Putin in Helsinki, US intellegence agencies--especially the director of National Intelligence Dan Coats--reported that Russia had interferred in the 2016 elections, mostly by attacking Clinton and the Democrats. On top of that, the justice Department had just indicted 12 Russians on charges they had conducted the interferance options. So at the Helsinki Q&A naturally there are questions about the election interference. Trump says that he doesn't think it happened, and specifically mentions Dan Coats as a person he respects, but doesn't believe him in this case because Trump belives Putin in more credible. Next question is about the 12 Russians. Obviously, the US wants to arrest them or at least interrogate them at a minimum. Equally obviously, Russia probably isn't going to go for that, potentially heading for a diplomatic impass. Trump however, says that he has cut an amazing, incredible deal with Putin. Best deal ever. Putin is incredibly, incredibly generous to even offer such an amazing deal. The deal is Russia will interrogate the 12 Russians for us, and then report back what they found. If that weren't astonishing enough, Trump went onto blame the United States for the deterioration in US-Russia relations.
I have never before seen, and could not have imagined an American president groveling, capitulating, and humiliating himself before a foreign leader like that. I don't know how else you would explain Trump demeaning himself to Putin unless Trump was compromised. And of course, Trump's first impeachment was about his subverting the national security interests of the United States by trying to use aid to Ukraine as a political tool. Then there is his contempt of NATO and a host of other, similar issues.
So, I haven't seen any compelling evidence Trump was compromised. But he seems to act like he's been compromised.
-
Donald Trump is also a valuable Russian asset - he was recruited over forty years ago:
That guy is selling a book. Could be true, but a book saying Trump wasn't an asset would sell much either. So I'm not sure if I believe that source by itself.
...
The KGB recruited many potential assets in a scattershot approach and cultivated them over time on the odd chance that they might move into whatever position they thought might give them an opportunity to exploit.
Most of those targeted probably were duds, as expected.
The very nature of this type of long term operation pretty much excludes finding a continuous trail of evidence - the lack of evidence is not due to clever concealment but the point of that sort of operation (typically a deep cover mole thing).
The circumstantial evidence you are presenting is all that would ever surface in cases like Trump's - and it is devastating.
-
Does anyone doubt that the brutal Hamas attack against Israel was coordinated with and by Russia? It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers, and distracts Ukraine's backers attention and resources. It is vital that policy makers do not lose track of the main culprit, and must redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The Biden administration has shown itself to be fearful and incapable through its weak support to Ukraine. Not a good sign for its future.
I have been disappointed in US leaders. Please write to your congress people, telling them to grow up and get their priorities straight.
-
It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers,
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that Hamas' attack on Israel will turn much of the world against the US and western Europe?
My impression is that Israel is capable of taking care of itself.
-
Militarily speaking Israel can easily stomp Hamas. It's one of the most militarized countrys on earth. It wont lose to a few pickups with MG guys on them.
I am way more concerned about Ukraine. Looks like they could not push through as I hoped. :(
-
Does anyone doubt that the brutal Hamas attack against Israel was coordinated with and by Russia? It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers, and distracts Ukraine's backers attention and resources. It is vital that policy makers do not lose track of the main culprit, and must redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The Biden administration has shown itself to be fearful and incapable through its weak support to Ukraine. Not a good sign for its future.
I have been disappointed in US leaders. Please write to your congress people, telling them to grow up and get their priorities straight.
Nope, I'm sure it has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing ties. Read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/21/whats-happening-with-normalising-ties-between-saudi-arabia-and-israel
Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, who are backed by Iran. This is Iran starting a proxy war because 1. they hate Israel, and 2. they hate the Saudis, because of the Shia-Sunni divide.
As for the 46th administration being "weak", realize that old munitions from the American arsenal is kicking Russia's rear. And don't go fucking blaming the current admin when you've got Russian sympathizers in the GOP and Republicans not wanting to vote for democracy. There's a limit to what Biden can do without full congressional support. And remember, US cannot physically enter the war theatre there, nor can any NATO partner country. They can only support by supplying materiel and intel.
FTFY:
I have been disappointed in US leaders Republicans. Please write to your GOP congress people, telling them to grow up a pair and get their priorities straight.
-
Came here to say something very similar Jinga. Not as eloquently as you I'm sure. The GOP needs to get their shit together today and support democracy for everyone. Quite fetishizing the rich and the dictators. Stand up for "the people" and democracy that they so often mention in their speeches.
I have no major problems with the Democrats or Biden except they probably should have called out the GOP every time they acted like the dumbasses they have been lately.
So now we have two very serious conflicts overseas, and maybe a couple more possibly brewing - Serbia/Kosovo and Azerbaijan/Armenia. Possibly inflamed by Russia and Iran.
Time to push Trump/MTG/Boebert/Santo aside and get some work done.
Time to get out the military gear, polish it up, catch up on the maintenance, and do some closed door planning.
-
Does anyone doubt that the brutal Hamas attack against Israel was coordinated with and by Russia? It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers, and distracts Ukraine's backers attention and resources. It is vital that policy makers do not lose track of the main culprit, and must redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The Biden administration has shown itself to be fearful and incapable through its weak support to Ukraine. Not a good sign for its future.
I have been disappointed in US leaders. Please write to your congress people, telling them to grow up and get their priorities straight.
Nope, I'm sure it has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing ties. Read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/21/whats-happening-with-normalising-ties-between-saudi-arabia-and-israel
Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, who are backed by Iran. This is Iran starting a proxy war because 1. they hate Israel, and 2. they hate the Saudis, because of the Shia-Sunni divide.
As for the 46th administration being "weak", realize that old munitions from the American arsenal is kicking Russia's rear. And don't go fucking blaming the current admin when you've got Russian sympathizers in the GOP and Republicans not wanting to vote for democracy. There's a limit to what Biden can do without full congressional support. And remember, US cannot physically enter the war theatre there, nor can any NATO partner country. They can only support by supplying materiel and intel.
FTFY:
I have been disappointed in US leaders Republicans. Please write to your GOP congress people, telling them to grow up a pair and get their priorities straight.
I don't think Russia has anything to do with it either. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Netenyahu wanted and helped to set up this situation in Israel. It unifies the country against a common enemy that his hard right allies in government hate, takes the focus off of his own corruption and attempts to wrest power away from the Israeli Supreme Court (so he could avoid those pesky checks and balances), follows months of increasing Israeli heavyhandedness in their ongoing occupation of Palestine and is coming from an enemy that is so badly outclassed by spending, training, and technology that they pose no military risk to Israel. Certainly seems like a fortunate turn for the leader of Israel.
-
Is it just a coincidence that Trump was blabbing about our plans to attack Iran, and know Iran-backed Hamas attacks Israel?
And who has Iran been partnering with in Ukraine? That's right, "Russia, Russia, Russia"
-
Does anyone doubt that the brutal Hamas attack against Israel was coordinated with and by Russia? It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers, and distracts Ukraine's backers attention and resources. It is vital that policy makers do not lose track of the main culprit, and must redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The Biden administration has shown itself to be fearful and incapable through its weak support to Ukraine. Not a good sign for its future.
I have been disappointed in US leaders. Please write to your congress people, telling them to grow up and get their priorities straight.
Nope, I'm sure it has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing ties. Read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/21/whats-happening-with-normalising-ties-between-saudi-arabia-and-israel
Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, who are backed by Iran. This is Iran starting a proxy war because 1. they hate Israel, and 2. they hate the Saudis, because of the Shia-Sunni divide.
As for the 46th administration being "weak", realize that old munitions from the American arsenal is kicking Russia's rear. And don't go fucking blaming the current admin when you've got Russian sympathizers in the GOP and Republicans not wanting to vote for democracy. There's a limit to what Biden can do without full congressional support. And remember, US cannot physically enter the war theatre there, nor can any NATO partner country. They can only support by supplying materiel and intel.
FTFY:
I have been disappointed in US leaders Republicans. Please write to your GOP congress people, telling them to grow up a pair and get their priorities straight.
I don't think Russia has anything to do with it either. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Netenyahu wanted and helped to set up this situation in Israel. It unifies the country against a common enemy that his hard right allies in government hate, takes the focus off of his own corruption and attempts to wrest power away from the Israeli Supreme Court (so he could avoid those pesky checks and balances), follows months of increasing Israeli heavyhandedness in their ongoing occupation of Palestine and is coming from an enemy that is so badly outclassed by spending, training, and technology that they pose no military risk to Israel. Certainly seems like a fortunate turn for the leader of Israel.
Certainly looks like they still pose a military risk. Maybe not an existential one that they can conquer Israel but they can certainly inflict pain. It's pretty far fetched to think that the Prime Minister was able to set up Hamas to launch a massive attack that killed hundreds. That's like saying Bush somehow caused 9/11 so the US could steal oil from Iraq.
Much more likely is that Iran pushed Hamas to launch this attack to derail the rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia.
-
It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers,
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that Hamas' attack on Israel will turn much of the world against the US and western Europe?
My impression is that Israel is capable of taking care of itself.
Turn against, and make life more difficult for. Tensions in the region will likely increase gas prices, which benefits Russia and detriments Europe. Russia claims overlordship of all Slavic, Turkic, Mongol, and Eastern Christian peoples. Beyond Russia and Ukraine, the next ring of influence includes those groups. Russia recently made a significant gain by influencing Slovakia. They lost significantly when Armenia, one of the few non-Russian eastern Christian groups, declared for the West. Turkic groups have been heavily oppressed by Russia, and yet often identify as opponents of Israel because of their religion. This group is of great import, and Ukraine recently appointed a Crimean Tatar (Turkic/Islamic) as defense minister. You may also recall a year ago a video of two foreign fighters in Ukraine "we, a Muslim and Jew, are working against Russia because they are so bad" or something similar. Russia seeks to inflame tensions in Israel/Palestine under the theory "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The backers of Israel are very similar to but not identical to the backers of Ukraine. Russia seeks to cut off the difference, and gain supporters.
Agreed, and yet preliminarily (we'll see what Monday brings), I see an $8B package of advanced weapons suggested for Israel which is well capable of taking care of itself, while that same support and weapons are currently denied Ukraine under a series of spurious excuses even though strategic and moral clarity are overwhelmingly on the side of providing those to Ukraine.
-
Does anyone doubt that the brutal Hamas attack against Israel was coordinated with and by Russia? It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers, and distracts Ukraine's backers attention and resources. It is vital that policy makers do not lose track of the main culprit, and must redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The Biden administration has shown itself to be fearful and incapable through its weak support to Ukraine. Not a good sign for its future.
I have been disappointed in US leaders. Please write to your congress people, telling them to grow up and get their priorities straight.
Nope, I'm sure it has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing ties. Read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/21/whats-happening-with-normalising-ties-between-saudi-arabia-and-israel
Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, who are backed by Iran. This is Iran starting a proxy war because 1. they hate Israel, and 2. they hate the Saudis, because of the Shia-Sunni divide.
As for the 46th administration being "weak", realize that old munitions from the American arsenal is kicking Russia's rear. And don't go fucking blaming the current admin when you've got Russian sympathizers in the GOP and Republicans not wanting to vote for democracy. There's a limit to what Biden can do without full congressional support. And remember, US cannot physically enter the war theatre there, nor can any NATO partner country. They can only support by supplying materiel and intel.
FTFY:
I have been disappointed in US leaders Republicans. Please write to your GOP congress people, telling them to grow up a pair and get their priorities straight.
Iran gave Russia Shaheds, its most effective tool in attacking Ukrainian electrical and grain facilities and possibly others. If you think Iran got nothing besides a future promise of SU-35s which wouldn't last a week against either the US or Israel (let alone both), you're a fool.
The Republicans have a huge problem in that a significant number of their people betrayed the US Constitution, openly kiss ass to Putin, Xi, Kim, Orban, and anti-American dictators everywhere. McCarthy recently sided with Putin's cocksuckers over 80% of the US populace and his loss is well deserved.
And yet here I am blaming Biden. His administration and Biden personally have been delaying and defang-ing assistance to Ukraine far beyond the bounds of what Congress has set. Biden is the Commander In Chief and is personally and directly responsible. The US has failed to provide any jets or munitions with a range beyond 75km or so at Biden's personal instruction, in addition I am sure to others. This has been directly responsible for the slow and unnecessarily costly Ukrainian advance. Sending 31 tanks 19 months later to a nation fighting the entire Russian army is a giant "fuck you" to Ukraine and the cause of freedom and the buck stops at Biden, unless there is a grand strategy that materializes in the next 10 months (I am perfectly willing to accept this by the way). Biden will be the first place I look when I look to place potential blame if Ukraine is not victorious by the next election (Putin cocksuckers Trump, DeSantis, and Loserhead need not apply). You are free to attempt to change the Biden administration's policy to change my mind :) I judge solely by results, so I am easily persuadable.
Don't be lazy. Write your Democratic congress critters too. If Biden fails it will reflect on them. People like me have a track record of looking for results, not teams. You can ask Clinton II, Trump, Heller, Laxalt, and Sisolak if you want a resume.
-
Came here to say something very similar Jinga. Not as eloquently as you I'm sure. The GOP needs to get their shit together today and support democracy for everyone. Quite fetishizing the rich and the dictators. Stand up for "the people" and democracy that they so often mention in their speeches.
I have no major problems with the Democrats or Biden except they probably should have called out the GOP every time they acted like the dumbasses they have been lately.
So now we have two very serious conflicts overseas, and maybe a couple more possibly brewing - Serbia/Kosovo and Azerbaijan/Armenia. Possibly inflamed by Russia and Iran.
Time to push Trump/MTG/Boebert/Santo aside and get some work done.
Time to get out the military gear, polish it up, catch up on the maintenance, and do some closed door planning.
Basically, yes.
-
I don't think Russia has anything to do with it either. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Netenyahu wanted and helped to set up this situation in Israel. It unifies the country against a common enemy that his hard right allies in government hate, takes the focus off of his own corruption and attempts to wrest power away from the Israeli Supreme Court (so he could avoid those pesky checks and balances), follows months of increasing Israeli heavyhandedness in their ongoing occupation of Palestine and is coming from an enemy that is so badly outclassed by spending, training, and technology that they pose no military risk to Israel. Certainly seems like a fortunate turn for the leader of Israel.
Iran gave Russia Shaheds, its most effective tool in attacking Ukrainian electrical and grain facilities and possibly others. If you think Iran got nothing besides a future promise of SU-35s which wouldn't last a week against either the US or Israel (let alone both), you're a fool.
-
Sending 31 tanks 19 months later to a nation fighting the entire Russian army is a giant "fuck you" to Ukraine and the cause of freedom and the buck stops at Biden, unless there is a grand strategy that materializes in the next 10 months (I am perfectly willing to accept this by the way).
The strategy is to send just enough material that Russia cannot win. And of course Ukraine also not (at least not in any short amount of time), because that would deplete Russia less and might make Putin do something terrible somewhere else too.
Why do you think every politician always said "Russia cannot be allowed to win", but nobody said "Ukraine must win"?
-
The Biden agenda seems to prefer Putin to remain engaged as long as possible. Why use your queen & aces when you still have plenty of pawns to keep Putin's mistake in the world spotlight? What hurry is there for the West? Putin's struggles & failures are a clear & present reminder to those who might doubt the US & NATO's power. Our alliances are stronger than ever, and we have only used minimal weapons. Time allows Democratic nations to prepare & fortify their defenses. Time is on Biden's side. Putin plays the slow game & Biden seems to play it just as well. Ukraine is the unfortunate stage of this drama.
What urgency is there for Biden?
-
I just find it disheartening that our news media, especially CNN, seems to only be able to report on one global issue at a time.
For months on CNN it was Ukraine-All-The-Time, then switched to U.S. House Speaker-All-The-Time, and now it's the Hamas attack on Israel-All-The-Time.
It's no wonder Americans don't have a broader understanding of the world because there doesn't seem to be any patience to learn the history or background of anything beyond what the latest video footage is showing.
-
żpor que no los
dos tres?
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Theory 2 is Theory 1 without the Russian involvement.
Theory 3: This was cooked up by Netanyahu as mentioned. Because for all intents and purposes, having a massive 24/7/365 national security and intel operation caught napping is very suspicious. Also, Bibi plays friendly with Putin.
@Radagast Actually, my blame partially goes to Obama, who didn't do much during his time when Crimea was invaded by Russians in 2014 and he tried to play "both sides".
Also, blame is on US, and UK, who with Russia, had promised to give Ukraine security in exchange for giving up its nukes under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That just let the wolf into the hen house.
All these past US actions ended up emboldening Russia.
-
Does anyone doubt that the brutal Hamas attack against Israel was coordinated with and by Russia? It turns much of the world against Ukraine's backers, and distracts Ukraine's backers attention and resources. It is vital that policy makers do not lose track of the main culprit, and must redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The Biden administration has shown itself to be fearful and incapable through its weak support to Ukraine. Not a good sign for its future.
I have been disappointed in US leaders. Please write to your congress people, telling them to grow up and get their priorities straight.
Nope, I'm sure it has to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing ties. Read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/21/whats-happening-with-normalising-ties-between-saudi-arabia-and-israel
Hamas is supported by Hezbollah, who are backed by Iran. This is Iran starting a proxy war because 1. they hate Israel, and 2. they hate the Saudis, because of the Shia-Sunni divide.
As for the 46th administration being "weak", realize that old munitions from the American arsenal is kicking Russia's rear. And don't go fucking blaming the current admin when you've got Russian sympathizers in the GOP and Republicans not wanting to vote for democracy. There's a limit to what Biden can do without full congressional support. And remember, US cannot physically enter the war theatre there, nor can any NATO partner country. They can only support by supplying materiel and intel.
FTFY:
I have been disappointed in US leaders Republicans. Please write to your GOP congress people, telling them to grow up a pair and get their priorities straight.
I don't think Russia has anything to do with it either. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Netenyahu wanted and helped to set up this situation in Israel. It unifies the country against a common enemy that his hard right allies in government hate, takes the focus off of his own corruption and attempts to wrest power away from the Israeli Supreme Court (so he could avoid those pesky checks and balances), follows months of increasing Israeli heavyhandedness in their ongoing occupation of Palestine and is coming from an enemy that is so badly outclassed by spending, training, and technology that they pose no military risk to Israel. Certainly seems like a fortunate turn for the leader of Israel.
Certainly looks like they still pose a military risk. Maybe not an existential one that they can conquer Israel but they can certainly inflict pain. It's pretty far fetched to think that the Prime Minister was able to set up Hamas to launch a massive attack that killed hundreds. That's like saying Bush somehow caused 9/11 so the US could steal oil from Iraq.
Much more likely is that Iran pushed Hamas to launch this attack to derail the rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia.
No, that's not what I mean. I don't believe Netanyahu helped organize the attack itself or had any contact with the Palestinian soldiers. I suspect that he very purposely oversaw the escalations in Israel's apartheid against Palestine that pushed this outcome to be inevitable. To keep power he is in bed with extreme right-wing Jewish extremists who have clearly made their intentions to seize all of Palestinian land for Jewish development. He was also in charge of military deployment and actions, and personally desperately needed a distraction from the political problems his corruption and power grabbing caused. Motive, means, and opportunity.
If it wasn't orchestrated by him, Netanyahu certainly must be counting himself lucky that it happened when it did.
-
Biden is hedging, instead of going all-in, because he's a smart politician.
First, Ukraine could still lose. Russia has a bigger population, more internal weapons production capability, China as an ally and weapons supplier, significant oil income, mind control over its people via a totalitarian grip on the media and internet, and nuclear weapons. Also, Putin is correct that we in the West with our goldfish-level attention spans are losing interest. If Ukraine loses, we'll see a genocide on the scale that last occurred in WW2. Putin could win the war in a matter of weeks if he was willing to hit Ukraine's cities with nuclear weapons. In any Ukrainian loss scenario, a Biden who went all-in would have lost the war for the Ukrainians - an incompetent commander in chief, but a Biden who did what he reasonably could while keeping his distance might be just as shocked as the rest of us, and we could relate to that. Yes, it is ridiculous people think this way, but have you been watching US politics long?
Second, a Biden who aggressively supports Ukraine leaves the Republicans in a position where they can only oppose the president's agenda. A more moderate approach is thought to maintain bipartisan support, and also theoretically give some Republicans an opening to take the opposite position and critique Biden for not doing enough. So far, only a handful of Republicans have taken strong anti-Ukraine stances, and they are the ones trying to tie Hunter Biden, who is not president, to a scandal from the Victor Yanukovyich days. This outcome can be seen as the most positive of all possible outcomes for Ukraine, though it may not last. When Trump is nominated, Vlad may call in a favor, and the very next day the entire Republican party will be against supporting Ukraine.
Third, Biden has negotiating leverage over Putin only to the extent and for only as long as he is not going all-in. Behind the scenes, diplomats are trying to make deals and NATO's only remaining leverage is the threat of sending the next package of tanks, missiles, or aircraft. The slow escalation in support... HIMARS, Abrams, ATACM, F-16s... can be seen as outcomes of a series of diplomatic discussions that did not yield NATO's preferred goals. The time to escalation can be seen as a tradeoff between giving diplomacy a chance and not letting the Russians stall the discussions for too long. Also consider... something has held Putin back from using nuclear weapons so far. I suspect there are diplomatic chess pieces in place preventing that move - for now.
Fourth, as Biden commits military resources to Ukraine, he has to watch his back in the Pacific. A Chinese attack on Taiwan or the Philippines might be provoked if China decides the US is over-committed in Europe. Particularly, the US would need as many missiles, drones, and aircraft as it could spare to defend Taiwan. If China ever got the impression resources were being diverted... that would be the time to strike. As if that wasn't enough, Iran could similarly sense a pinned-down US and open a third front in the Middle East.
-
Sending 31 tanks 19 months later to a nation fighting the entire Russian army is a giant "fuck you" to Ukraine and the cause of freedom and the buck stops at Biden, unless there is a grand strategy that materializes in the next 10 months (I am perfectly willing to accept this by the way).
The strategy is to send just enough material that Russia cannot win. And of course Ukraine also not (at least not in any short amount of time), because that would deplete Russia less and might make Putin do something terrible somewhere else too.
Why do you think every politician always said "Russia cannot be allowed to win", but nobody said "Ukraine must win"?
Exactly. This is basic US strategy. Don't let any county in Eurasia get too powerful (Nazi Germany, USSR, Russia, China) and use local allies to provide the majority of the fighting power. Also, create a balance of power between regional powers so no one regional power becomes too powerful (Iran vs. Iraq, Israel vs. Arab world, India vs. Pakistan, and now Russia vs. Ukraine).
US strategy for the last 100+ years has been to keep anyone in Eurasia from becoming so powerful they could threaten the US by launching an attack against the homeland across the Atlantic or Pacific oceans that provide a natural barrier. The US can do that by sending troops directly as in WW1 & WW2 or indirectly by providing military support. The goal is always to use the least amount of resources necessary. In WW2 that started with just military support with the lend lease act providing weapons to the USSR, Britain, and other allies but escalated to direct military intervention when it became clear that those other allies couldn't win on their own (and of course Peral Harbor was the ultimate catalyst).
As long as the balance of power between Russia and Ukraine remains intact with current levels of support it is unlikely that any US administration will change that basic strategy.
-
żpor que no los dos tres?
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Theory 2 is Theory 1 without the Russian involvement.
Theory 3: This was cooked up by Netanyahu as mentioned. Because for all intents and purposes, having a massive 24/7/365 national security and intel operation caught napping is very suspicious. Also, Bibi plays friendly with Putin.
@Radagast Actually, my blame partially goes to Obama, who didn't do much during his time when Crimea was invaded by Russians in 2014 and he tried to play "both sides".
Also, blame is on US, and UK, who with Russia, had promised to give Ukraine security in exchange for giving up its nukes under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That just let the wolf into the hen house.
All these past US actions ended up emboldening Russia.
Yeah I was a little worked up about that last night... probably I need a chill pill.
-
Sending 31 tanks 19 months later to a nation fighting the entire Russian army is a giant "fuck you" to Ukraine and the cause of freedom and the buck stops at Biden, unless there is a grand strategy that materializes in the next 10 months (I am perfectly willing to accept this by the way).
The strategy is to send just enough material that Russia cannot win. And of course Ukraine also not (at least not in any short amount of time), because that would deplete Russia less and might make Putin do something terrible somewhere else too.
Why do you think every politician always said "Russia cannot be allowed to win", but nobody said "Ukraine must win"?
That indeed seems to be the policy, at least for right now. Even though it is coldly rational and Ukraine is indeed the only place bordering Russia that has the capacity to defeat Russia (excl. China, NATO) thus sparing the even weaker nations, I still have a bunch of problems with it:
- It seems cruel to make Ukraine destroy individually every gun or piece of armor made by Russia or the Soviets with minimal support
- It seems cruel to make Ukraine sop up every rocket shell and missile made by Russia or the Soviets or spared by Iran and North Korea with minimal support
- Doing this doesn't really encourage potential allies
- It gives lots of opportunity for domestic (US) opposition to derail the careful plan
- It gives Russia a lot of room to encourage other mischief on the sidelines
- It may be seen as a sign of weakness and encourage others
- Others may use the prolonged distraction of US attention and resources to do their own evil thing
- It assumes the situation can be carefully controlled like a fire in a ring, but could the fire escape?
Anyway Europe seems to be on board, so it's not just Biden. I don't know how strong of an endorsement that is.
-
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Holy shit!!!
It makes sense.
And yes the circumstantial evidence that Trump has been a cultivated asset of the Russian government for much of his life is devastating and ever-growing. The point made above about him being blackmailed at least twice is an excellent observation. Let’s not forget his best friend, the billionaire blackmailer pedo freak.
IMHO, Ivana’s death was suspicious. I mean, falling down stairs? Blunt injuries to the torso? In her own apartment where she lived for decades? Supposedly she might have been informing on Trump.
It sounds absurd, but is it any more absurd than Trump admitting he shared Israeli intel with the Russians in the Oval Office?!
So where does the $20 B from the Saudis to Kushner fit in to all this?
-
żpor que no los dos tres?
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Theory 2 is Theory 1 without the Russian involvement.
Theory 3: This was cooked up by Netanyahu as mentioned. Because for all intents and purposes, having a massive 24/7/365 national security and intel operation caught napping is very suspicious. Also, Bibi plays friendly with Putin.
@Radagast Actually, my blame partially goes to Obama, who didn't do much during his time when Crimea was invaded by Russians in 2014 and he tried to play "both sides".
Also, blame is on US, and UK, who with Russia, had promised to give Ukraine security in exchange for giving up its nukes under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That just let the wolf into the hen house.
All these past US actions ended up emboldening Russia.
Yeah I was a little worked up about that last night... probably I need a chill pill.
Curious how much Obama could have accomplished. The GOP was running constant roadblocks his entire presidency. I guess teh Dems could have called them out on it more aggressively. Or helped Ukraine with NATO support or American military equipment.
-
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Holy shit!!!
It makes sense.
And yes the circumstantial evidence that Trump has been a cultivated asset of the Russian government for much of his life is devastating and ever-growing. The point made above about him being blackmailed at least twice is an excellent observation. Let’s not forget his best friend, the billionaire blackmailer pedo freak.
IMHO, Ivana’s death was suspicious. I mean, falling down stairs? Blunt injuries to the torso? In her own apartment where she lived for decades? Supposedly she might have been informing on Trump.
It sounds absurd, but is it any more absurd than Trump admitting he shared Israeli intel with the Russians in the Oval Office?!
So where does the $20 B from the Saudis to Kushner fit in to all this?
Two words: Lizard People
If we're going to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole you may as well go full lizard people.
-
żpor que no los dos tres?
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Theory 2 is Theory 1 without the Russian involvement.
Theory 3: This was cooked up by Netanyahu as mentioned. Because for all intents and purposes, having a massive 24/7/365 national security and intel operation caught napping is very suspicious. Also, Bibi plays friendly with Putin.
@Radagast Actually, my blame partially goes to Obama, who didn't do much during his time when Crimea was invaded by Russians in 2014 and he tried to play "both sides".
Also, blame is on US, and UK, who with Russia, had promised to give Ukraine security in exchange for giving up its nukes under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That just let the wolf into the hen house.
All these past US actions ended up emboldening Russia.
Yeah I was a little worked up about that last night... probably I need a chill pill.
Curious how much Obama could have accomplished. The GOP was running constant roadblocks his entire presidency. I guess teh Dems could have called them out on it more aggressively. Or helped Ukraine with NATO support or American military equipment.
Obama was hamstrung due to the misadventures of GWB in the middle East. We had burned up any presumed "moral authority" we might have had.
There was no appetite for any rescuing of the Syrian people from their oppressors the Syrian and Russian governments.
Perhaps Biden learned from that lesson in relation to our current stance regarding Ukraine.
-
żpor que no los dos tres?
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Theory 2 is Theory 1 without the Russian involvement.
Theory 3: This was cooked up by Netanyahu as mentioned. Because for all intents and purposes, having a massive 24/7/365 national security and intel operation caught napping is very suspicious. Also, Bibi plays friendly with Putin.
@Radagast Actually, my blame partially goes to Obama, who didn't do much during his time when Crimea was invaded by Russians in 2014 and he tried to play "both sides".
Also, blame is on US, and UK, who with Russia, had promised to give Ukraine security in exchange for giving up its nukes under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That just let the wolf into the hen house.
All these past US actions ended up emboldening Russia.
Yeah I was a little worked up about that last night... probably I need a chill pill.
Curious how much Obama could have accomplished. The GOP was running constant roadblocks his entire presidency. I guess teh Dems could have called them out on it more aggressively. Or helped Ukraine with NATO support or American military equipment.
Obama still managed to start another war in Libya on the side while he was president - so like every other president in the last few decades he could take a fair amount of unilateral action without Congress backing it. It's not like we still have declarations of war or anything.
-
żpor que no los dos tres?
Theory 1, which some said was Russia, is possible. Trump leaked Israel's Iron Dome details to the Russians, who supplied the info to Iran, who passed it to Hezbollah, in turn shared with Hamas.
Theory 2 is Theory 1 without the Russian involvement.
Theory 3: This was cooked up by Netanyahu as mentioned. Because for all intents and purposes, having a massive 24/7/365 national security and intel operation caught napping is very suspicious. Also, Bibi plays friendly with Putin.
@Radagast Actually, my blame partially goes to Obama, who didn't do much during his time when Crimea was invaded by Russians in 2014 and he tried to play "both sides".
Also, blame is on US, and UK, who with Russia, had promised to give Ukraine security in exchange for giving up its nukes under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. That just let the wolf into the hen house.
All these past US actions ended up emboldening Russia.
Yeah I was a little worked up about that last night... probably I need a chill pill.
Curious how much Obama could have accomplished. The GOP was running constant roadblocks his entire presidency. I guess teh Dems could have called them out on it more aggressively. Or helped Ukraine with NATO support or American military equipment.
Obama still managed to start another war in Libya on the side while he was president - so like every other president in the last few decades he could take a fair amount of unilateral action without Congress backing it. It's not like we still have declarations of war or anything.
Yea we've been living with the consequences of not requiring the president to seek Congressional approval before going to war - as the Constitution requires. Every engagement that was not accompanied by a Congressional declaration of war: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan - has been a loss or a draw. On the flip side, every Congressionally declared war in American history has been a win. It is as if a war is maybe a bad idea and is doomed to failure if it can't be sold to Congress and to the American people.
-
Yea we've been living with the consequences of not requiring the president to seek Congressional approval before going to war - as the Constitution requires. Every engagement that was not accompanied by a Congressional declaration of war: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan - has been a loss or a draw. On the flip side, every Congressionally declared war in American history has been a win. It is as if a war is maybe a bad idea and is doomed to failure if it can't be sold to Congress and to the American people.
The war of 1812 was not a win.
-
Two words: Lizard People
It’s Duck People. If they walk like it, quack like it…
No, but seriously the only conspiratorial thing I mentioned was Ivana’s death. The rest of it is at this point verified. Oh, unless you mean the Manchurian Candidate stuff? Yeah, I grant you that. But it also, as noted by other posters, seems circumstantially proven at this point.
-
In the spirit of exceptions: The first gulf war wasn't declared, but was a pretty clear and complete victory for the USA and allies. Kuwait remains an independent nation to this day which was the objective.
-
In the spirit of exceptions: The first gulf war wasn't declared, but was a pretty clear and complete victory for the USA and allies. Kuwait remains an independent nation to this day which was the objective.
Had to look that one up but you're right. Congress passed an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which is not technically a declaration of war, but could be argued to be functionally the same.
-
In the spirit of exceptions: The first gulf war wasn't declared, but was a pretty clear and complete victory for the USA and allies. Kuwait remains an independent nation to this day which was the objective.
Had to look that one up but you're right. Congress passed an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which is not technically a declaration of war, but could be argued to be functionally the same.
A decleration of war is sent to the other country.
I don't think this Authorization was send to another country.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
-
Won't some people's (non-Jewish) religious beliefs figure into this heavily? Birth of Jesus place and all that?
Ukraine doesn't have any of that kind of history going for it. The USA pulled out all the stops for England back in WWII because of history.
-
Yep. There's strong evangelical support for Israel because they think that restoring the state of Israel helps fulfill the second coming of Jesus and the inevitable apocalypse and judgment of all people.
-
Yep. There's strong evangelical support for Israel because they think that restoring the state of Israel helps fulfill the second coming of Jesus and the inevitable apocalypse and judgment of all people.
It is absurd that all four warring parties pray to the same god, Yahweh, whose first historical reference places him as a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods long before Israel went monotheistic.
-
Yep. There's strong evangelical support for Israel because they think that restoring the state of Israel helps fulfill the second coming of Jesus and the inevitable apocalypse and judgment of all people.
It is absurd that all four warring parties pray to the same god, Yahweh, whose first historical reference places him as a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods long before Israel went monotheistic.
Well, you are talking about actual history, which these people are not interested in.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
Don't worry - The military Industrial complex has to really love this war. The aftermath will be all sorts of new toys they can create. Where do they make these Abrams tanks? Well it happens to be Lima, Ohio. Those are good jobs and Mr. Jordan's constituents. I think they will keep him in line.
-
Had to look that one up but you're right. Congress passed an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which is not technically a declaration of war, but could be argued to be functionally the same.
It is a flaw in the Constitution. The president is commander-in-chief but only Congress can declare war. So in theory, there is a check and balance. In practice, the president can and does deploy American forces where ever he wants, because part of his duties is to protect the nation, right? In 1973 as a backlash against the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act which gives the president 60 days to act militarily prior to getting permission from Congress. So the president can act immediately in an emergency, but he can't go to war indefinitely. So in theory, there is a check and balance again. In practice, not so much. In 2001, Congress passed a resolution giving the president the power to use the military against anyone involved in 9/11. The next four presidents all interpreted this to mean they could bomb whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. And they did.
I should say also that a formal declaration of war by the Congress automatically gives the president enormous domestic powers, so we probably don't want Congress doing that except in a true wartime emergency. But I think it is also reasonable that the president should not be able to engage in sustained military conflict without the consent of Congress.
This is more than just a philosophical concern. Multiple sources have reported that Trump urged US forces to invade Iran after he lost the election. Gen. Mark Milley essentially told Trump it was impossible. One of the secret documents Trump took with to Mar a Lago was an Iran invasion battleplan prepared by Miley. Trump was showing it off to visitors proving that he (Trump) had been right. One of visitors was an author working on a book who recorded the interaction (with permission). That recording lead to one of the criminal indictments against Trump. But it shows you how close it could have been had we not had strong leadership in the military.
-
In the spirit of exceptions: The first gulf war wasn't declared, but was a pretty clear and complete victory for the USA and allies. Kuwait remains an independent nation to this day which was the objective.
Had to look that one up but you're right. Congress passed an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which is not technically a declaration of war, but could be argued to be functionally the same.
A decleration of war is sent to the other country.
I don't think this Authorization was send to another country.
It was strapped to a Patriot missile. No need to read it really, the intent came through with clarity.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
Is there any talk about Armenia along the same lines? Of course I'm thinking of the Nagorno-Karabach kerfuffle and at least some people on the interwebs point out that the Armenian diaspora in the USA have some push?
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
Is there any talk about Armenia along the same lines? Of course I'm thinking of the Nagorno-Karabach kerfuffle and at least some people on the interwebs point out that the Armenian diaspora in the USA have some push?
Hrm... not sure. I was just pointing out that it seems very odd that Jordan would help an ally who has a clearly superior military force with a much more sophisticated and well trained military from (relatively) limited aggression, but at the same time would withhold aid from a friendly country that was invaded by hundreds of thousands of soldiers from a vastly superior military which is clearly an existential threat.
-
Bottom line, Israel and Russia both have government features the Republican party would like to see in the US. Israel is a state de facto based on a religion, is moving toward being a theocracy with elections (like Iran, ironically), and is highly militarized. Russia meanwhile appeals to the fascists, with one-man leadership surrounded by an oligarchy, a government-puppet national church, militarism, homophobia, an anti-immigrant stance, an all-white country, and strict cultural conformism.
It would be hard for them to stand against the actions of either role model country.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
Side note RE "give me my wall": The recent events also serve as a cautionary tale for too much trust in walls as a solution.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
Side note RE "give me my wall": The recent events also serve as a cautionary tale for too much trust in walls as a solution.
As someone born in East Germany I fully understand that ;)
The fucked up thing is that both Israeli and Palestinians have done so many horrible things to each other that I don't think it will ever be repaired, with wall or not.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
Side note RE "give me my wall": The recent events also serve as a cautionary tale for too much trust in walls as a solution.
As someone born in East Germany I fully understand that ;)
The fucked up thing is that both Israeli and Palestinians have done so many horrible things to each other that I don't think it will ever be repaired, with wall or not.
Ukraine is fighting for freedom against invaders into their land.
Israel is the invader in Palestine - if you can call it an invasion 60 years after taking full control of the country. Israel determines what business can go on in Palestine, what goods can be shipped out, what buildings can be built, they control the entry of food, they control supply of electricity and water. Israel also refuses to give democratic representation to the people they control. The practice of Israeli 'settlers' kicking in doors and forcing Palestinians to leave their land at gunpoint is fully supported by the Israeli government, and so commonplace that it doesn't even raise eyebrows any more. Legal proceedings are unequal and unfair for Palestinians when compared to Israeli citizens. Before this 'war' started, more than 1000 Palestinians were being held by Israeli police forces indefinitely and without charges or a court date - including children. From the beginning of this year to when Hamas attacked Israel, 248 Palestinians were killed by Israelis.
The only real argument I can see for not supporting Hamas rather than Israel is that they've engaged in acts of terrorism. Hamas kidnaps and targets civilians. But the Israeli government has kidnapped and targeted civilians, and now has declared their intention to commit war crimes against civilians. It is a terrorist state, engaging in apartheid. The Ukraine situation is much more clear cut where support should go.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
Side note RE "give me my wall": The recent events also serve as a cautionary tale for too much trust in walls as a solution.
As someone born in East Germany I fully understand that ;)
The fucked up thing is that both Israeli and Palestinians have done so many horrible things to each other that I don't think it will ever be repaired, with wall or not.
Ukraine is fighting for freedom against invaders into their land.
Israel is the invader in Palestine - if you can call it an invasion 60 years after taking full control of the country. Israel determines what business can go on in Palestine, what goods can be shipped out, what buildings can be built, they control the entry of food, they control supply of electricity and water. Israel also refuses to give democratic representation to the people they control. The practice of Israeli 'settlers' kicking in doors and forcing Palestinians to leave their land at gunpoint is fully supported by the Israeli government, and so commonplace that it doesn't even raise eyebrows any more. Legal proceedings are unequal and unfair for Palestinians when compared to Israeli citizens. Before this 'war' started, more than 1000 Palestinians were being held by Israeli police forces indefinitely and without charges or a court date - including children. From the beginning of this year to when Hamas attacked Israel, 248 Palestinians were killed by Israelis.
The only real argument I can see for not supporting Hamas rather than Israel is that they've engaged in acts of terrorism. Hamas kidnaps and targets civilians. But the Israeli government has kidnapped and targeted civilians, and now has declared their intention to commit war crimes against civilians. It is a terrorist state, engaging in apartheid. The Ukraine situation is much more clear cut where support should go.
I feel like this is an honest take on Israel and Palestine (I mean, so many US media companies don't even recognize Palestine as its own country - meanwhile >80% of the world's population does live in a country that thinks so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_recognition_only.svg) and one I wish more Americans considered the very real apartheid-sanctioned status. I suspect so many US states (35!) have anti-BDS laws that it skews the media and court of public opinion quite a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#/media/File:States_Anti_BDS_laws.png
Since we're off-topic - I have a tangential hypothetical for those with opinions on Ukraine and Israel. Tomorrow if Sudan went to war with South Sudan and had troops in South Sudan land and declared that the two countries were merging back into one - would you be okay with that or would you demand we give billions in aid to the South Sudanese to fight off the Sudanese invaders? I'm just curious if the calculus/logic changes if it involves Africans instead of Europeans. You can take any piece of land and go back in history and see different claimants - it's interesting in modern geopolitics to see which historical year is deemed "correct".
-
I would very much prefer it if the US dropped Israel. Just because Hitler massacred the Jewish people doesn't mean the Jewish people have a right to massacre others. Two wrongs do not make a right. The US should not be aiding and abetting Israel to become a new Hitler.
-
Since we're off-topic - I have a tangential hypothetical for those with opinions on Ukraine and Israel. Tomorrow if Sudan went to war with South Sudan and had troops in South Sudan land and declared that the two countries were merging back into one - would you be okay with that or would you demand we give billions in aid to the South Sudanese to fight off the Sudanese invaders? I'm just curious if the calculus/logic changes if it involves Africans instead of Europeans.
I definitely see the point you're making but I think it's hard to come up with a hypothetical which only changes the Europe vs Africa factor without changing some other important factors as well: South Sudan doesn't border countries we'd be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend. And the US military could walk over the Sudanese military* if our countries ended up directly at war.
If we compare Europe vs Asia, my impression is that public support for aiding Taiwan against a Chinese invasion is (or would be, fewer people are paying attention right now just as fewer people paid attention to Ukraine pre invasion) similar to the level of public support we see for aiding Ukraine. But I'd be curious if other people have a different impression of where public opinion stands.
*I'm not saying we could occupy Sudan and get a successful nation building outcome. We're clearly no go at that. But in terms of preventing Sudan from being an organized military threat to any of its neighbors, we're much better.
-
I would very much prefer it if the US dropped Israel. Just because Hitler massacred the Jewish people doesn't mean the Jewish people have a right to massacre others. Two wrongs do not make a right. The US should not be aiding and abetting Israel to become a new Hitler.
Every God-fearing American knows Jesus and the Bible were born in Israel. Even the almighty US Dollar says "In God We Trust". So, good luck in de-funding Israel as long as the GOP requires Christian votes to exist.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
Side note RE "give me my wall": The recent events also serve as a cautionary tale for too much trust in walls as a solution.
As someone born in East Germany I fully understand that ;)
The fucked up thing is that both Israeli and Palestinians have done so many horrible things to each other that I don't think it will ever be repaired, with wall or not.
Ukraine is fighting for freedom against invaders into their land.
Israel is the invader in Palestine - if you can call it an invasion 60 years after taking full control of the country. Israel determines what business can go on in Palestine, what goods can be shipped out, what buildings can be built, they control the entry of food, they control supply of electricity and water. Israel also refuses to give democratic representation to the people they control. The practice of Israeli 'settlers' kicking in doors and forcing Palestinians to leave their land at gunpoint is fully supported by the Israeli government, and so commonplace that it doesn't even raise eyebrows any more. Legal proceedings are unequal and unfair for Palestinians when compared to Israeli citizens. Before this 'war' started, more than 1000 Palestinians were being held by Israeli police forces indefinitely and without charges or a court date - including children. From the beginning of this year to when Hamas attacked Israel, 248 Palestinians were killed by Israelis.
The only real argument I can see for not supporting Hamas rather than Israel is that they've engaged in acts of terrorism. Hamas kidnaps and targets civilians. But the Israeli government has kidnapped and targeted civilians, and now has declared their intention to commit war crimes against civilians. It is a terrorist state, engaging in apartheid. The Ukraine situation is much more clear cut where support should go.
A minor quibble, but Jewish immigration to what is now Israel was facilitated by British rule over the area in the early 20th century. So it wasn't the Jews who conquered the area, it was the British. As the British retreated, Jewish/Muslim fighting resulted in the establishment of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel). A cynic might say the still-very-antisemitic Christians of Europe and the US sponsored the idea, figuring that the Muslims would finish off the Jews who escaped World War 2. It was the setup for a cage fight.
But yes, the Jews and Muslims of this region have been fighting with extreme brutality for decades to commit ethnic cleansing of the other. A belief in the holiness of the land and specific sites blocks all efforts at compromise or tradeoffs, and typically religious attitudes of absolutism seems to rule out coexistence. Talk to someone on either side and they'll rattle off a long series of grievances, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing moves committed by the other side.
I think the situation eventually ends in genocide - I'm just not sure who will be the victims. Support for either side might or might not age well. The lesson to be learned is religious absolutism inevitably leads to this outcome, regardless of the specific religion.
Generally I agree the Ukrainians are fighting for democracy, freedom from corrupt puppet government, and against a regime which would commit genocide against them. That's a bit more noble of a cause in my mind than control over an ancient temple with purported magical properties, and preventing the other side from accessing it.
-
I would very much prefer it if the US dropped Israel. Just because Hitler massacred the Jewish people doesn't mean the Jewish people have a right to massacre others. Two wrongs do not make a right. The US should not be aiding and abetting Israel to become a new Hitler.
Every God-fearing American knows Jesus and the Bible were born in Israel. Even the almighty US Dollar says "In God We Trust". So, good luck in de-funding Israel as long as the GOP requires Christian votes to exist.
Yeah, I know. I also know that if you really do show up at the Pearly Gates when you're dead, the US's support of Israel is not going to go over well.
-
I think the situation eventually ends in genocide - I'm just not sure who will be the victims. Support for either side might or might not age well. The lesson to be learned is religious absolutism inevitably leads to this outcome, regardless of the specific religion.
I agree with you. My suspicion is that the genocide will end up falling on the shoulders of the people who have been systematically oppressed for the past 60 years and have no real hope of winning any sort of armed conflict.
-
I think the situation eventually ends in genocide - I'm just not sure who will be the victims. Support for either side might or might not age well. The lesson to be learned is religious absolutism inevitably leads to this outcome, regardless of the specific religion.
I agree with you. My suspicion is that the genocide will end up falling on the shoulders of the people who have been systematically oppressed for the past 60 years and have no real hope of winning any sort of armed conflict.
Prophet and profit seem to be fitting homonyms here.
-
Since we're off-topic - I have a tangential hypothetical for those with opinions on Ukraine and Israel. Tomorrow if Sudan went to war with South Sudan and had troops in South Sudan land and declared that the two countries were merging back into one - would you be okay with that or would you demand we give billions in aid to the South Sudanese to fight off the Sudanese invaders? I'm just curious if the calculus/logic changes if it involves Africans instead of Europeans.
I definitely see the point you're making but I think it's hard to come up with a hypothetical which only changes the Europe vs Africa factor without changing some other important factors as well: South Sudan doesn't border countries we'd be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend. And the US military could walk over the Sudanese military* if our countries ended up directly at war.
If we compare Europe vs Asia, my impression is that public support for aiding Taiwan against a Chinese invasion is (or would be, fewer people are paying attention right now just as fewer people paid attention to Ukraine pre invasion) similar to the level of public support we see for aiding Ukraine. But I'd be curious if other people have a different impression of where public opinion stands.
*I'm not saying we could occupy Sudan and get a successful nation building outcome. We're clearly no go at that. But in terms of preventing Sudan from being an organized military threat to any of its neighbors, we're much better.
Okay, how about Morocco and Western Sahara? There are 3 Spanish exclaves on the African continent interspersed with Morocco so Morocco, like Ukraine, borders NATO countries. Should we lobbying our politicians to give billions to the SADR so they can fight the Moroccan invaders? Self-determination (from the perspective of the UN) should be more than just about whether you're in NATO or have untapped natural resources. I'm just a naive hippy who thinks human life should be valued equally throughout the planet and gets confused with inconsistent US/UN geopolitical policy at times. I do enjoy learning about it, though.
Even more OT but still kinda in the same sphere: Last week I was fairly randomly (wiki tangent stemming from Oktoberfest, nothing prescient about the Israel situation though I do think there are tons of parallels with WW1) reading about Gavrilo Princip and learned he was NOT in the Black Hand, all these years and I thought he was. Instead he was in Mlada Bosna and was supplied with weapons by the Black Hand. Made me wonder if the assassination was an inside job because it's fairly common knowledge Austria-Hungary was looking for any excuse to push Slavs under their thumb (especially Slavs that were not in the Russian Empire!) given all the instability in the decade prior leading up to 1914. Granted, Austria-Hungary took the death of one prince too harshly in July with the murder of several thousand Serbs and ultimately the dissolution of the entire empire four years later but I wonder if they were licking their chops in the days leading up to 7/28/14 and were actually grateful that the Black Hand had interfered. Palestine has been poked with a stick for decades and when they fight back, it's terrorism and you get the feel it provides excuses for the West to fight back further and rationalize the apartheid. Sad shit.
-
I would very much prefer it if the US dropped Israel. Just because Hitler massacred the Jewish people doesn't mean the Jewish people have a right to massacre others. Two wrongs do not make a right. The US should not be aiding and abetting Israel to become a new Hitler.
This is a baffling thing to me also. Immediately, I saw all sorts of BS on the news about supporting Israel. Our governor ordered flags to half-staff with a statement of "solidarity with Israel." What crap. The Israeli government has been a horrible entity since forever and I do not wish to associate with that. I have never appreciated the billions of dollars we have wasted in support over the decades. The human rights violations are shameful.
With all the efforts the USA us putting forth to stamp out racism, it is baffling that we immediately support the racist regime of Israel. Shit, that we have supported them for decades. Shameful.
-
I would very much prefer it if the US dropped Israel. Just because Hitler massacred the Jewish people doesn't mean the Jewish people have a right to massacre others. Two wrongs do not make a right. The US should not be aiding and abetting Israel to become a new Hitler.
This is a baffling thing to me also. Immediately, I saw all sorts of BS on the news about supporting Israel. Our governor ordered flags to half-staff with a statement of "solidarity with Israel." What crap. The Israeli government has been a horrible entity since forever and I do not wish to associate with that. I have never appreciated the billions of dollars we have wasted in support over the decades. The human rights violations are shameful.
With all the efforts the USA us putting forth to stamp out racism, it is baffling that we immediately support the racist regime of Israel. Shit, that we have supported them for decades. Shameful.
This one takes the crown for the time being.
Conflating the Jewish people with the state of Israel is an antisemitic position.
Being upset about flags being at half-staff after a terrorist attack which has left the Jewish people reeling, it being the largest mass murder since the Holocaust, and with many diaspora Jews likely actually living in the state and being hurt by the attack that definitely was not just directed at the state of Israel but the Jewish people as well, is a disgrace if not worse.
Just for educational purposes, the flags are at half staff in honor of the people murdered and the grief and anxiety Jewish people living in the (midwest?) state in question.
It has nothing to do with the state of Israel but is simply the decent thing to do.
In fact, the conflation of the Jewish people and the state of Israel and its actions is the most prominent characteristic of current antisemitism there is, and both posters do this.
Of course, stupid is what stupid does.
-
I would very much prefer it if the US dropped Israel. Just because Hitler massacred the Jewish people doesn't mean the Jewish people have a right to massacre others. Two wrongs do not make a right. The US should not be aiding and abetting Israel to become a new Hitler.
This is a baffling thing to me also. Immediately, I saw all sorts of BS on the news about supporting Israel. Our governor ordered flags to half-staff with a statement of "solidarity with Israel." What crap. The Israeli government has been a horrible entity since forever and I do not wish to associate with that. I have never appreciated the billions of dollars we have wasted in support over the decades. The human rights violations are shameful.
With all the efforts the USA us putting forth to stamp out racism, it is baffling that we immediately support the racist regime of Israel. Shit, that we have supported them for decades. Shameful.
This one takes the crown for the time being.
Conflating the Jewish people with the state of Israel is an antisemitic position.
Being upset about flags being at half-staff after a terrorist attack which has left the Jewish people reeling, it being the largest mass murder since the Holocaust, and with many diaspora Jews likely actually living in the state and being hurt by the attack that definitely was not just directed at the state of Israel but the Jewish people as well, is a disgrace if not worse.
Just for educational purposes, the flags are at half staff in honor of the people murdered and the grief and anxiety Jewish people living in the (midwest?) state in question.
It has nothing to do with the state of Israel but is simply the decent thing to do.
In fact, the conflation of the Jewish people and the state of Israel and its actions is the most prominent characteristic of current antisemitism there is, and both posters do this.
Of course, stupid is what stupid does.
It was the statement by the governor about “solidarity with Israel,” not the flag position. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough. Of course, how do you think the Palestinians locally have felt when their frineds and family have been killed by the Israelis?
Is it your position that it is not racist to hate a people and purposely kill them because of their religion?
I should not have quoted the poster who mentioned “Jewish”
-
Meanwhile in Ukraine...
There is a lot to discuss RE Israel, but perhaps that should be in its own thread. It is somewhat meta that this thread is discussion what a shame it is that the violence in Israel/Gaza will divert attention away from what's happening in Ukraine.
-
There is a lot to discuss RE Israel, but perhaps that should be in its own thread.
Definitely in its own thread. It is completely useless to have this debate. For every injustice one side can come up with, the other side can name a previous injustice. The first side can name something before that, and it just continues for infinity. Lots of people will get pissed off, but no one will change their minds. It is simply shouting at a brick wall.
So shout at the brick wall if you must, but different thread please.
-
In the spirit of exceptions: The first gulf war wasn't declared, but was a pretty clear and complete victory for the USA and allies. Kuwait remains an independent nation to this day which was the objective.
Had to look that one up but you're right. Congress passed an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which is not technically a declaration of war, but could be argued to be functionally the same.
A decleration of war is sent to the other country.
I don't think this Authorization was send to another country.
It was strapped to a Patriot missile. No need to read it really, the intent came through with clarity.
I thought the point of the first Gulf "war" was that it all took place in Kuwait at the request of the legitimate Kuwaiti government, and that a declaration of war wasn't required? Which is also why the retreating Iraqi forces were not pursued past the border. Which led to the Iraqi regime and armed forces surviving, which led to George W and the legal, political and moral disaster of the second Gulf war, which really was a war.
-
I thought the point of the first Gulf "war" was that it all took place in Kuwait at the request of the legitimate Kuwaiti government, and that a declaration of war wasn't required? Which is also why the retreating Iraqi forces were not pursued past the border.
We (the US, UK and associated countries) didn't occupy Iraqi territory in the first gulf war. However both of our countries bombed both military and civilian sites across Iraq, not only in Kuwait as part of the war.
-
Jim Jordan, perhaps the next speaker, is saying at the same time: USA must support Israel (with funds) and not fund Ukraine...
How do these thoughts coexist?
One has a much stronger lobby than the other. Josh Hawley was torn apart in a Twitter thread suggesting that Israel is facing an existential threat and needs our money and weapons right away. Cue immediate outrage from one group pointing out that somehow he doesn't believe Ukraine faces the same threat, and outrage from the other side that insists "no money for anybody. Give me my wall!"
Side note RE "give me my wall": The recent events also serve as a cautionary tale for too much trust in walls as a solution.
As someone born in East Germany I fully understand that ;)
Walls are for losers. They are the high tide marks left behind by failing empires. "Here could we go, and no farther."
-
It appears that Russian forces attempted a large-scale attack from the southern side of Avdiivka near Vodyane a couple days ago. It's a town just down the road from Donetsk City and has been on the frontline since 2014. It's been surrounded by the Russians on three sides since last summer and is still holding. The attack may have gained a couple hundred yards, but initial estimates suggest Russia lost a couple hundred armored vehicles in the attempt. Ukrainian government reports of the first day of the assault claimed to have destroyed 34 tanks and 91 APCs, with another 70 for the second day. Satellite photos show at least 50 destroyed vehicles for sure, and additional photos/videos are slowly coming through.
The Ukrainian southern offensive appears stalled out for the time being, though Russian artillery losses continue to mount. Whether this Russian offensive out of Vodyane is an attempt to regain the initiative, a belief that Ukraine is exhausted, or trying to capitalize on the US' distractions with funding in Congress and Israel - nobody can say yet. This happened on a section of the front that while the Ukrainian troops are good, they may be undersupplied to support the battles in the south.
https://vxtwitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1712544012907983247 (https://vxtwitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1712544012907983247)
https://vxtwitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1712634354147479851 (https://vxtwitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1712634354147479851)
-
I think it was Russia trying to stop the Ukrainian offense by a counter-attack, as Ukraine cannot allow breakthroughs. They reportedly also used a lot of air attacks, which are still high-risk.
I think the timing (Israel) was either coincidentally (as Russia does not decide on the Ukrainian attacks) or Putin really talked to his friends in Hamas and told them we will divide US attention, win-win for both.
Time wise it would fit to the appearance of the first hole in R defense line, which unfortunately did not lead to a widened attack corridor because Russia threw everything it had to defend it. Which also means those Russian defenders don't have any reserves and cannot rotate. They are on the worse side in the longer run, that why see above.
-
I think the timing (Israel) was either coincidentally (as Russia does not decide on the Ukrainian attacks) or Putin really talked to his friends in Hamas and told them we will divide US attention, win-win for both.
I hate to see conspiracies where there is no evidence, but the fact remains that Iran, Russia, and China could enjoy more success with their wars of imperial expansion by doing them simultaneously rather than by doing them alone and one at at time.
Overall the setup is starting to look a lot like what preceded WW1 and WW2. The difference is that our generation of Americans has a lower attention span than a housefly.
-
Ukraine made use of ATACMS missiles for the first time last night at an airfield in Berdyansk. There was talk a month ago of the weapons finally being released to Ukraine, and debris consistent with the cluster variant of the missile was found at the airfield. Russian and Ukrainian sources confirm the missile and that several helicopters were damaged or destroyed on the ground. Satellite photos are still pending.
https://vxtwitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1714288311643300294 (https://vxtwitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1714288311643300294)
https://vxtwitter.com/DefenceU/status/1714247717327667363 (https://vxtwitter.com/DefenceU/status/1714247717327667363)
US source confirmed today that all 31 Abrams tanks that we pledged are now in Ukraine.
-
Two good news items for Ukraine recent days. First, they got ATACMs. Second, the Russians are still stupid. Despite months of very strong hints from the US that ATACMS was on the way, they still didn't proactively do anything about. Further, the Russians have been making huge attacks and taking huge losses. If there has been one constant in the war incompetent Russian attacks has been it, and whenever they launch one the needle moves noticeably closer to their eventual defeat.
I am very disappointed that ATACMS took so long to arrive. My initial impression was that US aid was consistently 1 month late, but I thought after HIMARS it would become more timely. A year later and it is my solid opinion that it instead expanded to 1 year late. Cluster munitions and ATACMS are the most cost effective items that could have been provided, both because disposing of them over Russians is actually cheaper than disposing them in Hawthorne NV (or wherever they go), and because for many uses they are more effective than other munitions and I'd certainly say ATACMS is more cost effective than tanks for the use at hand, just three took out 9 helicopters which saved 20 tanks and freed 500 more to act more confidently. The slow walking of aid to Ukraine has damaged Ukraine, not helped the political situation in the US and in fact worsened it, not helped the image of the US abroad as strong willed, and allowed the war to drag on long enough for another fire to start for the US to put out. Ukraine should have been at the Sea of Azov months ago, and the US would be in a far better position all around if it had.
-
It does seem like the west (and the US in particular) is slow-walking the munitions and aid to Ukraine. After thinking about it for a bit, I can only think of 2 reasons they might be doing this.
1 - having the war drag out have Russia lose slowly acclimates Putin to the idea of losing and possibly staves off a knee-jerk nuclear response.
2 - there's an upcoming presidential election and being at war stacks some of the deck in favor of keeping the incumbent in office.
-
It does seem like the west (and the US in particular) is slow-walking the munitions and aid to Ukraine. After thinking about it for a bit, I can only think of 2 reasons they might be doing this.
1 - having the war drag out have Russia lose slowly acclimates Putin to the idea of losing and possibly staves off a knee-jerk nuclear response.
2 - there's an upcoming presidential election and being at war stacks some of the deck in favor of keeping the incumbent in office.
3. US strategy isn't actually for Ukraine to win, it's just to let Russia get bogged down and bleed out as long as possible. In that respect everything is working according to plan.
From the perspective of the military-industrial complex it's even better if things drag on. That means more chances to sell replacement equipment and munitions to the US and Europe, or even to develop and sell new equipment and munitions. I don't think the military-industrial complex controls US foreign policy and the whole government - but it's a powerful lobbying organization and provides a lot of economic base jobs in a lot of districts all over the country. Several Republican representatives who didn't vote for Jim Jordan pointed specifically to his opposition of funding to Ukraine. 6 of the 20 votes against Jim Jordan were members of the House Appropriations Committee (total membership of 53 with 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats) - or twice the average of Republicans as a whole.
Kay Granger (TX-12) (Chairwoman)
Jake Ellzey (TX-06)
Tony Gonzales (TX-23)
John Rutherford (FL-05)
Michael Simpson (ID-02)
Steve Womack (AR-03)
-
I'm concerned about the overall level of violence. The U.S. is now entrenched in a proxy war with Russia, and the Hamas attack means we're also having to balance the historical support of Israel with what may be a long-term war there too.
This can't be good, even if the war machine provides jobs.
Even when I was a teenager in the Vietnam era I remember Americans saying we were a "war-based economy" and thinking, Really? The richest country in the world and that's the legacy we accept?
-
Wait for Christmas next year, when China will attack Taiwan.
-
War is good for business (as long as you're supplying it and not getting your country blown up).
-
I'm concerned about the overall level of violence. The U.S. is now entrenched in a proxy war with Russia, and the Hamas attack means we're also having to balance the historical support of Israel with what may be a long-term war there too.
This can't be good, even if the war machine provides jobs.
According to the U.S. government [see below], $45B was spent on weapons, training and other security assistance to Ukraine in the 20 months of this war. That doesn't sound "entrenched" to me. Its about 3% of the U.S. military budget for the past two years.
"Since January 2021, the United States has invested more than $44.5 billion in security assistance to demonstrate our enduring and steadfast commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity"
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/
Even when I was a teenager in the Vietnam era I remember Americans saying we were a "war-based economy" and thinking, Really? The richest country in the world and that's the legacy we accept?
Why do comments from 50 years ago define the U.S. economy now? I guess we need to ignore the internet we're typing on for this comparison to work? Apple's cash pile is larger than the entire company value of the largest defense contractor. The U.S. economy has far more value in big tech companies than the defense industry.
-
I think they just want to ruin Russia's ability to wage war for multiple generations. A quick victory would leave a lot of material and troops ready to fight another day. Grinding the entire Russian military into powder bit by bit (and when you have all the long range precision fires and they've got none, that's what's going to happen) is more useful to the United States going forward.
We've already seen many decades of Soviet defense production eliminated completely, in less than 2 years of war, using basically surplus junk. That's quite shocking and if I were a very cynical realpolitik sort of leader I'd want to keep that situation going a bit longer.
Note that I'm not personally endorsing this and that I think killing a ton of people for some sort of long term strategic advantage is pretty terrible.
-W
-
I think they just want to ruin Russia's ability to wage war for multiple generations. A quick victory would leave a lot of material and troops ready to fight another day. Grinding the entire Russian military into powder bit by bit (and when you have all the long range precision fires and they've got none, that's what's going to happen) is more useful to the United States going forward.
We've already seen many decades of Soviet defense production eliminated completely, in less than 2 years of war, using basically surplus junk. That's quite shocking and if I were a very cynical realpolitik sort of leader I'd want to keep that situation going a bit longer.
Note that I'm not personally endorsing this and that I think killing a ton of people for some sort of long term strategic advantage is pretty terrible.
-W
If that's the case, I don't think Russia would want it. So, why don't they just back out? They lie about everything. Surely, they can come up with a lie to tell their people and the world and just back out. They must realize that NATO won't attack them. They can pretend to be nice and their gas station will be fully open for business in a few years. Then, there will be plenty of cash to develop the best weapons in the world.
-
I think they just want to ruin Russia's ability to wage war for multiple generations. A quick victory would leave a lot of material and troops ready to fight another day. Grinding the entire Russian military into powder bit by bit (and when you have all the long range precision fires and they've got none, that's what's going to happen) is more useful to the United States going forward.
We've already seen many decades of Soviet defense production eliminated completely, in less than 2 years of war, using basically surplus junk. That's quite shocking and if I were a very cynical realpolitik sort of leader I'd want to keep that situation going a bit longer.
Note that I'm not personally endorsing this and that I think killing a ton of people for some sort of long term strategic advantage is pretty terrible.
-W
If that's the case, I don't think Russia would want it. So, why don't they just back out? They lie about everything. Surely, they can come up with a lie to tell their people and the world and just back out. They must realize that NATO won't attack them. They can pretend to be nice and their gas station will be fully open for business in a few years. Then, there will be plenty of cash to develop the best weapons in the world.
Russia is basically run like a criminal organization. Showing weakness may mean losing power. Losing power doesn't mean you retire and go on the speaking circuit or write your memoirs to make millions, it means you end up dead or in prison.
Russia has a deep-seated fear of attack from the west - for good reason. They've been attacked by European countries multiple times in the last couple hundred years and the only thing that has stopped those attacks has been the buffer area between Moscow and Europe. There's no natural defensive barriers on the north European plain, just space and time to wait for winter. While it may seem inconceivable to anyone in the west that NATO would attack Russia, governments can change. Look how quickly Germany changed from a devastated weak country after WW1 to Hitler rising to power, rebuilding the economy/military and then conquering Europe. When your country has a memory of hundreds of years a couple of decades can easily lead to huge changes.
-
It does seem like the west (and the US in particular) is slow-walking the munitions and aid to Ukraine. After thinking about it for a bit, I can only think of 2 reasons they might be doing this.
1 - having the war drag out have Russia lose slowly acclimates Putin to the idea of losing and possibly staves off a knee-jerk nuclear response.
2 - there's an upcoming presidential election and being at war stacks some of the deck in favor of keeping the incumbent in office.
3. US strategy isn't actually for Ukraine to win, it's just to let Russia get bogged down and bleed out as long as possible. In that respect everything is working according to plan.
4. From the perspective of the military-industrial complex it's even better if things drag on.
Lets call these four theories.
1. I can understand and would be a good reason, balancing certain higher deaths in Ukraine versus unlikely much higher costs around the world in especially in the US. I think it is likely overblown because those who would use nuclear weapons to blackmail the world into domination must be stopped either way and sooner is better. Anyway I wouldn't know.
2. Could be, but you'd have to look like strong decisive leader rather than Quagmire to make it work. The jury is still out, but the deadline is approaching fast.
3. The other leading contender, but even in this case it seems like this could be done at lower cost mostly to Ukraine but also to the US and Europe compared to what happens so far.
4. To some degree it's constant in all US defense policy decisions whether conscious or not. I'm sure it plays a role, just not sure how much.
I need to stop grousing on this topic, this is probably the third time I've discussed it in this thread.
-
I'm concerned about the overall level of violence. The U.S. is now entrenched in a proxy war with Russia, and the Hamas attack means we're also having to balance the historical support of Israel with what may be a long-term war there too.
This can't be good, even if the war machine provides jobs.
According to the U.S. government [see below], $45B was spent on weapons, training and other security assistance to Ukraine in the 20 months of this war. That doesn't sound "entrenched" to me. Its about 3% of the U.S. military budget for the past two years.
"Since January 2021, the United States has invested more than $44.5 billion in security assistance to demonstrate our enduring and steadfast commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity"
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/
Even when I was a teenager in the Vietnam era I remember Americans saying we were a "war-based economy" and thinking, Really? The richest country in the world and that's the legacy we accept?
Why do comments from 50 years ago define the U.S. economy now? I guess we need to ignore the internet we're typing on for this comparison to work? Apple's cash pile is larger than the entire company value of the largest defense contractor. The U.S. economy has far more value in big tech companies than the defense industry.
Because I'm old enough to remember the term used by the first George Bush: "Peace dividend" meaning that the end of the Cold war with Russia would now free up monies to be used for the social welfare vs. more weapons. Finally.
But - surprise! - along comes Persian gulf war, battle in Somalia, fight in Bosnia, etc. Sorry, the war machine ate up the peace dividend!
-
Russia has a deep-seated fear of attack from the west - for good reason. They've been attacked by European countries multiple times in the last couple hundred years and the only thing that has stopped those attacks has been the buffer area between Moscow and Europe. There's no natural defensive barriers on the north European plain, just space and time to wait for winter. While it may seem inconceivable to anyone in the west that NATO would attack Russia, governments can change. Look how quickly Germany changed from a devastated weak country after WW1 to Hitler rising to power, rebuilding the economy/military and then conquering Europe. When your country has a memory of hundreds of years a couple of decades can easily lead to huge changes.
Russia has attacked even more European countries than have attacked Russia in the last couple hundred years, in addition to nearly every nation within 500 miles of its current borders, except not all of those have space for a buffer. Essentially all of those apply against Russia as well.
-
[
Iran gave Russia Shaheds, its most effective tool in attacking Ukrainian electrical and grain facilities and possibly others. If you think Iran got nothing besides a future promise of SU-35s which wouldn't last a week against either the US or Israel (let alone both), you're a fool.
I decided anti-ship missiles made the most sense. Little use to Russia against a nation with no navy, hugely useful to Iran, and they have a bunch.
Or I just need to find something more productive to stew about.
-
[Iran gave Russia Shaheds, its most effective tool in attacking Ukrainian electrical and grain facilities and possibly others. If you think Iran got nothing besides a future promise of SU-35s which wouldn't last a week against either the US or Israel (let alone both), you're a fool.
I decided anti-ship missiles made the most sense. Little use to Russia against a nation with no navy, hugely useful to Iran, and they have a bunch.
Or I just need to find something more productive to stew about.
Stew on this:
https://apnews.com/article/iraq-militias-iran-us-base-attack-drone-hamas-israel-war-80f6739c3ab34662afba316285914e39 (https://apnews.com/article/iraq-militias-iran-us-base-attack-drone-hamas-israel-war-80f6739c3ab34662afba316285914e39)
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2052103/dod-statement-on-iranian-ballistic-missile-attacks-in-iraq/ (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2052103/dod-statement-on-iranian-ballistic-missile-attacks-in-iraq/)
I don't like this stuff. It's like the Cuban missile crisis years ago. All these countries are sabre rattling. Do they really want a war?
I guess actually firing missiles is more than sabre rattling.
If the US had to go to war, could one even be declared with the House of Representatives being so awry?
-
The second link is for an article from January 7, 2020. Not exactly relevant to the current situation.
-
If the US had to go to war, could one even be declared with the House of Representatives being so awry?
Was this the thread where we were talking the other day about how long is has been since the USA actually passed a formal declaration of war? I think the last war the United States actually decleared was World War II.
We're perfectly capable of blowing up the world, or waging twenty year long wars like Afghanistan, without congress ever actually passing a declaration of war.
-
If that's the case, I don't think Russia would want it. So, why don't they just back out? They lie about everything. Surely, they can come up with a lie to tell their people and the world and just back out. They must realize that NATO won't attack them. They can pretend to be nice and their gas station will be fully open for business in a few years. Then, there will be plenty of cash to develop the best weapons in the world.
But that would not allow for Putin to became Putin the Great, who restored the Russian Empire to it's former glory. And he hasn't much time left even if all the rumors about his health are wrong.
Dictators tell teh truth. Listen to them. If they say they want to get country X back into the Reich, they will do it if they see the possibility. How many people die is not important, people get born all the time.
-
1 - having the war drag out have Russia lose slowly acclimates Putin to the idea of losing and possibly staves off a knee-jerk nuclear response.
3. US strategy isn't actually for Ukraine to win, it's just to let Russia get bogged down and bleed out as long as possible. In that respect everything is working according to plan.
Consider that President Biden might be worried about nuclear war started by Russia (Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons). How politically can that risk be avoided?
I think the slow escalation of weapons sent to Ukraine is a strategy aimed to avoid sudden, desperate measures in Russia. If Russia is slowly losing the war, there's no specific moment when things are so desperate that nuclear weapons seem like the appropriate answer.
The U.S. can send new weapons, then guage the Russian response. Let Russia rant and complain awhile. When they're tired, send more new weapons and let the cycle repeat. The incrementalism could be a way of avoiding desperation in Russia, and avoiding the risk of nuclear war.
-
Because I'm old enough to remember the term used by the first George Bush: "Peace dividend" meaning that the end of the Cold war with Russia would now free up monies to be used for the social welfare vs. more weapons. Finally.
But - surprise! - along comes Persian gulf war, battle in Somalia, fight in Bosnia, etc. Sorry, the war machine ate up the peace dividend!
Certainly Europe has enjoyed a peace dividend, since they've gutted their militaries over the last few decades, with the full expectation that the US would come save them if anything happened.
And, for what it's worth, military spending as a percent of GDP has fallen over the last 50 years in the US, from about 5.5% of GDP down to about 3% (source (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined)). During the same period, social spending has more than doubled as a share of GDP, from ~9% to over 19% (source (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined))
-
1 - having the war drag out have Russia lose slowly acclimates Putin to the idea of losing and possibly staves off a knee-jerk nuclear response.
3. US strategy isn't actually for Ukraine to win, it's just to let Russia get bogged down and bleed out as long as possible. In that respect everything is working according to plan.
Consider that President Biden might be worried about nuclear war started by Russia (Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons). How politically can that risk be avoided?
I think the slow escalation of weapons sent to Ukraine is a strategy aimed to avoid sudden, desperate measures in Russia. If Russia is slowly losing the war, there's no specific moment when things are so desperate that nuclear weapons seem like the appropriate answer.
The U.S. can send new weapons, then guage the Russian response. Let Russia rant and complain awhile. When they're tired, send more new weapons and let the cycle repeat. The incrementalism could be a way of avoiding desperation in Russia, and avoiding the risk of nuclear war.
Yep, this is exactly what I meant with point #1.
-
Because I'm old enough to remember the term used by the first George Bush: "Peace dividend" meaning that the end of the Cold war with Russia would now free up monies to be used for the social welfare vs. more weapons. Finally.
But - surprise! - along comes Persian gulf war, battle in Somalia, fight in Bosnia, etc. Sorry, the war machine ate up the peace dividend!
Certainly Europe has enjoyed a peace dividend, since they've gutted their militaries over the last few decades, with the full expectation that the US would come save them if anything happened.
And, for what it's worth, military spending as a percent of GDP has fallen over the last 50 years in the US, from about 5.5% of GDP down to about 3% (source (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined)). During the same period, social spending has more than doubled as a share of GDP, from ~9% to over 19% (source (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined))
Also keep in mind how much lower tax rates are now than they were at the height of the cold war.
The "peace dividend" was paid in the form of lower taxes, and those days might be over.
-
Supposedly yesterday was the all time worst day for Russia since the start of the war, or at least in that last 18 months. So that’ll be interesting.
-
Yeah, I don't think I have seen such a high number of losses for soldiers and tanks ever before.
-
Yeah, that may have been Russia's worst day in all 600+ days of Putin's 3-day Special Military Operation: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1715277446860148923
Dang, almost 1400 casualties, plus 55 tanks and 120 armored personnel vehicles.
-
Because I'm old enough to remember the term used by the first George Bush: "Peace dividend" meaning that the end of the Cold war with Russia would now free up monies to be used for the social welfare vs. more weapons. Finally.
But - surprise! - along comes Persian gulf war, battle in Somalia, fight in Bosnia, etc. Sorry, the war machine ate up the peace dividend!
Certainly Europe has enjoyed a peace dividend, since they've gutted their militaries over the last few decades, with the full expectation that the US would come save them if anything happened.
And, for what it's worth, military spending as a percent of GDP has fallen over the last 50 years in the US, from about 5.5% of GDP down to about 3% (source (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined)). During the same period, social spending has more than doubled as a share of GDP, from ~9% to over 19% (source (https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined))
Also keep in mind how much lower tax rates are now than they were at the height of the cold war.
The "peace dividend" was paid in the form of lower taxes, and those days might be over.
I'm wary of percentages in these scenarios. I'm reminded of a court case here in AZ where an eye surgeon was accused of medical malpractice because so many of his patients had terrible outcomes. His defense attorney argued, Well, "as a percentage of his total eye surgeries" it was only a small percent. Gee, I guess that's okay except if you're the one whose vision was ruined by the surgeon's incompetence.
And maybe I'm an outlier, but I'm actually not happy with lower taxes because the U.S. now has $33 trillion in gross national debt. It takes 15% of total federal spending, or $808 billion, to service this debt.
We've burdened our economy, gutted our social services and infrastructure spending, and left this mess to the next generation.
Nothing to brag about.
-
Yeah, that may have been Russia's worst day in all 600+ days of Putin's 3-day Special Military Operation: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1715277446860148923
Dang, almost 1400 casualties, plus 55 tanks and 120 armored personnel vehicles.
Even if the actual verified numbers are half of what the Ukrainian government is reporting, it's still devastating. And Russia hasn't stopped attacking Avdiivka which is why these numbers have stayed high all week. Back in January they attacked Vuhledar with three brigades, and for the gain of a city block one of those brigades didn't come back. We're in that territory now with Avdiivka. For another comparison, Ukraine visually confirmed to have lost 300 or so vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, artillery) in their southern offensive which began in June. Russia is (so far) confirmed to have lost half that number in Avdiivka just this week and the reports are still coming in.
-
We've burdened our economy, gutted our social services and infrastructure spending, and left this mess to the next generation.
I don't quite understand how increasing social spending from 9% to 19% qualifies as "gutting" them.
Even if the actual verified numbers are half of what the Ukrainian government is reporting, it's still devastating. And Russia hasn't stopped attacking Avdiivka which is why these numbers have stayed high all week. Back in January they attacked Vuhledar with three brigades, and for the gain of a city block one of those brigades didn't come back. We're in that territory now with Avdiivka. For another comparison, Ukraine visually confirmed to have lost 300 or so vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, artillery) in their southern offensive which began in June. Russia is (so far) confirmed to have lost half that number in Avdiivka just this week and the reports are still coming in.
FWIW, Ukraine states that their numbers are based on video or photo documentation. I.e. if they don't see it, they don't count it. The human casualties include both killed and wounded.
-
We've burdened our economy, gutted our social services and infrastructure spending, and left this mess to the next generation.
I don't quite understand how increasing social spending from 9% to 19% qualifies as "gutting" them.
Even if the actual verified numbers are half of what the Ukrainian government is reporting, it's still devastating. And Russia hasn't stopped attacking Avdiivka which is why these numbers have stayed high all week. Back in January they attacked Vuhledar with three brigades, and for the gain of a city block one of those brigades didn't come back. We're in that territory now with Avdiivka. For another comparison, Ukraine visually confirmed to have lost 300 or so vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, artillery) in their southern offensive which began in June. Russia is (so far) confirmed to have lost half that number in Avdiivka just this week and the reports are still coming in.
FWIW, Ukraine states that their numbers are based on video or photo documentation. I.e. if they don't see it, they don't count it. The human casualties include both killed and wounded.
They list wounded beneath that total that is approaching 300,000.
https://www.minusrus.com/en (https://www.minusrus.com/en)
Perhaps this could be clarified. They do state that the 876,180 wounded number is a calculated number.
This number could be less. Russians have not been known to care for all of their wounded. Sometimes, they put them to sleep themselves when their fellow soldier is wounded. Sometimes the wounded Russian soldiers have been seen to commit suicide.
-
It seems the Russian counter-(counter?)-offensive has failed dramatically.
They lost at least a month worth of equipment for minimal terrain gain. And while the position of Adviivka has become even more encircled, the only real loss is the train connection - but that one was in rifle fire range of the Russian lines, so probably not used at all.
On the other hand the Russian attacks on the front lines seem to not only have been stopped, but also weakened their position so much that they often had to retreat to positions before the attack and allegedly even preparing to retreat more.
I also don't think Ukraine had to relocate forces from their own attack, which was likely the Russian goal. On the other hand, the push to Tokamak seems stuck nonetheless while in the South Ukraine seems to have some successes with establishing beachhead (if you can call it that) on the Russian side of the Dnipro.
All in all it looks like this round, though no KO happened, will end with a point victory for Ukraine. Let's hope they somehow manage to get a few km closer to Tokmak before mud season and winter, or at least widen the hole to a defenseable position.
-
It seems the Russian counter-(counter?)-offensive has failed dramatically.
They lost at least a month worth of equipment for minimal terrain gain. And while the position of Adviivka has become even more encircled, the only real loss is the train connection - but that one was in rifle fire range of the Russian lines, so probably not used at all.
On the other hand the Russian attacks on the front lines seem to not only have been stopped, but also weakened their position so much that they often had to retreat to positions before the attack and allegedly even preparing to retreat more.
I also don't think Ukraine had to relocate forces from their own attack, which was likely the Russian goal. On the other hand, the push to Tokamak seems stuck nonetheless while in the South Ukraine seems to have some successes with establishing beachhead (if you can call it that) on the Russian side of the Dnipro.
All in all it looks like this round, though no KO happened, will end with a point victory for Ukraine. Let's hope they somehow manage to get a few km closer to Tokmak before mud season and winter, or at least widen the hole to a defenseable position.
All this attrition of Russian equipment has to be taking its toll. Even if they have another draft round, will they be able to equip their forces? Was that huge train car shipment from North Korea more than just more shells? Aren't there Russians who are getting tired of this war with no real purpose?
-
But there is a real purpose! To free Ukraine from the Nazis! And if the Ukrainians don't want that, just kill them all and take their land, which rightfully belongs to Russia anway.
Glory to our fallen heros!
-
Geez, Lenn, it’s a good thing we know where you really stand.
-
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
Anyway, I read somewhere that the Russia military is steeped in the nostalgia of the Great Patriotic War where victory required men to sacrifice themselves in huge numbers. So modern Russian commanders view the willingness to sacrifice troops as a symbol of patriotic virtue. I don't know how true that is, but it explains the Russian willingness to sacrfice huge numbers of men and equipment for seemingly very little gain.
-
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
From me, yes. Frum the RUssians not.
-
This seems to describe what happened on that loss heavy day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tJRSYjql70
According to this the Russian attack did not fail, but I would call it a very Phyrric victory.
-
This seems to describe what happened on that loss heavy day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tJRSYjql70
According to this the Russian attack did not fail, but I would call it a very Phyrric victory.
Reported losses of Russians are 294,700 total with 870 in the past 24 hours. I used to hear a tale about Europe that they have this little mouse like creature. Every few years thousands of them were supposed to follow one another over a cliff to their demise. I found it hard to believe. These Russian attacks make me think the lemming story so fantastic after all.
-
Seems like the war will certainly change the Russian demographics between young vs old, male vs female, educated vs less for a generation or so.
-
Seems like the war will certainly change the Russian demographics between young vs old, male vs female, educated vs less for a generation or so.
Looking at current demographic data, it's already pretty bad for Russian males. Russian women have a life expectancy of 75 years, while their men have a life expectancy of 64 years. In the USA it's 79 and 74.
Got the data from here - https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=RUS&country2=USA
I also see the total Russian population is substantially less than half the size of the USA.
Average income in the USA is $76k, in Russia it's $13k. Wow, that's shocking.
-
It gets even worse if you look at the demographic pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2020/
It is inverted, which means their population is essentially doomed to get older and decline.
-
It gets even worse if you look at the demographic pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2020/
It is inverted, which means their population is essentially doomed to get older and decline.
Russians may eventually go the way of the Livonians.
-
Well, that's one way to help prevent climate change - - - manage your country into population decline.
-
It gets even worse if you look at the demographic pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2020/
It is inverted, which means their population is essentially doomed to get older and decline.
Yup. And it's even worse than just the inverted pyramid and the loss of reproduction-aged males, because a large number, primarily those with the means to do so, left Russia a year and a half ago. That's a few hundred thousand *more* that are gone for a long time, possibly forever, and they generally come from the better-educated, wealthier demographic.
China is facing a similar dilemma--despite the elimination of the one-child policy, they're still at the lowest birthrate in decades. They have aspirations of conquering Taiwan, but their window of opportunity is inexorably sliding closed.
If it weren't for immigration, the US would be in similar straits.
-
Russia is doing even more now to accelerate the demographic shift!
They have started recruiting young women as soldiers (though only for lower risk duties like drone controller)
-
It gets even worse if you look at the demographic pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2020/
It is inverted, which means their population is essentially doomed to get older and decline.
Russians may eventually go the way of the Livonians.
Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union, the very large state.
A way to increase the population base is to take over other countries.
In a MMM-style argument, this is similar to companies doing mergers and acquisitions to "grow" the company".
In the case of Ukraine,it is a very hostile takeover attempt.
https://www.prb.org/articles/could-russias-dire-demographics-have-played-a-role-in-its-invasion-of-ukraine/. Tl;Dr... maybe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/14/russia-population-crisis-putin/
1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, which he [Putin] has called “the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
https://jacobin.com/2023/04/russia-ukraine-war-putin-demographic-crisis-social-reproduction-biopolitical-imperialism
I would note that even in a agreed corporate takeover the "synergies" don't always pan out in positive ways.
https://webuser.bus.umich.edu/gfdavis/Papers/Decline%20and%20Fall.pdf
Especially in hostile takeovers, key members of the acquired company may leave (voluntarily or otherwise).
Hundreds of thousands of Russians (pre-2022 citizens) of the sort with the means to leave Russia have done so.
This does not include Ukrainians who have escaped occupied areas of Ukraine.
-
It gets even worse if you look at the demographic pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2020/
It is inverted, which means their population is essentially doomed to get older and decline.
Russians may eventually go the way of the Livonians.
Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union, the very large state.
A way to increase the population base is to take over other countries.
In a MMM-style argument, this is similar to companies doing mergers and acquisitions to "grow" the company".
In the case of Ukraine,it is a very hostile takeover attempt.
https://www.prb.org/articles/could-russias-dire-demographics-have-played-a-role-in-its-invasion-of-ukraine/. Tl;Dr... maybe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/14/russia-population-crisis-putin/
1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, which he [Putin] has called “the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
https://jacobin.com/2023/04/russia-ukraine-war-putin-demographic-crisis-social-reproduction-biopolitical-imperialism
I would note that even in a agreed corporate takeover the "synergies" don't always pan out in positive ways.
https://webuser.bus.umich.edu/gfdavis/Papers/Decline%20and%20Fall.pdf
Especially in hostile takeovers, key members of the acquired company may leave (voluntarily or otherwise).
Hundreds of thousands of Russians (pre-2022 citizens) of the sort with the means to leave Russia have done so.
This does not include Ukrainians who have escaped occupied areas of Ukraine.
You look at Asia. It's a bit like a Petri dish with bacteria and food. If you put the bacteria on one end they'll eat and spread to cover the whole thing. As the climate warms, those lands to the North will be more productive to grow food. Science may make them more productive before that. So - You've got maybe 50 million Russians occupying this huge swath of land. You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
-
Far more urgent to me is the millions of people who are in harms way or will be in harms way of climate change. How many island nations are flooding? Areas seeing more, and more extreme heat? Drought? Migration is going to happen. It's just slow to get started.
-
It gets even worse if you look at the demographic pyramid:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2020/
It is inverted, which means their population is essentially doomed to get older and decline.
Russians may eventually go the way of the Livonians.
Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union, the very large state.
A way to increase the population base is to take over other countries.
In a MMM-style argument, this is similar to companies doing mergers and acquisitions to "grow" the company".
In the case of Ukraine,it is a very hostile takeover attempt.
https://www.prb.org/articles/could-russias-dire-demographics-have-played-a-role-in-its-invasion-of-ukraine/. Tl;Dr... maybe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/14/russia-population-crisis-putin/
1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, which he [Putin] has called “the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
https://jacobin.com/2023/04/russia-ukraine-war-putin-demographic-crisis-social-reproduction-biopolitical-imperialism
I would note that even in a agreed corporate takeover the "synergies" don't always pan out in positive ways.
https://webuser.bus.umich.edu/gfdavis/Papers/Decline%20and%20Fall.pdf
Especially in hostile takeovers, key members of the acquired company may leave (voluntarily or otherwise).
Hundreds of thousands of Russians (pre-2022 citizens) of the sort with the means to leave Russia have done so.
This does not include Ukrainians who have escaped occupied areas of Ukraine.
You look at Asia. It's a bit like a Petri dish with bacteria and food. If you put the bacteria on one end they'll eat and spread to cover the whole thing. As the climate warms, those lands to the North will be more productive to grow food. Science may make them more productive before that. So - You've got maybe 50 million Russians occupying this huge swath of land. You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Population: Siberian Federal District 20.3 Million, Far Eastern Federal District 7.9 million.
The Far Eastern District, 7.9millon is the area just north of Mongolia and China, so there is that additional point in your @pecunia 's favor.
However I doubt that global warming would make the Gobi Desert or Mongolia great agricultural or residential lands. Can you say really F..ing Cold and Damp? The big draw of the Far Eastern Federal District initially would be the forest and mining products. Example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur_Oblast
Amur Oblast has considerable reserves of many types of mineral resources; proven reserves are estimated to be worth US$400 billion. Among the most important are gold (the largest reserves in Russia), silver, titanium, molybdenum, tungsten, copper, and tin. There are also an estimated 70 billion tons of Black coal and lignite reserves. Probable iron deposits are estimated to be 3.8 billion tons. The Garin deposit is fully explored and known to contain 389 million tons of iron ore. Estimated reserves of the deposit are 1,293 million tons. The deposit's ore contains a low concentration of detrimental impurities; the ore contains 69.9% iron. Amur Oblast is also a promising source of titanium, with the Bolshoy Seyim deposit being the most important.[14
Despite it's distance from European Russia, the Soviet Union has fought two successful conflicts in the area, the Soviet-Japanese War of 1939 and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria in 1945. So not a guaranteed walkover by China.
https://thediplomat.com/2012/08/the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
The construction of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Cosmodrome. just 80 miles from the border was something I feel was ill- considered.
A place closer the water would be better for used booster splashdowns, and add more directions for launching.
Edit to remove excessive line space
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
-
Even though invading Russia might be easier than Taiwan, I think China will leave Russia alone because Russia has nukes and is far more likely to use them than the US.
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014. Is that information still accurate?
-
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
According to official results of US war games, with todays strength, IF the US helps with it's fleets, China would lose most of the cases after a hard fight.
Make of that 4 qualifiers whatever you want.
-
Even though invading Russia might be easier than Taiwan, I think China will leave Russia alone because Russia has nukes and is far more likely to use them than the US.
How do you know this or have any way of quantifying/qualfiying? There is only one country that has EVER used a nuclear weapon as part of a war/military offensive and it was not Russia/USSR.
I don't even disagree per se (I don't have much of an opinion on this specific risk assessment), but am curious at your sources or what information led you to your conclusion since not only is it "Russia is more likely" but "Russia is FAR more likely" to use nuclear weapons. I.e. an order of magnitude higher. It seems unknowable to me.
Also, note that Russia but not the US has ratified the CTBT. In fact, every country except US, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan have ratified it. The treaty cannot be enforced by the UN until those aforementioned 8 countries sign it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty
You'd think if the US truly had lower odds than Russia of using nuclear weapons that we'd be waiting on Russia to sign the CTBT instead of the US.
-
I don't even disagree per se (I don't have much of an opinion on this specific risk assessment), but am curious at your sources or what information led you to your conclusion since not only is it "Russia is more likely" but "Russia is FAR more likely" to use nuclear weapons. I.e. an order of magnitude higher. It seems unknowable to me.
Compare doctrines.
-
I don't even disagree per se (I don't have much of an opinion on this specific risk assessment), but am curious at your sources or what information led you to your conclusion since not only is it "Russia is more likely" but "Russia is FAR more likely" to use nuclear weapons. I.e. an order of magnitude higher. It seems unknowable to me.
Compare doctrines.
I didn't make the qualifying statement about the likelihood. Another poster did. The onus is not on me to look into what they might've used to formulate the statement.
I'm just curious which is why I've asked for more from that particular poster.
-
I don't even disagree per se (I don't have much of an opinion on this specific risk assessment), but am curious at your sources or what information led you to your conclusion since not only is it "Russia is more likely" but "Russia is FAR more likely" to use nuclear weapons. I.e. an order of magnitude higher. It seems unknowable to me.
Compare doctrines.
I didn't make the qualifying statement about the likelihood. Another poster did. The onus is not on me to look into what they might've used to formulate the statement.
I'm just curious which is why I've asked for more from that particular poster.
If I put myself in the shoes of China and am thinking about picking a fight with one of the 2 major nuclear powers in the world, it would be reasonable to assume that the country run by a dictator with little/no checks and balances on their decisions is going to be the one not to mess with, even though they are an easier target for my military.
-
I don't even disagree per se (I don't have much of an opinion on this specific risk assessment), but am curious at your sources or what information led you to your conclusion since not only is it "Russia is more likely" but "Russia is FAR more likely" to use nuclear weapons. I.e. an order of magnitude higher. It seems unknowable to me.
Compare doctrines.
I didn't make the qualifying statement about the likelihood. Another poster did. The onus is not on me to look into what they might've used to formulate the statement.
I'm just curious which is why I've asked for more from that particular poster.
If I put myself in the shoes of China and am thinking about picking a fight with one of the 2 major nuclear powers in the world, it would be reasonable to assume that the country run by a dictator with little/no checks and balances on their decisions is going to be the one not to mess with, even though they are an easier target for my military.
. . . and that's why I'm voting Trump 2024! Keepin' China out of our biz.
:P
-
I don't even disagree per se (I don't have much of an opinion on this specific risk assessment), but am curious at your sources or what information led you to your conclusion since not only is it "Russia is more likely" but "Russia is FAR more likely" to use nuclear weapons. I.e. an order of magnitude higher. It seems unknowable to me.
Compare doctrines.
I didn't make the qualifying statement about the likelihood. Another poster did. The onus is not on me to look into what they might've used to formulate the statement.
I'm just curious which is why I've asked for more from that particular poster.
If I put myself in the shoes of China and am thinking about picking a fight with one of the 2 major nuclear powers in the world, it would be reasonable to assume that the country run by a dictator with little/no checks and balances on their decisions is going to be the one not to mess with, even though they are an easier target for my military.
. . . and that's why I'm voting Trump 2024! Keepin' China out of our biz.
:P
I just knew it was those Canadians that got him elected last time. Who interferes more in the US electoral system Russia or Canada? Thanks to GuitarStv I now know.
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014. Is that information still accurate?
That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now.
Anyway, this article is from last month (https://www.voanews.com/a/desperate-for-more-children-china-urges-soldiers-to-procreate/7289319.html). Work-life balance is hard everywhere!
IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014. Is that information still accurate?
That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now.
Anyway, this article is from last month (https://www.voanews.com/a/desperate-for-more-children-china-urges-soldiers-to-procreate/7289319.html). Work-life balance is hard everywhere!
IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014. Is that information still accurate?
That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now.
Anyway, this article is from last month (https://www.voanews.com/a/desperate-for-more-children-china-urges-soldiers-to-procreate/7289319.html). Work-life balance is hard everywhere!
IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
Does it have to be strictly military? It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years. I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
Does it have to be strictly military? It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years. I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.
There are a lot of other good ways, but I think wars are less likely if everyone is involved. If everyone knows people who can get shipped off, it seems like it would be way less likely the US would start shipping troops.
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
Does it have to be strictly military? It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years. I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.
So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
Does it have to be strictly military? It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years. I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.
So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??
That would be one task. There are many others. We all live in this Society. To contribute to it is not such a worthless thing. Many would receive exposure to another environment withing the country and perhaps be exposed to other perspectives. The long term benefits could be great. I did not say less than minimum wage. In fact money could be set aside for something like the GI Bill. The younger generation has shouldered an unfair debt burden for their education. A period of public service and then to be rewarded with that education may be a worthwhile endeavor. Of course opinions may differ.
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014. Is that information still accurate?
That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now.
Anyway, this article is from last month (https://www.voanews.com/a/desperate-for-more-children-china-urges-soldiers-to-procreate/7289319.html). Work-life balance is hard everywhere!
IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
I guarantee whatever study determined that used BMI while completely ignoring the fact that people in the military tend to have far more muscle mass and less body fat than a comparable civilian population. I've known guys in the Army that have always been overweight and have to get taped for bodyfat - because they are in great shape and have a bunch of muscle mass. If you're 5'8" and weigh 175 pounds as a 22-year-old you would be overweight.
The American Security Project, a Washington-based nonprofit, found that 68% of US troops qualified as either “overweight” or “obese” under the Body Mass Index, which takes into account a person’s age, height and weight.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24040523/ref-0286-combating-military-obesity-2.pdf
There are definitely some overweight people in the military. But there is no way more than 2/3 of the military is overweight or obese by any objective standard - other than BMI which is generally garbage.
Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus : NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439)
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
There has been a program in place to grant citizenship through military service for at least as long as I've been in (over 20 years now).
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
Does it have to be strictly military? It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years. I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.
So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??
That would be one task. There are many others. We all live in this Society. To contribute to it is not such a worthless thing. Many would receive exposure to another environment withing the country and perhaps be exposed to other perspectives. The long term benefits could be great. I did not say less than minimum wage. In fact money could be set aside for something like the GI Bill. The younger generation has shouldered an unfair debt burden for their education. A period of public service and then to be rewarded with that education may be a worthwhile endeavor. Of course opinions may differ.
The U.S. is already doing this with debt relief for teachers who often work with kids in poorer areas and debt relief programs for nurses and military personnel.
The idea of using young immigrants (instead of throwing more taxpayer subsidies at existing citizens and competing with the private sector) would fix our demographics / entitlements problem, relieve pressure on illegal immigration law enforcement, and address glaring needs.
However, just because there is a need doesn't mean a country will choose the simple solution to fix it. Japan is a demographic timebomb that has steadfastly resisted immigration for years despite a housing surplus in the countryside. Their projects to build caretaker robots have not yet worked out. If they don't open the doors soon a significant percentage of young people will be taken out of the economy to become caretakers instead of industrial producers, and will have to shoulder enormous costs instead of keeping Japanese industry going. Russia is another demographic timebomb, but due to racism they are not interested in the kinds of immigrants who would be willing to move there and contribute to society. The U.S. is self-conflicted between the logic of immigration versus fears about cultivating gang-filled urban slums of non-English speakers. Interestingly, Europe seems to be the new melting pot, with immigrants coming from every direction. After a period of forming, storming, and norming, I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.
-
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
I think that's an idea that might actually fly. The GOP loves the military and violence that serves their agenda. Putin would definitely love to enroll them.
I think the US should have 1-2 years of mandatory military service just like South Korea, Israel and other countries. It helps people have a shared common experience and build some relationships with people you might otherwise not interact with. And gets everyone in the game... I think it would result in fewer external conflicts and fewer internal divisions.
Does it have to be strictly military? It seems like there is a lot of other good stuff that people could be doing for the country in their two years. I've gone to Federal Parks and have used stuff that was built by the CCC in the 1930s.
So now you do not only want the younger generationto shoulder their parents pension, their own (bc less children born in the last decades) and somehow manage the costs of climate change, you now also want their most important career years to be cleaning parks for less than minimum wage??
That would be one task. There are many others. We all live in this Society. To contribute to it is not such a worthless thing. Many would receive exposure to another environment withing the country and perhaps be exposed to other perspectives. The long term benefits could be great. I did not say less than minimum wage. In fact money could be set aside for something like the GI Bill. The younger generation has shouldered an unfair debt burden for their education. A period of public service and then to be rewarded with that education may be a worthwhile endeavor. Of course opinions may differ.
The U.S. is already doing this with debt relief for teachers who often work with kids in poorer areas and debt relief programs for nurses and military personnel.
The idea of using young immigrants (instead of throwing more taxpayer subsidies at existing citizens and competing with the private sector) would fix our demographics / entitlements problem, relieve pressure on illegal immigration law enforcement, and address glaring needs.
However, just because there is a need doesn't mean a country will choose the simple solution to fix it. Japan is a demographic timebomb that has steadfastly resisted immigration for years despite a housing surplus in the countryside. Their projects to build caretaker robots have not yet worked out. If they don't open the doors soon a significant percentage of young people will be taken out of the economy to become caretakers instead of industrial producers, and will have to shoulder enormous costs instead of keeping Japanese industry going. Russia is another demographic timebomb, but due to racism they are not interested in the kinds of immigrants who would be willing to move there and contribute to society. The U.S. is self-conflicted between the logic of immigration versus fears about cultivating gang-filled urban slums of non-English speakers. Interestingly, Europe seems to be the new melting pot, with immigrants coming from every direction. After a period of forming, storming, and norming, I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.
It's good these programs noted above list. You can cut through right wing rhetoric against them because they are an investment in the country. Government should work to help future generations and not simply to tend to the interests of the existing well to do. Nothing wrong with immigration. My grandparents were immigrants. However, let's take care of citizens first.
-
You've got 1.3 billion Chinese just to the South of the big swath of land. China seems rather full. This big land with all sorts of resources could provide the Chinese a good survival. With less Russians to man that border, I mean it just looks so obvious that those Chinese will be the new "pioneers" of that Northern land.
Isn't China rather a paper tiger? Their military is made up of only children (https://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-peoples-liberation-army-made-only-children-why-worries-beijing-1553423) and they are heading for their own population crash (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/). (as, I see, was mentioned only a few posts up.)
That article about China's military being staffed with spoiled kids is from 2014. Is that information still accurate?
That article was the first that came up on my search, but even if Chinese parents snapped into action in 2014 and procreated with abandon, the soldiers-to-be would be only 9 years old now.
Anyway, this article is from last month (https://www.voanews.com/a/desperate-for-more-children-china-urges-soldiers-to-procreate/7289319.html). Work-life balance is hard everywhere!
IMO, China needs to act scary because in reality there would be widespread upset if its army of only children (or at best, second children) were sent off to war. But apologies for derailing the discussion of Russia and Ukraine, please return to our regular programming.
On the flipside, the US military is plagued by an obesity problem and is having a hard time competing with the domestic private sector. It is arguably the one which has to act scary.
I guarantee whatever study determined that used BMI while completely ignoring the fact that people in the military tend to have far more muscle mass and less body fat than a comparable civilian population. I've known guys in the Army that have always been overweight and have to get taped for bodyfat - because they are in great shape and have a bunch of muscle mass. If you're 5'8" and weigh 175 pounds as a 22-year-old you would be overweight.
The American Security Project, a Washington-based nonprofit, found that 68% of US troops qualified as either “overweight” or “obese” under the Body Mass Index, which takes into account a person’s age, height and weight.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24040523/ref-0286-combating-military-obesity-2.pdf
There are definitely some overweight people in the military. But there is no way more than 2/3 of the military is overweight or obese by any objective standard - other than BMI which is generally garbage.
Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus : NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439)
If we're heading for a new cold war, the US seriously needs to think about military service as a path to citizenship. Yes, there are problems with loyalty, motivation, education, language, racism in the ranks, and other issues, but there would be no shortage of 18 y/o recruits across Latin America, the Caribbean, and South America. There should at least be urgent pilot programs ongoing now if we expect to be able to muster six-figure numbers of soldiers ten years from now.
There has been a program in place to grant citizenship through military service for at least as long as I've been in (over 20 years now).
I think the obesity issue is more that young americans who would be eligible to join the military are too fat to be effective soldiers and would require significant diet and training to become useful. This would severely limit the ability for america to respond to a large war where soldiers on the ground would be required. Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground. (The issue isnt just related to obesity but it's the most visible issue, the western diet is disgusting).
-
Europe is definitely a melting-pot...of sorts. They are still grappling with significant issues when it comes to assimilation, however, with cultural clashes and outright violence being sadly too common. The immigration that boosted the US so tremendously happened in a far different cultural, economic, and regulatory age. There was a greater expectation that immigrants would assimilate and bootstrap themselves, and the regulatory and welfare state jibed well with that. Getting to the US was harder, but naturalization was a lot easier, and you had to be self-sufficient. Nowadays, the existence of a rather extensive welfare state/social programs leads to the fear that people are coming to the US not to make an honest living for themselves, but to (in undiplomatic terms) mooch off the largesse of politicians spending Other People's Money. How much of that fear is based in reality, I don't know, and the politicians on both sides have a vested interest in not resolving that question :D
On a lighter note, and in an (probably vain) attempt to bring this back on topic, at least our military doesn't look like Russia's (https://www.reddit.com/r/RussianCircus/comments/vllfjl/67_year_old_russian_general_pavel_called_up_to/).
-
I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.
Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.
Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.
I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!
-
I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.
Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.
Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.
I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!
There's 3500 calories (Kilo is dropped) in a lb of fat. (1kg = 2.2 lbs) For many people weight loss can take a while. Avoiding type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, Cancer and other diseases should be an incentive, but they would rather give you pills than prevention in the United States. With all they've learned about eating and disease in the past two generations, you would think preventive medicine would be emphasized. OK - Sorry for the two cents. Back to Ukraine.
-
I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.
Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.
Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.
I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!
There's 3500 calories (Kilo is dropped) in a lb of fat. (1kg = 2.2 lbs) For many people weight loss can take a while. Avoiding type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, Cancer and other diseases should be an incentive, but they would rather give you pills than prevention in the United States. With all they've learned about eating and disease in the past two generations, you would think preventive medicine would be emphasized. OK - Sorry for the two cents. Back to Ukraine.
It's difficult to perform at a physical peak while restricting calories, and basic training is hard. Any significant weight loss will lead to severe underperformance and probably washing out. I'd guess that the upper limit for weight loss while maintaining reasonable performance is somewhere around 1 lb a week. Basic training takes somewhere between a month and a half and three months . . . so that's only really giving opportunity for a recruit to drop 6-12 lbs. If they're getting people who are 40 - 60 lbs overweight that's not going to work.
-
I predict countries like Germany are about to start seriously outperforming in coming decades.
Unfortunately we have our own share of racists here. Just today they are shouting (on X) for a Boykott of ALDI because ALDI used a black man in it's ads and some of them have said unnice things about that so they got blocked by the PR account.
Like the idea of providing mass soldiers like in WW2 just isnt feasible when most of the population is too fat to be a soldier. The flip side of that is that technology is reducing the need for soldiers/boots on the ground.
I alwys was under the impression that the soldiers bootcamp was a tried and tested method of getting said boots on hte ground in a leaner shape.
If you burn 3000kcal more than you eat each day, you will slim down fast. Also saves money for the military!
There's 3500 calories (Kilo is dropped) in a lb of fat. (1kg = 2.2 lbs) For many people weight loss can take a while. Avoiding type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, Cancer and other diseases should be an incentive, but they would rather give you pills than prevention in the United States. With all they've learned about eating and disease in the past two generations, you would think preventive medicine would be emphasized. OK - Sorry for the two cents. Back to Ukraine.
It's difficult to perform at a physical peak while restricting calories, and basic training is hard. Any significant weight loss will lead to severe underperformance and probably washing out. I'd guess that the upper limit for weight loss while maintaining reasonable performance is somewhere around 1 lb a week. Basic training takes somewhere between a month and a half and three months . . . so that's only really giving opportunity for a recruit to drop 6-12 lbs. If they're getting people who are 40 - 60 lbs overweight that's not going to work.
I came in at 150 and was down to 135-140 by the time I left (with significantly more muscle). I was also eating as much as I could and was still hungry as we only got our 3 meals a day in the dining facility of relatively healthy food. No snacks or other food was allowed, and we definitely couldn't get a burger or a desert plate like regular Soldiers.
I'm sure there were days I burned 4-5,000 calories such as when we did a 12-mile ruck march. I saw a lot of guys drop 20-30 pounds if they were already on the heavy side - i.e. they came in weighing over 200 lbs. and were under 6 feet tall. But if you were 40-60 pounds overweight you were never going to make it past the initial processing station. I do recall one guy at the processing station who made weight by 1 pound - he was about 5"6" and only weighed around 110 pounds.
-
Since nobody has posted in the last 20 days, I thought to give an update to all those who aren't following the war in details.
Sea:
First Ukraine managed to destroy 2 smaller ships on the "backside" of Crimea, further reducing the fighting and long range missiling capabilities of the Russians. That might be important for the surely to come attack on civil infrastruture this winter. It also places even more strain on the Russian fleet and logistics because they can't afford to lose a ship or two every 2 months, as it has been the case through this year.
Civil grain shippings have been going mor or less good in the East.
Land:
In the North, there have been extremely intensive battles around the town of Advijika. The Russians managed to get an important defensive position in the North of the town and a bit of land in the south, reducing the area Ukraine can use to supply the defenders in town.
However that came at a huge loss for Russians - about 10K troops and 200 armored vehicles in jsut 2 weeks.
And now the Russians seem to be stuck trying to get into the next village. A factory between the town and the above position give a clear shooting field for Ukrainians (as you can see by the losses) and every Russian advance is immediately under heavy fire from several directions. Also Ukrainian drones are spotting reinforcements as far as 10km away from the battle point, letting artillery rain on them bevore they can even reach the front.
At the moment it seems like a dicy standstill. My guess is the Russians will attack for 2 more weeks, suffering heavy losses, while the Ukrainians will hold the general position but losing a few stretches, making it an extremely dangerous position both to hold and counter attack.
In the middle around Tokmak the Ukrainian offensive seems to have completely stalled and the pocket they manged to get against anbelievable odds (and heavy casualties) is not likely to bring great strategic gains aside the surprisingly heavy losses of the Russians (still the ratio is worth then in other places).
In the South the little pockets of Ukrainian Infantry on the left/south side fo the Dnipro have increased in number and occupied territory.
It's not a real bridgehead so far, as there is only one confirmed heavy vehicle on this side, but the front is 35km long und slowly increasing. Russians tried to attack, but have been repelled. This is mainly because Ukrainians have free sight and fire lines from the other, higher side of the river. Russians even had to "relocate to better positions".
More to this, extremely fresh, from this Ukrainian (propaganda) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atb7_zrVTqM
If the Ukrainians can hold this village (Krynky), it might become a real bridgehead and such a major pain for the Russians.
-
Since nobody has posted in the last 20 days, I thought to give an update to all those who aren't following the war in details.
Sea:
First Ukraine managed to destroy 2 smaller ships on the "backside" of Crimea, further reducing the fighting and long range missiling capabilities of the Russians. That might be important for the surely to come attack on civil infrastruture this winter. It also places even more strain on the Russian fleet and logistics because they can't afford to lose a ship or two every 2 months, as it has been the case through this year.
Civil grain shippings have been going mor or less good in the East.
Land:
In the North, there have been extremely intensive battles around the town of Advijika. The Russians managed to get an important defensive position in the North of the town and a bit of land in the south, reducing the area Ukraine can use to supply the defenders in town.
However that came at a huge loss for Russians - about 10K troops and 200 armored vehicles in jsut 2 weeks.
And now the Russians seem to be stuck trying to get into the next village. A factory between the town and the above position give a clear shooting field for Ukrainians (as you can see by the losses) and every Russian advance is immediately under heavy fire from several directions. Also Ukrainian drones are spotting reinforcements as far as 10km away from the battle point, letting artillery rain on them bevore they can even reach the front.
At the moment it seems like a dicy standstill. My guess is the Russians will attack for 2 more weeks, suffering heavy losses, while the Ukrainians will hold the general position but losing a few stretches, making it an extremely dangerous position both to hold and counter attack.
In the middle around Tokmak the Ukrainian offensive seems to have completely stalled and the pocket they manged to get against anbelievable odds (and heavy casualties) is not likely to bring great strategic gains aside the surprisingly heavy losses of the Russians (still the ratio is worth then in other places).
In the South the little pockets of Ukrainian Infantry on the left/south side fo the Dnipro have increased in number and occupied territory.
It's not a real bridgehead so far, as there is only one confirmed heavy vehicle on this side, but the front is 35km long und slowly increasing. Russians tried to attack, but have been repelled. This is mainly because Ukrainians have free sight and fire lines from the other, higher side of the river. Russians even had to "relocate to better positions".
More to this, extremely fresh, from this Ukrainian (propaganda) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atb7_zrVTqM
If the Ukrainians can hold this village (Krynky), it might become a real bridgehead and such a major pain for the Russians.
Feel free to correct the following. It was from the top of my head.
There are a couple items that aren't so good. The EU cannot deliver all the shells that were promised. The EU promised a million shells, but due to production problems will only be able to deliver 300,000. US aid is, of course, tied up due to the strange business in the House of Representatives. Germany has stepped up its game and whereas they were slow to deliver in the past are now one of the chief contributors. I think Germany s still slow with the Taurus missile.
The GLSDB glide bombs promised by Saab and Boeing seem held up for unknown reasons.
F-16 training continues and the planes look to be ready when the training is completed.
Russia is building and has built additional factories for more munitions.
Unlike the EU, it is said that starving North Korea has delivered a great number of shells to Russia. Their workers are churning out more to aid Russia.
Russia is developing greater capabilities to use remote controlled drones.
Russia continues to use prisoners and new conscripts in meat waves. They will also conscript foreign workers. One news report said they are using Ukrainian POWs for some of their fighting. Since they have had years conscripting the men of Donetsk and Luhansk, this may be a reality.
Russia is gathering missiles to once again attack power stations and substations in cold weather.
Russia has gathered a fleet of oil tankers and is getting around the oil sanctions (not fully). Oil revenue enables them to pay for the "Special Military Operation."
Russia stopped export of refined diesel. More money coukd be made selling it abroad shorting internal supply needed for the harvest.
Laws are slowly being changed in Russia to bring back the old USSR (Or maybe something worse).
The value of the ruble has slipped to around 1 US cent per Ruble. (.011 US dollars)
With the problems in Israel, the press has largely begun to ignore the "Special Military Operation."
Hungary continues to support Russia and blocks EU actions. (God only knows why.)
Turkey has finally relented to allowing Sweden into NATO.
The Washington Post reported that a group of UKrainians blew up the Nordstream pipeline. (Seems like news that Russia would like to see. Wasn't there once a thing called fake news?)
Every couple of weeks some Russian threatens the world with Nukes. (I don't think the sky is falling.)
One Russian was recently killed by a wild boar in the Ukraine.
The Freedom of Russia Legion is still out there flying under the radar and making occasional forays into Russia.
Zelenskyy has fired some top officials to eliminate corruption. Ukraine wants to join the EU and it appears the EU welcomes them sans Hungary. This war with Russia must end first.
As of today one report of total Russian casualties is now Military personnel — aprx. 315620 people (+1330) That is another 1330 in the past 24 hours. How can any country sustain these losses and keep the folks back home so pacified?
So there's a couple of Rubles more of information.
-
In 20 years the Israel/Gaza conflict will be a footnote in history, but the Ukraine/Russia war will be seen as the thing which established the world order. Guess where all the attention went.
-
The ammo problem is indeed a big one for both sides. Russia had to turn down fire rates both because they might run out otherweise and because transporting gets ever more dangerous.
The thing for Ukraine is that Ukraine still mainly uses soviet arty, and there simply is no production line in the West to produce it. And not enough Western cannons OR ammo to switch fully.
Hungary continues to support Russia and blocks EU actions. (God only knows why.)
So much that Orban is called Putins submarine - in both EU and NATO.
Well, dictators like each other. The EU was pestering (and holding back money, that's what Orban wants now for agreeing to anything) him for such things as LGBTQ rights, control of the legislative and so on. Don't forget that Orban was the one that made SOROS the hate child of the west's righ wingers just to win his first election. He is really long in the game.
Zelenskyy has fired some top officials to eliminate corruption. Ukraine wants to join the EU and it appears the EU welcomes them sans Hungary. This war with Russia must end first.
Devils advocate: Or he is kicking out rivals and people who want to make peace even if that means losing half of Ukraine.
As of today one report of total Russian casualties is now Military personnel — aprx. 315620 people (+1330) That is another 1330 in the past 24 hours. How can any country sustain these losses and keep the folks back home so pacified?
Still the same answer:
1. History
2. Supression of reality and tellling them they get 3 month training (instead of the more realistic 3 weeks)
3. They are mostly recruited from the piss poor (remember: Stolen washing machines, surprise about asphalt roads). The army pays at least 5 times more than a job back at home (if you get one) and if you die, your family get's the equivalent of 10 years income, if not more.
4. Everyone who wanted to fight against fighting is either in prison, outside Russia, dead or very very careful.
-
Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?
In the middle around Tokmak the Ukrainian offensive seems to have completely stalled and the pocket they manged to get against anbelievable odds (and heavy casualties) is not likely to bring great strategic gains aside the surprisingly heavy losses of the Russians (still the ratio is worth then in other places).
I'm still a little in disbelief that this is what they came up with. Really, attack at the most obvious and heavily defended location and not get anywhere? That was it? Ukraine is certainly the better army though, they've been taking around 1:1 losses on the offense and 1:6+ on defense. I see those numbers continuing to move in their favor.
-
In 20 years the Israel/Gaza conflict will be a footnote in history, but the Ukraine/Russia war will be seen as the thing which established the world order. Guess where all the attention went.
People have short attention spans - especially in the media. The reality is the war in Ukraine has been going on for almost a decade now. It's not surprising it's no longer making front page news everyday - especially with relatively little movement on either side.
-
Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
You know what's worst than having a dictator in control of enough nuclear weapons to end the world? Having no one in control of those same nuclear weapons. Or having a dozen generals, oligarchs, warlords, etc. all fighting to control them.
-
I'm still a little in disbelief that this is what they came up with. Really, attack at the most obvious and heavily defended location and not get anywhere?
You forget that they attacked in other places too. But the main thing is: The reason WHY this area was so well defended is precisey because it is so important.
At the start there were 3 areas under attack, but realizing they were better defended and better mined than thought made the Ukrainians concentrate in one area. They did good - under the circumstances - but not good enough, not least because when they came close Russia through in everyone they could get hands on. That is part of the reason why Ukrainians could cross the Dnipro, troops from this area had been relocated to Tokmak area.
I dare say the Ukrainians would have liked to not try to break through at Tokmak, but to not risk losing support, they had to do something, and doing something at 3 positions did not work.
-
Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
You know what's worst than having a dictator in control of enough nuclear weapons to end the world? Having no one in control of those same nuclear weapons. Or having a dozen generals, oligarchs, warlords, etc. all fighting to control them.
This is where the realpolitik meets the moralizing, and it's why Russia has a good chance of winning the war.
-
Russia already lost. They lost about 2 weeks in, the rest of this is really just sorting out the details of whether they can hang onto a small part of a country they don't need for anything, after exchanging the majority of their conventional military power and mortgaging their economic future for a couple of generations at a minimum.
That's not to say that Ukraine will "win". Short of fully recovering all of their territory and joining the EU (and maybe even then) they have also lost.
It's a negative-sum game at this point.
-W
-
Last week I uninstalled the Twitter app from my phone because it was taking too much of my mind and time. Now I can only check on the war from by big desktop which I never have time to get to. Looks like not much has changed. I'm still pretty disappointed as the dubious support from the US and Europe and what IMO is the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years. I still see all the trends being the same, its just the time spent, lives lost, destruction caused, and money wasted getting there that I am in awe about. Also I see the deleterious effects of Russian propaganda everywhere. Really, this is the best policy we can come up with?
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
You know what's worst than having a dictator in control of enough nuclear weapons to end the world? Having no one in control of those same nuclear weapons. Or having a dozen generals, oligarchs, warlords, etc. all fighting to control them.
As far as I can tell, for 15+ years Russia has been doing everything in its power to weaken, damage, and destroy Europe and the US and all associated countries. Collapsing Russia without the need for aggression or internal interference should be an acceptable or desirable policy outcome or even a goal to reduce damage and risk to our own nations. No more propping up a nation that wants to destroy us.
-
I'm still a little in disbelief that this is what they came up with. Really, attack at the most obvious and heavily defended location and not get anywhere?
You forget that they attacked in other places too. But the main thing is: The reason WHY this area was so well defended is precisey because it is so important.
At the start there were 3 areas under attack, but realizing they were better defended and better mined than thought made the Ukrainians concentrate in one area. They did good - under the circumstances - but not good enough, not least because when they came close Russia through in everyone they could get hands on. That is part of the reason why Ukrainians could cross the Dnipro, troops from this area had been relocated to Tokmak area.
I dare say the Ukrainians would have liked to not try to break through at Tokmak, but to not risk losing support, they had to do something, and doing something at 3 positions did not work.
Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage. Seen through that lens, the summer offensive was just another necessary step and would have contributed the same effort regardless of where or how it happened. Still, I can't help but think that somewhere (especially in foreign aid to Ukraine) somebody could have done more to increase attrition so that Ukraine could have had more success.
-
Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.
Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.
-
Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.
Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.
Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre. That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive.
Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor. That could have been a lot worse.
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.
That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. The population differences are too great. I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance. Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!). The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.
-
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.
That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. The population differences are too great. I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance. Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!). The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.
Foreign policy has little or no impact on the average American. That's the benefit of being the sole superpower - there's very little that could rise to the level of an existential threat when an enemy would need to cross an ocean to invade a very large and very heavily armed country. Considering the US is the only military with significant global power projection (i.e. the ability to deploy tens or hundreds of thousands of troops anywhere in the world) even China and Russia aren't truly threats to the homeland - unless things devolve to nuclear war.
Most presidential elections are based on domestic policy where arguably the President has limited power. Meanwhile foreign policy - where the President has far greater power - gets relatively little attention in the voting booth.
Americans just don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world because quite frankly they don't need to care. The US is so powerful, and has been for so many generations, that even when we massively screw up foreign policy it still presents very little real threat to the average American.
-
In the Russia/Ukraine thing, the US is pretty clearly on the moral side. In a conflict where that moral clarity is lacking, many people become concerned with government support of one faction.
-
Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.
Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.
Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre. That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive.
Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor. That could have been a lot worse.
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.
That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. The population differences are too great. I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance. Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!). The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.
Yes, but the US didn't win because of Midway. It won because of a huge overmatch in productive capacity, resources, technology, and population. Midway was just a coincidental manifestation of that. The US would have won within at most two years of when it did regardless of the details.
On it's own Ukraine can't win, but that's not because of population it's because Russia can easily strike all Ukrainian production centers, while Ukraine is likely unable to hit more than a small fraction of Russian territory for years to come. They need the safe industrial capacity of "the West". Even then I'd have to agree that if Russia turtled up it could become unwinnable for Ukraine absent much more and more potent Western weapons than we've seen transferred so far. Fortunately Russia has not turtled up, and Ukraine is well on track to win a war of attrition. I just wish the rate of attrition of Russian forces was faster.
-
Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.
Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.
Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre. That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive.
Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor. That could have been a lot worse.
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.
That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. The population differences are too great. I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance. Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!). The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.
Yes, but the US didn't win because of Midway. It won because of a huge overmatch in productive capacity, resources, technology, and population. Midway was just a coincidental manifestation of that. The US would have won within at most two years of when it did regardless of the details.
On it's own Ukraine can't win, but that's not because of population it's because Russia can easily strike all Ukrainian production centers, while Ukraine is likely unable to hit more than a small fraction of Russian territory for years to come. They need the safe industrial capacity of "the West". Even then I'd have to agree that if Russia turtled up it could become unwinnable for Ukraine absent much more and more potent Western weapons than we've seen transferred so far. Fortunately Russia has not turtled up, and Ukraine is well on track to win a war of attrition. I just wish the rate of attrition of Russian forces was faster.
Turtle up - To go on the defensive. To make oneself incapable of harm or damage.
To some extent, it seems like they have done this with their World Wat 1 style trench lines. Perhaps after Putin's election, they will discontinue the meat wave attacks and even the civilian attacks. Despite their boasting rhetoric, Russia has lost a lot and it is conceivable that they'll hunker down and do the turtle up thing to simply retain the stolen ground.
-
That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. The population differences are too great. I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance. Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!). The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.
I'm with you 100% on people being too easily distracted. 'Hey look, a red herring!'
With regard to Ukraine's ability to win a war of attrition against Russia: it depends, really.
One big factor is the attrition ratio. If Ukraine can kill enough Russians for every Ukrainian life lost, it can in fact win a war of attrition against Russia. This factor is driven by a lot of other factors, most notably Western military aid to Ukraine. The more aid the better, and the sooner the war might be over. It's also worth bearing in mind that we're dealing with Russia in 2023, not the Soviet Union in 1941. It has fewer manpower reserves than the USSR did because its population is smaller and has a lower percentage of military-age individuals.
Ukraine obviously won't have to kill every last Russian though, because another big factor is Ukraine and Russia's relative pain thresholds. In a war of attrition, belligerents inflict losses on each other (how tidy a term for killing, wounding, maiming and destroying!) until one side is no longer willing or able to continue. As long as Ukrainians perceive the war as a struggle for national survival, they will be willing to make great sacrifices to continue the war. In other words, their point of unwillingness to continue the war will be relatively close to their point of inability to continue the war. Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat. Consequently it will not be willing to make as great sacrifices as Ukraine. Just how high Russia's pain threshold is is unknowable in advance, of course.
Taking these factors into account, I could see Ukraine defeating Russia in a war of attrition. It's very far from a sure thing though. It could go the other way too, especially if Western aid for Ukraine wanes.
-
Could be. While following the war in Ukraine on Twitter I came across Phillips O'Brien who argues there were no decisive battles in the Second World War, only ongoing attrition until one side gained decisive advantage.
Midway comes to mind where Japan lost 2/3rds of their fleet carriers in one day.
Midway also came to my mind, that was a very decisive turn of the Pacific theatre. That essentially eliminated Japan's ability to be on the offensive.
Or, the luck involved that the US carrier fleet was not at port during Pearl Harbor. That could have been a lot worse.
It's the best policy when you realize the true aim is not for Ukraine to win, just for Russia to get bogged down and bleed out blood and treasure. Push too hard and the Russia state could collapse.
I think Xi realizes this too; China benefits from a weakened Russia, one he can more easily exploit.
That said, Ukraine alone cannot win a war of attrition against Russia. The population differences are too great. I think Ukraine could hold out on the defensive for a while without help, but taking their land back will require a lot of external assistance. Just wish our media and media consumers weren't so fickle (oh look, people continue to slaughter each other in the middle east!). The Ukraine/Russia war has far greater implications for the world.
Yes, but the US didn't win because of Midway. It won because of a huge overmatch in productive capacity, resources, technology, and population. Midway was just a coincidental manifestation of that. The US would have won within at most two years of when it did regardless of the details.
On it's own Ukraine can't win, but that's not because of population it's because Russia can easily strike all Ukrainian production centers, while Ukraine is likely unable to hit more than a small fraction of Russian territory for years to come. They need the safe industrial capacity of "the West". Even then I'd have to agree that if Russia turtled up it could become unwinnable for Ukraine absent much more and more potent Western weapons than we've seen transferred so far. Fortunately Russia has not turtled up, and Ukraine is well on track to win a war of attrition. I just wish the rate of attrition of Russian forces was faster.
Turtle up - To go on the defensive. To make oneself incapable of harm or damage.
To some extent, it seems like they have done this with their World Wat 1 style trench lines. Perhaps after Putin's election, they will discontinue the meat wave attacks and even the civilian attacks. Despite their boasting rhetoric, Russia has lost a lot and it is conceivable that they'll hunker down and do the turtle up thing to simply retain the stolen ground.
Surovikin began a turtle up strategy, but whoever is in charge now seems intent on degrading Russia to nothing with pointless quasi-zerg-rushes which create enormous losses for little to no gains.
-
Taking these factors into account, I could see Ukraine defeating Russia in a war of attrition. It's very far from a sure thing though. It could go the other way too, especially if Western aid for Ukraine wanes.
Either the US or Europe could easily hand Ukraine a decisive win if they wanted. Even some single EU countries like UK, France, or Germany could singly tip the scale toward a Ukraine win if they had the will. Essentially the fate of Russia and Ukraine depends on the whims of others. For that reason propaganda is the most decisive front of the war. Russia is putting a huge effort into it and it is having an effect. People ignoring that are making an enormous mistake.
-
It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country. That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg. How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete? If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age. That's a lot of people to chew through.
-
It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country. That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg. How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete? If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age. That's a lot of people to chew through.
That's solid logic but your priors are incorrect.
About 81% of Russia's population is ethnic Russian. And the vast majority of the population lives in the far west (75 percent live in the Moscow/St Pete side of the Urals).
So while there are plenty of destitute minorities that get treated like crap in the east (we have forms of that in the US too, I suppose) there definitely aren't 10 million of them available to to sent off to be human land mine detectors. There are about 25million ethnic minority citizens, of which ~12.5 million are male, of which maybe (maybe) 20% are of the right age/health to fight. So a couple million available, assuming you can force every single one to go fight. And that's prewar numbers, a lot of them are dead or badly injured now.
Russia's 18-30 or so age cohort is also very small (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg).
That all being said, Ukraine has even fewer people available given that it's 1/4 of the population and equally old-person heavy, at least according to estimates. It looks like there has not been a real census since 2001.
-W
-
It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country. That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg. How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete? If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age. That's a lot of people to chew through.
This is part of the reason why material attrition is so important. Russia's weak link isn't it's population size, it's its stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, and its training. At the beginning of the war Ukraine would have taken around 2:1 or greater casualties (bad for Ukraine) attacking a prepared defense. Because of improved Western training and equipment for Ukraine along with lower quality Russian troops and reduced quality of equipment, this summer it was 1:1 (still too high for Ukraine to win in all probability.) Ukraine may have originally caused 1:3 casualties on defense, rising to 1:6+ in Bakhmut against underequipped prisoners. It's probably 1:6+ right now against the regular Russian army in Avdiivka. Russian equipment will continue to get sparser and worse, while Ukraine will tap NATO supplies and training and become better. Eventually Russia's larger population won't matter at all. But Ukraine needs a lot of Western equipment to make that happen.
-
This is a really interesting point about the age cohort. Has there ever been a war in history with the aging populations we see worldwide (with the exception of Africa)? And as this is projected to only increase, how will this style of fighting continue? Even biologically, I think men are much less inclined to fight and kill other men as they age over say 35 or 40. Will all fighting be robots vs robots?
-
It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country. That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg. How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete? If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age. That's a lot of people to chew through.
This is part of the reason why material attrition is so important. Russia's weak link isn't it's population size, it's its stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, and its training. At the beginning of the war Ukraine would have taken around 2:1 or greater casualties (bad for Ukraine) attacking a prepared defense. Because of improved Western training and equipment for Ukraine along with lower quality Russian troops and reduced quality of equipment, this summer it was 1:1 (still too high for Ukraine to win in all probability.) Ukraine may have originally caused 1:3 casualties on defense, rising to 1:6+ in Bakhmut against underequipped prisoners. It's probably 1:6+ right now against the regular Russian army in Avdiivka. Russian equipment will continue to get sparser and worse, while Ukraine will tap NATO supplies and training and become better. Eventually Russia's larger population won't matter at all. But Ukraine needs a lot of Western equipment to make that happen.
Russia is still a big country with a lot of resources. I get the impression that they manufacture armaments continuously while Ukraine receives piecemeal shipments. Some promises like the EU's promise to deliver a million shells are not kept. Russia is not Western. Perhaps, they do not suffer from the short attention span that it appears we in the West have. As the West ignores this conflict, Russia builds new factories.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/)
From the article:
"This was Russia’s billion-dollar weapons deal with Iran coming to life in November, 500 miles east of Moscow in the Tatarstan region. Its aim is to domestically build 6,000 drones by summer 2025 — enough to reverse the Russian army’s chronic shortages of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, on the front line. If it succeeds, the sprawling new drone factory could help Russia preserve its dwindling supply of precision munitions, thwart Ukraine’s effort to retake occupied territory and dramatically advance Moscow’s position in the drone arms race that is remaking modern warfare."
Russia still has a lot of oil money coming in. Russia can sell stolen Ukrainian grain as well as their own. They use a seeming endless supply of tanks and other old munitions built in Soviet times. Using this old stuff costs them only the lives of prisoners when it is blown up forcing Ukraine to use its scarce munitions.
Russia is stockpiling a huge arsenal of missiles for use this Winter against Ukrainian civilians.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-stockpiling-these-weapons-winter-attacks-ukraine-1840462 (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-stockpiling-these-weapons-winter-attacks-ukraine-1840462)
How can Ukraine win this war of attrition when Russia can strike at civilians and Ukraine cannot?
It is said most Russians take little interest in this war. They do not get emotionally upset when their country commits atrocities.
Sadly, I think a lot of the Western world takes the same attitude as the Russians.
-
This is a really interesting point about the age cohort. Has there ever been a war in history with the aging populations we see worldwide (with the exception of Africa)? And as this is projected to only increase, how will this style of fighting continue? Even biologically, I think men are much less inclined to fight and kill other men as they age over say 35 or 40. Will all fighting be robots vs robots?
It's always been the old men making the young men fight. Thus demographic graying means more war instigators and a smaller, less influential demographic to bear the burden.
-
It bears reiterating that so far, Russia has fed its pre-existing army, including its elite troops, into the meat grinder, followed by its prison population and destitute ethnic minority population from the "district 12"s of the country. That has enabled them to minimize pushback from the wealthier, better-educated, more productive, and more cosmopolitan population in Moscow and St. Petersburg. How long can Putin continue to staff the front lines without the impact being felt in Moscow and St. Pete? If we assume half the country is far enough east that Putin doesn't care about them, that's 70 million, of which perhaps 10 million are males of fighting age. That's a lot of people to chew through.
This is part of the reason why material attrition is so important. Russia's weak link isn't it's population size, it's its stockpiles and manufacturing capacity, and its training. At the beginning of the war Ukraine would have taken around 2:1 or greater casualties (bad for Ukraine) attacking a prepared defense. Because of improved Western training and equipment for Ukraine along with lower quality Russian troops and reduced quality of equipment, this summer it was 1:1 (still too high for Ukraine to win in all probability.) Ukraine may have originally caused 1:3 casualties on defense, rising to 1:6+ in Bakhmut against underequipped prisoners. It's probably 1:6+ right now against the regular Russian army in Avdiivka. Russian equipment will continue to get sparser and worse, while Ukraine will tap NATO supplies and training and become better. Eventually Russia's larger population won't matter at all. But Ukraine needs a lot of Western equipment to make that happen.
Russia is still a big country with a lot of resources. I get the impression that they manufacture armaments continuously while Ukraine receives piecemeal shipments. Some promises like the EU's promise to deliver a million shells are not kept. Russia is not Western. Perhaps, they do not suffer from the short attention span that it appears we in the West have. As the West ignores this conflict, Russia builds new factories.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/)
From the article:
"This was Russia’s billion-dollar weapons deal with Iran coming to life in November, 500 miles east of Moscow in the Tatarstan region. Its aim is to domestically build 6,000 drones by summer 2025 — enough to reverse the Russian army’s chronic shortages of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, on the front line. If it succeeds, the sprawling new drone factory could help Russia preserve its dwindling supply of precision munitions, thwart Ukraine’s effort to retake occupied territory and dramatically advance Moscow’s position in the drone arms race that is remaking modern warfare."
Russia still has a lot of oil money coming in. Russia can sell stolen Ukrainian grain as well as their own. They use a seeming endless supply of tanks and other old munitions built in Soviet times. Using this old stuff costs them only the lives of prisoners when it is blown up forcing Ukraine to use its scarce munitions.
Russia is stockpiling a huge arsenal of missiles for use this Winter against Ukrainian civilians.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-stockpiling-these-weapons-winter-attacks-ukraine-1840462 (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-stockpiling-these-weapons-winter-attacks-ukraine-1840462)
How can Ukraine win this war of attrition when Russia can strike at civilians and Ukraine cannot?
It is said most Russians take little interest in this war. They do not get emotionally upset when their country commits atrocities.
Sadly, I think a lot of the Western world takes the same attitude as the Russians.
Of these, I only really see drones and attacks on power generation having much impact. However drones thus far are a supplement to rather than a replacement for other assets. Attacks on power generation will not affect manufacturing in Western nations. Attacks on civilians will not have little to no impact on the outcome. Russia's equipment stockpiles are not limitless, and their burn rate of artillery and armor vastly exceeds their current or near-term production capacity. Ukraine's military effectiveness relative to Russia roughly doubled over the first 18 months of the war, and may double again over the next 18 months. Pending sufficient support from Ukraine's partners of course.
-
This is a really interesting point about the age cohort. Has there ever been a war in history with the aging populations we see worldwide (with the exception of Africa)? And as this is projected to only increase, how will this style of fighting continue? Even biologically, I think men are much less inclined to fight and kill other men as they age over say 35 or 40. Will all fighting be robots vs robots?
The Latin root of the word Infantry is infantem which means "a youth". There's a reason to recruit people at 18 when they still think they're invincible and don't have as much to lose (i.e. family, spouse, comfortable life, civilian career, etc.).
There are plenty of wars fought with only tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Even with declining youth populations there are still plenty of potential Soldiers even in a country like Russia.
-
Here is a side-by-side military comparison of Russia and Ukraine.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=russia&country2=ukraine
I don't know how meaningful it is. For example, Russia is listed with 12,000 tanks. I doubt all of those are battle ready. But Russia has a lot more of everything, including potential soliders.
We haven't been getting a ton of credible casualty reports, but it seems as if Russian losses are running at something like 11:1 when attacking and 1:1 when defending. Which are really high loss rates. But as high as they are Ukraine needs them to be even higher.
-
Here is a side-by-side military comparison of Russia and Ukraine.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=russia&country2=ukraine
I don't know how meaningful it is. For example, Russia is listed with 12,000 tanks. I doubt all of those are battle ready. But Russia has a lot more of everything, including potential soliders.
We haven't been getting a ton of credible casualty reports, but it seems as if Russian losses are running at something like 11:1 when attacking and 1:1 when defending. Which are really high loss rates. But as high as they are Ukraine needs them to be even higher.
My go-to open source to track attrition is the Oryx website (and I really hope it continues to get updated).
Ukrainian losses: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html)
Russian losses: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
These are minimum estimates. For big slow frontline trophies like tanks there is evidence Oryx captures ~80% of losses. For artillery far behind lines losses are probably much higher than listed. For small fast drones that are hard to find and nobody cares to brag about anyway it's probably much higher again.
I think that this resource also serves to provide a baseline for personnel casualty ratios between the two sides. Subtracting drones isn't a big deal but I think it should be done, which right now gives a ratio of 4392:12816, or 1:2.92. However differences in culture and purpose play an additional role. Ukraine is fighting a bottom up war to preserve its people, while Russia is fighting a top down war to rid of people (on both sides) it regards as anti-Russia. Russian internal and external propaganda and culture emphasize that Russians are willing to die in huge numbers for czar and country. Therefore I would multiply that ratio by 1.5, giving ~1:4.5 overall (or in the range of 3.5-6). I think that shows Ukraine is on track to win a war of population attrition. However, I think something else will become a deciding factor long before Russia runs out of people. Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.
The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine. They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.
The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine. They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?
I've seen a lot of commentators say that despite being a virtual Czar, Putin still worries what the Russian populace think. It is said that this is keeping him from doing another draft.
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.
The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine. They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?
Because then they'd have to start conscripting population from the more affluent areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Then, the war becomes VERY unpopular.
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
There are a few theories.
1) For a long time, it was "we don't want to give Russia a reason to escalate." The ensuing salami-slicing, i.e. very gradually increasing the power and quality of the support we provide, would be consistent with that approach. It's a frog-boiling approach.
2) The realpolitik may be one of "we want to destroy Russia's ability to fight, without doing so suddenly and spooking a massive reaction." A few months ago, I saw an estimate that Russia has lost 50% of its military capacity over the last 18 months in Ukraine. Currently, Russia is feeding a constant stream of men and equipment into the meat grinder. If Ukraine had overwhelming military capability, Russia could withdraw, preserving its troops. In other words, Russia may deplete itself more thoroughly in a protracted war than in a swift defeat.
3) Russia has a lot of global influence. A sudden (and big) military defeat may increase the probability of a government collapse, a coup, a domino effect of other countries leaving Russia's orbit, or perhaps an opening for China to make a move against Russia in the east. Instability in a nuclear-armed country is something that could go very, very wrong. But even without the nuclear factor, there are a lot of knock-on effects of a major government collapse.
I hate all of these reasons, because in the meantime, Ukraine is taking a terrible beating. And there may be even more reasons.
-
Also I think it is immoral for "the West" to allow a war of population attrition when they could easily supply weapons and economic pressure to defeat Russia quickly.
I agree. Why aren't we doing that?
It's the million-life question and I don't know the answer. And regardless of the answer, I'd like to see some action to address it.
The other thing I wonder about is why Russia is using such a small force in Ukraine. They've certainly fielded much larger armies in the past, why are they not doing that now?
Because then they'd have to start conscripting population from the more affluent areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Then, the war becomes VERY unpopular.
Also, this isn't the Soviet Union anymore. A significant amount of industrial and personnel strength from those days are now split up into the individual nations (especially Ukraine). Russia's military industry and ability to mobilize the population atrophied significantly since 1992. The Russian Army in Feb 2022 was about 400k with a reserve mobilization potential of about 2 million. They appear to have put about 300k back in uniform and look for creative ways to get more manpower like emptying the prisons. Their manpower pipeline is limited by available trainers, equipment, and how much time they want to spend training vs getting bodies on the front. If Shoigu is to be believed they can process 20k mobiks per month. The grand Red Army of tens of thousands of tanks now produces about 20 new hulls per month. They're able to refurbish about 100 more per month from deep storage across all of their factories and maintenance yards; however, those 12k tanks quoted on wikipedia is likely less than half of that number. It takes 30-60 days to turn a tank that has been sitting in the snow for 30 years into a useable machine. They're running a deficit between tanks destroyed and tanks rebuilt to replace them. Artillery and armored personnel carriers are also in similar straits. They losing them far faster than they can be replaced, but will likely run out in 18-24 months if nothing changes. Russia just bought 300k to 1 million artillery shells from North Korea. If their industry was able to keep up with demand this wouldn't be necessary.
-
Here's sort of a mental model of how I see this playing out. In the 1st year Russia could deliver 4,000 operational first and second rate tanks to Ukraine. In the 2nd year they could deliver 3,000 mostly second rate. In the 3rd year they can deliver 2,000. In the 4th year 1,000, then 500 per year indefinitely. Each year they lose half of everything fielded, and half of what is left is cannibalized to keep the last quarter running, so they retain 25%. That gives the following numbers of tanks fielded per year:
4,000 (2022)
4,000 (2023)
3,000 (2024)
1,750 (2025)
938 (2026)
... converging to 666 which makes sense. They will never actually run out of tanks (or anything else), but eventually the numbers and quality in the field will drop below what is needed to sustain the intensity of the combat. And ditto for other equipment. So the first and second years are quite sustainable, but things get rougher in the 3rd year and dire beyond that. There is a huge drop as they transition from their stockpiles to their production capacity. My argument is that sometime between Russian intensity of 4,000 and 666 tanks fielded per year Ukraine will become strong enough to overwhelm their efforts. In practice it will look like Russia suffering proportionally more and more personnel casualties to accomplish less and less.
-
Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat.
It's a war of survival for Putin too. So "Russia" has to lose literally everything. It won't stop. Which is why should give Ukraine whatever we can.
Not to mention that Putin is fighting a war of attention attrition - just look what Israel has done to the attention on Ukraine.
If Trump wins and stops delivering help, Ukraine is going to lose the war. The EU, even if willing, is not able to produce that much miliary stuff.
The German Bundeswehr can't even manage to repair a sailing training ship or the chancellor's airplane. Literally.
-
Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat.
It's a war of survival for Putin too. So "Russia" has to lose literally everything. It won't stop. Which is why should give Ukraine whatever we can.
Not to mention that Putin is fighting a war of attention attrition - just look what Israel has done to the attention on Ukraine.
If Trump wins and stops delivering help, Ukraine is going to lose the war. The EU, even if willing, is not able to produce that much miliary stuff.
The German Bundeswehr can't even manage to repair a sailing training ship or the chancellor's airplane. Literally.
Yes - I think it's up to the US (& Canada) for now. IF Putin can be held off from this conquest, the situation will greatly change in the next few years. Other than Hungary, I get the impression that Europe is united for democracy. Poland and other countries are arming to ready themselves for this new emerging Russian empire but they are not there yet. If Putin can be driven from Ukraine, it is certain that they will support a strong military.
-
I'd assume Western leaders are enjoying this moment when Putin's time & energy are consumed with a failure of his own making, instead of jerking them around as much as he normally does. They see no advantage to ending it.
-
I'd assume Western leaders are enjoying this moment when Putin's time & energy are consumed with a failure of his own making, instead of jerking them around as much as he normally does. They see no advantage to ending it.
Seems like lots of people are dying needlessly. Lots of the world's resources are being expended towards this foolish war. Those resources could be used to do a lot of good. Maybe, those are reasons enough to end it.
-
Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat.
It's a war of survival for Putin too. So "Russia" has to lose literally everything. It won't stop. Which is why should give Ukraine whatever we can.
I agree with you about the need to give Ukraine whatever we can and Putin fighting for his personal survival. However, I do not think that Putin fighting for his personal survival will translate into Russia pursuing this war to the last. Putin relies on elites like oligarchs and the security services to perpetuate his reign. I think there will come a point where these elites will find a palace coup preferable to a continuation of the war.
I'd assume Western leaders are enjoying this moment when Putin's time & energy are consumed with a failure of his own making, instead of jerking them around as much as he normally does. They see no advantage to ending it.
Seems like lots of people are dying needlessly. Lots of the world's resources are being expended towards this foolish war. Those resources could be used to do a lot of good. Maybe, those are reasons enough to end it.
Agreed. I don't think there is any Western plan to draw out the war. Previously there were concerns over escalation that held back aid, now it seems to be politicians not wanting to lose public support by being seen to be 'giving away' too much to a foreign country. And in the case of many EU countries: not having that much military equipment to give away in the first place (through their own fault, but that's water under the bridge).
-
Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat.
It's a war of survival for Putin too. So "Russia" has to lose literally everything. It won't stop. Which is why should give Ukraine whatever we can.
I agree with you about the need to give Ukraine whatever we can and Putin fighting for his personal survival. However, I do not think that Putin fighting for his personal survival will translate into Russia pursuing this war to the last. Putin relies on elites like oligarchs and the security services to perpetuate his reign. I think there will come a point where these elites will find a palace coup preferable to a continuation of the war.
Yes. When Ukrainian forces are busy marching into the Russian core land.
So far there is not much to gain from a coup for the oligarchs (the needed insourcing of diverse stuff might give great new opportunities isntead), but a lot to lose for them. On the other side it's extremely hard to go against the security aparatus, and you never know when someone might play with a grenade in your airplane.
-
Russia on the other hand is fighting a war of aggression and has far less to lose from a defeat.
It's a war of survival for Putin too. So "Russia" has to lose literally everything. It won't stop. Which is why should give Ukraine whatever we can.
I agree with you about the need to give Ukraine whatever we can and Putin fighting for his personal survival. However, I do not think that Putin fighting for his personal survival will translate into Russia pursuing this war to the last. Putin relies on elites like oligarchs and the security services to perpetuate his reign. I think there will come a point where these elites will find a palace coup preferable to a continuation of the war.
Yes. When Ukrainian forces are busy marching into the Russian core land.
So far there is not much to gain from a coup for the oligarchs (the needed insourcing of diverse stuff might give great new opportunities isntead), but a lot to lose for them. On the other side it's extremely hard to go against the security aparatus, and you never know when someone might play with a grenade in your airplane.
Do the Oligarchs really have much real control over things in Russia? I've read that Oligarchs originally helped put Putin in power. Over the years these Oligarchs have been replaced with those whom Putin has more favor. He can replace them at any time if they displease him. He and the old cronies have the modern incarnation of the KGB at their disposal. So Putin has people keeping an eye on everyone including the Oligarchs. They are like members of the court of the Czar. If they displease Putin, they are gone.
The military may be the organization to watch, but it's kind of obvious that officers that don't toe the line are replaced. We've seen that any public criticism to the operations of the Special Military Operation will have high ranking officers replaced. I heard a story that few rank and file soldiers actually get to go home. The best they can hope for is to be assigned to another Russian military location.
Putin was a young man living through the fall of the Soviet Union. He has studied the history of the Czars. I believe he has learned from the mistakes of older leaders and does not intend to make those same mistakes himself. The arrests of people holding blank sheets of paper, displaying yellow and blue drinking straws and other actions that seem trivial show the effort he will have his people take to ensure that the "proper thought" abounds in the country. Don't forget that he has modified the education system to instill desired values into the young of the country.
This stuff has worked in North Korea for a very long time. Why not Russia?
-
Interesting tidbit from Awdijiwka: The Russians stopped trying to create an encirclement by throwing ever more soldiers into the grinder.
Instead they now attack everywhere around the town, trying to spread the defenses thin enough. In the southeat they attacked a bridge and managed to arty the defenders out of the trenches.
However there was an MG nest in the bridge footing just behind. Russia spend quite a bit of ammunition - arty, RPG, meat - to get this especially stubborn defender to shut up.
They finally succeeded in conquering the bridge, but all they found... was a remote controlled MG. Ukraine may not have ground battle drones, but I wager this contraption was effective enough in the attrition math.
-
The Washington Post reported that a group of UKrainians blew up the Nordstream pipeline. (Seems like news that Russia would like to see. Wasn't there once a thing called fake news?)
Washington Post has been publishing that same claim every few months with the same "anonymous sources" to back it up.
Utter rubbish.
-
The ammo problem is indeed a big one for both sides. Russia had to turn down fire rates both because they might run out otherweise and because transporting gets ever more dangerous.
The thing for Ukraine is that Ukraine still mainly uses soviet arty, and there simply is no production line in the West to produce it. And not enough Western cannons OR ammo to switch fully.
Hm? It only took a quick Google search to find a European supplier of 152mm shells. Plus Ukraine started making their own almost a year ago.
https://www.msm.sk/en/products/defence/ammunition/artillery-ammo/152-mm-he-er-bb/
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/12/13/7380603/
-
Twitter user Naalsio26 https://twitter.com/naalsio26 shows Russia taking 12:1(+) losses attacking Avdiivka, while Ukraine is 1:1(-) attacking Zaporizhia (spelled both wrong). And that is equipment only, personnel losses I expect favor Ukraine by 1.5x1 or so relative to equipment losses, making these 18:1 and 1.5:1 (seems too optimistic when I say it like that). That's encouraging for winning a war of attrition and the Zaporizhia numbers trended in Ukraine's favor a bit recently.
Still hyper disappointed at NATO's weak support.
-
The ammo problem is indeed a big one for both sides. Russia had to turn down fire rates both because they might run out otherweise and because transporting gets ever more dangerous.
The thing for Ukraine is that Ukraine still mainly uses soviet arty, and there simply is no production line in the West to produce it. And not enough Western cannons OR ammo to switch fully.
Hm? It only took a quick Google search to find a European supplier of 152mm shells. Plus Ukraine started making their own almost a year ago.
https://www.msm.sk/en/products/defence/ammunition/artillery-ammo/152-mm-he-er-bb/
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/12/13/7380603/
Okay, let's clarify. "In the West" here meant Cold Era West. But even the old soviet states like Slovakia have reduced production capacity - and don't forget that the East of Ukraine was a major arms producing center. I don't know if they also did arty ammo, but I would be surprised if not.
As for Avdijiwka: It seems the Russian offensive, at least in the Northern prong, has not only stopped but was actually thrown back a bit. Ukraine claimed a few hundred meters and such important point to prevent a wider encirclement, while they attack the logistical hub 20km in North, forcing Russia to deploy the reserves stationed there for Avdijiwka. It may not look like it, with territory gains only measured in a few hundred meters per week, but this is a highly changing battlefield.
-
OK Here's today's totals.
25.11.2023
Tanks — 5502 (+6)
Armored fighting vehicle — 10263 (+7)
Artillery systems — 7851 (+18)
MLRS — 905 (+1)
Anti-aircraft warfare — 596 (+1)
Planes — 323
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 5808 (+8)
Cruise missiles — 1565 (+1)
Ships (boats) — 22
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 10259 (+29)
Special equipment — 1112 (+4)
Military personnel — aprx. 323760 people (+860)
Those numbers in parenthesis are in the past 24 hours. We've had some discussions whether the 323,760 is too high of a number for the deaths, but more and more sources seem to be accepting that it is a valid number.
I've been looking for a number for the Russians killed in the meatwaves sent to take the ruined city of Avdiivka. This article reveals that the Russians had a real Black Friday after US Thanksgiving.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24563 (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24563)
I just wonder if the fact that the Russians will simply let their people die will lead them to a sort of victory in this war. Throughout history they've sent screaming hordes of people to eventually overwhelm the enemy. They take enormous losses themselves but apparently that is expected as a part of Ruski Mir. Interest seems to be waning in parts of the West and right wing politicians seem to be willing to stymie further efforts at aid. This action by these politicians is both bewildering and a tragedy.
-
This action by these politicians is both bewildering and a tragedy.
You spelled 'bought and paid for' wrong. These are the same morons who quite happily expended a trillion dollars and thousands of US soldiers to accomplish precisely nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Interest seems to be waning in parts of the West and right wing politicians seem to be willing to stymie further efforts at aid. This action by these politicians is both bewildering and a tragedy.
Just for context here, my understanding is that the house has passed an aid bill for Israel (paid for by cuts to the IRS - remember the extra $80B allocated to the IRS under the rather-Orwellian-sounding Inflation Reduction Act?), and similarly wants to tie Ukraine aid to increased border security.
As disgusting as it is, it's realpolitik. Democrats overwhelmingly support aid to Ukraine, as do most Republicans. And politicians on both sides of the aisle want to advance their agendas on the coattails. It's pork barrel politics, except they're seeking policy instead of dollars.
As a datapoint, my next door neighbor is pretty MAGA, and when I talked to him shortly after the US started sending stuff to Ukraine, he was pretty bothered by the aid. His attitude seemed to soften when I explained to him that "these weapons were made to kill Russians, and that's exactly what they're doing. We're just letting Ukrainians pull the trigger."
-
Interest seems to be waning in parts of the West and right wing politicians seem to be willing to stymie further efforts at aid. This action by these politicians is both bewildering and a tragedy.
Just for context here, my understanding is that the house has passed an aid bill for Israel (paid for by cuts to the IRS - remember the extra $80B allocated to the IRS under the rather-Orwellian-sounding Inflation Reduction Act?), and similarly wants to tie Ukraine aid to increased border security.
As disgusting as it is, it's realpolitik. Democrats overwhelmingly support aid to Ukraine, as do most Republicans. And politicians on both sides of the aisle want to advance their agendas on the coattails. It's pork barrel politics, except they're seeking policy instead of dollars.
As a datapoint, my next door neighbor is pretty MAGA, and when I talked to him shortly after the US started sending stuff to Ukraine, he was pretty bothered by the aid. His attitude seemed to soften when I explained to him that "these weapons were made to kill Russians, and that's exactly what they're doing. We're just letting Ukrainians pull the trigger."
"paid" for by cuts to the IRS. IRS spending brings in more money than what is spent. It's really just 2 forms of spending.
-
Interest seems to be waning in parts of the West and right wing politicians seem to be willing to stymie further efforts at aid. This action by these politicians is both bewildering and a tragedy.
Just for context here, my understanding is that the house has passed an aid bill for Israel (paid for by cuts to the IRS - remember the extra $80B allocated to the IRS under the rather-Orwellian-sounding Inflation Reduction Act?), and similarly wants to tie Ukraine aid to increased border security.
As disgusting as it is, it's realpolitik. Democrats overwhelmingly support aid to Ukraine, as do most Republicans. And politicians on both sides of the aisle want to advance their agendas on the coattails. It's pork barrel politics, except they're seeking policy instead of dollars.
As a datapoint, my next door neighbor is pretty MAGA, and when I talked to him shortly after the US started sending stuff to Ukraine, he was pretty bothered by the aid. His attitude seemed to soften when I explained to him that "these weapons were made to kill Russians, and that's exactly what they're doing. We're just letting Ukrainians pull the trigger."
"paid" for by cuts to the IRS. IRS spending brings in more money than what is spent. It's really just 2 forms of spending.
They are helping their buddies. Since the time of the Tea Party they've served the American Oligarchs with money quite well.
Here's the thing I don't get. In these days of tracking money by computer wouldn't it be easy to find out who is hiring illegal aliens and fine them? This destroys a good part of the incentive for the refugees to cross the border. It seems like it would be much less expensive than all this extensive border protection.
-
Interest seems to be waning in parts of the West and right wing politicians seem to be willing to stymie further efforts at aid. This action by these politicians is both bewildering and a tragedy.
Just for context here, my understanding is that the house has passed an aid bill for Israel (paid for by cuts to the IRS - remember the extra $80B allocated to the IRS under the rather-Orwellian-sounding Inflation Reduction Act?), and similarly wants to tie Ukraine aid to increased border security.
As disgusting as it is, it's realpolitik. Democrats overwhelmingly support aid to Ukraine, as do most Republicans. And politicians on both sides of the aisle want to advance their agendas on the coattails. It's pork barrel politics, except they're seeking policy instead of dollars.
As a datapoint, my next door neighbor is pretty MAGA, and when I talked to him shortly after the US started sending stuff to Ukraine, he was pretty bothered by the aid. His attitude seemed to soften when I explained to him that "these weapons were made to kill Russians, and that's exactly what they're doing. We're just letting Ukrainians pull the trigger."
"paid" for by cuts to the IRS. IRS spending brings in more money than what is spent. It's really just 2 forms of spending.
They are helping their buddies. Since the time of the Tea Party they've served the American Oligarchs with money quite well.
Here's the thing I don't get. In these days of tracking money by computer wouldn't it be easy to find out who is hiring illegal aliens and fine them? This destroys a good part of the incentive for the refugees to cross the border. It seems like it would be much less expensive than all this extensive border protection.
You're fixing illegal immigration though. That plan sucks for several reasons:
- You lose a source of exploitable, cheap labour
- You piss off a lot of rich owners who make more money
- You lose an easy to other outside group who you can blame for problems
- You would reduce funding to a large paramilitary organization who your supporters like
The goal is not to prevent illegal immigration - it's to ensure that it continues on very specific terms
-
Here's the thing I don't get. In these days of tracking money by computer wouldn't it be easy to find out who is hiring illegal aliens and fine them? This destroys a good part of the incentive for the refugees to cross the border. It seems like it would be much less expensive than all this extensive border protection.
If a farmer, either directly or indirectly, seeks out farmhands to help pick fruit, bale hay, sucker horseradish, etc. and pays the hired help in cash, no computer required. Farm reporting can be quite lax (for good reasons, too!) on the employer side which makes it susceptible to being taken advantage of when it comes to accounting for employees. And then if employees aren't properly claiming their farm income when they file taxes, a decent amount falls through the cracks.
When a farmer sells bushels of foodstuffs to businesses, granaries, etc. it's not like they get audited on the spot to list everyone they hired who helped plant or harvest the crop. Often times, it's family members or other 100% legal hired help. Sometimes it's not and Americans like cheap produce, so here we are. Even farmers' markets aren't impervious to shadiness but at lower scale, my guess is the risk is lower.
-
Here's the thing I don't get. In these days of tracking money by computer wouldn't it be easy to find out who is hiring illegal aliens and fine them? This destroys a good part of the incentive for the refugees to cross the border. It seems like it would be much less expensive than all this extensive border protection.
If a farmer, either directly or indirectly, seeks out farmhands to help pick fruit, bale hay, sucker horseradish, etc. and pays the hired help in cash, no computer required. Farm reporting can be quite lax (for good reasons, too!) on the employer side which makes it susceptible to being taken advantage of when it comes to accounting for employees. And then if employees aren't properly claiming their farm income when they file taxes, a decent amount falls through the cracks.
When a farmer sells bushels of foodstuffs to businesses, granaries, etc. it's not like they get audited on the spot to list everyone they hired who helped plant or harvest the crop. Often times, it's family members or other 100% legal hired help. Sometimes it's not and Americans like cheap produce, so here we are. Even farmers' markets aren't impervious to shadiness but at lower scale, my guess is the risk is lower.
It's not all farm work. There's a lot of construction, meat processing, janitorial, etc. Most has a paper trail.
The argument is often put forth that illegal immigrants take the jobs that Americans don't want. Back in my working days, I gave this some thought. There's a lot of people working at jobs they don't want. They keep working at those jobs because they are paid a living wage. Americans don't want the jobs that illegal immigrants are hired to partake because these jobs often do not pay a living wage.
Punish the employer and not the poor guy trying to make a living. I guarantee this will lead to the real problems being fixed.
-
A few updates:
--No notable movement in the front lines at Avdiivka over the past week.
--Russia is losing ~1100 people per day.
--Ukraine is chipping away on the east bank of the Dnipro River, expanding their toehold.
--The wife of Ukraine's chief of the SBU was poisoned, but will recover
--Ukraine is following the Hogan's Heroes playbook by blowing up two trains in eastern Russia. The first (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24856) was a freight train going through a tunnel. When Russia started rerouting trains to a secondary route, Ukraine blew up a fuel train (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24909) as it passed over a bridge. From what I've read, there are only two real working rail routes between China and Russia. There's no word yet on the extent of the damage to the bridge or tunnel. I don't expect much damage to the structure of the tunnel. I don't know if these two routes are considered separate, or if they count as one of the two routes. Either way, it's gotta put Russia on edge.
-
A few updates:
--No notable movement in the front lines at Avdiivka over the past week.
--Russia is losing ~1100 people per day.
--Ukraine is chipping away on the east bank of the Dnipro River, expanding their toehold.
--The wife of Ukraine's chief of the SBU was poisoned, but will recover
--Ukraine is following the Hogan's Heroes playbook by blowing up two trains in eastern Russia. The first (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24856) was a freight train going through a tunnel. When Russia started rerouting trains to a secondary route, Ukraine blew up a fuel train (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24909) as it passed over a bridge. From what I've read, there are only two real working rail routes between China and Russia. There's no word yet on the extent of the damage to the bridge or tunnel. I don't expect much damage to the structure of the tunnel. I don't know if these two routes are considered separate, or if they count as one of the two routes. Either way, it's gotta put Russia on edge.
It's easy at this point to look at a lot of this stuff like sports scores. I found myself doing this as I was reading your update... and then I remembered that all of these deaths are people and the cost of this (and all the other conflicts right now) just made me sad at the pointlessness of it all. So much loss for the potential gain of so few. Ugh. That said, I am still rooting for Ukraine and take delight in their strategic moves. Since China is a major economic supporter of Russia right now, this will force Russia to divert resources to protecting those lines... and given the geographic scale of eastern Russia, this is no small feat and favors Ukranian elements trying to monkeywrech those areas.
-
Since China is a major economic supporter of Russia right now, this will force Russia to divert resources to protecting those lines... and given the geographic scale of eastern Russia, this is no small feat and favors Ukranian elements trying to monkeywrech those areas.
Last summer, Russia started stripping their railroad brigades (many are uniformed soldiers) to reinforce combat units and maintain captured Ukrainian lines. Now they're looking at prison labor to backfill the railroad brigades inside Russia. Russia is still having a railcar shortage nation-wide. Last summer it was a shortage of imported bearings sidelining cars for lack of maintenance, and lately its been the primary manufacturer of new railcars being on armored vehicle restoration duty.
-
A few updates:
--No notable movement in the front lines at Avdiivka over the past week.
--Russia is losing ~1100 people per day.
--Ukraine is chipping away on the east bank of the Dnipro River, expanding their toehold.
--The wife of Ukraine's chief of the SBU was poisoned, but will recover
--Ukraine is following the Hogan's Heroes playbook by blowing up two trains in eastern Russia. The first (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24856) was a freight train going through a tunnel. When Russia started rerouting trains to a secondary route, Ukraine blew up a fuel train (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24909) as it passed over a bridge. From what I've read, there are only two real working rail routes between China and Russia. There's no word yet on the extent of the damage to the bridge or tunnel. I don't expect much damage to the structure of the tunnel. I don't know if these two routes are considered separate, or if they count as one of the two routes. Either way, it's gotta put Russia on edge.
It's easy at this point to look at a lot of this stuff like sports scores. I found myself doing this as I was reading your update... and then I remembered that all of these deaths are people and the cost of this (and all the other conflicts right now) just made me sad at the pointlessness of it all. So much loss for the potential gain of so few. Ugh. That said, I am still rooting for Ukraine and take delight in their strategic moves. Since China is a major economic supporter of Russia right now, this will force Russia to divert resources to protecting those lines... and given the geographic scale of eastern Russia, this is no small feat and favors Ukranian elements trying to monkeywrech those areas.
I've tried to see the gain for Russia. They blow up so many towns and industrial facilities that I see little gain. Russia has farmland, gas fields and oil fields. Russia has a lot of low populated land to develop. I don't get this empire thing. For the amount that they've sacrificed, they could have provided foreign aid to Ukraine and maybe had their puppet state in a few years. Instead, they are back to generations of Eastern Europeans distrusting them. Well - The old Czar did the same thing, but the 1800s are long gone.
Russia needs an investment advisor.
-
I don't think it's a gain for Russia . . . it's just that Putin made a mistake and he has no way of backing down without looking weak. And he can't look weak. His whole deal is that he's a strong leader.
-
I don't think it's a gain for Russia . . . it's just that Putin made a mistake and he has no way of backing down without looking weak. And he can't look weak. His whole deal is that he's a strong leader.
Right - Over three hundred thousand of his countrymen die for him not to look weak.
I guess that's the difference between a good leader and Putin.
-
I don't think it's a gain for Russia . . . it's just that Putin made a mistake and he has no way of backing down without looking weak. And he can't look weak. His whole deal is that he's a strong leader.
Right - Over three hundred thousand of his countrymen die for him not to look weak.
I guess that's the difference between a good leader and Putin.
Strong leader. Not good leader. Sometimes people get the two confused. :P
-
I don't think it's a gain for Russia . . . it's just that Putin made a mistake and he has no way of backing down without looking weak. And he can't look weak. His whole deal is that he's a strong leader.
Right - Over three hundred thousand of his countrymen die for him not to look weak.
I guess that's the difference between a good leader and Putin.
Strong leader. Not good leader. Sometimes people get the two confused. :P
No - I meant good leader. A good leader does what's right for his people. His own concerns are secondary. You could call it self sacrificing. Putin sacrifices his people rather than having the possibility that he may have to step down.
02.12.2023
Tanks — 5571 (+7)
Armored fighting vehicle — 10385 (+13)
Artillery systems — 7941 (+10)
MLRS — 913 (+1)
Anti-aircraft warfare — 602
Planes — 323
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 5994 (+18)
Cruise missiles — 1568 (+1)
Ships (boats) — 22
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 10410 (+11)
Special equipment — 1138 (+1)
Military personnel — aprx. 331110 people (+1070)
Another 1,000+ human lives lost needlessly.
-
casualties are not dead but + dead + injured
-
casualties are not dead but + dead + injured
Seems like more and more sources give the indication that the number is very injured. Injured so that they are no longer among the living.
https://www.minusrus.com/en (https://www.minusrus.com/en)
There used to be a comics strip called "Ripley's Believe It or Not." It was a compilation of stuff that most would find too fantastic to believe. Is the 300,000 dead too fantastic to believe? It does seem incredulous. However, when you look back at the history of the cursed land of Russia, maybe not. The internet tells me:
"Around 3.9 million Ukrainians died during the Holodomor of 1932-33 (as established in a 2015 study by a team of demographers from the Ukrainian Institute of Demographic and Social Studies, and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill)."
"American historian William D. Rubinstein concluded that, even under most conservative estimates, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2% of USSRs total population."
World War 1:
"The estimate of the 1,811,000 total Russian military and 1,500,00 civilian deaths was made by the Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis. Other estimates of Russian casualties are as follows: By UK War Office in 1922: Killed 1,700,000 -By the US War Dept in 1924 1,700,000 killed and died."
World War 2:
"The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, including 8.7 million military and 19 million civilian deaths. The largest portion of military dead were 5.7 million ethnic Russians, followed by 1.3 million ethnic Ukrainians. A quarter of the people in the Soviet Union were wounded or killed."
It has always struck me as odd that a and so sparsely populated as Russia puts so little value on human life. Putin lost a good part of his oil money, his gas money and he squanders the most important resource of the country, the people.
News reports the huge military population, the loss of people due to emigration, losses due to deaths and injuries in the "Special Military Operation" and industries needing to replace formerly imported items has caused a labor shortage in Russia.
https://www.ft.com/content/dc76f0bb-cae2-4a3a-b704-903d2fc59a96 (https://www.ft.com/content/dc76f0bb-cae2-4a3a-b704-903d2fc59a96)
They've begun to use convicts for labor as in the Soviet days.
It's like the actions of the government have created a demographic vacuum. It seems only natural that there will be a huge migration of Chinese labor into Russia in coming decades to shore up the labor shortage and then become the resident population.
-
casualties are not dead but + dead + injured
A few points about the 330k Russian casualties:
1) It comes from the Ukrainian government, so it makes sense to take it with a grain of salt, but...
2) the UKR gov't says that they only count casualties for which they have some evidence (drone footage, photos on social media, etc), and...
3) the number includes both killed and wounded.
In the NATO world, it's estimated that the ratio of wounded to killed is around 3:1. Russia, however, doesn't have the same level of field medicine, so it is estimated that their wounded:killed ratio is closer to 1:1. So 150k killed and another 150k wounded. That said, if UKR is to be believed about only counting casualties for which there is evidence, the actual number of dead will be significantly higher than 150k, and the total number of casualties significanty higher than the 330k.
-
There used to be a comics strip called "Ripley's Believe It or Not." It was a compilation of stuff that most would find too fantastic to believe. Is the 300,000 dead too fantastic to believe? It does seem incredulous. However, when you look back at the history of the cursed land of Russia, maybe not. The internet tells me:
Most Western observers place Russian casualties at about 70,000 killed and around 200,000 wounded, with large error bars.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1731611263799537767?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
As I predicted the last 2 weeks have been full of fighting in Avdijivka, with a back and forth of positions in the North. It's surprising how hard the fight about a concrete wall can get.
So far the Russians don't seem to have been able to use the hole in the South to advance further. Probably even for them one killing zone to send in wave after wave is enough.
All in all it feels like the Ukrainian troops and positions do get weared down, but at incredible cost for Russia. A sentence we are used to by now.
In the Dnipro region it looks like more troops are ferried over the river. But while I won't be surprised if Ukraine gains more territiry there, I don't think it will go far. Near the river the Ukrainians have all the advantages, 20km in the reverse is the case. I expect this to become a grinder zone for both sides.
Meanwhile Russians have upped the pressure on other points of the front but so far nothing major appears to have happened.
-
As I predicted the last 2 weeks have been full of fighting in Avdijivka, with a back and forth of positions in the North. It's surprising how hard the fight about a concrete wall can get.
So far the Russians don't seem to have been able to use the hole in the South to advance further. Probably even for them one killing zone to send in wave after wave is enough.
All in all it feels like the Ukrainian troops and positions do get weared down, but at incredible cost for Russia. A sentence we are used to by now.
In the Dnipro region it looks like more troops are ferried over the river. But while I won't be surprised if Ukraine gains more territiry there, I don't think it will go far. Near the river the Ukrainians have all the advantages, 20km in the reverse is the case. I expect this to become a grinder zone for both sides.
Meanwhile Russians have upped the pressure on other points of the front but so far nothing major appears to have happened.
I just hope other countries including my own can provide the Ukrainians with the ammunition and supplies they need. It kind of seems like an investment in the good of the world. Putin could have spent all that massive amount of oil and gas money into developing that huge country. Instead he is doing just the opposite. He causes the destruction of Ukraine and his own country. Maybe he is a de-investor. Or is it un-investor. Maybe the Germans have a word for a guy like him.
-
I would call Putin a "looter" - someone who grabs what they can in order to enrich himself, regardless of the cost or consequence to others. E.g. he'll cause $1 billion in damage to get $1 million in personal gain, or cause the death of 200,000 working-age men in order to prop up his legacy.
-
I would call Putin a "looter" - someone who grabs what they can in order to enrich himself, regardless of the cost or consequence to others. E.g. he'll cause $1 billion in damage to get $1 million in personal gain, or cause the death of 200,000 working-age men in order to prop up his legacy.
Just the kind of politicians we like. A zero-sum mentality and loss of faith in institutions leads to people wanting to align with the strongest looter.
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
I think I've seen days with >1,400 Russian casualties and I know for sure I've seen >40 artillery in a single day, but I don't know what the "record" is (if you want to call it that) for tanks and APVs.
-
So,.....how about this Mike Johnson guy?
It sure looks like these guys in Washington have at best a tenuous connection with reality. Ukraine is worried about running out of ammunition unless Congress votes for more. News reports all point to this Mike Johnson guy who s supposed to be a MAGA guy.
There was a video a few days ago about Ukrainian guys surrendering. The Russians shot them anyway.
I kind of think a lot of people could die if Ukraine runs low or out of ammunition. Would this make Mike Johnson a de facto serial killer?
I just remember the quote from Zelensky - "I need ammunition, not a ride."
Just something to chew on.
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
I constantly scratch my head wondering how Russia can sustain these losses...
The loss of personnel has already changed demographics in Russia for decades to come....and it is only getting worse!
-
Russia has 5x more people. Russia can play the arbitrage game a long time.
-
Russia has 5x more people. Russia can play the arbitrage game a long time.
Not to mention that Russia can actually produce most if not all of the military equipment it's losing. Ukraine has to rely on handouts from NATO for most weapons and ammunition. And as we can see, the West is a fickle ally.
-
Russia has 5x more people. Russia can play the arbitrage game a long time.
Not to mention that Russia can actually produce most if not all of the military equipment it's losing. Ukraine has to rely on handouts from NATO for most weapons and ammunition. And as we can see, the West is a fickle ally.
They don't seem to have the technology to produce microchips or ball bearings.
How many train tracks to China are remaining?
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
I constantly scratch my head wondering how Russia can sustain these losses...
The loss of personnel has already changed demographics in Russia for decades to come....and it is only getting worse!
You are seeign it wrong.
First, that's a problem that will be for whoever comes after Putin.
If he wins, Putin will the big Hero that re-unified the country. If he fails there will likely never be a chance again - because of demographics. The ratio both in people and production will only shift away from Russia in the future.
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
I constantly scratch my head wondering how Russia can sustain these losses...
The loss of personnel has already changed demographics in Russia for decades to come....and it is only getting worse!
The short answer is this: they can sustain losses of personnel for a while, thanks to their much-larger population. Russia is a clear example of institutionalized racism--you'll notice that the overwhelming majority of their recruits/conscripts are from "undesirable" populations--convicts, ethnic minorities from the far-flung reaches of the country, the poor and destitute. It's like The Hunger Games. They're not calling up troops from Moscow and St. Petersburg. But it's going to get harder and harder for Putin to spare Moscow and St. Pete as the losses continue to mount.
As for materiel, Russia has lost an estimated 50% (or more) of their pre-war equipment. The remainder now has to cover not just the fighting in Ukraine, but also defense of the rest of the country (I'm sure China wouldn't mind a bite at the apple--there are some resource-rich areas in the far east end of Russia). And on top of that, a good portion of that 50% isn't active--it's in storage facilities in various states of operational readiness. Heck, we've seen tanks from the 50's destroyed in Ukraine, and I think I've also heard that Russia is diverting foreign orders of equipment for its own war. Equipment-wise, Russia's starting to get stretched thin.
Of course, with western countries only giving ~100 Bradleys and 31 M1 Abrams and a few dozen Leopard tanks and a couple dozen HIMARS to Ukraine, that's not a whole lot to mount an offensive with.
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
I constantly scratch my head wondering how Russia can sustain these losses...
The loss of personnel has already changed demographics in Russia for decades to come....and it is only getting worse!
The short answer is this: they can sustain losses of personnel for a while, thanks to their much-larger population. Russia is a clear example of institutionalized racism--you'll notice that the overwhelming majority of their recruits/conscripts are from "undesirable" populations--convicts, ethnic minorities from the far-flung reaches of the country, the poor and destitute. It's like The Hunger Games. They're not calling up troops from Moscow and St. Petersburg. But it's going to get harder and harder for Putin to spare Moscow and St. Pete as the losses continue to mount.
As for materiel, Russia has lost an estimated 50% (or more) of their pre-war equipment. The remainder now has to cover not just the fighting in Ukraine, but also defense of the rest of the country (I'm sure China wouldn't mind a bite at the apple--there are some resource-rich areas in the far east end of Russia). And on top of that, a good portion of that 50% isn't active--it's in storage facilities in various states of operational readiness. Heck, we've seen tanks from the 50's destroyed in Ukraine, and I think I've also heard that Russia is diverting foreign orders of equipment for its own war. Equipment-wise, Russia's starting to get stretched thin.
Of course, with western countries only giving ~100 Bradleys and 31 M1 Abrams and a few dozen Leopard tanks and a couple dozen HIMARS to Ukraine, that's not a whole lot to mount an offensive with.
A POW was taken by Ukraine a few days ago - Nepalese citizen who was in Russia on a student visa. He claims he was told to enlist or be deported. No idea why he'd pick someone else's war over going home, but allegedly that's how it happened.
-
(I'm sure China wouldn't mind a bite at the apple--there are some resource-rich areas in the far east end of Russia)
True. But I doubt they want to risk pushing Putin that far in the corner that he starts to nuke. Mor importantly, even if there is not much defending that side of Russia, it would still take quite a force to prevent Russia doing some serious damage in the Chinese part there. Not the ideal situation if you want to invade Taiwan. (Current rumors are the Chinese have bought even more gold than usually (they are also one of the biggest producers btw) to have a nice war chest and that's the reason for the recent price spike that coudl not really be explained by the usual factors.)
-
Holy Shit! I think this is a record on material lost.
Tomorrow I guess we will know what happened. I guess Avdijivka all side attack.
I constantly scratch my head wondering how Russia can sustain these losses...
The loss of personnel has already changed demographics in Russia for decades to come....and it is only getting worse!
I thought about this while fueling my car, and then realized the answer.
-
Looks like the Zerg Rush on Avdijivka is over. What Russians always told was an "active defense" has now turned into a "diversion" for the increased attacks on 4 other positions in the northern direction. That Ukraine blew up 2 fuel depots and an ammunition depot in the city Donetsk or that the Russians lost a year's worth of heavy vehicle production and several thousand soldiers for gaining 2-3 km˛ surely has nothing to do with it.
The general intelligence conensus seems to be that the Russians are trying to leverage that all attention is on Israel and that they think that if Ukrainians are under constant pressure or even losing, the West will think "it's not worth sending help".
Imho the opposite is true of course, it's the perfect situation to send help, so that Russians get even heavier losses on very favorable terms for Ukrainians. Avdijivka ratios are like 1:10.
-
Looks like the Zerg Rush on Avdijivka is over. What Russians always told was an "active defense" has now turned into a "diversion" for the increased attacks on 4 other positions in the northern direction. That Ukraine blew up 2 fuel depots and an ammunition depot in the city Donetsk or that the Russians lost a year's worth of heavy vehicle production and several thousand soldiers for gaining 2-3 km˛ surely has nothing to do with it.
The general intelligence conensus seems to be that the Russians are trying to leverage that all attention is on Israel and that they think that if Ukrainians are under constant pressure or even losing, the West will think "it's not worth sending help".
Imho the opposite is true of course, it's the perfect situation to send help, so that Russians get even heavier losses on very favorable terms for Ukrainians. Avdijivka ratios are like 1:10.
I've wondered if the Russians have had anything to do with bus driver Maduro doing the seize land thing to Guyana. Supposedly, this is a 100 year simmering thing. It's not like he needed the oil or anything. Could it have been a thing to pacify some of his Venezuelans? Could the Russians semi success in Ukraine be encouraging their dictator brethren around the globe?
-
Looks like the Zerg Rush on Avdijivka is over. What Russians always told was an "active defense" has now turned into a "diversion" for the increased attacks on 4 other positions in the northern direction. That Ukraine blew up 2 fuel depots and an ammunition depot in the city Donetsk or that the Russians lost a year's worth of heavy vehicle production and several thousand soldiers for gaining 2-3 km˛ surely has nothing to do with it.
The general intelligence conensus seems to be that the Russians are trying to leverage that all attention is on Israel and that they think that if Ukrainians are under constant pressure or even losing, the West will think "it's not worth sending help".
Imho the opposite is true of course, it's the perfect situation to send help, so that Russians get even heavier losses on very favorable terms for Ukrainians. Avdijivka ratios are like 1:10.
I've wondered if the Russians have had anything to do with bus driver Maduro doing the seize land thing to Guyana. Supposedly, this is a 100 year simmering thing. It's not like he needed the oil or anything. Could it have been a thing to pacify some of his Venezuelans? Could the Russians semi success in Ukraine be encouraging their dictator brethren around the globe?
It's likely the "My poll predictions are in the single digits, the only thign that can save me is a war" thing.
And actually Perun did just that topic last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSE9dPEx6Y
-
Looks like the Zerg Rush on Avdijivka is over. What Russians always told was an "active defense" has now turned into a "diversion" for the increased attacks on 4 other positions in the northern direction. That Ukraine blew up 2 fuel depots and an ammunition depot in the city Donetsk or that the Russians lost a year's worth of heavy vehicle production and several thousand soldiers for gaining 2-3 km˛ surely has nothing to do with it.
The general intelligence conensus seems to be that the Russians are trying to leverage that all attention is on Israel and that they think that if Ukrainians are under constant pressure or even losing, the West will think "it's not worth sending help".
Imho the opposite is true of course, it's the perfect situation to send help, so that Russians get even heavier losses on very favorable terms for Ukrainians. Avdijivka ratios are like 1:10.
I've wondered if the Russians have had anything to do with bus driver Maduro doing the seize land thing to Guyana. Supposedly, this is a 100 year simmering thing. It's not like he needed the oil or anything. Could it have been a thing to pacify some of his Venezuelans? Could the Russians semi success in Ukraine be encouraging their dictator brethren around the globe?
It's likely the "My poll predictions are in the single digits, the only thign that can save me is a war" thing.
And actually Perun did just that topic last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSE9dPEx6Y
That Australian does a good job with his videos. I'll have to take the time to watch this one. This conflict is one that is getting relatively close to home. Hopefully, the bus driver will back down. If he gets into a conflict and others get involved, it won't help his poll numbers at all.
-
Looks like the Zerg Rush on Avdijivka is over. What Russians always told was an "active defense" has now turned into a "diversion" for the increased attacks on 4 other positions in the northern direction. That Ukraine blew up 2 fuel depots and an ammunition depot in the city Donetsk or that the Russians lost a year's worth of heavy vehicle production and several thousand soldiers for gaining 2-3 km˛ surely has nothing to do with it.
The general intelligence conensus seems to be that the Russians are trying to leverage that all attention is on Israel and that they think that if Ukrainians are under constant pressure or even losing, the West will think "it's not worth sending help".
Imho the opposite is true of course, it's the perfect situation to send help, so that Russians get even heavier losses on very favorable terms for Ukrainians. Avdijivka ratios are like 1:10.
I've wondered if the Russians have had anything to do with bus driver Maduro doing the seize land thing to Guyana. Supposedly, this is a 100 year simmering thing. It's not like he needed the oil or anything. Could it have been a thing to pacify some of his Venezuelans? Could the Russians semi success in Ukraine be encouraging their dictator brethren around the globe?
It's likely the "My poll predictions are in the single digits, the only thign that can save me is a war" thing.
And actually Perun did just that topic last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSE9dPEx6Y
That Australian does a good job with his videos. I'll have to take the time to watch this one. This conflict is one that is getting relatively close to home. Hopefully, the bus driver will back down. If he gets into a conflict and others get involved, it won't help his poll numbers at all.
I watched it. It looks like Maduro is just doing some strange posturing. With Exxon and the Chinese working together in Guyana, he appears to be playing with fire if he actually commits any of his somewhat meager forces. However, the world was a bit surprised when Putin actually invaded Ukraine.
Here's the reported cumulative reported casualties for Putin's army.
16.12.2023
Tanks — 5720 (+14)
Armored fighting vehicle — 10667 (+13)
Artillery systems — 8100 (+1)
MLRS — 920
Anti-aircraft warfare — 605
Planes — 324
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 6238 (+12)
Cruise missiles — 1609 (+1)
Ships (boats) — 22
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 10710 (+11)
Special equipment — 1190 (+1)
Military personnel — aprx. 344820 people (+930)
Will he make 350.000 on this list by Christmas? Is there a critical mass of dead where the Russian people will say they have had enough of his BS war?
-
I was wrong, the Zerg attack continues. If this goes on Russia will really run out of armored vehicles just because of this one town.
That said, it's not like the attacks do nothing. But the loss rate continues to be abysmal.
-
Circling back to a thought I had months ago, isn't it time to say that NATO and the U.S. is in a proxy war with Russia?
The news media here is predicting dire consequences for Ukraine if the U.S. Congress doesn't agree to continue funding the Ukrainian war effort. That's a pretty direct connection isn't it?
-
Will he make 350.000 on this list by Christmas? Is there a critical mass of dead where the Russian people will say they have had enough of his BS war?
Maybe, and no.
-W
-
Looks like the Zerg Rush on Avdijivka is over. What Russians always told was an "active defense" has now turned into a "diversion" for the increased attacks on 4 other positions in the northern direction. That Ukraine blew up 2 fuel depots and an ammunition depot in the city Donetsk or that the Russians lost a year's worth of heavy vehicle production and several thousand soldiers for gaining 2-3 km˛ surely has nothing to do with it.
The general intelligence conensus seems to be that the Russians are trying to leverage that all attention is on Israel and that they think that if Ukrainians are under constant pressure or even losing, the West will think "it's not worth sending help".
Imho the opposite is true of course, it's the perfect situation to send help, so that Russians get even heavier losses on very favorable terms for Ukrainians. Avdijivka ratios are like 1:10.
I've wondered if the Russians have had anything to do with bus driver Maduro doing the seize land thing to Guyana. Supposedly, this is a 100 year simmering thing. It's not like he needed the oil or anything. Could it have been a thing to pacify some of his Venezuelans? Could the Russians semi success in Ukraine be encouraging their dictator brethren around the globe?
It's likely the "My poll predictions are in the single digits, the only thign that can save me is a war" thing.
And actually Perun did just that topic last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSE9dPEx6Y
That Australian does a good job with his videos. I'll have to take the time to watch this one. This conflict is one that is getting relatively close to home. Hopefully, the bus driver will back down. If he gets into a conflict and others get involved, it won't help his poll numbers at all.
I watched it. It looks like Maduro is just doing some strange posturing. With Exxon and the Chinese working together in Guyana, he appears to be playing with fire if he actually commits any of his somewhat meager forces. However, the world was a bit surprised when Putin actually invaded Ukraine.
Here's the reported cumulative reported casualties for Putin's army.
16.12.2023
Tanks — 5720 (+14)
Armored fighting vehicle — 10667 (+13)
Artillery systems — 8100 (+1)
MLRS — 920
Anti-aircraft warfare — 605
Planes — 324
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 6238 (+12)
Cruise missiles — 1609 (+1)
Ships (boats) — 22
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 10710 (+11)
Special equipment — 1190 (+1)
Military personnel — aprx. 344820 people (+930)
Will he make 350.000 on this list by Christmas? Is there a critical mass of dead where the Russian people will say they have had enough of his BS war?
"Cars and cisterns"? This seems like an odd pairing. do you know what they mean by cistern?
-
I'm guessing that "cisterns" may mean "tanker trucks," probably carrying fuel.
Russia run out of armor just due to Avdiivla? Nah, their losses there, while tremendous in relation to the ground gained, are a pretty small fraction of their total.
-
I am pretty sure cistern means fuel tank truck. Workers&Resources: Soviet Republic names them so, and they should know, right? (https://workers-resources.fandom.com/wiki/Road_vehicles#Oil_Tank - I wonder how many are actually here in the list lol)
I am not saying Russia is losing tanks only because of Avdijivka, but it averages out at about 10 IFV and half that number of tanks on an attack day - or more than 100 a month. That's way over production capacity as long as Russia doesn't go full war special military operation economy, and stockpiles can only last so long (and are getting worse and worse quality).
Circling back to a thought I had months ago, isn't it time to say that NATO and the U.S. is in a proxy war with Russia?
The news media here is predicting dire consequences for Ukraine if the U.S. Congress doesn't agree to continue funding the Ukrainian war effort. That's a pretty direct connection isn't it?
And as said back then, it can't be a proxy war between NATO and Russia because Russia isn't a proxy of Russia.
The core concept of proxy war is that country A intigates country B to attack country C that is tighly connected to country D, so that D has to deeply invest in the conflict. B and C are the proxies.
-
Came across this - good overview and position paper from the Estonian Ministry of Defence:
Setting Transatlantic Defence up for Success:
A Military Strategy for Ukraine’s Victory and Russia’s Defeat
Published in December 2023
It is inherently simple to fall into a state of despair as Russia continues to wage its brutal war for the second year, with its appetite to inflict and sustain devastation seemingly endless and its war resources equally limitless. Shaping the information space in such a way is exactly what Russia is counting on – hoping to create gloom and defeatism amongst Ukrainians and their international supporters.
Let us not be misled that easily. It is we who have the upper hand in this fight.
Ukraine’s victory and Russia’s defeat in this war is achievable. In fact, this war can be won within the next three years or less, by adjusting and increasing the Euro-Atlantic community’s military production output and assistance to Ukraine, and imposing the perspective of an intolerable level of attrition on Russia. A renewed strategy for providing the Armed Forces of Ukraine the necessary training and military equipment will bring about the conditions for defeating Russia’s imperialist theory of victory. With Ukraine’s admirable fighting spirit and the transatlantic community’s unparalleled military-technological advantage and resources, Ukraine’s victory will come at a fraction of the cost in comparison to the alternative consequences.
https://kaitseministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/setting_transatlantic_defence_up_for_success_0.pdf
-
So,it's not a proxy war OK OK.
Just what kind of a long term effect will the "Special Military Operation" have on Russia?
Some say a million of their brightest left the country. They took financial resources with them as well as their human capital. It doesn't seem like these people will be headed back.
They have have over 300,000 casualties. That's a lot of people, but will it effect the future of Russia? There were prisoners, drug addicts and what some could consider the dregs of society sent to the front line. From what I may infer they didn't put too much value on these folks. The Russians have a secondary line that shoots those that retreat. This may explain how they coerce the soldiers to repeat the meat waves again and again. Those that refuse may be tossed into a pit for a few days in the cold weather to give them time to reconsider.
There's a lot of stuff being blown up by the Ukrainians, but a good part of it is stuff that has sat for 50 years in a field. It was built by their Soviet grandparents and although functional may have been headed for the scrap heap in a few years. Until recently, it had been the same with the ammunition and even the soldier's rations. Russia has been waging the "Special Military Operation" with a lot of surplus stuff. Will the loss of this stuff really hurt them in the long run?
Russia has existing infrastructure set up to sell oil. It obtained a rust bucket fleet to ship the oil. The oil is still going out and a lot of money is still coming in.
Russia did lose many of it's gas customers. It had a deal with China to build another big pipeline to sell the stuff to the Chinese. The Chinese have learned about financing from their belt and road adventures. They told Russia that it has to pay for this pipeline. Perhaps after the Chinese have seen how the Russians have treated foreign investors, they figured it wasn't a good idea to invest within Russia.
There had been huge investments by foreign firms within Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Some of these enterprises have simply collapsed and many have been provided to Russia for pennies on the dollar. (Can't use pennies on the Ruble) Can this be considered a short term gift of many billions of dollars to Russia? Is this really a bad long term action as some investors have memories and will be reluctant to invest in Russia? I think in future years a high return will overcome investor's trepidation and the money will again flow into Russia.
Russia was a big arms seller. Will it be able to sell this product after the effect of the "Special Military Operation?"
I guess the biggest factor determining the future of Russia may be what the US Congress does. There are a few politicians that seem to admire the Putin regime for their own bizarre reasons. They seem to be stopping progress on aid to Ukraine. This helps Russia achieving its objectives of restoring the former Russian Empire. Ukrainian resources may be available to be developed by Russia. Ukrainians may be used in much the same manner as the populations of the old Soviet satellite states and will serve Moscow.
It's not a proxy war. A poor outcome in Ukraine could be bad for a whole lot of us.
-
True, the stuff being blown up may be 50 years old and pulled out of a field, but it represents the best and most functional armor Russia has available.
Are the Wagner KIA/WIA included in the 330k casualties?
-
Yes, they are.
I haven't heard much about the Dnipro in the last week, so I guess it's bad there.
Anyway, the Russians are doing a full out attack now, as easily visible from the stats, which are definitely an record for at least a year.
-
Holy cow, over 100 tanks and APVs in a single day? That's a lot.
-
Even for Russia it doesn't seem like this can possibly be sustainable, but we've been saying that for a year now.
-W
-
Even for Russia it doesn't seem like this can possibly be sustainable, but we've been saying that for a year now.
-W
Well, yes, it is. At today's rate Russia will run out of heavy vehicle stock in early spring. If they could repair their rostbuckets that fast and all of them.
Though at this rate, if it isn't Avdijivka everywhere, Ukraine will run out faster.
It the prior rate it would have taken a year and maybe another half depending how many they can repair (and how fast). But still unsustainable.
-
Ukrainian sources claiming the shootdown of three Su-34 bombers near Kherson with Patriot. Russian sources acknowledging at least one of them, also stating Patriot did the deed.
-
Oh, I haven't heard about this one. 3 would be a major loss to already much used airframes. (Info: 6 were build this year.)
Russians tried a massed attack (possibly the one where the stat above is from) at the Dnipro beachhead, but seemed to have failed, though the Ukrainian guy was awfully close mouthed compared to usual. I don't know if it's for operational security, because the situation is still unclear or because Ukrainians have lost something important.
They also attacked heavily near Bakhmut, though don't seem to have gotten very far.
My feeling is they tried a multi point breakthrough and Ukraine barely managed to survive it - for the moment.
-
Update: The "unfortunately for Russians" guy I mentioned before explains what happened to those 3 aircrafts, I strongly recommend to watch those 4 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFvf1Q3JUc
-
Update: The "unfortunately for Russians" guy I mentioned before explains what happened to those 3 aircrafts, I strongly recommend to watch those 4 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFvf1Q3JUc
Small Christmas update: Russian attacks continue in number and they seem to very slowly gain control over the village in the North of Avdijivk - meaning that the Russians send in a group, they get killed, but manage to dig a few holes 20m/1 flattened house farer into it.
But Ukrainians claim to have shot down 2 more planes that were dropping glide bombs in that area, the Russians must now be sweating a lot because that proves that Ukranians were not simply very lucky in the Dnipro fight.
Meanwhile it seems like Ukraine will be doing a recruitement round to get personel for a spring/summer offensive. The strategy seems to be to continue to let Russians grind themselves in multiple positions and weaken their command and supply structure with targeted strikes until then.
-
Ukrainian air force sank another Ropucha-class transport ship in Crimea. It was carrying Grads and ammo while sitting at the pier.
https://vxtwitter.com/SythUK/status/1739660979162452396 (https://vxtwitter.com/SythUK/status/1739660979162452396)
The Ukrainian Army pulled back to the outskirts of Marinka in front of Donetsk. The Russian army leveled the town a year ago and Ukrainian forces have been holding their ground every since, but apparently they're now falling back a bit.
-
There’s probably a disconnect between the results Western audiences want to see (offensives resulting in gain of territory) and the strategy which makes sense for Ukraine right now (defensive posture enabling asymmetric losses for the better supplied and numerically superior attackers, wearing them down until the two sides are at parity).
Western audiences have yet to comprehend that this will be a 5-10 year war with millions of casualties.
The latest reports indicate the use of chemical warfare by the Russians. It’s only the latest WW1 parallel.
-
There have been a number of reports of Russia using chemical weapons over the course of the war, though none have been substantiated. Torture, rape, execution, etc, yes.
Russia executed its largest-ever missile attack over night--a total of about 160 ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles. Ukraine shot down about 70% of them (pretty dang good!). Last winter, Russia repeatedly targeted the Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and Ukraine has spent the last nine months working to make more resilient and resistant to attack. So far, it seems to be working. It's not clear what Russia was targetting, but I haven't heard of any actual military targets being hit.
-
It is obvious to all that Russian conventional gear, command, control, and tactics are generally subpar. India, are you paying attention? Do you really want to keep buying this stuff? I would be surprised if many Western military experts did not already know all this but didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
So once again the Russian tactic comes down to drowning the enemy in their own blood. Russia can and will win a long war of attrition. It does appear that this "sleeping zombie" nation would require a major economic collapse to spur serious opposition.
-
Russia can and will win a long war of attrition.
Still not seeing it. Russia has been losing equipment around 5-10 times faster than they can produce it. This will become critical within around 2 years as they literally run out of their Soviet stockpile (see my post on the bottom of page 78, they won't literally run out they'll just have a lot lot less to use at any one time, which means they'll lose as a result of not having enough). They need to increase their production 5x to sustain the war at its current intensity. There is speculation Putin may put the nation into a "war economy" after the next sham election and try do this which would still take a year or two before it became available. However, increasing output by 5x only sustains the war at its current level. If NATO doubles the intensity of their own weapons supplied (which they could easily do) Russia needs to 10x their production. If NATO 4Xs Russia must 20x. Essentially there is no path to Russian victory except through the use of propaganda to persuade NATO nations not to give more weapons to Ukraine, and you should expect to see intense waves of this washing down like a soporific "everything is fine, Russia is good, Ukraine's liberal aspirations are the real Nazis and are therefore just as bad if not worse, Putin is the true champion of Western values, Americans shouldn't take on any more debt to prop up a failing regime 95% couldn't find on a map when Russia will win anyway, what about Israel? what about Iraq?" In fact we already have.
-
Russia can and will win a long war of attrition.
Still not seeing it. Russia has been losing equipment around 5-10 times faster than they can produce it. This will become critical within around 2 years as they literally run out of their Soviet stockpile (see my post on the bottom of page 78, they won't literally run out they'll just have a lot lot less to use at any one time, which means they'll lose as a result of not having enough). They need to increase their production 5x to sustain the war at its current intensity. There is speculation Putin may put the nation into a "war economy" after the next sham election and try do this which would still take a year or two before it became available. However, increasing output by 5x only sustains the war at its current level. If NATO doubles the intensity of their own weapons supplied (which they could easily do) Russia needs to 10x their production. If NATO 4Xs Russia must 20x. Essentially there is no path to Russian victory except through the use of propaganda to persuade NATO nations not to give more weapons to Ukraine, and you should expect to see intense waves of this washing down like a soporific "everything is fine, Russia is good, Ukraine's liberal aspirations are the real Nazis and are therefore just as bad if not worse, Putin is the true champion of Western values, Americans shouldn't take on any more debt to prop up a failing regime 95% couldn't find on a map when Russia will win anyway, what about Israel? what about Iraq?" In fact we already have.
I think Russia seems to somehow have the ability to get to selected politicians and stifle efforts to help Ukraine. They've done a good job in Europe with Viktor Orban and I suspect they have other European politicians waiting on deck if a way is found around Orban. In the US they seem to have the MAGA Republicans on their side and are successfully linking a seeming unrelated issue to further Ukrainian aid.
Russia need not match the production of Western nations if they can simply pull the strings of selected politicians. Putin cut his teeth in the KGB and is probably so good at this that the foreign politicians actually enjoy his puppet string pulling.
The Europeans promised a million shells to Ukraine. One video I saw said that the North Koreans have actually provided more shells to Russia than the Europeans have actually provided. Germany has really been stepping up its game recently. Maybe they will make up much of the needed difference.
Russia is trying to increase the hordes that attack Ukraine. Do the people of Russia understand about the meat waves? Perhaps, they feel that to die for the mother land is the way to go. They do the Kamikaze thing without a plane.
According to the Ukrainian tally sheet, the Russians had over 350,000 men taken out of the battle prior to Christmas. There are other sources which you may consider more reputable that state they have lost over 315,000 men. Do the Russians hear about these losses? How do Russians in the hinterlands get their news? If they have no toilets, I presume many have no internet and rely on the controlled Russian media for what they can learn about the "Special Military Operation."
Today's Tallies:
29.12.2023
Tanks — 5953 (+13)
Armored fighting vehicle — 11033 (+18)
Artillery systems — 8417 (+26)
MLRS — 938 (+3)
Anti-aircraft warfare — 620 (+3)
Planes — 329
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 6539 (+36)
Cruise missiles — 1620
Ships (boats) — 23
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 11215 (+35)
Special equipment — 1254 (+7)
Military personnel — aprx. 357520 people (+850)
Lots of people dead fighting imaginary Nazis.
-
Russia can and will win a long war of attrition.
Still not seeing it. Russia has been losing equipment around 5-10 times faster than they can produce it. This will become critical within around 2 years as they literally run out of their Soviet stockpile (see my post on the bottom of page 78, they won't literally run out they'll just have a lot lot less to use at any one time, which means they'll lose as a result of not having enough). They need to increase their production 5x to sustain the war at its current intensity. There is speculation Putin may put the nation into a "war economy" after the next sham election and try do this which would still take a year or two before it became available. However, increasing output by 5x only sustains the war at its current level. If NATO doubles the intensity of their own weapons supplied (which they could easily do) Russia needs to 10x their production. If NATO 4Xs Russia must 20x. Essentially there is no path to Russian victory except through the use of propaganda to persuade NATO nations not to give more weapons to Ukraine, and you should expect to see intense waves of this washing down like a soporific "everything is fine, Russia is good, Ukraine's liberal aspirations are the real Nazis and are therefore just as bad if not worse, Putin is the true champion of Western values, Americans shouldn't take on any more debt to prop up a failing regime 95% couldn't find on a map when Russia will win anyway, what about Israel? what about Iraq?" In fact we already have.
Russia's path to victory could simply be to have Trump back in the Whitehouse. I think would have been preferable for Ukraine's allies to have drastically stepped-up support by now instead of just helping to maintain a long-term, stalemate that politically favors Putin. Elected democratic governments with term limits are exactly what Putin is counting on. He is ordering these "meat wave" attacks to show the West that the killing of thousands of Russian soldiers is not gonna be an issue and that he will wear us down, whatever it takes. And of course, many nations are still trading with Russia and selling them equipment as well.
If by chance we have a pro-Ukranian commander-in-chief next year, I hope we do go 20x support, and have a real counter-offensive.
-
Biden should cut an immigration deal asap. It's an issue he's on the very unpopular side of at this point anyway, so it seems like it should be win/win.
Agreed that more equipment and aid right away, rather than the constant trickle, would have been the way to go. Biden will probably not be kindly looked on by history for that, IMO.
-W
-
I will probably be a single issue voter in 2024 for whoever is most hawkish on Ukraine. It is such an obvious cut and dry black and white issue for everything the US stands for that I essentially see it as a litmus test. It is a direct indicator of suitability to be president. America-hating Neo-Mussolinis (Trump, DeSantis) naturally tend to cozy up to the dominant authoritarian leader (Putin), so I'd certainly take Biden over them. Haley? Still TBD but it's looking like I'd take her over Biden and be happy to see Biden's back. Which is kinda dumb on Biden's part because his base is directly centered on the part of the political spectrum most supportive of Ukraine (slightly liberal of center), while he has been working toward a Ukraine victory with his right hand while trying to prevent a Russian defeat with his left. If you projected to a 1-D line I am politically nearly centered on Biden (bigger gap in 3-D) and he is working really hard to alienate me and the rest of his base on the most important geopolitical issue of the past 20 years, when it would be so easy to do the right thing and win mass accolades. People seem to think a "base" can only form around extreme positions which are bad for most of the country and so they don't even bother trying to do really obvious right things, and that is also a thing which really irritates me. So I'll be happy to see Haley as president if there aren't 1,000 confirmed ATACMS impact craters on Russian positions by the time I vote.
-
Biden should cut an immigration deal asap. It's an issue he's on the very unpopular side of at this point anyway, so it seems like it should be win/win.
Agreed that more equipment and aid right away, rather than the constant trickle, would have been the way to go. Biden will probably not be kindly looked on by history for that, IMO.
-W
Sure cut a deal and just don't fund whatever was agreed upon. Republicans could report a win to their base. Republicans have their masters who depend on some cheap labor so it will be a win win for them. They can do their usual and pull the wool over the eyes of their base while adding riches to the people that really count for them.
-
I will probably be a single issue voter in 2024 for whoever is most hawkish on Ukraine. It is such an obvious cut and dry black and white issue for everything the US stands for that I essentially see it as a litmus test. It is a direct indicator of suitability to be president. America-hating Neo-Mussolinis (Trump, DeSantis) naturally tend to cozy up to the dominant authoritarian leader (Putin), so I'd certainly take Biden over them. Haley? Still TBD but it's looking like I'd take her over Biden and be happy to see Biden's back. Which is kinda dumb on Biden's part because his base is directly centered on the part of the political spectrum most supportive of Ukraine (slightly liberal of center), while he has been working toward a Ukraine victory with his right hand while trying to prevent a Russian defeat with his left. If you projected to a 1-D line I am politically nearly centered on Biden (bigger gap in 3-D) and he is working really hard to alienate me and the rest of his base on the most important geopolitical issue of the past 20 years, when it would be so easy to do the right thing and win mass accolades. People seem to think a "base" can only form around extreme positions which are bad for most of the country and so they don't even bother trying to do really obvious right things, and that is also a thing which really irritates me. So I'll be happy to see Haley as president if there aren't 1,000 confirmed ATACMS impact craters on Russian positions by the time I vote.
It seems bizarre that the Democratic party has become the war party. 20 Years ago that would have been unthinkable.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Republicans are opposed to funding the war in Ukraine (with dollars instead of the lives of US Soldiers) is because they have to be on the opposite side of the issue from Democrats. It makes no sense in geopolitical terms. Why not spend $100B on munitions/equipment for an ally to fight the war on your behalf?
-
I will probably be a single issue voter in 2024 for whoever is most hawkish on Ukraine. It is such an obvious cut and dry black and white issue for everything the US stands for that I essentially see it as a litmus test. It is a direct indicator of suitability to be president. America-hating Neo-Mussolinis (Trump, DeSantis) naturally tend to cozy up to the dominant authoritarian leader (Putin), so I'd certainly take Biden over them. Haley? Still TBD but it's looking like I'd take her over Biden and be happy to see Biden's back. Which is kinda dumb on Biden's part because his base is directly centered on the part of the political spectrum most supportive of Ukraine (slightly liberal of center), while he has been working toward a Ukraine victory with his right hand while trying to prevent a Russian defeat with his left. If you projected to a 1-D line I am politically nearly centered on Biden (bigger gap in 3-D) and he is working really hard to alienate me and the rest of his base on the most important geopolitical issue of the past 20 years, when it would be so easy to do the right thing and win mass accolades. People seem to think a "base" can only form around extreme positions which are bad for most of the country and so they don't even bother trying to do really obvious right things, and that is also a thing which really irritates me. So I'll be happy to see Haley as president if there aren't 1,000 confirmed ATACMS impact craters on Russian positions by the time I vote.
It seems bizarre that the Democratic party has become the war party. 20 Years ago that would have been unthinkable.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Republicans are opposed to funding the war in Ukraine (with dollars instead of the lives of US Soldiers) is because they have to be on the opposite side of the issue from Democrats. It makes no sense in geopolitical terms. Why not spend $100B on munitions/equipment for an ally to fight the war on your behalf?
I think you are right. It seems that no matter what the Democrats propose, the Republicans seem to be against it. The long term of the country be damned, they just want to score some kind of bizarre points.
It wasn't that many years ago that George W. Bush and the neocons were in charge. It was almost like they didn't see a war they didn't like. They were the ones willing to borrow great sums of money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody tied those escapades to border security.
Zelensky visits the front lines.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231130-zelensky-visits-eastern-front-as-russia-ramps-up-attacks (https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231130-zelensky-visits-eastern-front-as-russia-ramps-up-attacks)
-
I will probably be a single issue voter in 2024 for whoever is most hawkish on Ukraine. It is such an obvious cut and dry black and white issue for everything the US stands for that I essentially see it as a litmus test. It is a direct indicator of suitability to be president. America-hating Neo-Mussolinis (Trump, DeSantis) naturally tend to cozy up to the dominant authoritarian leader (Putin), so I'd certainly take Biden over them. Haley? Still TBD but it's looking like I'd take her over Biden and be happy to see Biden's back. Which is kinda dumb on Biden's part because his base is directly centered on the part of the political spectrum most supportive of Ukraine (slightly liberal of center), while he has been working toward a Ukraine victory with his right hand while trying to prevent a Russian defeat with his left. If you projected to a 1-D line I am politically nearly centered on Biden (bigger gap in 3-D) and he is working really hard to alienate me and the rest of his base on the most important geopolitical issue of the past 20 years, when it would be so easy to do the right thing and win mass accolades. People seem to think a "base" can only form around extreme positions which are bad for most of the country and so they don't even bother trying to do really obvious right things, and that is also a thing which really irritates me. So I'll be happy to see Haley as president if there aren't 1,000 confirmed ATACMS impact craters on Russian positions by the time I vote.
It seems bizarre that the Democratic party has become the war party. 20 Years ago that would have been unthinkable.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Republicans are opposed to funding the war in Ukraine (with dollars instead of the lives of US Soldiers) is because they have to be on the opposite side of the issue from Democrats. It makes no sense in geopolitical terms. Why not spend $100B on munitions/equipment for an ally to fight the war on your behalf?
I think it's a bit more than political opposition. Trump is a Putin ally & admirer. His minions follow his insane geopolitical views. The slow & peaceful nature of the democratic process means that we must endure the threat of another Trump presidency while legal processes slowly proceed. Wall Street seems fine with this, and it seems that is all that really matters in the US.
-
I will probably be a single issue voter in 2024 for whoever is most hawkish on Ukraine. It is such an obvious cut and dry black and white issue for everything the US stands for that I essentially see it as a litmus test. It is a direct indicator of suitability to be president. America-hating Neo-Mussolinis (Trump, DeSantis) naturally tend to cozy up to the dominant authoritarian leader (Putin), so I'd certainly take Biden over them. Haley? Still TBD but it's looking like I'd take her over Biden and be happy to see Biden's back. Which is kinda dumb on Biden's part because his base is directly centered on the part of the political spectrum most supportive of Ukraine (slightly liberal of center), while he has been working toward a Ukraine victory with his right hand while trying to prevent a Russian defeat with his left. If you projected to a 1-D line I am politically nearly centered on Biden (bigger gap in 3-D) and he is working really hard to alienate me and the rest of his base on the most important geopolitical issue of the past 20 years, when it would be so easy to do the right thing and win mass accolades. People seem to think a "base" can only form around extreme positions which are bad for most of the country and so they don't even bother trying to do really obvious right things, and that is also a thing which really irritates me. So I'll be happy to see Haley as president if there aren't 1,000 confirmed ATACMS impact craters on Russian positions by the time I vote.
It seems bizarre that the Democratic party has become the war party. 20 Years ago that would have been unthinkable.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Republicans are opposed to funding the war in Ukraine (with dollars instead of the lives of US Soldiers) is because they have to be on the opposite side of the issue from Democrats. It makes no sense in geopolitical terms. Why not spend $100B on munitions/equipment for an ally to fight the war on your behalf?
I think it's a bit more than political opposition. Trump is a Putin ally & admirer. His minions follow his insane geopolitical views. The slow & peaceful nature of the democratic process means that we must endure the threat of another Trump presidency while legal processes slowly proceed. Wall Street seems fine with this, and it seems that is all that really matters in the US.
The Mueller report was pretty damning of Trump's team with respect to their working with Russia prior to Trump's election. I can't imagine a scenario where another Trump presidency would hurt Russia, so it's likely they're going to work together again (if they aren't already).
-
The slow & peaceful nature of the democratic process means that we must endure the threat of another Trump presidency while legal processes slowly proceed.
I have been saying this all along. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they do turn.
In the case of Trump's now heavily imprisoned cabinet and allies, they turned pretty darn quickly.
-
Nothing that Trump promises is etched in stone anyhow... Don't put any stock in what he tells us.
-
It seems bizarre that the Democratic party has become the war party. 20 Years ago that would have been unthinkable.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Republicans are opposed to funding the war in Ukraine (with dollars instead of the lives of US Soldiers) is because they have to be on the opposite side of the issue from Democrats. It makes no sense in geopolitical terms. Why not spend $100B on munitions/equipment for an ally to fight the war on your behalf?
The Democrats were once the party of bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo, and the Republicans were once the defenders of the status quo.
Today the Republicans are the party of bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo. Democrats have become the elderly, old media, and monied defenders of the status quo.
Democrats now routinely out-fundraise their Republican opponents, as business interests are increasingly startled by the lawlessness, corruption, racism, sedition, deficit expansion, violence, and campaigns against private businesses like Disney and Target embraced by the modern right-wing movement. They're starting to see a radical overthrow of the existing order as a threat to their wealth which exceeds the threat of the Democrat's potential tax hikes.
In that sense, the tables have turned. Democrats' weaknesses have led to two decades of mostly right-wing Congresses, presidencies, and state legislatures. The Supreme Court has been transformed into a partisan rubber stamping committee. The U.S. is rapidly approaching one-party-state status, and the rallying cry on the political "left" has retreated to the ultimate fallback position of saving democracy, not reforming the healthcare system, discussing slavery reparations, or passing the ERA. Whether or not democracy persists in the Americas depends on whether this rallying cry is sufficient to attract the backing of the richest people.
-
It seems bizarre that the Democratic party has become the war party. 20 Years ago that would have been unthinkable.
I feel like the only reason a lot of Republicans are opposed to funding the war in Ukraine (with dollars instead of the lives of US Soldiers) is because they have to be on the opposite side of the issue from Democrats. It makes no sense in geopolitical terms. Why not spend $100B on munitions/equipment for an ally to fight the war on your behalf?
The Democrats were once the party of bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo, and the Republicans were once the defenders of the status quo.
Today the Republicans are the party of bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo. Democrats have become the elderly, old media, and monied defenders of the status quo.
Democrats now routinely out-fundraise their Republican opponents, as business interests are increasingly startled by the lawlessness, corruption, racism, sedition, deficit expansion, violence, and campaigns against private businesses like Disney and Target embraced by the modern right-wing movement. They're starting to see a radical overthrow of the existing order as a threat to their wealth which exceeds the threat of the Democrat's potential tax hikes.
In that sense, the tables have turned. Democrats' weaknesses have led to two decades of mostly right-wing Congresses, presidencies, and state legislatures. The Supreme Court has been transformed into a partisan rubber stamping committee. The U.S. is rapidly approaching one-party-state status, and the rallying cry on the political "left" has retreated to the ultimate fallback position of saving democracy, not reforming the healthcare system, discussing slavery reparations, or passing the ERA. Whether or not democracy persists in the Americas depends on whether this rallying cry is sufficient to attract the backing of the richest people.
I guess I've missed it. I've seen few bold new ideas coming from the Republicans. They seem to be the party of "no." Sometimes it seems justified and sometimes it's not. I mean these are the guys that don't believe in medical science like vaccines and climate science. They are the party of "traditional values." These are the guys that don't seem to like the ethnic makeup of the USA changing.
I think the country needs a party of conservative fiscal restraint. This party is not necessarily against spending money, but wants the money spent in the best manner to provide for the needs and wants of the people. Neither party seems to do that.
-
bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo.
Can't say about "modern media", except that Twitter has became a total cesspit. Youth movements? Afaik most youth are not very delighted by the party that wants to steal their future and their bodily righty, but maybe I can't see it because of the big pond between us.
But tearing down the Status quo? If you mean democracy, checks and balances and human rights by that, then yes. If you mean anythign else, please explain what.
And very please name 3 "bold now ideas", because I cannot remember hearing one.
-
Russia's path to victory could simply be to have Trump back in the Whitehouse. I think would have been preferable for Ukraine's allies to have drastically stepped-up support by now instead of just helping to maintain a long-term, stalemate that politically favors Putin.
Trump being back in the White House would be a double-edged sword for the Russians. While he's more pro-Putin, he's also a lot less predictable. With Biden staying in office, Russia can safely expect sanctions and mediocre military support to Ukraine. With Trump in office, anything from zero Ukrainian support to US soldiers in Kiev is a possibility. The unpredictability of Trump is a large reason I think Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during Trump's.
-
Russia's path to victory could simply be to have Trump back in the Whitehouse. I think would have been preferable for Ukraine's allies to have drastically stepped-up support by now instead of just helping to maintain a long-term, stalemate that politically favors Putin.
Trump being back in the White House would be a double-edged sword for the Russians. While he's more pro-Putin, he's also a lot less predictable. With Biden staying in office, Russia can safely expect sanctions and mediocre military support to Ukraine. With Trump in office, anything from zero Ukrainian support to US soldiers in Kiev is a possibility. The unpredictability of Trump is a large reason I think Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during Trump's.
Unpredictable - You are right. This guy had a lot of admiration for Putin. He may actually aid Putin in some way, shape or form. I remember him making noises to withdraw from NATO.
-
bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo.
Can't say about "modern media", except that Twitter has became a total cesspit. Youth movements? Afaik most youth are not very delighted by the party that wants to steal their future and their bodily righty, but maybe I can't see it because of the big pond between us.
But tearing down the Status quo? If you mean democracy, checks and balances and human rights by that, then yes. If you mean anythign else, please explain what.
And very please name 3 "bold now ideas", because I cannot remember hearing one.
Yep. That’s what I mean. Didn’t say they were good ideas, but fascism is new and bold. Regarding social media, it should be clear by now that conservatives dominate it. YouTube, Xitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, 4chan, 8chan…it all leads to the right wing. The format selects for right wing ideas and deselects ideas related to the status quo - democracy, equality, human rights, women’s rights, etc. What is youth culture today? It’s this stuff.
-
bold new ideas, youth movements, modern media, and tearing down the status quo.
Can't say about "modern media", except that Twitter has became a total cesspit. Youth movements? Afaik most youth are not very delighted by the party that wants to steal their future and their bodily righty, but maybe I can't see it because of the big pond between us.
But tearing down the Status quo? If you mean democracy, checks and balances and human rights by that, then yes. If you mean anythign else, please explain what.
And very please name 3 "bold now ideas", because I cannot remember hearing one.
Yep. That’s what I mean. Didn’t say they were good ideas, but fascism is new and bold. Regarding social media, it should be clear by now that conservatives dominate it. YouTube, Xitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, 4chan, 8chan…it all leads to the right wing. The format selects for right wing ideas and deselects ideas related to the status quo - democracy, equality, human rights, women’s rights, etc. What is youth culture today? It’s this stuff.
Fascism is not new. Italy had a fascist government after WWI, so did Spain. Nazi Germany was fascist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe
-
The word fascist itself goes to back to an ancient roman symbol of power, so "new" this idea is! And equally bold. What is bold in blaming someone else for everything and hurting them so you don't have to do anything?
-
Russia's path to victory could simply be to have Trump back in the Whitehouse. I think would have been preferable for Ukraine's allies to have drastically stepped-up support by now instead of just helping to maintain a long-term, stalemate that politically favors Putin.
Trump being back in the White House would be a double-edged sword for the Russians. While he's more pro-Putin, he's also a lot less predictable. With Biden staying in office, Russia can safely expect sanctions and mediocre military support to Ukraine. With Trump in office, anything from zero Ukrainian support to US soldiers in Kiev is a possibility. The unpredictability of Trump is a large reason I think Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during Trump's.
Unpredictable - You are right. This guy had a lot of admiration for Putin. He may actually aid Putin in some way, shape or form. I remember him making noises to withdraw from NATO.
Trump threatened to leave NATO not because of a love for Putin, but because almost none of the NATO members was meeting it's military spendibg obligations. They were relying on the USA to carry the burden. Military spending in nations like Germany was abysmally low- which is why Germany struggled mightily to aid Ukraine early on- they had essentially ignored thei military for 30-years. If NATO had done as Trump demanded, they would have been better prepared to resist Putin in 2022.
When I served in Germany in the late 80s, their military was large, well trained, and well equipped. By Feb 2022, it was a tiny fraction of it's former size, and probably less capable than the Polish military.
Trump and Putin share some character traits- Trump is volatile and unpredictable, like Putin. I think that is why Putin was aggressive with milquetoast bureaucrats like Obama and Biden in power, but passive when Trump was in office-he had no idea how a narcissistic egomaniac like Trump would react.
-
Russia's path to victory could simply be to have Trump back in the Whitehouse. I think would have been preferable for Ukraine's allies to have drastically stepped-up support by now instead of just helping to maintain a long-term, stalemate that politically favors Putin.
Trump being back in the White House would be a double-edged sword for the Russians. While he's more pro-Putin, he's also a lot less predictable. With Biden staying in office, Russia can safely expect sanctions and mediocre military support to Ukraine. With Trump in office, anything from zero Ukrainian support to US soldiers in Kiev is a possibility. The unpredictability of Trump is a large reason I think Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not during Trump's.
Unpredictable - You are right. This guy had a lot of admiration for Putin. He may actually aid Putin in some way, shape or form. I remember him making noises to withdraw from NATO.
Trump threatened to leave NATO not because of a love for Putin, but because almost none of the NATO members was meeting it's military spendibg obligations. They were relying on the USA to carry the burden. Military spending in nations like Germany was abysmally low- which is why Germany struggled mightily to aid Ukraine early on- they had essentially ignored thei military for 30-years. If NATO had done as Trump demanded, they would have been better prepared to resist Putin in 2022.
When I served in Germany in the late 80s, their military was large, well trained, and well equipped. By Feb 2022, it was a tiny fraction of it's former size, and probably less capable than the Polish military.
Trump and Putin share some character traits- Trump is volatile and unpredictable, like Putin. I think that is why Putin was aggressive with milquetoast bureaucrats like Obama and Biden in power, but passive when Trump was in office-he had no idea how a narcissistic egomaniac like Trump would react.
I think you are absolutely right. Obama continually tried to work with the Republicans thinking they wanted to work him to solve the country's problems. I kind of think that they do not share the problem solving agenda. There are a lot of people who make money if problems persist and they have their representation. I seem to remember Trump's unpredictability even had North Korea backing off a bit from their normal crazy behavior.
-
Trump threatened to leave NATO not because of a love for Putin, but because almost none of the NATO members was meeting it's military spendibg obligations. They were relying on the USA to carry the burden. Military spending in nations like Germany was abysmally low- which is why Germany struggled mightily to aid Ukraine early on- they had essentially ignored thei military for 30-years.
While I can fully believe that Trump got angry because someone told him that Germany did not reach the 2% we promied 3 years earlier, that was not really the problem. It's still one of the largest military budgets in the world.
The problem was how it was used - e.g. for US-based business consultant companies or tens of millions to repair a single sail ship. France get's a lot more out of it's smaller budget.
And it's of course easy to talk about 2% if you start at 5% like the US, but Germany (at least in the last 70 years) never had the intention to win a war on the other side of the world by pure airpower or nuke that world into 100-fold oblivion. That's a lot of money not needed!
Also while the US might be the biggest payer, it is also the biggest receiver of military favors from other NATO states. The whole point of something like NATO is, that as a single member state you don't have to pay for the whole capabilities needed for a war.
And back to money, don't forget that a lot that is military spending in the US is something else in other countries. Like health care and pensions and free education (or living costs for millions for that matter) - all that stuff which are the reasons why so many join the US forces.
And on the topic of "better prepared":
All the US needs to do to end the war in Ukraine is to send 20% of it's "no longer in use or soon to be faded out" system to there. And China is no reason to not do it, because Taiwan is not big enough to park all the tanks, airplanes and other vehicles there.
But they don't do it. And compared to GDP the US is sending less help than Germany - and differently to Germany, it's mostly money in the form of "we would not use that stuff anyway" illusionary money.
Reality is complicated, who would have thought that...
-
I seem to remember Trump's unpredictability even had North Korea backing off a bit from their normal crazy behavior.
That is not correct. Trump initially took a hard line against North Korea after NK launched a ballistic missile ("little rocket man") but Kim began to flatter Trump sending him fawning letters of praise, which brought Trump to a much more accommodating stance.
Previous presidents had stated North Korea must make concessions on its nuclear program a pre-condition to formal negotiations with the US. The idea is the US won't be held hostage by nuclear blackmail. Otherwise any country could begin a nuclear program and use that as leverage to obtain concessions from the US. Trump decided to meet with Kim twice anyway. This was a major propaganda victory for Kim, who was able to use the talks as evidence of the power and legitimacy of his regime.
In exchange Trump got no meaningful concessions from Kim. However, Trump began to take a pro-North Korea stance. At the press conference following the Singapore summit, Trump announced he was canceling joint US-South Korean military exercises (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa/in-surprise-summit-concession-trump-says-he-will-halt-korea-war-games-idUSKBN1J72PM/) without informing South Korea first. This unexpected announcement was a major slap in the face to our allies South Korea and Japan. Trump called exercises a "provocation" copying the exact same language North Korea uses. In another huge victory for North Korea, Trump threatened to withdraw US troops from South Korea, which again undermined our alliance with US and Japan, painting the US as an unreliable ally.
Some have opined that acting erratically has been some sort of foreign policy advantage. I cannot disagree more. Erratic behavior undermines leadership. You want your allies and rivals to understand exactly what you will and won't do. Obviously, this is not always strictly possible, and you have to leave some room for bluffing and gamesmanship, etc. It is okay to change your policies and conditions change as well. But if your foreign policy goal is to isolate North Korea because of its nuclear ambitions and political structure, then it is not helpful to undermine our ally South Korea. If our allies can't trust us, then they will be motivated to exclude us as a partner.
-
While I can fully believe that Trump got angry because someone told him that Germany did not reach the 2% we promied 3 years earlier, that was not really the problem. It's still one of the largest military budgets in the world.
That's not the point though. NATO is a defensive alliance. If you want the benefits of the alliance, it isn't enough to demonstrate the alliance is strong enough without your contribution, you have to be willing to contribute yourself.
However, all US presidents since at least Bill Clinton have complained that NATO members weren't footing enough of the bill. This is not a new issue. The novel part is previous presidents would (mostly) complain in private and then tout the strength of the alliance in public. Trump undermining NATO in public was a major foreign policy gift to Putin and emboldened other bad actors like Iran and China.
-
Since this is about Trump for a bit:
The one innovative thing Trump did that I really really appreciated was stoking inflation by printing money and sending piles of cash to everyone. The previous two administrations had used some combination of letting the ship sink, shoveling cash to the wealthy (QE), and shoveling cash to those who had failed in proportion to how badly they had failed (TARP). Some speculated it was a moral hazard to do QE and TARP, but necessary. It was not just moral hazard, it was shitty economic policy. Letting failures fail and shoveling cash to everyone equally is the obviously better policy from any perspective, and surprise surprise it actually worked. If anyone had asked I could have told them that. Everyone has been happy to forget that, the Democrats because they are embarrassed it wasn't their policy under Obama, the Republicans because they are embarrassed it was their policy under Trump. It was also anathema to everything the Republican party has espoused the past 100 years.
The reality is that Trump is a Democrat of his youth. Recently the Democrats had been pathetic and weak, and the Republicans strong even if their only platform was "The Party of No" plus getting into dumb wars. The problem is, there were necessary policies and ideas from the Democrats that simply weren't getting done under this system, and the only way to solve them was to elect closet Democrat Trump using a cult of personality. Hence we got Trump, who did a whole bunch of useful things, such as trade war with China, being an outspoken opponent of the Iraq invasion, stoking the economy with piles of cash, and everything single thing he did that Biden hasn't undone but could have. All of which were the exact opposite of the Republican party policies for 150 years. Of course he brought a lot of baggage along with it (much of which was also opposite of what Republicans had talked about for 150 years eg morality). IMO a big cause was that Obama was pathetic and weak and unable to enact the policies his ideals suggested he should even with strong initial support. Hillary was as close or closer to Bush II than she was to the Democrats of 30 years before.
I could see benefit in unpredictability towards foes. If you react with the same strength to all provocations, foes know exactly how far they can push and can find ways to weaken you, while you react either consistently too little too deter them, or consistently too much to sustain your effort. Better to let foes roll a dice. Will this be the time that a 1 comes up and they get a free pass, or the time a 6 comes up and you smite them to oblivion? In this way you could achieve a deterrence effect of 5 with a cost of 3, which is a better result than a cost of 3 and an effect of 3. (Using the dice analogy for all.) Seems like predictability would be preferable for allies.
-
Some of these previous comments made a lot of sense.
So Trump was a better Democrat than the Democrats.
Maybe so, a lot of Union folk went over to the Republicans because many Democrats would do little more than smile and expect their votes. Trump talked about getting the jobs back from overseas more than the Democrats did. I think that made a positive impression on many.
I guess this is why there are kind of two Republican parties. There's the old anti labor - super pro defense - no taxes- - libertarian - type rich white guys. Then there are the MAGAites who seem to have no real beliefs or ideology other than America First and the wall to keep fruit pickers out. If you vote for them it's like a choice of two parties with one vote.
Whether you believe the totals or not, Putin has killed a lot of people on his quest to kill imaginary Nazis.
01.01.2024
Tanks — 5983 (+6)
Armored fighting vehicle — 11087 (+17)
Artillery systems — 8482 (+18)
MLRS — 943
Anti-aircraft warfare — 625 (+2)
Planes — 329
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 6657 (+66)
Cruise missiles — 1709
Ships (boats) — 23
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 11330 (+38)
Special equipment — 1277 (+9)
Military personnel — aprx. 360010 people (+780)
-
Some of these previous comments made a lot of sense.
So Trump was a better Democrat than the Democrats.
Maybe so, a lot of Union folk went over to the Republicans because many Democrats would do little more than smile and expect their votes. Trump talked about getting the jobs back from overseas more than the Democrats did. I think that made a positive impression on many.
I guess this is why there are kind of two Republican parties. There's the old anti labor - super pro defense - no taxes- - libertarian - type rich white guys. Then there are the MAGAites who seem to have no real beliefs or ideology other than America First and the wall to keep fruit pickers out. If you vote for them it's like a choice of two parties with one vote.
Whether you believe the totals or not, Putin has killed a lot of people on his quest to kill imaginary Nazis.
01.01.2024
Tanks — 5983 (+6)
Armored fighting vehicle — 11087 (+17)
Artillery systems — 8482 (+18)
MLRS — 943
Anti-aircraft warfare — 625 (+2)
Planes — 329
Helicopters — 324
UAV — 6657 (+66)
Cruise missiles — 1709
Ships (boats) — 23
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 11330 (+38)
Special equipment — 1277 (+9)
Military personnel — aprx. 360010 people (+780)
No, Trump is just better at pretending to a democrat than any republican has ever done. Trump is not and has never been union friendly, he's just a good liar and con-man. Trump appointed hundreds of incredibly conservative, anti-worker judges which led to erosion of union protections during his administration. He also completely shit all over the NLRB who undermined workers at every opportunity. If you're appointing conservatives to the court and places like the NLRB, you are appointing business first people, not pro-workers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being completely conned, the record is clear and transparent for anyone who can read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/trump-united-auto-workers-strike
https://apnews.com/article/labor-union-auto-workers-trump-strike-dfcb805fd4e749b13aaf827e1463da73
https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record
Biden has been far better for workers, but he's quite hamstrung by conservative courts and SC. You think Gorsuch and ACB are going to suddenly become pro-worker? Or Clarence Thomas billionaire friends are suddenly going to ask him to rule in favor of their employees? Neither do I. He just sucks as using the bully pulpit to tell you this.
And the point about the trade war is awful, the tariffs were NOT good for America or manufacturing. Companies didn't bring jobs back to America, they just raised prices to pay for the tariffs, which is what was expected. Research is pretty clear and has concluded that Trumps tariffs have been one of the the largest tax increases in decades, who do you think is paying this regressive tax? (Hint: It's not Clarence Thomas and his billionaire friends). Biden is in a very difficult position, he literally can't repeal tariffs. Other countries implemented retaliatory tariffs, if Biden drops the US tariffs there's no guarantee the other countries will do the same and countries have shown an unwillingness to bargain with the USA in this arena since Trump pulled out of the TPP and has been continuing to threaten more tariffs under a second Trump administration. Like if Biden drops the China tariffs you think China is going to respond in kind to that? Especially if there's a pretty good chance Trump gets in and imposes more tariffs? That's an opportunity for them to make their products more competitive in the USA and decrease the competitiveness of USA products in their markets. The USA is literally the most fucked they've been in many decades over this.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs-trump-trade-war/
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-10-percent-tariff/
Trump is NOT worker friendly he's just a con man who fucked workers every chance he got while pretending he was on their side. He's a wolf in sheeps clothing and it's not even that hard to see. However that's all I'll say on this matter since this thread is about Ukraine and not about Trumps lies.
-
When he's elected president again we'll have many conversations about this.
-
There is actually zero overlap between sixwings venn diagram of observations and my venn diagram of observations. They touch at the trade war, but they don't share any area.
-
When he's elected president again we'll have many conversations about this.
Bite your tongue. Sheesh.
-
A Russian A-50 airborne radar plane was shot down over the Sea of Azov yesterday and an IL-22 command and control plane was damaged and returned to base with casualties. Possibly another Patriot ambush, but hard to say. It was at nearly max range for any Ukrainian air defense systems.
https://vxtwitter.com/olga_pp98/status/1746812249216278721 (https://vxtwitter.com/olga_pp98/status/1746812249216278721)
-
Would be funny if it were friendly fire again.
Unfortunately the Ukrainian Youtube guy closed and the press has been aawfully quite so I can't give any useful update even though I tried (well, after I was no longer sick with the after-Christmas illness lol).
-
Ukraine is claiming they did it, although the method isn't yet clear. This is a bigger win than it might initially appear. Russia only has about 10 of the A-50's, of which maybe half are operational. It's an asset that is in high demand, and losing it will not only hurt Russia's ability to detect Ukrainian aircraft and missiles, but also impact Russia's reconnaissance capabilities.
What's interesting about this event is that Ukraine has been very careful about keeping the Patriot radars a long way from the front, yet Patriot missiles are the only missiles Ukraine has which can hit that far away. It's leading to speculation that Ukraine somehow built a frankenstein-esque SAM system with the (older, less-capable) S-300 radar and long-range missiles from a Patriot battery.
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Basically all the oil Russia sold to Europe is now being sold to India - quite openly. There is definitely some Russian exports gets washed through third countries as well. Not just oil and gas but minerals and other exports. I saw the graphic somewhere recently but I can't find it now.
Here's a quote from a geopolitics website I subscribe to regarding Europe replacing Russian oil and gas with new suppliers from Norway, the US, and others.
Between the second quarter of 2022 and 2023, the EU significantly reduced its imports of Russian petroleum, to 2.7 percent from 15.9 percent. This reduction was mostly compensated by increased imports from Norway, Kazakhstan, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. A similar shift is happening with natural gas. Norway and the U.S. have become the main new sources, providing natural gas and liquefied natural gas, respectively.
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
I think even if Russia does manage to claim the Donbas, there is still a whole Ukraine left between them and Russia. Nothing to say that it would also take Russia a full 5 years at least to ramp up their equipment and for new blood to age into military age.
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
I think even if Russia does manage to claim the Donbas, there is still a whole Ukraine left between them and Russia. Nothing to say that it would also take Russia a full 5 years at least to ramp up their equipment and for new blood to age into military age.
I kind of wonder. Putin works really hard to "sell" the "Special Military Operation" to the public now. People aren't dumb. They may have lost their brother, Uncle or father in this Russian foreign adventure. Some of the Russians are experiencing a very cold Winter without heat. It didn't happen until many men either fled the country or were sent to the "Special Military Operation." These kinds of things don't leave good feelings in people. These kind of things leave bad memories.
Would Putin's successor be able to "sell" another war in 5 years? This assumes that the present situation has come to some sort of a stoppage. I'm guessing a lot of these kids that would be sent to this war will also see veterans walking around without limbs and with some sort of PTSD in the next 5 years.
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
Governments don't buy goods and services, businesses and people do. They are rational actors and if you can get a barrel of oil from Kyrgyzstan for $60 when the market price is $80 there are plenty of people who will do so - even if they know full well it's really coming from Russia. The governments in Europe may try to stop that, but when you have a person with an opportunity to make millions of dollars vs. a bureaucrat enforcing a rule, who do you think is going to try harder and ultimately win. Same thing with smuggling drugs or any other illegal product.
It only takes a relative handful of unscrupulous actors who know they can make a lot of money by evading sanctions (legally or illegally).
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
Apparently not. The Ukrainians bought Europe a couple of years to prepare, yet you don't exactly see them doing much with the warning.
Denial can overcome alarm, and if the European attention span is anything like Americans', they lack a concept of a typical war lasting 5-10 years and expected things to be over with months ago.
I suspect reports of the Russian military's demise are exaggerated, and Europe is still at risk of being overrun. Behind the NATO front lines, Europe is softer and less defended than ever. Even worse, this dictator has practically unlimited access to materials and hydrocarbon energy, and cannot be defeated, only held at bay, due to possessing nukes. Resource-poor Europe has everything stacked against it.
Furthermore, neither Americans nor Europeans seem to grasp the geopolitical reality of a new Axis of authoritarianism including Belarus, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. The shipping attacks in the Red Sea are part of the same war the Ukrainians are fighting which is part of the same war as the Taiwanese may be fighting soon.
European weakness is provocative.
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
Governments don't buy goods and services, businesses and people do. They are rational actors and if you can get a barrel of oil from Kyrgyzstan for $60 when the market price is $80 there are plenty of people who will do so - even if they know full well it's really coming from Russia. The governments in Europe may try to stop that, but when you have a person with an opportunity to make millions of dollars vs. a bureaucrat enforcing a rule, who do you think is going to try harder and ultimately win. Same thing with smuggling drugs or any other illegal product.
It only takes a relative handful of unscrupulous actors who know they can make a lot of money by evading sanctions (legally or illegally).
It's technically evading sanctions, but it also still takes money out of Russia's pocket. They've been selling crude to India at a steep discount since the war started and India has been selling refined products from it which also denies Russia income from that product. Russia has had to make tough choices the last few months on how much oil to keep for themselves or export because its pretty much the only money coming in lately.
-
Yes, I read some time ago it's actually (inofficially) wanted that Russia sells it oil to India for example.
It still "costs" them a lot (If you produce at 40 and sell at 60 instead of 80, that's only half profit) while keeping the oil prices low. Somehow a lot of people start to get angry at the government if oil prices rise, I wonder why...
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
Governments don't buy goods and services, businesses and people do. They are rational actors and if you can get a barrel of oil from Kyrgyzstan for $60 when the market price is $80 there are plenty of people who will do so - even if they know full well it's really coming from Russia. The governments in Europe may try to stop that, but when you have a person with an opportunity to make millions of dollars vs. a bureaucrat enforcing a rule, who do you think is going to try harder and ultimately win. Same thing with smuggling drugs or any other illegal product.
It only takes a relative handful of unscrupulous actors who know they can make a lot of money by evading sanctions (legally or illegally).
The sanctions could have deprived Russia of billions in both exports and imports. Putin already plays shell games with money stashed abroad through a network of oligarchs / friends. He knows how to hide transactions, and it is worth billions for him to succeed.
I'm surprised Europe is making it easy. I would expect extending sanctions to proxy countries, or limiting exports to 2020 levels. It takes very little research to discover this problem, so I'm also surprised over the lack of awareness among European leaders.
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes... and yet Europe's leaders don't seem to have even done that. I wonder how, in theory, they obtain new information and start new sanctions. Currently, that process seems broken.
-
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes...
if you believe the numbers from the Russian government (which have been reduced by a lot, which has nothing to do with any problems, I am sure) and ignore the huge stimulus that the war spending has done (which cannot go on for long, maybe 2-3 years until all reserves are dry).
-
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes...
if you believe the numbers from the Russian government (which have been reduced by a lot, which has nothing to do with any problems, I am sure) and ignore the huge stimulus that the war spending has done (which cannot go on for long, maybe 2-3 years until all reserves are dry).
When I see the pictures of the pipes broken in so many of these communist buildings, I can't think the economy is going well. I guess if you ran the numbers in the ghetto of all the drug sales, you could say things are going great. Bean counters look at numbers and not the underlying reality sometimes. I think Russia has been taken to the cleaners. The entire country can be compared to these companies that have had hostile takeovers.
When I was young and Christmas rolled around two big catalogs appeared. One was Montgomery Wards and the other was Sears. I didn't live in a highly populated area so a lot of stuff was mail order. Those catalogs were called Wish books. Now Sears was this huge enterprise. It fell into the clutches of some financial "genius"who financially stripped it to its bones.
More and more I hear of Russia using the stuff made by the USSR a generation ago. The world has sent billions and billions of dollars into that country. The people still live in these old Commie Block apartments. Apparently, there has been little infrastructure added outside the two major cities of Moscow and St Petersburg. They still make do with what Stalin built with slave labor.
The numbers may have looked good for Sears as the assets were sold off to make the new owners look rich, but it wasn't healthy or the long term. Sears could have been Amazon instead of being stripped.
So it is with Russia. The guys in charge are like corporate bandits. They can make the financial numbers look good to the world. You can lie and cheat with statistics. The reality may be seen on the streets. I guess they sell more Vodka in Russia these days and I don't think they are celebrating.
-
The past two posts are taking part of what I said out of context :
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes... and yet Europe's leaders don't seem to have even done that. I wonder how, in theory, they obtain new information and start new sanctions. Currently, that process seems broken.
I focused on evidence sanctions were broken. If Russia claims their economy is growing, not shrinking, then sanctions might not working. Europe should investigate if that's true or not.
MOSCOW, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the third quarter was confirmed on Wednesday at 5.5% compared with the same period last year, when it shrunk 3.5%, the state statistics service Rosstat said.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-q3-gdp-growth-confirmed-55-rosstat-2023-12-13/
Setting aside trusting Russian state agencies, shouldn't this claim spur Europe to investigate if Russia's economy is still suffering under sanctions? It's not isolated, either - the neighboring country's much higher imports also suggest sanctions evasion.
-
The unverified claim I saw on Twitter was that no AWACS aircraft has been shot down before now. They are too valuable to use near the front; are guarded; and can redirect incoming fire to other targets.
An economist on Twitter claimed sanctions against Russia are being evaded using many of its neighbors as proxies - and Europe is turning a blind eye. I looked for and found this graph of European exports to Kyrgyzstan. Imports from Europe quadrupled after Russia invaded Ukraine. My base assumption from this graph is sanctions being evaded.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/exports/kyrgyzstan
Does Europe not worry Russia is coming for them next? Or perhaps only the countries bordering Russia?
Governments don't buy goods and services, businesses and people do. They are rational actors and if you can get a barrel of oil from Kyrgyzstan for $60 when the market price is $80 there are plenty of people who will do so - even if they know full well it's really coming from Russia. The governments in Europe may try to stop that, but when you have a person with an opportunity to make millions of dollars vs. a bureaucrat enforcing a rule, who do you think is going to try harder and ultimately win. Same thing with smuggling drugs or any other illegal product.
It only takes a relative handful of unscrupulous actors who know they can make a lot of money by evading sanctions (legally or illegally).
The sanctions could have deprived Russia of billions in both exports and imports. Putin already plays shell games with money stashed abroad through a network of oligarchs / friends. He knows how to hide transactions, and it is worth billions for him to succeed.
I'm surprised Europe is making it easy. I would expect extending sanctions to proxy countries, or limiting exports to 2020 levels. It takes very little research to discover this problem, so I'm also surprised over the lack of awareness among European leaders.
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes... and yet Europe's leaders don't seem to have even done that. I wonder how, in theory, they obtain new information and start new sanctions. Currently, that process seems broken.
It's a cat and mouse game and the people who stand to make a lot of money have far higher incentives than the governments and government agents trying to stop them.
There have been sanctions on Iran and North Korea for years, and Iraq before that. All of them leaked like a sieve because actually enforcing them ultimately means using force to seize ships, trucks, people, etc. Most countries are not willing to go to war to stop a ship full of iron ore, or coal, or oil.
-
The company I used to work had their EU HQ in Luxembourg. Around 2016, I was talking with our logistics guys there. They said they shipped products as far West as Portugal,and as far East as Russia. They are about equal distance from the Luxembourg location. However, the shipping rates to Russia were twice that to Portugal. Why? Because the trucks all returned empty, so you had to pay for the round trip. There were no finished goods leaving Russia. Their exports are all commodities (except for military hardware).
-
The goal of sanctions is to hurt the target country as a consequence of their actions, and to stop the flow of goods that may be helping their military directly. Apart from the fact that these sanctions are very difficult to fully enforce as already mentioned, the goal of the sanctions is not to cripple the whole economy. Destroying the economy of a large, nuclear armed nation may not have the best outcomes. Germany went to war in the teens because of expansionist goals (like Russia today), but their collapsed economy after the war is what led directly to them going to war again in the 30s.
-
The goal of sanctions is to hurt the target country as a consequence of their actions, and to stop the flow of goods that may be helping their military directly. Apart from the fact that these sanctions are very difficult to fully enforce as already mentioned, the goal of the sanctions is not to cripple the whole economy. Destroying the economy of a large, nuclear armed nation may not have the best outcomes. Germany went to war in the teens because of expansionist goals (like Russia today), but their collapsed economy after the war is what led directly to them going to war again in the 30s.
War is also a great way for dictators to stay in power, especially when there is economic hardship at home. This is why I think China will invade Taiwan in the next few years.
-
The goal of sanctions is to hurt the target country as a consequence of their actions, and to stop the flow of goods that may be helping their military directly. Apart from the fact that these sanctions are very difficult to fully enforce as already mentioned, the goal of the sanctions is not to cripple the whole economy. Destroying the economy of a large, nuclear armed nation may not have the best outcomes. Germany went to war in the teens because of expansionist goals (like Russia today), but their collapsed economy after the war is what led directly to them going to war again in the 30s.
War is also a great way for dictators to stay in power, especially when there is economic hardship at home. This is why I think China will invade Taiwan in the next few years.
From the perspective of "history repeats", China is obviously going to invade Taiwan. Also from the perspective of "history repeats", its not actually going to have any significant or long lasting benefits for anyone, China included. But that won't stop China.
-
The goal of sanctions is to hurt the target country as a consequence of their actions, and to stop the flow of goods that may be helping their military directly. Apart from the fact that these sanctions are very difficult to fully enforce as already mentioned, the goal of the sanctions is not to cripple the whole economy. Destroying the economy of a large, nuclear armed nation may not have the best outcomes. Germany went to war in the teens because of expansionist goals (like Russia today), but their collapsed economy after the war is what led directly to them going to war again in the 30s.
Did anyone besides you bring up "cripple the whole economy"?
Are you emphasizing not doing something that only you brought up?
-
Germany went to war in the teens because of expansionist goals (like Russia today), but their collapsed economy after the war is what led directly to them going to war again in the 30s.
Germany in 1914 included Alsace-Lorraine and all of historical Prussia including today what's known as Kaliningrad.
I don't doubt they had expansionist goals (every world power at that time did!) but to claim that was their casus belli for WW1 seems a bit strong and totally glosses over the July crisis, the fact German diplomats actually sought neutrality at first, and all the standing alliances. If anything, it seems like Germany didn't really want to 'help' Austria-Hungary deal with Bosnia/Serbia (as a result of the assassination that nobody in Vienna cared much about) unless Russia and France would stay out of it (which they didn't and then of course the UK joins).
-
Every European country around 1900 was very expansive (as was btw. the USA, anyone ever heard of Hawaii?), it was just that with all those treaties etc. around it looked better to do that outside the continent. We Germans were just a tad slow on the run to colonies.
And no, we didn't start WWI. It was an Autrian bighead dying, and WWII was started by an Autrian bighead not dying. History is a bitch, as I like to say.
-
The goal of sanctions is to hurt the target country as a consequence of their actions, and to stop the flow of goods that may be helping their military directly. Apart from the fact that these sanctions are very difficult to fully enforce as already mentioned, the goal of the sanctions is not to cripple the whole economy. Destroying the economy of a large, nuclear armed nation may not have the best outcomes. Germany went to war in the teens because of expansionist goals (like Russia today), but their collapsed economy after the war is what led directly to them going to war again in the 30s.
War is also a great way for dictators to stay in power, especially when there is economic hardship at home. This is why I think China will invade Taiwan in the next few years.
From the perspective of "history repeats", China is obviously going to invade Taiwan. Also from the perspective of "history repeats", its not actually going to have any significant or long lasting benefits for anyone, China included. But that won't stop China.
It seems like we saw the effect of Taiwan and microchips during the worst of the Covid period. Automobile manufacturers, for example, seemed to have problems getting microchips to assemble their cars. Many microchips are made in Taiwan.
Bicycle enthusiasts may not like high quality bicycles made in Taiwan being no longer available.
Internet says they make the following in Taiwan (Formosa)
semiconductors, petrochemicals, automobile/auto parts, ships, wireless communication equipment, flat panel displays, steel, electronics, plastics, computers
It seems any time one of these dictator countries decides to go on a conquering adventure, it messes up the world's economy. Maybe, China is a little smarter than Russia. Maybe, the 22 million people in Taiwan who have been investors in the mainland are better left alone for a bit. China has time and a lot of other issues to resolve. They have greatly prospered for 2 generations. Why mess it up?
-
Because those rebels must be told a lesson! The country must unify! Or else Xi would not be a Great Leader!
-
Maybe, China is a little smarter than Russia. Maybe, the 22 million people in Taiwan who have been investors in the mainland are better left alone for a bit. China has time and a lot of other issues to resolve. They have greatly prospered for 2 generations. Why mess it up?
It's a fallacy to assume political leaders rationally pursue prosperity.
Hitler could have simply refused to pay the Versailles Agreement, retaken the Rhine Valley, and stopped right there if prosperity was his only concern. Similarly, Napoleon would have never taken the chance of invading Russia. Mao and Stalin were either irrational or knew their economic programs would starve millions - either way these destructive policies were the winning political moves within their times and systems. Putin's invasion of Ukraine was economic suicide. If anyone thinks Nicolas Maduro or the ruling party in Cuba are primarily interested in economic growth, they are naive.
Sometimes poverty can be a tool to keep dictators in power. It's the commercial classes getting too much economic power which leads to the overthrow of governments - whether dictatorial or democratic.
-
It's the lesson from Animal Farm: there always needs to be an "other" to strive against. That way, you are distracted from the shortcomings and inconsistencies right in front of you.
-
Did anyone besides you bring up "cripple the whole economy"?
Are you emphasizing not doing something that only you brought up?
It was not said directly, but as Travis said, their oil exports are (almost) the only reason they are able to stay afloat. Eliminating their ability to export any oil likely would cripple their economy. European leaders need to be seen doing something to punish Russian aggression at their doorstep (hence the sanctions, amongst other measures), but I also understand why they don't necessarily want to be pouring huge resources into absolute enforcing of those sanctions. A statement like "you attacked my neighbour and I want to make sure that you can't continue to do that and that they can defend themselves" is a lot more defensible than a statement like "you attacked my neighbour so I want to make sure all your people suffer for it."
Germany in 1914 included Alsace-Lorraine and all of historical Prussia including today what's known as Kaliningrad.
I don't doubt they had expansionist goals (every world power at that time did!) but to claim that was their casus belli for WW1 seems a bit strong and totally glosses over the July crisis, the fact German diplomats actually sought neutrality at first, and all the standing alliances. If anything, it seems like Germany didn't really want to 'help' Austria-Hungary deal with Bosnia/Serbia (as a result of the assassination that nobody in Vienna cared much about) unless Russia and France would stay out of it (which they didn't and then of course the UK joins).
You're right, and my offhand statement about Germany and WWI was sloppy. The point I was trying to make was that a crippled economy didn't prevent future hostilities, and likely helped fuel them.
From the perspective of "history repeats", China is obviously going to invade Taiwan. Also from the perspective of "history repeats", its not actually going to have any significant or long lasting benefits for anyone, China included. But that won't stop China.
For a few years now it's looked to me like China's invasion of Taiwan was inevitable. But recently my opinion on that has softened slightly. It's been pointed out that Xi would be wise to reconsider whether his military has the capability to pull that off with any degree of certainty in light of information that has come out regarding the state of their military.
-
For a few years now it's looked to me like China's invasion of Taiwan was inevitable. But recently my opinion on that has softened slightly. It's been pointed out that Xi would be wise to reconsider whether his military has the capability to pull that off with any degree of certainty in light of information that has come out regarding the state of their military.
As far as I can tell, Xi doesn't want to hear any bad news. That's why all these time bomb problems keep happening. They started off as small problems but no one said anything so they become big problems.
I'm far from a China expert, but that seems to be what is going on.
-
For a few years now it's looked to me like China's invasion of Taiwan was inevitable. But recently my opinion on that has softened slightly. It's been pointed out that Xi would be wise to reconsider whether his military has the capability to pull that off with any degree of certainty in light of information that has come out regarding the state of their military.
As far as I can tell, Xi doesn't want to hear any bad news. That's why all these time bomb problems keep happening. They started off as small problems but no one said anything so they become big problems.
I'm far from a China expert, but that seems to be what is going on.
That's just your typical dictatorship development. Regardless of what the leader wants, nobody wants to tell him bad stuff. Even if nothing bad happens to you, your advancement might be impaired - and that might mean loss of all privileges, prison or death. And nobdy wants to tell his direct cronies something bad for the similar motivation.
That is why dictoatorships eventually get either overthrown or fall into extreme poverty.
I really really recommend the book in my signature ;)
For Ukraine it looks like it's still the same: Russia wins a few hundred meters here or there every few days for a heavy loss of hardware, while Ukraine continues strikes on supply routes when possible and somehow manages to hold the southern Dnipro beachheads.
Both sides have problems with the winter but I daresay it's worse for the Russians, whose logistics are more strained.
-
An important difference between China and Russia (from a year ago):
BEIJING (AP) — China rolled back rules on isolating people with COVID-19 and dropped virus test requirements for some public places Wednesday in a dramatic change to a strategy that confined millions of people to their homes and sparked protests and demands for President Xi Jinping to resign.
https://apnews.com/article/health-business-china-covid-economy-e5559f6062cf052a71ad6ba1ceece693
Mass protests lead President Xi to drop Covid-19 restrictions. Russia arrested 15,000 protestors in the first two weeks of its war - that seems like Russia's approach to protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022%E2%80%93present)
-
I suspect China wants to fix its economy, which would collapse if it invaded Taiwan. China brought a very large delegation to the World Economic Forum (in Davos), and emphasized China is open for foreign direct investment. All major economies except the U.S. had much lower GDP growth last year, China included. In China, youth unemployment hit 20% before China stopped revealing the numbers (last year sometime?).
A quarter of China's trade is from the United States, Korea, Japan and Australia. If China attacked Taiwan, that trade vanishes - so do jobs depending on that trade. How many tens or hundreds of millions would be unemployed? Can China's leadership risk protests proportional to unemployment? I think the answer is no, but I could be wrong.
-
An important difference between China and Russia (from a year ago):
BEIJING (AP) — China rolled back rules on isolating people with COVID-19 and dropped virus test requirements for some public places Wednesday in a dramatic change to a strategy that confined millions of people to their homes and sparked protests and demands for President Xi Jinping to resign.
https://apnews.com/article/health-business-china-covid-economy-e5559f6062cf052a71ad6ba1ceece693
Mass protests lead President Xi to drop Covid-19 restrictions. Russia arrested 15,000 protestors in the first two weeks of its war - that seems like Russia's approach to protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022%E2%80%93present)
China arrests plenty of protesters. Clever protestors have gotten around laws against protesting specific things by protesting with blank signs. (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2023/11/chinas-white-paper-movement-one-year-on-six-protesters-share-their-stories/)
-
Just one of the ways Russia has already lost the war:
How Russia is Losing Kaliningrad (and why it matters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yki6pigUbfw
-
An important difference between China and Russia (from a year ago):
BEIJING (AP) — China rolled back rules on isolating people with COVID-19 and dropped virus test requirements for some public places Wednesday in a dramatic change to a strategy that confined millions of people to their homes and sparked protests and demands for President Xi Jinping to resign.
https://apnews.com/article/health-business-china-covid-economy-e5559f6062cf052a71ad6ba1ceece693
Mass protests lead President Xi to drop Covid-19 restrictions. Russia arrested 15,000 protestors in the first two weeks of its war - that seems like Russia's approach to protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022%E2%80%93present)
China arrests plenty of protesters. Clever protestors have gotten around laws against protesting specific things by protesting with blank signs. (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2023/11/chinas-white-paper-movement-one-year-on-six-protesters-share-their-stories/)
Russia had that covered long ago. Comrade Stalin taught the people who rule Russia all the tricks.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-invasion-protests-police-arrest-activists-holding-blank-signs-paper-1687603 (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-invasion-protests-police-arrest-activists-holding-blank-signs-paper-1687603)
It kind of reminds me of my long ago school days. "You didn't say it, but you were going to." The people in charge of the school knew how we rebel kids thought.
That point about Chinese manufacturers having to lay off if there is a war is a good one. Russia, on the other hand, has dipped into it's savings cookie jar to augment oil revenues and maintain near full employment. Plus they've had essential workers leave or be sent to Ukraine. All those frozen pipes and firefighting will keep a lot of people busy as well as building replacement munitions.
-
I don't know what happened, but it must be HUGE!
Look at that "special equipment" - that mostly means mine field clearer.
-
I don't know what happened, but it must be HUGE!
Look at that "special equipment" - that mostly means mine field clearer.
It seems like the huge thing lately is the attack on the gas facility a bit outside of St Petersburg North of Estona.
If Ukraine can continue to damage oil processing, storage and export facilities, can they make a real dent in Russia's oil income?
-
I heavily doubt this smoking incident destroyed dozens of mine clearers.
-
51 artillery is a new record, I believe. Something big definitely happened
-
Well, today is 59 artillery, 42 APV and 30(!) tanks. But only 4 special equipment.
Either they have run out of mine clearers, are between minefields or the Russians are currently breaking through the defense.
-
Relatively large Russian equipment losses coupled with a standard amount of soldier losses tells me Ukraine is doing more targeted strikes. Probably drones.
-
Relatively large Russian equipment losses coupled with a standard amount of soldier losses tells me Ukraine is doing more targeted strikes. Probably drones.
No, since the current offensive started (and winter really hit) we had only one or two days of losses above 1000 (but higher material).
And the Ukrainians are sorely missing arty grenades. If this goes on, Russia might lose another 1000 tanks and 2000 APC, but then they will win because Ukraine has nothing left to stop them.
-
Relatively large Russian equipment losses coupled with a standard amount of soldier losses tells me Ukraine is doing more targeted strikes. Probably drones.
No, since the current offensive started (and winter really hit) we had only one or two days of losses above 1000 (but higher material).
And the Ukrainians are sorely missing arty grenades. If this goes on, Russia might lose another 1000 tanks and 2000 APC, but then they will win because Ukraine has nothing left to stop them.
Doesn't it usually follow that with an offensive, especially with tactics used by Russia, that there would be a disproportionately high number of human casualties?
I'm not seeing any evidence of Russian advances along the line. Unless I'm missing something.
-
Open source stuff (ie ISW) generally agree that Russia is VERY slowly, but steadily, advancing in at least a few places.
Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.
Hopefully a border/Ukraine deal can happen ASAP.
-W
-
Relatively large Russian equipment losses coupled with a standard amount of soldier losses tells me Ukraine is doing more targeted strikes. Probably drones.
No, since the current offensive started (and winter really hit) we had only one or two days of losses above 1000 (but higher material).
And the Ukrainians are sorely missing arty grenades. If this goes on, Russia might lose another 1000 tanks and 2000 APC, but then they will win because Ukraine has nothing left to stop them.
Whenever I see comments like this one, a picture of this nerdy looking Mike Johnson guy pops into my head for some reason as though he could somehow help.
-
Claiming either side "will win" is kind of ridiculous at this point. The only information we really have is battle lines and materiel/personnel losses, and even those may not be very accurate. We can make guesses as to who is advancing where, what kind of strikes were done, etc. But each side has it in their best interest to keep their cards close to the vest.
-
Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.
Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.
And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.
-
Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.
Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.
And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.
So to add a bit. If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.
-
Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.
Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.
And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.
So to add a bit. If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.
But that would hurt Putin, and, by extension, the New Republican party.
-
Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.
Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.
And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.
So to add a bit. If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.
But that would hurt Putin, and, by extension, the New Republican party.
I wish they would bring back the old one. They gave us OSHA, freed the slaves, the EPA, believed in financial responsibility, respected the military, gave us National Parks and other things. I used to vote for those guys once in a while. If Teddy Roosevelt were around today, Russia would be out of Ukraine. That walking softly with the big stick thing is what is needed.
-
Given how many times we've predicted "these losses are unsustainable!" and been wrong I'm hesitant to call any of this a win for Ukraine.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "unsustainable". It means Russia cannot produce equipment at the pace it loses it. Or at the current rate de-scrapyard it. That does not mean that Russia cannot go on with that attack type for another 300 tanks that they still have near the front - it's not like Ukraine could use any hole for a counter.
Russia still has 6000 tanks standing around somewhere - as much as they have lost so far - but that is exceedingly old stuff that has stand around in the open for decades.
You can do the math yourself - even with new produced tanks (about a day's losses per month) they will run out of tanks at the end of the year. And every month the stuff at the front get's worse.
But if the current waves deplete the available munition Ukraine has, it's back to Molotov cocktails for Kyiev.
And of course Ukraine isn't excatly sitting on thousands of battle ready tanks either.
So to add a bit. If this Mike Johnson guy would allow a vote in the US Congress to give aid to Ukraine, it would help alleviate the situation where Ukraine has to resort to Molotov cocktails.
But that would hurt Putin, and, by extension, the New Republican party.
I wish they would bring back the old one. They gave us OSHA, freed the slaves, the EPA, believed in financial responsibility, respected the military, gave us National Parks and other things. I used to vote for those guys once in a while. If Teddy Roosevelt were around today, Russia would be out of Ukraine. That walking softly with the big stick thing is what is needed.
Agreed. The current party seems to be based on the existential panic of the working class in middle America. Economically their jobs have been under fire for a while (with automation and outsourcing being major disruptors). These jobs aren't coming back, they know it in their bones and that causes the rage we see nowadays. The 'culture wars' are just a cover and a distraction from the real, underlying economic war that they are losing.
-
An important difference between China and Russia (from a year ago):
BEIJING (AP) — China rolled back rules on isolating people with COVID-19 and dropped virus test requirements for some public places Wednesday in a dramatic change to a strategy that confined millions of people to their homes and sparked protests and demands for President Xi Jinping to resign.
https://apnews.com/article/health-business-china-covid-economy-e5559f6062cf052a71ad6ba1ceece693
Mass protests lead President Xi to drop Covid-19 restrictions. Russia arrested 15,000 protestors in the first two weeks of its war - that seems like Russia's approach to protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_protests_in_Russia_(2022%E2%80%93present)
China arrests plenty of protesters. Clever protestors have gotten around laws against protesting specific things by protesting with blank signs. (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2023/11/chinas-white-paper-movement-one-year-on-six-protesters-share-their-stories/)
Has Russia changed policies because of mass protests? I claim the answer is no, but I'm open to being wrong.
My point was that mass protests in China caused China to change behavior (dropping Covid-19 restrictions). Smaller protests certainly result in arrests, like hundreds arrested over the Hong Kong security law. Smaller protests in Russia also result in arrests - I don't see a difference at that scale. I'm not aware of Russia changing government policy in response to mass protests, so I'm contrasting that with the example in China where it has.
-
Maybe the Ukraine aid package needs new branding: "Aid to Ukraine, made in America". The weapons and ammunition are built in the United States, and then shipped to Ukraine. Unlike the claims of Trump's "freedom caucus", we know what is going to Ukraine because we built it.
Republicans have a bill ready to make progress on the border, but now Trump is interfering. It seems he doesn't want progress made under Biden, and Republicans may follow his lead. That same bill provides aid to Ukraine, so both might go down together. We'll see.
That said, it was good seeing the REPO act make progress in Congress:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced legislation Wednesday to allow the U.S. to seize frozen Russian assets to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4426738-seize-russian-assets-ukraine-senate/
-
Ukraine Shoots Down Another $50 Million Russian Su-34 Fighter Bomber.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6 (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6)
I wonder if the economics on these expensive planes make sense anymore with drone technology/warfare?
-
Ukraine Shoots Down Another $50 Million Russian Su-34 Fighter Bomber.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6 (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6)
I wonder if the economics on these expensive planes make sense anymore with drone technology/warfare?
Solid state electronics can certainly withstand more G's than a human being and weighs less. No benefits need to be paid to widows and children. The training is software that doesn't forget and makes no human errors.
I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes. They are legacy Soviet equipment. It cost Putin very little. The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL) It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes. You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them. It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will. The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.
-
Ukraine Shoots Down Another $50 Million Russian Su-34 Fighter Bomber.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6 (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ukraine-shoots-down-another-50-million-russian-su-34-fighter-bomber/ar-BB1huwJW?cvid=e61febce8c254edfe0be4b01d22a7e54&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=6)
I wonder if the economics on these expensive planes make sense anymore with drone technology/warfare?
Solid state electronics can certainly withstand more G's than a human being and weighs less. No benefits need to be paid to widows and children. The training is software that doesn't forget and makes no human errors.
I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes. They are legacy Soviet equipment. It cost Putin very little. The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL) It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes. You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them. It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will. The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.
That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale. But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.
-
The Su-34 is a post-Soviet design that only entered production in the 21st century.
An additional indirect cost of losing aircraft in the war to Russia is that they're one of the handful of countries with significant arms export businesses and while the USA exports more arms in terms of absolute dollars, Russia's arms exports are a much bigger chunk of their overall GDP and overall employment.
Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.
-
Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.
Poor ability to deliver ordered equipment is also gonna reduce interest. I heard Russia sent a bunch of tanks intended for India to Ukraine instead.
-
Yes that is also true. Although that problem is a bit less Russian specific. I believe we also redirected a bunch of F-16s Taiwan had ordered to the countries in Europe to replace the MiGs NATO states were sending to Ukraine.
-
The Su-34 is a post-Soviet design that only entered production in the 21st century.
An additional indirect cost of losing aircraft in the war to Russia is that they're one of the handful of countries with significant arms export businesses and while the USA exports more arms in terms of absolute dollars, Russia's arms exports are a much bigger chunk of their overall GDP and overall employment.
Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.
Seeing how effective cheap drones have been I can't imagine many countries would be shopping for fighter jets these days. Have you seen the Anduril Roadrunner? I wouldn't want to be a pilot these days.
-
Seeing how effective cheap drones have been I can't imagine many countries would be shopping for fighter jets these days.
The Czechs just signed a deal to by 24 new F-35s from us yesterday (https://apnews.com/article/czech-army-purchase-us-fighter-jets-faa740b09c1d322a97bf94cb42fffd7d).
A Greek purchase of 40 F-35s and a Turkish purchase of 40 new F-16s when through on Friday. (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/01/27/us-approves-sale-of-f-16-jets-to-turkey-f-35s-to-greece/)
-
Poor performance of planes and other weapon systems in Ukraine is going to reduce interest from international buyers who would be considering buying those same planes and weapon systems.
Poor ability to deliver ordered equipment is also gonna reduce interest. I heard Russia sent a bunch of tanks intended for India to Ukraine instead.
Any time you see an article about T-90S in Ukraine, that's an Indian tank.
Seeing how effective cheap drones have been I can't imagine many countries would be shopping for fighter jets these days. Have you seen the Anduril Roadrunner? I wouldn't want to be a pilot these days.
The manned warplane will probably disappear by the end of this century entirely, but until drones can carry the kind of weapons payload of current fighters and bombers they're still useful. The drones and cruise missiles making the headlines lately are also one-time use. You have to have thousands of them to deliver the same effects of a normal warplane.
A Ukrainian, Russian, or Iranian drone right now could fly 1000km and blow up a small building, but it can also be shot down without too much effort. The B-2 can fly halfway around the world, deliver the firepower equivalent of a several dozen of those drones without being seen, and go home to do it again tomorrow. We've been experimenting with splitting the difference with drones that can fly alongside manned aircraft and be missile carriers that get queued by the pilot. All of those solutions have costs to them. The B-2/B-21 are billion dollar planes, but meant to be invincible. Cruise missiles and drones that can fly fighter-bomber distances with reasonably-sized warheads are a million dollars a pop so if you want to replace the manned capability you'll need thousands of them.
Russian military doctrine calls for heavy use of long range missiles whether they be air or ground launched, but in two years they've burned through decades worth of production. They're the second largest military producer in the world and currently living hand to mouth, firing cruise missiles and long range drones at the rate they're being built. On the same note the West is running out of air defense missiles plucking them out of the sky, but everyone noticed and modern SAM production is going to go hard for the next decade.
-
Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine. The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.
-
I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes. They are legacy Soviet equipment. It cost Putin very little. The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL) It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes. You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them. It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will. The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.
That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale. But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.
As maizefolk said, those are (relativly) newly planes. Design may have been started by the Soviets, but production started after 2000 and Russia is producing them right now. The factory promised to increase production to 6 planes in 2024.
Every single one shot down hurts Russia. Not only because the plane itself is missed, but also it puts more strain on the planes and pilots of the other ones.
-
What happened to Su-34s doesn't mean all fighters have the same problems.
A lack of guided bombs required the Su-34s to fly low for accurate bombing, where they were subjected to heavy Ukrainian air-defenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2022-present)
From earlier in the war, this quote shows that Ukraine and Russia can work towards a common goal - shooting down Russian planes.
"Another was a modernized variant Su-34M and was reportedly shot down by Russian forces."
Looks like Russia has 149+ Su-34 fighter-bombers left, or roughly 1 in 7 destroyed during the war in Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft
-
Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine. The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.
They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.
-
Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine. The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.
They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.
Heck, the US stuck around in Afghanistan for 20 odd years too. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.
-
I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes. They are legacy Soviet equipment. It cost Putin very little. The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL) It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes. You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them. It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will. The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.
That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale. But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.
As maizefolk said, those are (relativly) newly planes. Design may have been started by the Soviets, but production started after 2000 and Russia is producing them right now. The factory promised to increase production to 6 planes in 2024.
Every single one shot down hurts Russia. Not only because the plane itself is missed, but also it puts more strain on the planes and pilots of the other ones.
But a lot of the tanks,.........Tanks for the memories,.........They are old.
-
I have a different way of looking at these Russian planes. They are legacy Soviet equipment. It cost Putin very little. The equipment may have been at End of Life. (EOL) It's almost like wearing hand me down clothes. You aren't too concerned if the hand me down clothes rip or you spill paint on them. It was a choice to wear them, discard them or give them to Good Will. The worth of those clothes is next to nothing and perhaps it's that way with a lot of Russian munitions.
That would be fine for Putin if he had production of newer jets running at any sort of scale. But he doesn't--every plane he loses is one that is very difficult to replace.
As maizefolk said, those are (relativly) newly planes. Design may have been started by the Soviets, but production started after 2000 and Russia is producing them right now. The factory promised to increase production to 6 planes in 2024.
Every single one shot down hurts Russia. Not only because the plane itself is missed, but also it puts more strain on the planes and pilots of the other ones.
But a lot of the tanks,.........Tanks for the memories,.........They are old.
Maybe we should end the Boeing export ban to Russia to further degrade their capabilities.
-
Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine. The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.
They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.
Heck, the US stuck around in Afghanistan for 20 odd years too. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.
Very true!
I was also thinking that what the best outcome in this war is not a defeated Russia, but rather a weakened Russia. Since we are dealing with the sociopath Putin, and Putin has nuclear weapons, then a quick decisive victory is too humiliating for someone as ego driven as Putin. A long slow death in a meat grinder war is more likely to keep the nukes off the table.
-
Russia is caught in a quagmire in Ukraine. The war is chewing through their men and equipment. They seem unable to win a decisive victory or retreat and end the conflict.
They were losing tons of shit in Afghanistan too . . . but still hung around for 15 odd years.
Heck, the US stuck around in Afghanistan for 20 odd years too. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.
Very true!
I was also thinking that what the best outcome in this war is not a defeated Russia, but rather a weakened Russia. Since we are dealing with the sociopath Putin, and Putin has nuclear weapons, then a quick decisive victory is too humiliating for someone as ego driven as Putin. A long slow death in a meat grinder war is more likely to keep the nukes off the table.
Plus, potentially degrade the viability of those nukes. Russia has finite resources, there were questions/concerns about their nuclear weapon maintenance schedule before the war, an additional 2 years of increasing strain on resources is not going to improve matters.
-
It sort of doesn't matter if there's a decent chance any given nuke is a dud, though, when you have thousands of them. Who's going to roll the dice that a Russian nuclear strike will mostly/completely fail? Not me.
-W
-
I was also thinking that what the best outcome in this war is not a defeated Russia, but rather a weakened Russia. Since we are dealing with the sociopath Putin, and Putin has nuclear weapons, then a quick decisive victory is too humiliating for someone as ego driven as Putin. A long slow death in a meat grinder war is more likely to keep the nukes off the table.
This, I fear, may be the behind-the-scenes realpolitik behind the US's and Europe's slow roll on supporting Ukraine. I understand the intent--if Russia's bogged down in Ukraine, their potential for mischief elsewhere is reduced--but forcing Ukraine to bear the cost of the rest of the world's future peace is unsettling.
-
The US financial planning for Ukraine help is several - up to ten - years long, so yes, that seems to be the case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/26/ukraine-war-plan-biden-defense/
While Ukraine had some success in the Krim area with long range strikes, the situation is getting dire on the land fronts. The lack of artillery shells, enemy "rain" and immense waves of attacks have made holding current positions impossible it seems.
Ukraine has already feverishly building new defense lines more to the west.
South of Kupjansk teh Ukraine lines have been broken in a wider area, and Russian forces have advanced about 10km (Tabaivka). There are signs that Avdijivka will finally be evacuated once the new defense lines are finished.
Meanwhile in the capital there are more and more rumors about conflict between Selensky and Saluzhnyj including a refused "voluntary" retirement from the position of Chief of Military (whatever the title is).
-
It looks like Ukraine sunk another Russian warship: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/ukraine-russian-warship-crimea-ivanovets-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/ukraine-russian-warship-crimea-ivanovets-intl/index.html)
-
It looks like Ukraine sunk another Russian warship: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/ukraine-russian-warship-crimea-ivanovets-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/ukraine-russian-warship-crimea-ivanovets-intl/index.html)
That type of warship is supposed to have a stern-facing, hi-speed, radar-controlled gatling gun. Perhaps the angle of attack was well planned. I read that the US even acquired an example of that Soviet built ship from the newly unified Germany.
-
Comparisons with the USSR's 1980 misadventure in Afghanistan badly miss. Russia is right now sustaining around 10x the casualties in a decade in Afghanistan every year. 10x the average annual loss rate, and their population is 1/3 the size of the USSR. This is 30 times more impactful, and more if you account for the population age distribution. Manufacturing is similar: equipment losses are off the chart, Russia has much lower manufacturing capacity than the USSR, and has been mostly sustaining itself off the stockpiles it inherited from the USSR. It's obviously not sustainable. One issue is that the definition of sustainable changed since the beginning of the war. Originally sustainable was in reference to the size of Russia's active military, then the reserves, but now both the original force and the reserves have been entirely destroyed which didn't seem like a rational course of events at first. So now sustainable has switched to reference literally all equipment Russia can come up with, which is perhaps 4x greater than the original active force. So the goal posts have moved a few times. Russia is still on track to run out of equipment, it will just take 3-4 years rather than 1-2.
The important and frustrating thing is the NATO+ countries need to supply Ukraine ample munitions and equipment to chew through all that with relative losses as low as possible. So far they have been very slow to do that which really pisses me off on several levels. I'm very supportive of Russia losing a million men and 10,000 tanks, but let's make it as easy as possible for them to do so.
-
Comparisons with the USSR's 1980 misadventure in Afghanistan badly miss. Russia is right now sustaining around 10x the casualties in a decade in Afghanistan every year. 10x the average annual loss rate, and their population is 1/3 the size of the USSR. This is 30 times more impactful, and more if you account for the population age distribution. Manufacturing is similar: equipment losses are off the chart, Russia has much lower manufacturing capacity than the USSR, and has been mostly sustaining itself off the stockpiles it inherited from the USSR. It's obviously not sustainable. One issue is that the definition of sustainable changed since the beginning of the war. Originally sustainable was in reference to the size of Russia's active military, then the reserves, but now both the original force and the reserves have been entirely destroyed which didn't seem like a rational course of events at first. So now sustainable has switched to reference literally all equipment Russia can come up with, which is perhaps 4x greater than the original active force. So the goal posts have moved a few times. Russia is still on track to run out of equipment, it will just take 3-4 years rather than 1-2.
The important and frustrating thing is the NATO+ countries need to supply Ukraine ample munitions and equipment to chew through all that with relative losses as low as possible. So far they have been very slow to do that which really pisses me off on several levels. I'm very supportive of Russia losing a million men and 10,000 tanks, but let's make it as easy as possible for them to do so.
Ukraine needs to furnish men and women for this struggle. This is quite the sacrifice.
-
Comparisons with the USSR's 1980 misadventure in Afghanistan badly miss. Russia is right now sustaining around 10x the casualties in a decade in Afghanistan every year. 10x the average annual loss rate, and their population is 1/3 the size of the USSR. This is 30 times more impactful, and more if you account for the population age distribution. Manufacturing is similar: equipment losses are off the chart, Russia has much lower manufacturing capacity than the USSR, and has been mostly sustaining itself off the stockpiles it inherited from the USSR. It's obviously not sustainable. One issue is that the definition of sustainable changed since the beginning of the war. Originally sustainable was in reference to the size of Russia's active military, then the reserves, but now both the original force and the reserves have been entirely destroyed which didn't seem like a rational course of events at first. So now sustainable has switched to reference literally all equipment Russia can come up with, which is perhaps 4x greater than the original active force. So the goal posts have moved a few times. Russia is still on track to run out of equipment, it will just take 3-4 years rather than 1-2.
The important and frustrating thing is the NATO+ countries need to supply Ukraine ample munitions and equipment to chew through all that with relative losses as low as possible. So far they have been very slow to do that which really pisses me off on several levels. I'm very supportive of Russia losing a million men and 10,000 tanks, but let's make it as easy as possible for them to do so.
Ukraine needs to furnish men and women for this struggle. This is quite the sacrifice.
Yes, and that's up to them to decide. But if that's their decision, IMO we should do everything we can to support them.
-
Long but interesting video about the breaking heating infrastucture and other crises in Russia:
Konstantin Samoilov - Russia has Been Hit by a Perfect Winter Storm that may Affect War's Outcome.
Russia has been hit be a perfect storm, that may affect the outcome of the war. Crumbling infrastructure combined with a cold winter. Strikes on strategic military energy infrastructure by Ukraine, and growing war fatigue among the domestic population. The move to a war economy, rampant inflation, and a growing deficit of some staple goods.
----------
Welcome to our monthly conversation with Konstantin, who is one of the most respected voices on YouTube about what is happening Inside Russia.
Konstantin Samoilov is a well-known YouTuber whose channel ‘Inside Russia’ comments insightfully on Russia’s decent into authoritarianism over the last few years. But now, like many others, he’s outside Russia, with no idea of when he can return there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzXdRO02ps
-
Apparently, supporting Russia and Putin is now so important to the New Republican Party they will torpedo a long sought immigration bill that had almost everything they demanded and negotiated for because it was tied to Ukraine funding.
New Republican chief propagandist Tucker Carlson is in country (RU) now and will be releasing his exclusive Vlad interview to tell "the other side of the story", soon to be published on X, I'm sure.
-
Apparently, supporting Russia and Putin is now so important to the New Republican Party they will torpedo a long sought immigration bill that had almost everything they demanded and negotiated for because it was tied to Ukraine funding.
New Republican chief propagandist Tucker Carlson is in country (RU) now and will be releasing his exclusive Vlad interview to tell "the other side of the story", soon to be published on X, I'm sure.
I hate to drag this off-topic thread off topic, but from what I've read, the bill didn't actually do much to actually secure the border. It added funding for various mitigation measures (deportation flights, detention beds, more immigration judges), and a trigger (5,000 illegal crossings per day) to allow the government to enact further restrictions. Given the current administration's pattern of not enforcing the existing laws, though, I can understand the GOP's reticence to agree to the deal. And given how many times the democrats have payed lucy-with-the-football on immigration...
I still think Ukraine aid should be passed on its own, but if they're gonna take the political heat for demanding border security, they might as well actually get something meaningful out of it.
-
The border is secure. Which army do you think is going to invade the USA?
Migration has nothing to do with border security, even though the word is taken almost all the time by people who do not want other people to move around freely as is their natural right.
----
Anyway, Germany has made a package sending 100 heavy vehicles (including some Gepard, wherever we have found them, and several sets of Iris-T air defense) to Ukraine, cementing it's stand as the 2nd biggest helper of Ukraine despite certain reluctances.
And Ukraine can use any help they get. It seems like they were able to fight back the Russians in the Avdijivka pipe into a stalemate around a dozen houses, but that town is riding on an ever sharper razor's edge.
On the bright side it looks like Russia has "exhausted" it's offensive power for the winter in the sense that we reached the hight of the bell curve. But maybe they are just holding back for a final push before the elections to finally get a "Good War News".
Also it seems we now have reached the predicted point of significant efficiency difference. Dispite 1:5 or even 1:10 ratios on shells fired, the Ukrainian fire seems to be so more precise that it mostly makes up for the difference (partly thanks to North Korean quality).
Russian equipment quality will continue it's downwards trends (on average), while Ukrainians will more likely improve - as long as the West supplies, of course.
-
Apparently, supporting Russia and Putin is now so important to the New Republican Party they will torpedo a long sought immigration bill that had almost everything they demanded and negotiated for because it was tied to Ukraine funding.
New Republican chief propagandist Tucker Carlson is in country (RU) now and will be releasing his exclusive Vlad interview to tell "the other side of the story", soon to be published on X, I'm sure.
I hate to drag this off-topic thread off topic, but from what I've read, the bill didn't actually do much to actually secure the border. It added funding for various mitigation measures (deportation flights, detention beds, more immigration judges), and a trigger (5,000 illegal crossings per day) to allow the government to enact further restrictions. Given the current administration's pattern of not enforcing the existing laws, though, I can understand the GOP's reticence to agree to the deal. And given how many times the democrats have payed lucy-with-the-football on immigration...
I still think Ukraine aid should be passed on its own, but if they're gonna take the political heat for demanding border security, they might as well actually get something meaningful out of it.
Ukraine aid will never be passed on its own. That's why it was tied to immigration, in the hopes that it would pull some House Republicans along. The Republicans got everything they wanted on the immigration side but it apparently wasn't enough.
McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.
McConnell, now nearing his 82nd birthday, is determined to fund the Ukrainian war effort, a push his allies have depicted as legacy-defining. But now that his party is set on Wednesday to reject a bipartisan trade of tougher border policies for war funding, his far-right critics are speaking out more loudly
-
I hate to drag this off-topic thread off topic, but from what I've read, the bill didn't actually do much to actually secure the border. It added funding for various mitigation measures (deportation flights, detention beds, more immigration judges), and a trigger (5,000 illegal crossings per day) to allow the government to enact further restrictions. Given the current administration's pattern of not enforcing the existing laws, though, I can understand the GOP's reticence to agree to the deal. And given how many times the democrats have payed lucy-with-the-football on immigration...
To be clear, this is 5,000 *encounters* per day. This does not mean letting in 5,000 people and then shutting things down. It's just having 5,000 people *try* to cross.
The bigger deal is more immigration judges. Current law says anyone can try to claim asylum, but because we can't actually assess those claims in a reasonable time, they *by law* have to be either detained (not possible with current facilities) or released. Everyone, on every side of the issue, should be shouting to the rooftops about getting more capability to process asylum claims.
Other stuff:
-Money for more detention facilities, which is step 1 if you don't want to just have to release people.
-4300 new asylum officers (who would be authorized to process many claims without a judge) and 100 new judges, with the goal of processing asylum claims in <6 months, rather than the ~10 years we're at currently.
-Forces Biden administration to spend already allocated funds to construct more border wall.
-Money for fentanyl detection/interdiction at the border
-Visas for some Afghan refugees who have US citizen relatives in the armed forces or are considered US allies (ie worked for the US in Afghanistan)
-Allows more work permits for ayslum seekers while they wait for their cases to be resolved
-Tons of money to hire lots more border patrol agents
-Money for cities dealing with lots of migrants (this one is probably the only one that Republicans don't like)
I don't know how on earth you can say that bill isn't a HUGE step forward in immigration policy. It also contains basically nothing that progressives advocate for in any way, it's essentially a total capitulation and a massive GOP win pretty much any way you look at it. Almost every provision polls really well with the general public, to boot.
Remember: current law says anyone can claim asylum and we can't just summarily deport them without a hearing. There is no avenue for the Biden administration to just "close the border" because it's *illegal* to do that (at least since Title 42 expired). This bill would make that possible (once the inevitable lawsuits got sorted out, anyway). Claiming that the president could close the border anytime is just simply not true.
But chaos is good politics I guess.
-W
-
I don't know how on earth you can say that bill isn't a HUGE step forward in immigration policy. It also contains basically nothing that progressives advocate for in any way, it's essentially a total capitulation and a massive GOP win pretty much any way you look at it. Almost every provision polls really well with the general public, to boot.
I agree - this bill was everything that people making noise about immigration policy changes wanted.
-
I thought this NYT profile of Senator Langford and his dismay at the fate of the immigration bill pretty much summed it up:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/us/politics/james-lankford-border-deal.html
(paywalled, TLDR: Langford is a super honorable religious conservative who thought he had gotten almost everything the GOP wanted in a border bill... and was then thrown straight under the bus)
@zolotiyeruki you should check it out.
-W
-
I don't know how on earth you can say that bill isn't a HUGE step forward in immigration policy. It also contains basically nothing that progressives advocate for in any way, it's essentially a total capitulation and a massive GOP win pretty much any way you look at it. Almost every provision polls really well with the general public, to boot.
I agree - this bill was everything that people making noise about immigration policy changes wanted.
To be honest with you I haven't seen any more people cross from Canada recently. Where I live I've seen little change.
-
Republicans claimed to want a border bill, thinking that the Democrats wouldn't give them what they claimed to want. Democrats called their 'bluff' and gave them basically everything they asked for.
Then Trump and his minions spoke up and said - out loud - that they want the border to remain a 'crisis' for the election. So the Republican party, being the spineless toadies they have become, immediately threw the deal - which, again, provided everything they asked for - under the bus.
I guess the Republicans have realized that all their other policies are vote losers, so they want this one to remain front and centre. Unfortunately for all the actual humans involved, that means a lot more people will suffer to sustain this bit of political theatre. Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, it means their lives and freedom are less important than some trivial, possible electoral advantage for Donald Trump.
-
McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.
Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.
-
McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.
Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.
State media identified him by name as an asset to their cause in the opening weeks of the war. He's more likely to get a parade through Moscow than a jail cell.
-
McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.
Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.
That's not it. If Trump is elected Democrats in the Senate won't vote for this same deal, and you need 60 votes. If Biden wins, he has no incentive to approve any deal. That's why McConnell thought this was the only chance. Say what you want about McConnell, but he's probably the most successful Republican legislator/leader of the last 25 years in actually getting Republican priorities through.
-
McConnell argued to colleagues last week that the border legislation would crack down on the huge flow of migrants across the border and possibly would be the last chance for years to reform outdated immigration and asylum law.
Sounds like someone is not confident that Trump will be in the WH after next election? I'd love to see Tucker C spend about 6 months or a year in a Russian jail. See if he would still be singing Putin's praises afterward. I get it though, he's too valuable to Putin to do that.
State media identified him by name as an asset to their cause in the opening weeks of the war. He's more likely to get a parade through Moscow than a jail cell.
Maybe no jail in Moscow, but Europe views Mother Tucker as aiding Putin.
European lawmakers are considering slapping Kremlin propagandist Tucker Carlson with sanctions, including a travel ban, after Carlson conducted an "interview" with Vladimir Putin.
https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1755270708408553817
I linked to a retweet by Bill Browder, who championed the Magnitsky Act over the killing of his lawyer in Russia. He currently advocates for seizing Russia's currency reserves (held in foreign central banks) to pay Ukraine for the damage caused by Russia.
-
Are you guys serious with the hoping for sanctions etc. on Carlson? He's an interviewer, that's it.
We've had people interview murderers, terrorists (while still at large in Afghanistan/Pakistan), etc. Should we just throw all of these reporters/interviewers in jail? We've had people interview Saddam Hussein and other terrible people. Talking to them is not a crime.
Dennis Rodman cuddles with a dictator who has killed millions... where are the calls for sanctions.
-
I find Tucker Carlson to be a revolting and terrible human being, but don't support sanctioning him, restricting his travel, or whatever. That seems ridiculous and heavy handed.
-
I find Tucker Carlson to be a revolting and terrible human being, but don't support sanctioning him, restricting his travel, or whatever. That seems ridiculous and heavy handed.
We don't always agree on everything, but I'm on the same side of this one.
What Carlson is doing is stupid, harmful, and a whole lot of other adjectives. But I still believe the remedy for bad speech is more (good) speech, not travel blocks or other sanctions.
-
What Carlson is doing is stupid, harmful, and a whole lot of other adjectives. But I still believe the remedy for bad speech is more (good) speech, not travel blocks or other sanctions.
Very much agree. I really wish the people consuming the bad speech would be open and could hear the good speech which is the remedy. That's one of the biggest problems we have with the echo chambers that many live in this digital world.
-
TC has spread so many lies over the years I'd be plenty happy for him to be off the public stage forever.
He's been just as dangerous to the poorly informed as Trump and the rest of Trump's traveling circus. I don't wish any violence upon TC but a few months stuck in a Russian jail might give him a chance to reflect on his life. Unknown whether there would be any change in TC's demeanor.
Considering others journalists have been wrongly imprisoned in Russia (currently two come to mind), it might not be an impossible scenario however unlikely since TC sides with Putin.
I've witnessed the effects of Fox, Trump, TC, Bannon, etc on real people's lives and their families in my part of the country. These people seldom face the consequences of their rumor/conspiracy mongering. I know of people who followed the guidance of people like this and lost their lives during COVID. And what that did to their families.
Free speech is important. I very mixed feelings on people's right to spread BS though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson#Political_views
-
Dennis Rodman cuddles with a dictator who has killed millions... where are the calls for sanctions.
Dennis Rodman hasn't tried to undermine US democracy. Tucker has and continues to sow dissension and utter lies in the name of free speech.
My conspiracy-sense is telling me Tucker went there as he was ordered to; there's some kompromat on him.
Also, he might not back it back to the land of stars and stripes. Maybe he'll shack up with Steven Seagal.
Free speech is important. I very mixed feelings on people's right to spread BS though.
Definitely. But that doesn't mean one is immune from the consequences. #FAFO
-
In other news, Zalensky relieved General Zaluzhni as the Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. No specific reasons why other than he's shaking up the entire defense team. Plenty of rumors about disagreements they've had recently regarding strategic direction and mobilization. His replacement is General Syrskyi who was the commander of Ukrainian ground forces who comes with his own PR baggage (not imaginative, hey diddle diddle straight up the middle tactics, not liked by the rank and file).
-
I think that is a bad move. I would guess it's Selensky getting anxious because of the ever dire situation on the front.
-
I suspect the dynamic is something like:
POLITICIANS: We cannot maintain public support without some offensive gains!
SOLDIERS: But we're winning the war with defense, inflicting a multiple of kills on the enemy versus what they inflict upon us simply by defending the ground we hold. And the last time we went on offensive, we suffered heavier losses than the Russians and got mired in minefields.
POLITICIANS: Yea, but going on the offensive is popular. It makes it look like we're winning.
SOLDIERS: But we literally are winning, by playing defense. As Russia sends human wave attacks, we reduce their capacity and will to fight every day. Why would we copy their failed tactics.
POLITICIANS: I need this war won in 6 months.
SOLDIERS: Do you realize the impact on already-low morale if you tell these guys who have been on the front lines for most of the past 2 years, and who haven't seen a warm shower in 6 months, that they have to do something stupid which will probably get them all killed?
POLITICIANS: Six. Months.
-
So - The Putin interview is out. The rhetoric did not vary much from the Propaganda. I wonder if there will be a lot of rebuttals given. It may need to be done piecemeal because the interview was so long.
Mangled history, fear of NATO and imaginary Nazis - lots of same old same old.
-
So - The Putin interview is out. The rhetoric did not vary much from the Propaganda. I wonder if there will be a lot of rebuttals given. It may need to be done piecemeal because the interview was so long.
Mangled history, fear of NATO and imaginary Nazis - lots of same old same old.
What did you expect? Putin does not have the imagination to invent a new history every 6 month. And that is good, he should let the novelists etc. do this. They do better worldbuilding.
Tucker Carlson gave Putin a nice Agitprop platform and that is all. Whoever expected otherwise is stupid, and whoever get's enraged by this for days is even more stupid.
-
I watched the whole thing. At the end of 2+ hours he asked for Evan Gershkovich the WSJ reporter to be released. He pressed Putin on it repeatedly. He pressed Putin repeatedly on negotiating a settlement with Ukraine. Putin put forth some willingness for terms to both. Now that those terms are out in the public sphere I'm hopeful something will come of them.
-
I don't expect Putin to negotiate for Russia's withdrawal. Rather, a kind of Armistice / cease fire, at current boundaries, with international sanctions lifted. Then, he can consolidate his hold on current territories and rebuild his army for a number of years, until he tries again, in Ukraine or somewhere else.
Would the Russian public buy such a deal as a victory? Could Putin declare Ukraine is "denatzified"? Whatever the pace is, I expect NATO countries would continue to arm Ukraine, as well. While the Russian media will of course say what the Kremlin wants, the true count of Russian casualties will become known among friends and family, at least. Maybe that will start to uncover the lies.
I don't see any lasting peace in this arrangement. But I also hardly see lasting peace in any other arrangement. Maybe simply a break in hostilities will be the best that can be hoped for?
-
I don't expect Putin to negotiate for Russia's withdrawal. Rather, a kind of Armistice / cease fire, at current boundaries, with international sanctions lifted. Then, he can consolidate his hold on current territories and rebuild his army for a number of years, until he tries again, in Ukraine or somewhere else.
Would the Russian public buy such a deal as a victory? Could Putin declare Ukraine is "denatzified"? Whatever the pace is, I expect NATO countries would continue to arm Ukraine, as well. While the Russian media will of course say what the Kremlin wants, the true count of Russian casualties will become known among friends and family, at least. Maybe that will start to uncover the lies.
I don't see any lasting peace in this arrangement. But I also hardly see lasting peace in any other arrangement. Maybe simply a break in hostilities will be the best that can be hoped for?
I wonder if the Russian public really cares how this ends. They have the problem of no heat in some areas. I think this is an example of concerns that certainly exceed government labeled Nazis in a foreign country. Many have fled that country. Many have died. Maybe, they just want things to get back to "normal."
-
In other news, Zalensky relieved General Zaluzhni as the Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. No specific reasons why other than he's shaking up the entire defense team. Plenty of rumors about disagreements they've had recently regarding strategic direction and mobilization. His replacement is General Syrskyi who was the commander of Ukrainian ground forces who comes with his own PR baggage (not imaginative, hey diddle diddle straight up the middle tactics, not liked by the rank and file).
Speculation from my news sources is that allegedly:
1. Zaluzhni was aligned with western factions who want to end the war.
2. Zaluzhni almost begged Zelensky to evacuate Bahkmut before it became a disaster.
3. Sent the 10th Army Corps out piecemeal during the counter offensive in 2023 to keep casualties at a minimum because he thought the counter offensive would be a failure.
4. Zaluzhni refused to take responsibility for the new draft bill that will call up 500,000 people for military duty.
All of these made Zaluzhni a popular figure in the army and with the public. He was becoming a political threat to Zelensky.
Syrski has no power base to threaten Zelensky. However he will make everything into a meat grinder, pouring reinforcements into doomed positions.
The Ukraine army is going to shatter under his leadership.
-
I seem to recall the former leader of Ukraine's armed forces called the current situation a "stalemate", which wasn't how President Zelenskyy wanted it portrayed. That said, the Ukrainian general is more popular than the Ukrainian President.
---
Note the sanctions were being considered in the EU, not in the United States. The EU does not have a first amendment right to free speech. In Germany, I believe far right propaganda can get you arrested, but I don't know if that is the underlying legal basis here. Anyone know on what basis the EU plans to sanction Mother Tucker?
I believe Tucker Carlson has a pattern of behavior here, not just one meeting with Putin. Russian state media blamed NATO for the invasion of Ukraine, which Tucker Carlson has echoed (while still on Fox News). I've seen other examples, but that one stuck out.
---
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true. A friend corrected me the first time, and I discovered Tucker's lie myself the second. Tucker Carlson (at Fox News) called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "some guy from private equity", which ignores facts Carlson must have known:
"Lloyd James Austin III (born August 8, 1953) is an American politician and retired United States Army four-star general who is serving as the 28th United States secretary of defense since January 22, 2021."
"In June 1975, Austin graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Infantry as a second lieutenant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
-
I seem to recall the former leader of Ukraine's armed forces called the current situation a "stalemate", which wasn't how President Zelenskyy wanted it portrayed. That said, the Ukrainian general is more popular than the Ukrainian President.
---
Note the sanctions were being considered in the EU, not in the United States. The EU does not have a first amendment right to free speech. In Germany, I believe far right propaganda can get you arrested, but I don't know if that is the underlying legal basis here. Anyone know on what basis the EU plans to sanction Mother Tucker?
I believe Tucker Carlson has a pattern of behavior here, not just one meeting with Putin. Russian state media blamed NATO for the invasion of Ukraine, which Tucker Carlson has echoed (while still on Fox News). I've seen other examples, but that one stuck out.
---
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true. A friend corrected me the first time, and I discovered Tucker's lie myself the second. Tucker Carlson (at Fox News) called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "some guy from private equity", which ignores facts Carlson must have known:
"Lloyd James Austin III (born August 8, 1953) is an American politician and retired United States Army four-star general who is serving as the 28th United States secretary of defense since January 22, 2021."
"In June 1975, Austin graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Infantry as a second lieutenant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
They will sanction Carlson for spreading "Disinformation."
Carlson may have been alluding to Austin sitting on the Raytheon board.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/08/biden-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-raytheon/
How did get get on the board with a government salary? Who knows?
-
https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/putins-genocidal-myth?r=9fd60&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web (https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/putins-genocidal-myth?r=9fd60&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
Timothy Snyder's most recent on how and why Putin's interview with Carlson / views on history are wrong and lead to war, genocide, fascism.
Good links at the end for those interested in Ukrainian history.
-
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true.
Propaganda 101.
Regarding Austin, countless DoD or service secretaries have had ties to industry somewhere on their resume. Whether that's a good idea or not I can't say, but its not new or shocking.
-
The past two posts are taking part of what I said out of context :
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes... and yet Europe's leaders don't seem to have even done that. I wonder how, in theory, they obtain new information and start new sanctions. Currently, that process seems broken.
I focused on evidence sanctions were broken. If Russia claims their economy is growing, not shrinking, then sanctions might not working. Europe should investigate if that's true or not.
MOSCOW, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the third quarter was confirmed on Wednesday at 5.5% compared with the same period last year, when it shrunk 3.5%, the state statistics service Rosstat said.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-q3-gdp-growth-confirmed-55-rosstat-2023-12-13/
Setting aside trusting Russian state agencies, shouldn't this claim spur Europe to investigate if Russia's economy is still suffering under sanctions? It's not isolated, either - the neighboring country's much higher imports also suggest sanctions evasion.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-imf-growth-military-spending-economy-2024-1
IMF says Russia's economy has grown.
-
The past two posts are taking part of what I said out of context :
I believe Russia's economy has already recovered, which I haven't verified. I could find that in a few minutes... and yet Europe's leaders don't seem to have even done that. I wonder how, in theory, they obtain new information and start new sanctions. Currently, that process seems broken.
I focused on evidence sanctions were broken. If Russia claims their economy is growing, not shrinking, then sanctions might not working. Europe should investigate if that's true or not.
MOSCOW, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the third quarter was confirmed on Wednesday at 5.5% compared with the same period last year, when it shrunk 3.5%, the state statistics service Rosstat said.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-q3-gdp-growth-confirmed-55-rosstat-2023-12-13/
Setting aside trusting Russian state agencies, shouldn't this claim spur Europe to investigate if Russia's economy is still suffering under sanctions? It's not isolated, either - the neighboring country's much higher imports also suggest sanctions evasion.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-imf-growth-military-spending-economy-2024-1
IMF says Russia's economy has grown.
I guess there are healthy ways that an economy grows and some that are unhealthy. It appears Putin is taking the country's savings and buying armaments and paying soldiers with the money. Years ago in my basic economics class they said a government could spend money on guns or butter. Guns was intended to represent military spending like Mr Putin is doing whereas butter could represent an investment in the people. Spending money on the military may cause short term growth but not be a true investment into the growth of the nation. So his spending shows up as growth, but it may be sort of bogus.
It may be like John Glenn once said "We're eating our own seed corn."
-
I've been following the SMO in Ukraine since Feb 22, due to some past personal connection.
More recently it's been impossible to take US politics out of the picture, so as an Aussie ignorant about US politics in general it's been an eye opener. By crikey, it's downright scary.
-
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true.
Propaganda 101.
Regarding Austin, countless DoD or service secretaries have had ties to industry somewhere on their resume. Whether that's a good idea or not I can't say, but its not new or shocking.
This was years ago, when Tucker Carlson was talking about who Biden was going to pick for Secretary of Defense. Tucker claimed Biden picked "some guy from venture capital," without any mention of Lloyd Austin's military career. He left listeners, in this case me, with the false impression Biden had simply picked a random person out of venture capital.
-
I seem to recall the former leader of Ukraine's armed forces called the current situation a "stalemate", which wasn't how President Zelenskyy wanted it portrayed. That said, the Ukrainian general is more popular than the Ukrainian President.
---
Note the sanctions were being considered in the EU, not in the United States. The EU does not have a first amendment right to free speech. In Germany, I believe far right propaganda can get you arrested, but I don't know if that is the underlying legal basis here. Anyone know on what basis the EU plans to sanction Mother Tucker?
I believe Tucker Carlson has a pattern of behavior here, not just one meeting with Putin. Russian state media blamed NATO for the invasion of Ukraine, which Tucker Carlson has echoed (while still on Fox News). I've seen other examples, but that one stuck out.
---
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true. A friend corrected me the first time, and I discovered Tucker's lie myself the second. Tucker Carlson (at Fox News) called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "some guy from private equity", which ignores facts Carlson must have known:
"Lloyd James Austin III (born August 8, 1953) is an American politician and retired United States Army four-star general who is serving as the 28th United States secretary of defense since January 22, 2021."
"In June 1975, Austin graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Infantry as a second lieutenant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
They will sanction Carlson for spreading "Disinformation."
Carlson may have been alluding to Austin sitting on the Raytheon board.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/08/biden-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-raytheon/
How did get get on the board with a government salary? Who knows?
Raytheon is a defense contractor. A top retired general is an expert of sorts on defense purchases, and comes with some level of connection to ongoing decision makers. This would be even more so with a general who doubles down on political connections, because military funding is controlled in the long term by Congressional decisions.
The military industrial complex has been a thing since before President Eisenhower named it in 1961 or so. That’s how a general got the Raytheon board.
-
I seem to recall the former leader of Ukraine's armed forces called the current situation a "stalemate", which wasn't how President Zelenskyy wanted it portrayed. That said, the Ukrainian general is more popular than the Ukrainian President.
---
Note the sanctions were being considered in the EU, not in the United States. The EU does not have a first amendment right to free speech. In Germany, I believe far right propaganda can get you arrested, but I don't know if that is the underlying legal basis here. Anyone know on what basis the EU plans to sanction Mother Tucker?
I believe Tucker Carlson has a pattern of behavior here, not just one meeting with Putin. Russian state media blamed NATO for the invasion of Ukraine, which Tucker Carlson has echoed (while still on Fox News). I've seen other examples, but that one stuck out.
---
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true. A friend corrected me the first time, and I discovered Tucker's lie myself the second. Tucker Carlson (at Fox News) called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "some guy from private equity", which ignores facts Carlson must have known:
"Lloyd James Austin III (born August 8, 1953) is an American politician and retired United States Army four-star general who is serving as the 28th United States secretary of defense since January 22, 2021."
"In June 1975, Austin graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Infantry as a second lieutenant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
They will sanction Carlson for spreading "Disinformation."
Carlson may have been alluding to Austin sitting on the Raytheon board.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/08/biden-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-raytheon/
How did get get on the board with a government salary? Who knows?
Raytheon is a defense contractor. A top retired general is an expert of sorts on defense purchases, and comes with some level of connection to ongoing decision makers. This would be even more so with a general who doubles down on political connections, because military funding is controlled in the long term by Congressional decisions.
The military industrial complex has been a thing since before President Eisenhower named it in 1961 or so. That’s how a general got the Raytheon board.
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.
-
I seem to recall the former leader of Ukraine's armed forces called the current situation a "stalemate", which wasn't how President Zelenskyy wanted it portrayed. That said, the Ukrainian general is more popular than the Ukrainian President.
---
Note the sanctions were being considered in the EU, not in the United States. The EU does not have a first amendment right to free speech. In Germany, I believe far right propaganda can get you arrested, but I don't know if that is the underlying legal basis here. Anyone know on what basis the EU plans to sanction Mother Tucker?
I believe Tucker Carlson has a pattern of behavior here, not just one meeting with Putin. Russian state media blamed NATO for the invasion of Ukraine, which Tucker Carlson has echoed (while still on Fox News). I've seen other examples, but that one stuck out.
---
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true. A friend corrected me the first time, and I discovered Tucker's lie myself the second. Tucker Carlson (at Fox News) called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "some guy from private equity", which ignores facts Carlson must have known:
"Lloyd James Austin III (born August 8, 1953) is an American politician and retired United States Army four-star general who is serving as the 28th United States secretary of defense since January 22, 2021."
"In June 1975, Austin graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Infantry as a second lieutenant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
They will sanction Carlson for spreading "Disinformation."
Carlson may have been alluding to Austin sitting on the Raytheon board.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/08/biden-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-raytheon/
How did get get on the board with a government salary? Who knows?
Raytheon is a defense contractor. A top retired general is an expert of sorts on defense purchases, and comes with some level of connection to ongoing decision makers. This would be even more so with a general who doubles down on political connections, because military funding is controlled in the long term by Congressional decisions.
The military industrial complex has been a thing since before President Eisenhower named it in 1961 or so. That’s how a general got the Raytheon board.
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.
Austin spent 51 years in the US Army, starting as a West Point graduate in 1975, retiring in 2016 as a 4-star general. He spent less than 5 years (2016 to early 2021) as a board member/director at a couple of companies, including Raytheon and Nucor. To call him a "private equity guy" for a few years of corporate work is asinine. Also he isn't listed on the PE firm's partner list. https://pineislandcp.com/
Political-military-industrial complex member? For sure. There have many before him, and many will come after him. That's par for the course, it's the system, stupid!
-
I've been following the SMO in Ukraine since Feb 22, due to some past personal connection.
More recently it's been impossible to take US politics out of the picture, so as an Aussie ignorant about US politics in general it's been an eye opener. By crikey, it's downright scary.
The United States has got oceans on two sides,......well at least for the continental US. However Australia is surrounded by oceans in a whole different hemisphere. I don't think you guys have a lot to be scared of. Missiles have to fly a long ways to reach your cities.
-
I've been following the SMO in Ukraine since Feb 22, due to some past personal connection.
More recently it's been impossible to take US politics out of the picture, so as an Aussie ignorant about US politics in general it's been an eye opener. By crikey, it's downright scary.
Don't forget, the news you are seeing is biased. All news is biased, so what you are hearing isn't necessarily ... um, not sure what word to put here. Accurate? Reliable? Honest?
-
The United States has got oceans on two sides,......well at least for the continental US. However Australia is surrounded by oceans in a whole different hemisphere. I don't think you guys have a lot to be scared of. Missiles have to fly a long ways to reach your cities.
I think this is a fundamental misread of the anxieties of the Australian public (as I understand them as a non-Australian). Those fears have a lot to do with being a country of 26M, sitting on a whole continent of agricultural and mineral resources at the edge of the expanding sphere of influence of a resource and territory hungry superpower of 1.4B people.
The USA doesn't have a great reputation/perception down there from what I can gather, but I think we are still valued as a potential counterbalance to China.
-
I've been following the SMO in Ukraine since Feb 22, due to some past personal connection.
More recently it's been impossible to take US politics out of the picture, so as an Aussie ignorant about US politics in general it's been an eye opener. By crikey, it's downright scary.
Don't forget, the news you are seeing is biased. All news is biased, so what you are hearing isn't necessarily ... um, not sure what word to put here. Accurate? Reliable? Honest?
The United States has got oceans on two sides,......well at least for the continental US. However Australia is surrounded by oceans in a whole different hemisphere. I don't think you guys have a lot to be scared of. Missiles have to fly a long ways to reach your cities.
I think this is a fundamental misread of the anxieties of the Australian public (as I understand them as a non-Australian). Those fears have a lot to do with being a country of 26M, sitting on a whole continent of agricultural and mineral resources at the edge of the expanding sphere of influence of a resource and territory hungry superpower of 1.4B people.
The USA doesn't have a great reputation/perception down there from what I can gather, but I think we are still valued as a potential counterbalance to China.
I've been following the SMO in Ukraine since Feb 22, due to some past personal connection.
More recently it's been impossible to take US politics out of the picture, so as an Aussie ignorant about US politics in general it's been an eye opener. By crikey, it's downright scary.
The United States has got oceans on two sides,......well at least for the continental US. However Australia is surrounded by oceans in a whole different hemisphere. I don't think you guys have a lot to be scared of. Missiles have to fly a long ways to reach your cities.
Thanks for your comments... they all have merit, and I am tempted to discuss further, but will refrain from taking this thread off course.
In the context of Ukraine, what I was referring to, albeit indirectly, was firstly the ability of one bloke, speaker Johnson to completely stymie US aid by refusing to schedule a vote. So much power invested in 1 person (democratic???). And the whole Trump/MAGA issue, especially his latest remarks about NATO.
-
I seem to recall the former leader of Ukraine's armed forces called the current situation a "stalemate", which wasn't how President Zelenskyy wanted it portrayed. That said, the Ukrainian general is more popular than the Ukrainian President.
---
Note the sanctions were being considered in the EU, not in the United States. The EU does not have a first amendment right to free speech. In Germany, I believe far right propaganda can get you arrested, but I don't know if that is the underlying legal basis here. Anyone know on what basis the EU plans to sanction Mother Tucker?
I believe Tucker Carlson has a pattern of behavior here, not just one meeting with Putin. Russian state media blamed NATO for the invasion of Ukraine, which Tucker Carlson has echoed (while still on Fox News). I've seen other examples, but that one stuck out.
---
As an aside, I have been taken in by Tucker twice - he inserts facts, which I like. And then he drops an emotional punch based on a lie - but in context, it seems like it must be true. A friend corrected me the first time, and I discovered Tucker's lie myself the second. Tucker Carlson (at Fox News) called Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "some guy from private equity", which ignores facts Carlson must have known:
"Lloyd James Austin III (born August 8, 1953) is an American politician and retired United States Army four-star general who is serving as the 28th United States secretary of defense since January 22, 2021."
"In June 1975, Austin graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Infantry as a second lieutenant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
They will sanction Carlson for spreading "Disinformation."
Carlson may have been alluding to Austin sitting on the Raytheon board.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/08/biden-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-raytheon/
How did get get on the board with a government salary? Who knows?
Raytheon is a defense contractor. A top retired general is an expert of sorts on defense purchases, and comes with some level of connection to ongoing decision makers. This would be even more so with a general who doubles down on political connections, because military funding is controlled in the long term by Congressional decisions.
The military industrial complex has been a thing since before President Eisenhower named it in 1961 or so. That’s how a general got the Raytheon board.
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.
Oh, I see. Sorry!
Well, you’re quite right. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Russia supposedly pushing all along the front.
-
All along the approximately 600 km frontline? What sources are saying this?
-
All along the approximately 600 km frontline? What sources are saying this?
General Syrski in an interview with German media ZDF.
https://youtu.be/I1OsDnLJ_fs
-
All along the approximately 600 km frontline? What sources are saying this?
General Syrski in an interview with German media ZDF.
https://youtu.be/I1OsDnLJ_fs
Russia has been pressing since November, and as I wrote several times, very slowly gaining ground at multiple points on the eastern front. They have broken through the frontlines (but seem to have been stopped by now) in one place and Avdijivka only seems a matter of (short) time now. Ukraine is throwing that former "Nazi militia" whose name I forgot in there now.
-
Thanks for posting the link. I unfortunately do not understand Russian or Ukrainian, but was able to find a version of the same interview dubbed in German and was able to get the gist of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiCyTvQgvLs I gathered that according to Syrsky Russia on the offensive suffers approximately 7 to 8 casualties for every 1 Ukrainian casualty. That sounds about right based on what I've read and heard so far. Ukraine needs Russia to keep playing that game to attrit it further.
-
It will be interesting to see if this slowly losing ground but killing a metric crapton of Russians ends up being a giant battle of Breed's hill situation, of if it will just eventually mean a Russian victory.
-W
-
Russia has four times the population of Ukraine. If they're truly losing 7-8x as many troops (and it appears they're losing WAY more than 8x as much armor), that's not a good trajectory, especially since they're gaining very very little ground in exchange.
-
Some good news for valentine's day: Big boy landing ship "Caesar Kunikov" sunk by UKR GRU naval drones
-
It will be interesting to see if this slowly losing ground but killing a metric crapton of Russians ends up being a giant battle of Breed's hill situation, of if it will just eventually mean a Russian victory.
-W
Like the Breed's hill situation it was captured after the defenders ran out of ammunition. I think it will also similar if new supplies from Ukraine allies are too slow coming, causing them to lose ground.
-
It will be interesting to see if this slowly losing ground but killing a metric crapton of Russians ends up being a giant battle of Breed's hill situation, of if it will just eventually mean a Russian victory.
-W
Like the Breed's hill situation it was captured after the defenders ran out of ammunition. I think it will also similar if new supplies from Ukraine allies are too slow coming, causing them to lose ground.
Certainly Ukraine is hurting because of a shortage of artillery ammunition. I'm sitting here, wondering why on earth we still aren't sending the literal thousands of unused Bradleys we have. They were built specifically to fight Russia. Yeah, yeah, I get that they all need some refurbishment to some degree, and that Ukraine needs to be able to train their troops to operate it effectively, but I'd let Ukraine be the judge of whether they can use 'em.
-
Russia has four times the population of Ukraine. If they're truly losing 7-8x as many troops (and it appears they're losing WAY more than 8x as much armor), that's not a good trajectory, especially since they're gaining very very little ground in exchange.
On the other hand, I've seen reports that Russia is ramping up their mercenary recruitment operation in places like Syria, Nepal, North Africa, and the poorest parts of Afghanistan. After 2 weeks of training they are sent to the front lines as cannon fodder to absorb Ukrainian munitions. Most can't even understand their orders because they don't speak Russian.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/2/10/want-to-go-home-nepalis-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine-describe-horrors (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/2/10/want-to-go-home-nepalis-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine-describe-horrors)
There is no shortage of financially desperate / poorly informed people in the world, and there is no shortage of Russian oil money, so this dynamic could go on for longer than the Ukrainian ammo supply or Western willpower. Even if they can only recruit a couple thousand people per month, that puts the sustainability of Russian losses into context. If they were only losing mercenaries at a cost of a few thousand dollars each, they'd be winning.
Ukraine would be wise to import workers to run munitions factories, replace farm workers who became soldiers, repair equipment, drive trucks, care for the wounded, rebuild infrastructure, and similar. Perhaps even offer immigrants citizenship after a period of service. It's a winning strategy in a war of attrition.
-
Ukraine would be wise to import workers to run munitions factories, replace farm workers who became soldiers, repair equipment, drive trucks, care for the wounded, rebuild infrastructure, and similar. Perhaps even offer immigrants citizenship after a period of service. It's a winning strategy in a war of attrition.
They won't have the time to do that.
-
Ukraine would be wise to import workers to run munitions factories, replace farm workers who became soldiers, repair equipment, drive trucks, care for the wounded, rebuild infrastructure, and similar. Perhaps even offer immigrants citizenship after a period of service. It's a winning strategy in a war of attrition.
They won't have the time to do that.
Not to mention, why should you go into a war torn-country where the wages are the near the bottom of the EU?
-
Ukraine would be wise to import workers to run munitions factories, replace farm workers who became soldiers, repair equipment, drive trucks, care for the wounded, rebuild infrastructure, and similar. Perhaps even offer immigrants citizenship after a period of service. It's a winning strategy in a war of attrition.
They won't have the time to do that.
Not to mention, why should you go into a war torn-country where the wages are the near the bottom of the EU?
On Ukraine supposedly not having the time to do that: That argument would have convinced me in February-March 2022, when the Russians seemed close to capturing Kyiv. Today, I don't see why there wouldn't be enough time.
On why someone would go into a wartorn country etc.: That's a fair question but bear in mind that thousands globally have joined the Russian armed forces. And what have they gotten? In many cases a few weeks' training followed by a one-way trip into the meatgrinder. I'm sure that Ukraine could come up with a better value proposition than that if it felt it would benefit from immigrant workers. Ukrainian wages may be low compared to those in most EU countries but they must look pretty enticing to someone from Afghanistan or Nepal to name just two countries. The fact Ukraine hasn't done this yet probably means it doesn't see a need for it or that it feels the downsides would outweigh the benefits.
-
It will be interesting to see if this slowly losing ground but killing a metric crapton of Russians ends up being a giant battle of Breed's hill situation, of if it will just eventually mean a Russian victory.
-W
Like the Breed's hill situation it was captured after the defenders ran out of ammunition. I think it will also similar if new supplies from Ukraine allies are too slow coming, causing them to lose ground.
Certainly Ukraine is hurting because of a shortage of artillery ammunition. I'm sitting here, wondering why on earth we still aren't sending the literal thousands of unused Bradleys we have. They were built specifically to fight Russia. Yeah, yeah, I get that they all need some refurbishment to some degree, and that Ukraine needs to be able to train their troops to operate it effectively, but I'd let Ukraine be the judge of whether they can use 'em.
A good amount of aid is being held up due to the split in the Republican party. There is what may be called the traditional or Reagan Republicans who see the necessity to support Ukraine and the newer MAGA type Republicans who take more parochial views and take a short term viewpoint. I get the impression that the newer MAGA types don't "see" beyond the US borders. However, I have difficulty understanding what their ideology actually is. Unfortunately, as we've discussed, the current Speaker of the House is of the MAGA variety of Republican and may continue to hold up aid including the surplus Bradleys you speak of.
-
Ukraine would be wise to import workers to run munitions factories, replace farm workers who became soldiers, repair equipment, drive trucks, care for the wounded, rebuild infrastructure, and similar. Perhaps even offer immigrants citizenship after a period of service. It's a winning strategy in a war of attrition.
They won't have the time to do that.
Not to mention, why should you go into a war torn-country where the wages are the near the bottom of the EU?
Half of "bottom of the EU" wages would be damn good money for hundreds of millions of hopeless people across the world who would leap at the chance to rebuild bombed-out railroad tracks or work in a clandestine munitions or drone factory. Some would leap at the chance to fight on Ukraine's side.
Also, the argument about a war-torn country could apply to Russia as well. In terms of citizenship, which passport would you rather have? Ukrainian or Russian? Only Ukraine can offer people potential citizenship in a free democracy. Russia is a totalitarian prison.
Regarding the "won't have time" argument, can any of us estimate when the war will end? Four years from now? Five? Ten? Russia geared up their foreign mercenary program in less than a year, and is probably attracting laborers with other programs to replace their draftees.
-
I’m surprised Putin hasn’t hired North Korean soldiers. Kim can barely afford to feed them.
-
Uh-oh, it looks like LennStar and ChpBstrd got their quotes misformatted.
-
I’m surprised Putin hasn’t hired North Korean soldiers. Kim can barely afford to feed them.
Oh no, the soldiers are fed. But the normal people might be different.
A) And why do you think starved, weak people would make good soldiers, even if cannon fodder?
B) Why do you think Kim would agree to let his slaves leave? I mean most of them would die, but some might get back saying that even Russia is better than North Korea!
C) Do you have any idea how bad the PR would be if those hungry NK happen to win a fight where the might Russians with their unwavering faith and strength could not?
D) Most important, that would look like a weakness. Arty ammo might be one thing, but people from NK? ou have to resort to them???
-
From the perspective of a Ukrainian, a Russian victory means:
A murder and torture spree for 100,000's of its citizens
Decades of political terror and repression
Complete looting of the Ukrainian economy
Decades of economic repression and pilfering with proceeds to Moscow
Elimination of Ukrainian language, culture, and all aspects of independence
Ukrainians have 0 motivation to stop fighting under any circumstances, because to cease fighting will have results that are actually worse than the war itself. Do people not realize that? This is hypothetical, but only if Ukraine wins.
From the perspective of others, a Russian victory means continued wars of conquest until they are forcibly stopped by someone. Again this is only hypothetical if Russia loses. Do people not realize the costs of Russian victory are much higher than the costs of providing weapons to Ukraine?
-
I view Russian full frontal assaults as the best thing the Russians can do for the Ukrainians, other than packing and leaving. I am deeply concerned about the lack of supplies Ukraine has to stop these assaults though. Nothing atrits Russians like millions of rounds of shells the the means to send them. I don't know how half the world's economy can decide to be so feeble. Basically the outcome of the war hinges on the degree of material support provided by NATO economies. There really aren't any other meaningful variables, unless China intervenes. If Russia has been doing well recently that is directly attributable to a lack of NATO support. The US has failed to provide it's ample supply of aging munitions and equipment, while Europe as the largest source of manufacturing equipment in the world has failed to set up even meager munition factories.
Regarding the US, the Senate passed the military aid bill with 67 votes, which is the approximate level of support it has among the populace. How much longer can we tolerate a House in which 1/3 of the country gets to decide on actions anathema to 2/3 of the country?
-
I view Russian full frontal assaults as the best thing the Russians can do for the Ukrainians, other than packing and leaving. I am deeply concerned about the lack of supplies Ukraine has to stop these assaults though. Nothing atrits Russians like millions of rounds of shells the the means to send them. I don't know how half the world's economy can decide to be so feeble. Basically the outcome of the war hinges on the degree of material support provided by NATO economies. There really aren't any other meaningful variables, unless China intervenes. If Russia has been doing well recently that is directly attributable to a lack of NATO support. The US has failed to provide it's ample supply of aging munitions and equipment, while Europe as the largest source of manufacturing equipment in the world has failed to set up even meager munition factories.
Regarding the US, the Senate passed the military aid bill with 67 votes, which is the approximate level of support it has among the populace. How much longer can we tolerate a House in which 1/3 of the country gets to decide on actions anathema to 2/3 of the country?
It's not just Ukraine that is not getting aid. The shenanigans of the House are also denying aid to Israel. The Jewish lobby is said to be very powerful. I wonder if they will put their foot down and convince the House leader to allow a vote.
-
while Europe as the largest source of manufacturing equipment in the world has failed to set up even meager munition factories.
Yes, but in their defense they did the error that many did (and don't forget that the last real war the EU states had was WWII!) - they thought it would be over one way or the other far faster.
That is why they hummed and ahhhed so long.
Actually Rheinmetall has just annoucned to build a now arty ammo factory, that is the reason for the last jump in stock price. https://www.rheinmetall.com/de/media/news-watch/news/2024/02/2024-02-12-rheinmetall-baut-neue-munitionsfabrik-in-unterluess-spatenstich-mit-bundeskanzler-scholz
But that one (costing the company 300 Mio) "only" produces 200K grenades per year. Plan is 50K after the first year.
Building a new ammo factory does not happen overnight. To "feed" Ukraine today, every major country in the EU would had to build (and payfor) one like this starting in April 2022. (And don't forget the resources. I doubt you can source thousands of tons of materials for high explosives in the next ALDI.)
-----
Back to the fighting itself, it's still Kuiank, Lyman/Siversk, Bahkmut, Avdijivka and Vuhledar where the main fighting is happening, with the main actions in Avdijivka.
Russian soliders there managed to touch the street that supplies the south (the city area) of the pocket, but were repelled by reserves for 150m.
Ukrainians are showing confidence - maybe tehy plan something (not the first time) or it's grandstanding to let the Russians continue their frenzy. Half of the Russian personnel losses are around this town.
-
I’m surprised Putin hasn’t hired North Korean soldiers. Kim can barely afford to feed them.
Oh no, the soldiers are fed. But the normal people might be different.
A) And why do you think starved, weak people would make good soldiers, even if cannon fodder?
B) Why do you think Kim would agree to let his slaves leave? I mean most of them would die, but some might get back saying that even Russia is better than North Korea!
C) Do you have any idea how bad the PR would be if those hungry NK happen to win a fight where the might Russians with their unwavering faith and strength could not?
D) Most important, that would look like a weakness. Arty ammo might be one thing, but people from NK? ou have to resort to them???
To B: In the past North Korea has supplied slave labour to other countries (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/07/qatar-north-korean-forced-labour) in exchange for foreign currencies. So it wouldn't be wholly unprecedented. To C and D: You are right about the potential bad press but you are discounting Russia's ability to control the narrative. Russia could for example issue the North Koreans Russian uniforms, call them Buryats, integrate them in units from the Russian Far East and above all not allow journalists anywhere near them. It wouldn't be foolproof but it would certainly mitigate the risks. I wouldn't say Russia and North Korea are likely to do this, but I wouldn't put it past them either.
Ukrainians have 0 motivation to stop fighting under any circumstances, because to cease fighting will have results that are actually worse than the war itself. Do people not realize that? This is hypothetical, but only if Ukraine wins.
From the perspective of others, a Russian victory means continued wars of conquest until they are forcibly stopped by someone. Again this is only hypothetical if Russia loses. Do people not realize the costs of Russian victory are much higher than the costs of providing weapons to Ukraine?
Hear hear. Unfortunately there seems to be no lack of shortsightedness in much of the West. Many citizens have only a narrow and short-term conception of their own interests and many politicians are either equally blinkered or pander to such beliefs to serve their own perceived political interests. Ukraine is thankfully still getting support but it's painfully slow in coming.
-
Ukraine would be wise to import workers to run munitions factories, replace farm workers who became soldiers, repair equipment, drive trucks, care for the wounded, rebuild infrastructure, and similar. Perhaps even offer immigrants citizenship after a period of service. It's a winning strategy in a war of attrition.
They won't have the time to do that.
Not to mention, why should you go into a war torn-country where the wages are the near the bottom of the EU?
Half of "bottom of the EU" wages would be damn good money for hundreds of millions of hopeless people across the world who would leap at the chance to rebuild bombed-out railroad tracks or work in a clandestine munitions or drone factory. Some would leap at the chance to fight on Ukraine's side.
Also, the argument about a war-torn country could apply to Russia as well. In terms of citizenship, which passport would you rather have? Ukrainian or Russian? Only Ukraine can offer people potential citizenship in a free democracy. Russia is a totalitarian prison.
Regarding the "won't have time" argument, can any of us estimate when the war will end? Four years from now? Five? Ten? Russia geared up their foreign mercenary program in less than a year, and is probably attracting laborers with other programs to replace their draftees.
I'm giving Ukraine six months at best. They are in an attritional war with Russia, crowned Heavyweight champion of "Throw Men at the Problem til the Problem goes away." And the the general in command of Ukraine thinks he can put attrition Russia.
Also they had started hiring South American mercenaries from the outset of the war. This worked until news got around that it was a death trap. And if you survived your contract the Ukrainian wouldn't pay.
-
I view Russian full frontal assaults as the best thing the Russians can do for the Ukrainians, other than packing and leaving. I am deeply concerned about the lack of supplies Ukraine has to stop these assaults though. Nothing atrits Russians like millions of rounds of shells the the means to send them. I don't know how half the world's economy can decide to be so feeble. Basically the outcome of the war hinges on the degree of material support provided by NATO economies. There really aren't any other meaningful variables, unless China intervenes. If Russia has been doing well recently that is directly attributable to a lack of NATO support. The US has failed to provide it's ample supply of aging munitions and equipment, while Europe as the largest source of manufacturing equipment in the world has failed to set up even meager munition factories.
Regarding the US, the Senate passed the military aid bill with 67 votes, which is the approximate level of support it has among the populace. How much longer can we tolerate a House in which 1/3 of the country gets to decide on actions anathema to 2/3 of the country?
Because global elites hollowed out the production capabilities. Two years in and the US doubled it's shell production to 28,000 shells a month. Ukraine would require 5,000 a day if I remember correctly. So America's vaunted production capacity won't last a week of fighting.
The EU has only gathered 300,000 shells out of the million it promised to give Ukraine last year.
Regarding the US house, Ukraine will probably get the aid. We've realized Congress is performative at this point.
-
Ha, the nefarious global elites again!
-
Ha, the nefarious global elites again!
Two continents cannot ramp up production in two years to supply the (at least) three global fronts we are fighting on. Who would you blame for such a state of affairs?
-
Ha, the nefarious global elites again!
Two continents cannot ramp up production in two years to supply the (at least) three global fronts we are fighting on. Who would you blame for such a state of affairs?
Decreased defense spending and reallocation of defense spending after the end of the cold war because of the end of the threat of a large land war against the USSR.
When national elites capture government spending, the result is typically increasing spending over time, not decreasing spending.
There is no conspiracy of "global elites" trying to destroy industrial capacity for shell production.
-
Ha, the nefarious global elites again!
Two continents cannot ramp up production in two years to supply the (at least) three global fronts we are fighting on. Who would you blame for such a state of affairs?
Let me put it like that:
It took everyone involved in WWII 2+ years (until 1942) to reach the high production rates of tanks in a fucking world war - with all that war bonds, rationing etc. stuff going on while their existence was on the table.
Does it really surprise you that it takes at least this time to increase production to more than double in (for the countries) peaceful times, in the middle of a recession caused by a 2 year long State of Exception caused by an pandemic, while right wing extremists are occupying the politics and several millions of Ukrainians are "flooding" the countries as refugees?
Yes, there could have been done more. For example the US (who is not number 1 in relation to GDP for help, even if you only count military and not the refugee costs) could have given 50% of it's stock to Ukraine. You know, all that stuff that was intended to be destroyed/replaced or used on Russia anyway.
(And btw. US art. gren. buying (both demoestic and in-country) is planned to be 100K per month in '26 - from a starting point of 14K.
The problem here is of course that in a already strained internal political situation (also fired by Russian propaganda on asocial media) you would have to tell people to accept raising taxes for the benefit of the Ukrainians. To buy weapons of all things! (at least in Germany a political suicide even in mid February '22)
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
-
The U.S. has given the most aid to Ukraine. When you take the size of each country's economy into account (dividing by GDP), the U.S. has given a smaller share than over a dozen other countries. But I also notice distance from Russia plays a role, where countries sharing a border with Russia are giving the most (for their size).
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#6b542530-b303-4dc8-be00-6036e04d63c6
I thought France was a major arms producer, yet they are barely ahead of Croatia in absolute aid contributed. Seems odd they aren't contributing more.
The important thing right now is keeping pressure on the House of Representatives to bring the $95B aid package to a vote.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
I am pretty sure that's just Putins normal trolling. Liek when he said 2 weeks ago that he has no intention of fighting in Ukraine, he is only forced by the stubborness of the Ukrainians.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win.
If you are confident that Trump's position on something won't change in the next 11 months, then you weren't paying attention 2016-2020.
-
(And btw. US art. gren. buying (both demoestic and in-country) is planned to be 100K per month in '26 - from a starting point of 14K.
I believe that's actually our target for 2025 rather than 2026.
So far we have doubled production from our embarrassingly low base of 14K to 28K/month last October with projections of 37,000/month in April and 60,000/month in October. If we hit those marks, hitting 100k shells/month by the start of 2025 seems achievable.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
I am pretty sure that's just Putins normal trolling. Liek when he said 2 weeks ago that he has no intention of fighting in Ukraine, he is only forced by the stubborness of the Ukrainians.
It's not trolling, it's psyops.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
I am pretty sure that's just Putins normal trolling. Liek when he said 2 weeks ago that he has no intention of fighting in Ukraine, he is only forced by the stubborness of the Ukrainians.
It's not trolling, it's psyops.
+1
-
I'm giving Ukraine six months at best. They are in an attritional war with Russia, crowned Heavyweight champion of "Throw Men at the Problem til the Problem goes away." And the the general in command of Ukraine thinks he can put attrition Russia.
Mk, see ya in six months.
-
I'm giving Ukraine six months at best. They are in an attritional war with Russia, crowned Heavyweight champion of "Throw Men at the Problem til the Problem goes away." And the the general in command of Ukraine thinks he can put attrition Russia.
Mk, see ya in six months.
The only reason I'm not looking forward to that moment is that Cawl will just shrug it off and redirect the conversation, as with every other factual response to his unfounded claims.
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
I am pretty sure that's just Putins normal trolling. Liek when he said 2 weeks ago that he has no intention of fighting in Ukraine, he is only forced by the stubborness of the Ukrainians.
It's not trolling, it's psyops.
It's been said before, but: exactly.
-
I'm giving Ukraine six months at best. They are in an attritional war with Russia, crowned Heavyweight champion of "Throw Men at the Problem til the Problem goes away." And the the general in command of Ukraine thinks he can put attrition Russia.
Mk, see ya in six months.
Yes - Unfortunately, it may take Ukraine longer than 6 months to defeat Russia. I've read they stil have about 2-1/2 to 3 years of old tanks to be blown up.
"Russia could run out of infantry fighting vehicles in two or three years, if a recent assessment is accurate. It might run out of tanks around the same time. According to one count, the Russian armed forces went to war in Ukraine in February 2022 with 2,987 tanks.Jan 10, 202"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=630bdfd51027 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=630bdfd51027)
GLSDB enters the war.
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-reportedly-uses-glsdb-munitions-193000560.html (https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-reportedly-uses-glsdb-munitions-193000560.html)
I guess Mike Johnson couldn't stop the use of GLSDB.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
If your goal is to "de-nazify" Ukraine and take enough territory that NATO weapons can no longer reach Moscow, you would want the war to keep going. Biden will keep the war going even after it becomes a complete disaster.
Putin can make Ukraine a rump state that has little economic prospects and neuter NATO interest at the same time.
-
I'm giving Ukraine six months at best. They are in an attritional war with Russia, crowned Heavyweight champion of "Throw Men at the Problem til the Problem goes away." And the the general in command of Ukraine thinks he can put attrition Russia.
Mk, see ya in six months.
Yes - Unfortunately, it may take Ukraine longer than 6 months to defeat Russia. I've read they stil have about 2-1/2 to 3 years of old tanks to be blown up.
"Russia could run out of infantry fighting vehicles in two or three years, if a recent assessment is accurate. It might run out of tanks around the same time. According to one count, the Russian armed forces went to war in Ukraine in February 2022 with 2,987 tanks.Jan 10, 202"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=630bdfd51027 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=630bdfd51027)
GLSDB enters the war.
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-reportedly-uses-glsdb-munitions-193000560.html (https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-reportedly-uses-glsdb-munitions-193000560.html)
I guess Mike Johnson couldn't stop the use of GLSDB.
Yet another wunder waffen.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
If your goal is to "de-nazify" Ukraine and take enough territory that NATO weapons can no longer reach Moscow, you would want the war to keep going.
I don't understand this comment. NATO has both nuclear and conventional weapons that can reach Moscow -without Ukraine being under Russian control. What does control of Ukraine have to do with a NATO attack on Moscow?
Biden will keep the war going even after it becomes a complete disaster.
The war is a complete disaster right now . . . for Russia. You seem to see this as a bad thing?
Putin can make Ukraine a rump state that has little economic prospects and neuter NATO interest at the same time.
How are NATO interests being neutered?
-
For those who think that Russia is going to run out of weapons here's a rather worrying article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners
It's claiming that Russia has massively increased its production of war materials over the last 2 years, in effect turning its economy into a war economy. They can't produce sophisticated weapons, but they don't really need them.
Russia has a long history of winning wars of attrition on its own territory.
-
For those who think that Russia is going to run out of weapons here's a rather worrying article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners
It's claiming that Russia has massively increased its production of war materials over the last 2 years, in effect turning its economy into a war economy. They can't produce sophisticated weapons, but they don't really need them.
Russia has a long history of winning wars of attrition on its own territory.
This time they are not on their territory. They would certainly like it to be.
-
Yet another wunder waffen.
From your previous comments, it would seem that you're skeptical of the impact of this weapon. I'd like to bring up the tremendous impact HIMARS has had in pushing Russian logistics far from the front. Of the impact of a mere dozen or so ATACMS (most of an entire airbase destroyed in Crimea) has had, or Storm Shadow (1/3 of the Black Sea fleet lost, and also a huge chunk of their command structure, to a country with no navy). Sure, the Bradleys and Abrams haven't enabled any huge breakthroughs, but in hindsight, that's expected due to the lack of aerial supremacy.
I'm optimistic about GLSDB. It has the advantages of HIMARS, but with double the range and a quarter of the cost of the M31 rockets. It's cheap. Like "half the cost of a Javelin" cheap. Looking at a map, from the west side of the Dniepr River, the connection between Crimea and the mainland is within range of GLSDB. There are only a couple of railroad links from the mainland to Crimea, and only a few more roads. If you thought it was expensive for Russia to defend Crimea from Storm Shadows and ATACMS, just wait until Ukraine can hit arbitrary targets with 250-lb bombs that only cost $40k from 94 miles away.
-
Putin says he prefers Biden to Trump: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/15/russias-putin-says-he-prefers-more-predictable-biden-over-trump-in-us-election.html)
It's hard for me to imagine that the guy who wants to keep funding Ukraine is Putin's choice over the guy who will immediately end all funding and let Russia win. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if Russian actions to influence the next US election again correspond with Putin's publicly stated comments on the matter.
If your goal is to "de-nazify" Ukraine and take enough territory that NATO weapons can no longer reach Moscow, you would want the war to keep going.
I don't understand this comment. NATO has both nuclear and conventional weapons that can reach Moscow -without Ukraine being under Russian control. What does control of Ukraine have to do with a NATO attack on Moscow?
Biden will keep the war going even after it becomes a complete disaster.
The war is a complete disaster right now . . . for Russia. You seem to see this as a bad thing?
Putin can make Ukraine a rump state that has little economic prospects and neuter NATO interest at the same time.
How are NATO interests being neutered?
I may have misunderstood Putin's intent in an interview. He may have meant that "Ukraine cannot be used as a staging ground against Russia." Ukraine is going to be without manpower for any offensive operations for two or three generations at this point.
As for the war going poorly for Russia... They control 20% of Ukraine and Ukraine has no capabilities of taking that land back. Avdeevka is being cut into two separate cauldrons and the Ukrainians are going to pour reinforcements in rather than extract their forces. It is slow and steady approach but Ukraine will lose.
My guess is that most of Ukraines value was in the eastern parts now under control of the Russians. Those resources are no longer available. What's to be gained by having Ukraine join NATO if all they have is grain?
-
Yet another wunder waffen.
From your previous comments, it would seem that you're skeptical of the impact of this weapon. I'd like to bring up the tremendous impact HIMARS has had in pushing Russian logistics far from the front. Of the impact of a mere dozen or so ATACMS (most of an entire airbase destroyed in Crimea) has had, or Storm Shadow (1/3 of the Black Sea fleet lost, and also a huge chunk of their command structure, to a country with no navy). Sure, the Bradleys and Abrams haven't enabled any huge breakthroughs, but in hindsight, that's expected due to the lack of aerial supremacy.
I'm optimistic about GLSDB. It has the advantages of HIMARS, but with double the range and a quarter of the cost of the M31 rockets. It's cheap. Like "half the cost of a Javelin" cheap. Looking at a map, from the west side of the Dniepr River, the connection between Crimea and the mainland is within range of GLSDB. There are only a couple of railroad links from the mainland to Crimea, and only a few more roads. If you thought it was expensive for Russia to defend Crimea from Storm Shadows and ATACMS, just wait until Ukraine can hit arbitrary targets with 250-lb bombs that only cost $40k from 94 miles away.
The cycle with every weapon system that has been deployed in Ukraine has followed the same pattern.
1. "It's a game changer."
2. Russia develops counter measures.
3. Occasional successes occur but steadily the game changing weapon disappears from the news.
4. "We got a new game changing weapon system en route to Ukraine."
5. Cycle repeats.
Problem with the Abrams is that 2/3rds of the tanks sent to Iraq during the drive to Baghdad were disabled after a month. This was under ideal conditions with full logistical support. Ukraine is far from ideal circumstances. Supposedly the Abrams they have can only operate for two hours before the air filters are clogged.
-
I may have misunderstood Putin's intent in an interview. He may have meant that "Ukraine cannot be used as a staging ground against Russia." Ukraine is going to be without manpower for any offensive operations for two or three generations at this point.
As for the war going poorly for Russia... They control 20% of Ukraine and Ukraine has no capabilities of taking that land back. Avdeevka is being cut into two separate cauldrons and the Ukrainians are going to pour reinforcements in rather than extract their forces. It is slow and steady approach but Ukraine will lose.
My guess is that most of Ukraines value was in the eastern parts now under control of the Russians. Those resources are no longer available. What's to be gained by having Ukraine join NATO if all they have is grain?
The "protecting against offensive operations against Russia" is total bullshit. The last time Russia/USSR was invaded was by Germany in WW2.
Russia/USSR has since:
Invaded Hungary in 1965
Invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968
Invaded Afghanistan in 1979
Invaded Georgia in 2008
Invaded Ukraine in 2014
Invaded more of Ukraine in 2022
We'll ignore for the moment the two invasions of Chechnya and the fact that Russia has tried to influence or use intimidation against all of it's former Republics and neighbors.
Nobody is going to invade Russia, except maybe China, economically.
-
The cycle with every weapon system that has been deployed in Ukraine has followed the same pattern.
1. "It's a game changer."
2. Russia develops counter measures.
3. Occasional successes occur but steadily the game changing weapon disappears from the news.
4. "We got a new game changing weapon system en route to Ukraine."
5. Cycle repeats.
Problem with the Abrams is that 2/3rds of the tanks sent to Iraq during the drive to Baghdad were disabled after a month. This was under ideal conditions with full logistical support. Ukraine is far from ideal circumstances. Supposedly the Abrams they have can only operate for two hours before the air filters are clogged.
Um, perhaps I'm missing something, but your #2 there requires a big fat honkin' [CITATION NEEDED]. Russia hasn't developed an effective countermeasure for HIMARS, ATACMS, HARMs, or Storm Shadow. They've had some limited anti-drone success with mobile electronic warfare systems, and their massive minefields have effectively neutered any armor's ability to advance across the battlefield, but "countermeasures."? Nah. They're still losing boats to USVs, and oil facilities to drones.
-
For those who think that Russia is going to run out of weapons here's a rather worrying article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners
It's claiming that Russia has massively increased its production of war materials over the last 2 years, in effect turning its economy into a war economy. They can't produce sophisticated weapons, but they don't really need them.
Russia has a long history of winning wars of attrition on its own territory.
That is not worrying. In fact it's quite a bit more optimistic than what I assume. Take 152mm shells. The upper end of the range they give for manufacturing is 14,000 per day, but they then imply the true number is lower and within a year they will be able to ramp up to 10,000 per day. Russia has needed to fire 20,000+ per day to achieve even moderate success on attack or defense, and they really do best at 50,000+ (which they haven't been able to do since the early days). Ergo, when their stocks are depleted the Guardian article forecasts their rate of fire will drop ~30-50% from current levels. Personally I've assumed from the beginning the Russia would never run low of artillery ammo. I don't know exactly what that means, but in my head something like the 20,000 shells per day. How is forecasting a 30-50% decline in Russian rate of fire worrying?
Similar for tanks. I've read that Russian can produce 200 new tanks per year since 2022. In my head I assume 1 new tank per day, but the Guardian article reassures it is still nearer to 200 annually. Russia has averaged 4-5 tank losses per day. I assumed 1500-2000 tanks refurbed per year, but the article cites closer to 1200 which is again more optimistic. [scratch that the article is in line with prior posted assumptions] Ergo, when their stocks run out they will have drastically fewer tanks available than they've needed for their paltry successes. How is forecasting an 80% decrease in quantity of tanks below current loss rates worrying? Of course it would take a few years to deplete the stocks, but on we average can assume they refurbished the best tanks first, so they are already wrapping up their most favorable two years.
The article affirms that the most plentiful days are already behind Russia. Quantity and quality will both fall off from here.
-
So the US Senate voted to give aid to Ukraine. News people have said they've been running out of artillery shells and other necessary armaments. I thought it was great that the Republicans and Democrats puled together to get something done. This was despite on again off again shenanigans from the House of Representatives.
So now it's the turn of the House of Representatives. It is their turn to vote on this aid package. Except, Speaker Mike Johnson is putting them on a two week recess vacation instead. He doesn't want to vote on this bill. Do other folks think this absence is an example of dereliction of duty?
-
So the US Senate voted to give aid to Ukraine. News people have said they've been running out of artillery shells and other necessary armaments. I thought it was great that the Republicans and Democrats puled together to get something done. This was despite on again off again shenanigans from the House of Representatives.
So now it's the turn of the House of Representatives. It is their turn to vote on this aid package. Except, Speaker Mike Johnson is putting them on a two week recess vacation instead. He doesn't want to vote on this bill. Do other folks think this absence is an example of dereliction of duty?
Speaker Johnson is going to pray the Russians away. It'll work, you'll see!
-
The cycle with every weapon system that has been deployed in Ukraine has followed the same pattern.
1. "It's a game changer."
2. Russia develops counter measures.
3. Occasional successes occur but steadily the game changing weapon disappears from the news.
4. "We got a new game changing weapon system en route to Ukraine."
5. Cycle repeats.
Problem with the Abrams is that 2/3rds of the tanks sent to Iraq during the drive to Baghdad were disabled after a month. This was under ideal conditions with full logistical support. Ukraine is far from ideal circumstances. Supposedly the Abrams they have can only operate for two hours before the air filters are clogged.
Um, perhaps I'm missing something, but your #2 there requires a big fat honkin' [CITATION NEEDED]. Russia hasn't developed an effective countermeasure for HIMARS, ATACMS, HARMs, or Storm Shadow. They've had some limited anti-drone success with mobile electronic warfare systems, and their massive minefields have effectively neutered any armor's ability to advance across the battlefield, but "countermeasures."? Nah. They're still losing boats to USVs, and oil facilities to drones.
The countermeasure is to allow their ships to sink and aircraft to be blown up.
Ha stupid Ukraine, you can't blow up something that has already sunk!
-
I may have misunderstood Putin's intent in an interview. He may have meant that "Ukraine cannot be used as a staging ground against Russia." Ukraine is going to be without manpower for any offensive operations for two or three generations at this point.
As for the war going poorly for Russia... They control 20% of Ukraine and Ukraine has no capabilities of taking that land back. Avdeevka is being cut into two separate cauldrons and the Ukrainians are going to pour reinforcements in rather than extract their forces. It is slow and steady approach but Ukraine will lose.
My guess is that most of Ukraines value was in the eastern parts now under control of the Russians. Those resources are no longer available. What's to be gained by having Ukraine join NATO if all they have is grain?
I'll leave aside your unfounded claim about Ukraine's manpower situation since we've already been there and done that in the other thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/us-poll-who-are-you-voting-for/msg3231788/#msg3231788).
As for Russia controlling 20% of Ukraine, as far as I can tell it's actually closer to 16.55% (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/01/06/war-in-ukraine-russia-now-controls-only-16-of-ukrainian-territory_6010578_8.html) to be precise. Let's also not ignore that that is down a third from 24.55% when Russia was at the height of its advance.
You are correct that Ukraine currently has no capability to take that land back. But that's ignoring the fact that the West could easily give it that capability if it could summon the political will to do so. Part of that capability may already be on the way in the form of F-16s and, as zolotiyeruki pointed out, GLSDBs.
You are also correct about Russia appearing set to take more land. But that's ignoring the fact that Ukraine's strategy right now appears to be to attrit Russia's strength in defensive battles while incrementally giving ground. As far as we can tell Russia has been suffering outsized losses in battles such Avdiivka and Bakhmut, so Russia continuing to take land in the exact same way as before is playing into Ukraine's hands.
On Avdiivka, it's too early to tell exactly what is happening there because of the fog of war. The reports I've read are of Ukraine trying to pull back, not sending in reinforcements. We shall see.
Your guess about the relative economic value of Ukraine's eastern oblasts is incorrect. The Donbass's share of Ukraine's GDP was 14.5% in 2013 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339013569_Causes_and_Consequences_of_the_War_in_Eastern_Ukraine_An_Economic_Geography_Perspective/download), before Russia invaded. That's not insignificant, but it's certainly not more than half either.
As to what NATO would gain from Ukraine eventually joining it, that depends entirely on what shape Ukraine is in by that time and therefore on how much support we give it in the present. Pessimistically, Ukraine might either not exist or be a depopulated and economically devastated rump state with indefensible borders. Optimistically, a large member state with defensible borders that turns the Black Sea into a NATO lake and more than pulls its weight in terms of defence spending. In the optimistic scenario Ukraine would still require massive investments in terms of reconstruction, but that will be true regardless of whether it joins NATO. I expect the EU will foot much of that bill.
-
I'd like to point out the highest use of Ukraine being in NATO (why does there need to be use anyway?) would be that Russia would no longer attack Ukraine. I doubt he wants 2 US aircraft carriers in the harbor of St. Petersburg while his ground forces are busy fighting tractors in the South*
* The asterisk here being that Putin might have thought he snatches up Kiev in 3 days, establish a puppet regime and then invade Estonia et al. when China attacks Taiwan and cannot send any help to Europe. Europe alone cannot defend against the mighty Russian army after all.
-
Navalny has died (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/world/europe/aleksei-navalny-dead-russia.html).
RIP. Sometimes it feels like Russia has the government it deserves, but then one realizes that the tallest blades of grass get shorn there. It's a reminder to hate Putin, not the Russians.
Leonid Volkov, Navalny’s longtime chief of staff, said he was not yet ready to accept the news that Mr. Navalny was dead. “We have no reason to believe state propaganda,” Volkov wrote on the social platform X. “If this is true, then it’s not ‘Navalny died,’ but ‘Putin killed Navalny,’ and only that. But I don’t trust them one penny.”
Mr. Navalny had been serving multiple sentences that would most likely have kept him in prison until at least 2031 on charges that his supporters say were largely fabricated in an effort to muzzle him. Despite increasingly harsh conditions, including repeated stints in solitary confinement, he maintained a presence on social media, while members of his team continued to publish investigations into Russia’s corrupt elite from exile.
Mr. Navalny was given a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence in February 2021 after returning to Russia from Germany, where he had been recovering from being poisoned with a nerve agent the previous August. In March 2022, he received a nine-year sentence for embezzlement and fraud in a trial that international observers denounced as “politically motivated” and a “sham.” And in August 2023, he was sentenced to 19 years in prison for “extremism.”
Mr. Navalny had effectively returned from the dead after his 2020 poisoning and had conducted multiple hunger strikes to improve his treatment, with many of his supporters believing him to be all but invincible.
During his detention, Mr. Navalny was repeatedly placed in solitary confinement, and complained about severe illnesses. In December, he disappeared for three weeks during his transfer to a penal colony 40 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
Mr. Navalny was an unflinching critic of Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer whom he accused of corruptly skimming the country’s oil profits to enrich his friends and entourage in the security services. Mr. Putin’s political party, he said, was a party of “swindlers and thieves,” and he accused the president of trying to turn Russia into a “feudal state.”
-
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
Personally, I want pressure to continue on Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson, who as House Speaker decides if the aid bill (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan) gets voted on. It would probably pass on a House vote, but he isn't allowing that vote to take place - likely on orders from Trump.
-
Navalny has died (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/world/europe/aleksei-navalny-dead-russia.html).
Was died.
-
Avdeevka is being cut into two separate cauldrons
Can you link your source for this specific item?
-
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 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm) 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.
-
Navalny has died (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/world/europe/aleksei-navalny-dead-russia.html).
Was died.
I'm wondering why he didn't fall out of a window years ago.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That's rather difficult when one is a Russian intel operation.
-
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.
I need to add to this. Other quotes from the article
"the 3rd separate assault brigade, an Azov neo-nazi unit"
"Their U.S. made M113 'armored' aluminum is driving at high speed and comes under fire."
These are very obvious quotes direct from Russian propaganda.
In fact the website has a wikileaks link at its bottom, and Wikileaks was eventually found to be a Russian intelligence operation. Not only this post, but this entire website is being sponsored by the Russian FSB.
-
That's rather difficult when one is a Russian intel operation.
Possible but I'll give the benefit of the doubt!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Now, here is the one from the New York Times from yesterday (15). Decide on your own.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm) 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.
-
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.
-
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 - 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
Okay, that helps to narrow down where the difference lies.
I was going off of this post (https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-weapons-surplus-funding-72eeb6119439146f1939d5b1973a44ef) 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Strange that in the future anyone would ally with our government on anything if lives lost doesn't create a sense of urgency for all of Congress. In a normal world I would expect the GOP to feel like aid to Ukraine was as important as a forest fire that needs to be stamped out before it reaches a big, important city.
-
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.
Strange that in the future anyone would ally with our government on anything if lives lost doesn't create a sense of urgency for all of Congress. In a normal world I would expect the GOP to feel like aid to Ukraine was as important as a forest fire that needs to be stamped out before it reaches a big, important city.
I don’t follow politics. Why is the right acting this way?
-
Strange that in the future anyone would ally with our government on anything if lives lost doesn't create a sense of urgency for all of Congress.
The US has been ignoring lives lost in African conflicts for the last 100+ years. The US acts in its own interest, as it has almost always done. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they are not really a key trading partner with the US.
-
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.
Strange that in the future anyone would ally with our government on anything if lives lost doesn't create a sense of urgency for all of Congress. In a normal world I would expect the GOP to feel like aid to Ukraine was as important as a forest fire that needs to be stamped out before it reaches a big, important city.
I don’t follow politics. Why is the right acting this way?
I would be interested in an answer to this too. Hopefully, it would be an answer that just doesn't mimic the rhetoric about the Southern border. That means they can't handle two separate issues. it means they can't walk and chew gum. I've looked for some document describing the ideals and positions of the "New" Republican party, but have found almost nothing. There's this:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues)
However, it seems rather vacuous.
-
There is no "right" in the US in the old sense. There is a philosophically incoherent/populist/nihilist faction, though.
I mean, you can't simultaneously be pro-free trade while being for huge tariffs, or for balanced budgets and simultaneously for unlimited medicare/ss/defense money, etc.
There's nothing that makes sense there anymore.
-W
-
Macron and other EU leaders clarified that they don't mean putting combat troops on the front line. They're still vague on what they actually mean, but it's not this.
France doesn't have the industrial capacity to produce much artillery in the short term. They're expanding, but if the factory infrastructure isn't there, they can't just set fire to money and make it happen. They started the war making 1000 shells per month, and now they're up to 3000. At the beginning of the war the US was producing 14k 155mm shells per month. By the end up this year we might be up to 60k. That's with expanding an already existing factory and reactivating an old one that hasn't seen use in decades. Russia needing to beg/buy/steal ammo from Belarus and North Korea shows that it's not just us struggling with that kind of production expansion.
Ukrainian/Russian peace negotiations are a bad joke. Every time it comes up, Russia says their "compromise" is exactly what their demands were in March 2022. They want to occupy at least half of Ukraine, Ukraine can't join NATO, might be able to join the EU, and must have a Russia-friendly president. The latter can't happen without the person being a dictator/puppet, and Ukraine could never join the EU under those conditions. And without a western alliance they could be invaded again on a whim. Russia gives nothing in return for this "peace." Seeing as how Ukrainian civilians have been deported to eastern Russia or tortured/murdered under occupation, children kidnapped and forced to become Russian, POWs regularly tortured and murdered, and key Russian politicians calling for deportation of whole towns to Siberia, why should anybody expect Ukraine to believe anything Russia has to say? Anybody who says "well I just want peace" is tacitly saying they're okay with the above scenario.
US political intransigence can be summarized as "Trump idolizes Putin, and the GOP follows his lead." He likes to talk a big game of US vs China, but the GOP's opposition to helping Ukraine and Trump recently saying he'd let Putin attack NATO while we sit on our hands is giving everyone else in the world who has an alliance or promises with us reasons to start wondering if our word is worth anything.
The GOP, particularly the farthest Right/Trump-friendly faction does not have a plan for governing, but rather complain and obstruct. McCarthy and Johnson have both attempted to run the House as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want while their majority is only a couple of votes deep. They have passed almost zero legislation of value and we still don't have an FY24 budget. This Congressional session has been the least productive in a century.
-
Due to sanctions on spare parts and recent Ukrainian drone attacks, Russia is suspending the export of gasoline for the next six months. Crude and diesel are unaffected for the moment.
https://fxtwitter.com/delfoo/status/1762399545831363017 (https://fxtwitter.com/delfoo/status/1762399545831363017)
-
France doesn't have the industrial capacity to produce much artillery in the short term. They're expanding, but if the factory infrastructure isn't there, they can't just set fire to money and make it happen. They started the war making 1000 shells per month, and now they're up to 3000.
That's not very much use then is it? Shouldn't Macron have threatened to increase shell production to 100k per month, or to send aircraft, or missiles or something, you know, threatening? Anything France could bring to the fight they could just hand to Ukraine right now to the same effect. Unless they want to be like Putin and send meat.
US political intransigence can be summarized as "Trump idolizes Putin, and the GOP follows his lead." He likes to talk a big game of US vs China, but the GOP's opposition to helping Ukraine and Trump recently saying he'd let Putin attack NATO while we sit on our hands is giving everyone else in the world who has an alliance or promises with us reasons to start wondering if our word is worth anything.
The GOP, particularly the farthest Right/Trump-friendly faction does not have a plan for governing, but rather complain and obstruct. McCarthy and Johnson have both attempted to run the House as if they have a mandate to do whatever they want while their majority is only a couple of votes deep. They have passed almost zero legislation of value and we still don't have an FY24 budget. This Congressional session has been the least productive in a century.
Elected Republicans fear Trump more than either God or Putin, which is all that needs to be said about the former "Party of Lincoln" or "Party of Reagan".
-
French President Macron is all talk - he's full of it. I saw a political cartoon showing Ukraine's army opening boxes of ammunition, with most of them filled with "blah blah blah" instead of ammo. France talks then does nothing.
"Of Europe's big military powers, France is doing the most lackluster job in sending arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to a new calculation of international aid by Germany's Kiel Institute."
https://www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-france-way-behind-germany/
-
Fantastic news! At least potentially fantastic news. The US is considering drawing down existing munitions stocks without waiting for Congress to fund replacements. I've previously suggested the US should consider this.
The reality is that every president since Bill Clinton (briefly) through Obama tried to approach Putin basically the same way, by finding areas of common agreement and compromising on the differences. This approach failed. Putin consistently worked to undermine the interests of the United States in virtually every way possible, from supporting hostile foreign entities, providing arms to hostile foreign governments, supporting hacker and ransomware attacks on US entities, and widescale interference in the 2016 elections. Trying to disable our democratic institutions in my view is the equivalent of an act of war. Putin is our clear, undeniable enemy. Putin supporters are anti-American in actual fact.
Thus far, the Pentagon has been reluctant to draw down our defense reserves in order to preserve our own national security readiness needs. However, besides Russia drawing down its reserves, our global adversaries like North Korea and Iran and drawing down their reserves too in order to supply Russia. If the United States is involved in a shooting conflict it will likely be against an enemy with Russian supplied equipment, and there is simply less of that available than there used to be. I realize that is an over simplification, but now is a good time to reassess our own defense needs in the short term.
Many pro-Putin Republicans complain that American tax dollars are being spent in Ukraine when we have unmet needs domestically. The last part is true, but most of the Ukraine weapons aid is spent in the US by US companies employing US workers. It is basically a domestic jobs program, and not particularly expensive compared to the rest of the defense budget. And our national security is also a domestic need that requires resources. Funding Ukraine is a very efficient use of those dollars.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-ukraine-weapons-without-replacing-us-stocks-waiting-congress-rcna140748
-
What I don't understand in this is arty ammo. Why does the US need a stockpile for itself?
If they want to create new terrorists, they just air-bomb somewhere in the Orient, like always.
Taiwan is so small, it's easier to sea-bombard any enemy that lands there. Japan has such a small space where you could use arty, it's basically the same - air or sea is easier for the US.
The only reason for big US arty stockpiles is A) Russia triggers NATO or B) Canada and Mexico team up with a surprise attack on every military aircraft they know about.
I doubt your neighbors want to have a fight, and Russia is currently busy, and if it's for that reason, it's cheaper to send the ammo to Ukraine than use it yourself.
So even if you don't increase the pre-war ammo buying, you will still end up with the same stockpile because you would have to get rid of the old ones anyway sometime. It's just a matter of time.
-
Fantastic news! At least potentially fantastic news. The US is considering drawing down existing munitions stocks without waiting for Congress to fund replacements. I've previously suggested the US should consider this.
The reality is that every president since Bill Clinton (briefly) through Obama tried to approach Putin basically the same way, by finding areas of common agreement and compromising on the differences. This approach failed. Putin consistently worked to undermine the interests of the United States in virtually every way possible, from supporting hostile foreign entities, providing arms to hostile foreign governments, supporting hacker and ransomware attacks on US entities, and widescale interference in the 2016 elections. Trying to disable our democratic institutions in my view is the equivalent of an act of war. Putin is our clear, undeniable enemy. Putin supporters are anti-American in actual fact.
Thus far, the Pentagon has been reluctant to draw down our defense reserves in order to preserve our own national security readiness needs. However, besides Russia drawing down its reserves, our global adversaries like North Korea and Iran and drawing down their reserves too in order to supply Russia. If the United States is involved in a shooting conflict it will likely be against an enemy with Russian supplied equipment, and there is simply less of that available than there used to be. I realize that is an over simplification, but now is a good time to reassess our own defense needs in the short term.
Many pro-Putin Republicans complain that American tax dollars are being spent in Ukraine when we have unmet needs domestically. The last part is true, but most of the Ukraine weapons aid is spent in the US by US companies employing US workers. It is basically a domestic jobs program, and not particularly expensive compared to the rest of the defense budget. And our national security is also a domestic need that requires resources. Funding Ukraine is a very efficient use of those dollars.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-ukraine-weapons-without-replacing-us-stocks-waiting-congress-rcna140748
There seems to be a strong impulse to exaggerate the value of arms provided to Ukraine. Politicians appeal to the pro-Ukraine crowd by maximizing the stated value, while Putinists try to kill it by maximizing the same stated value. Most of it is clearing out badly depreciated stocks and in some cases modest increases to production capacity that could be useful in the future anyway. I know there was an accounting fix last year to address this, but without any knowledge it still seems to overstate the value of the items sent. Shells and armored vehicles have similar lifespans as automobiles, and what we are sending is generally 20+ years old and even that is often just refurbs of older items. Having a brand new stock of shells made in 2025-2030 will not be much more expensive than if those shells were gradually replaced from 2022-2035, especially after factoring in disposal costs. I've said this before, but my observation has been that the contractors responsible for demilitarizing munitions are monuments to inefficiency even by government standards. It would be much cheaper to pay for bulk shipping to Ukraine.
-
Fantastic news! At least potentially fantastic news. The US is considering drawing down existing munitions stocks without waiting for Congress to fund replacements. I've previously suggested the US should consider this.
The reality is that every president since Bill Clinton (briefly) through Obama tried to approach Putin basically the same way, by finding areas of common agreement and compromising on the differences. This approach failed. Putin consistently worked to undermine the interests of the United States in virtually every way possible, from supporting hostile foreign entities, providing arms to hostile foreign governments, supporting hacker and ransomware attacks on US entities, and widescale interference in the 2016 elections. Trying to disable our democratic institutions in my view is the equivalent of an act of war. Putin is our clear, undeniable enemy. Putin supporters are anti-American in actual fact.
Thus far, the Pentagon has been reluctant to draw down our defense reserves in order to preserve our own national security readiness needs. However, besides Russia drawing down its reserves, our global adversaries like North Korea and Iran and drawing down their reserves too in order to supply Russia. If the United States is involved in a shooting conflict it will likely be against an enemy with Russian supplied equipment, and there is simply less of that available than there used to be. I realize that is an over simplification, but now is a good time to reassess our own defense needs in the short term.
Many pro-Putin Republicans complain that American tax dollars are being spent in Ukraine when we have unmet needs domestically. The last part is true, but most of the Ukraine weapons aid is spent in the US by US companies employing US workers. It is basically a domestic jobs program, and not particularly expensive compared to the rest of the defense budget. And our national security is also a domestic need that requires resources. Funding Ukraine is a very efficient use of those dollars.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-ukraine-weapons-without-replacing-us-stocks-waiting-congress-rcna140748
This thought didn't occur to me until just now when I read this. When have Republicans cared about domestic US issues? They are the party that continually wants to "reform" Medicare and Social Security with cuts to their funding. They were adamant in their opposition to the health care support that Obamacare provided. They have been against the EPA and therefore a clean environment. I could do a little research and make a list, but isn't it odd for Republicans to give a rat's a** about domestic programs? At least this would include
any domestic programs that are for the common good.
The excuses being offered seem like red herrings to distract the idea that they simply don't wish to support Ukraine.
The only reason for big US arty stockpiles is A) Russia triggers NATO or B) Canada and Mexico team up with a surprise attack on every military aircraft they know about.
I doubt your neighbors want to have a fight, and Russia is currently busy, and if it's for that reason, it's cheaper to send the ammo to Ukraine than use it yourself.
Come on Canadians roll over us and don't forget to give us your health care plan.
-
^Also this completely ignores the net present value of Russia being unable to threaten anyone for decades or even ever. We are sending $10B of actual value which accrues solely to Ukraine, calling it $100B because we also spent $90B on ourselves, and getting an unknowable future value of $100B-$10T. More please!
-
Republican opposition to national security can only be explained as a trade in exchange for help from Putin's internet operatives, as occurred in 2016 and 2020. This is not some conspiracy theory; it's a U.S. government documented fact that Russia swayed votes toward Trump in both elections. 2024 is no different.
-
This thought didn't occur to me until just now when I read this. When have Republicans cared about domestic US issues?
And it is even more galling because they linked Ukraine Aid to a border deal. When Democrats agreed to the border deal, the MAGA Republicans pulled the rug. The reason is they believe that while the lack of a border deal hurts America, it will hurt Biden more. They are fine with hurting their country as long as they can gain power. Same with the Jan. 6 deniers. My opinion of people like that is pretty low.
Republican opposition to national security can only be explained as a trade in exchange for help from Putin's internet operatives, as occurred in 2016 and 2020. This is not some conspiracy theory; it's a U.S. government documented fact that Russia swayed votes toward Trump in both elections. 2024 is no different.
Indeed. Putin is already working to elect Trump, knowing that Trump will not act in the interests of the United States when it comes to Russia. And not just Ukraine. Trump capitulated to Putin on other issues as well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-election-interference-already-begun-rcna134204
-
This thought didn't occur to me until just now when I read this. When have Republicans cared about domestic US issues?
And it is even more galling because they linked Ukraine Aid to a border deal. When Democrats agreed to the border deal, the MAGA Republicans pulled the rug. The reason is they believe that while the lack of a border deal hurts America, it will hurt Biden more. They are fine with hurting their country as long as they can gain power. Same with the Jan. 6 deniers. My opinion of people like that is pretty low.
And the doubly interesting thing is that it wasn't even allowed to get a vote by Republican leadership, because they know most of the country supports it.
-
This thought didn't occur to me until just now when I read this. When have Republicans cared about domestic US issues? They are the party that continually wants to "reform" Medicare and Social Security with cuts to their funding. They were adamant in their opposition to the health care support that Obamacare provided. They have been against the EPA and therefore a clean environment. I could do a little research and make a list, but isn't it odd for Republicans to give a rat's a** about domestic programs? At least this would include
any domestic programs that are for the common good.
The excuses being offered seem like red herrings to distract the idea that they simply don't wish to support Ukraine.
At the risk of dragging this thread off topic...
As a member of the GOP (although I cannot speak for all Republicans and certainly not for the politicians) I'd like to offer an alternative point of view. It's important not to jump to conclusions about people's motivations, and certainly not assign motivations laid out by those people's opponents.
"against the EPA"? I'd frame it as "against EPA (and other government agency) overreach." Sackett v. EPA is the poster child for this. The ATF's consistent stretching (and at times outright violation) of their legislative mandates is another. There are plenty of stories to choose from. Obamacare has done little to reduce actual healthcare costs, but rather shuffles and obfuscates the costs in order to present a lower HC premium to consumers, while creating all sorts of additional bureaucratic costs.
You have to also acknowledge that skepticism of government policies is warranted, given the number of well-meaning but ultimately ineffective, counterproductive, and/or overly costly government initiatives we've seen over the decades, not to mention the politicization of such government funding. And since all the political hay is made when enacting a program, you seldom hear about a failing program getting shut down (and those costs saved).
Anyway, back on topic: I'm totally with you on the consternation over the House GOP leadership's stonewalling of Ukraine aid. It's the Right Thing to do. We can speculate all day about their reasoning for blocking it, and there are lots of plausible ideas:
1) they want a better border deal in exchange for passing something that the democrats want
1a) they wanted to poison-pill the Ukraine aid with border security, and make the democrats vote against it? I dunno, this one seems like a stretch.
2) they want to delay a border+Ukraine deal until Trump presumably takes office (c'mon, even *I'm* not that cynical)
3) they're opposed to it on principle, simply because the democrats want it
4) they're afraid of the more extreme wing of the party
5) they're somehow under Russia's influence
6) they're stupid or misinformed or caught up in their own echo chamber (I can buy this one)
Personally, I think it's probably mostly #6, with a little bit of #1. Betting in favor Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) is usually a wise choice.
I'm really hoping the democrats and moderate republicans can push through a discharge petition...
-
I think it's simpler, the GOP I grew up with no longer exists, and party now exists for the sole purpose of opposing things democrats want (sometimes good, sometimes not) and doing whatever Donald Trumps feels like (basically always terrible at least WRT foreign policy).
Last I checked there was no coherent policy platform on any issue whatsoever. So it's kinda hard to say where the Ukraine funding opposition is coming from.
-W
-
Anyway, back on topic: I'm totally with you on the consternation over the House GOP leadership's stonewalling of Ukraine aid. It's the Right Thing to do. We can speculate all day about their reasoning for blocking it, and there are lots of plausible ideas:
1) they want a better border deal in exchange for passing something that the democrats want
1a) they wanted to poison-pill the Ukraine aid with border security, and make the democrats vote against it? I dunno, this one seems like a stretch.
2) they want to delay a border+Ukraine deal until Trump presumably takes office (c'mon, even *I'm* not that cynical)
3) they're opposed to it on principle, simply because the democrats want it
4) they're afraid of the more extreme wing of the party
5) they're somehow under Russia's influence
6) they're stupid or misinformed or caught up in their own echo chamber (I can buy this one)
Multiple members of the GOP Senate and House have admitted to 2 and 3, flat out stating they don't want Biden to have the W while simultaneously calling the border a national security emergency. #5 has been speculated since 2016, and isn't a stretch at all considering how much Trump adores Putin, members of his campaign staff were identified coordinating with Russian officials, the "smoking gun" for a Biden impeachment just admitted to pushing a lie on behalf of Russian intelligence, and several members of Congress continue to copy/paste Russian talking points regarding Ukraine. #6 just becomes an extension of the ones who are doing it maliciously.
-
Personally, I think it's probably mostly #6, with a little bit of #1. Betting in favor Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) is usually a wise choice.
The key word in
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
is adequately.
No stupidity in the world can adequately explain not helping Ukraine. Except you count being Putins socket puppet a stupidity.
-
Regarding Republicans, you guys are trying to use Neocon talking points on people who have rejected Neoconservativism. People saw how that philosophy worked out in the Iraq War.
-
Is it even worth responding to the Russian stooge? This is Exhibit A in why all possible supplies should be given to Ukraine ASAP, and this stoogery itself is the leading difference with Iraq and the reason why weapons should be given and large quantities and short time frame.
-
Regarding Republicans, you guys are trying to use Neocon talking points on people who have rejected Neoconservativism. People saw how that philosophy worked out in the Iraq War.
The neoconservatism that supported the Iraq war was about remaking a dictatorship into a democracy. Supplying arms to Ukraine is preventing a democracy from being taken over by a dictator.
-
Regarding Republicans, you guys are trying to use Neocon talking points on people who have rejected Neoconservativism. People saw how that philosophy worked out in the Iraq War.
The neoconservatism that supported the Iraq war was about remaking a dictatorship into a democracy. Supplying arms to Ukraine is preventing a democracy from being taken over by a dictator.
Very good point - Comparing apples and oranges. I am slowly beginning to recognize more and more "Whataboutisms" that just don't hold up under even my own ignorant scrutiny.
Just the same - What happened to the neocons? They ruled the Republican roost just a few years ago. How have they been silenced by the MAGAs?
-
I guess it would be too much to hope for consistency, at least. I get the "no foreign aid at all" camp... even if that's an error. But... nobody is in that camp.
It boggles my mind that anyone could approve funding for the Israeli military and at the same time deny Ukraine funds (or, not even funds, but weapons we are never going to use).
-
Just the same - What happened to the neocons? They ruled the Republican roost just a few years ago. How have they been silenced by the MAGAs?
I believe the Tea Party supplanted them in the name of fiscal conservatism and they paved the way for the current incarnation.
-
Just the same - What happened to the neocons? They ruled the Republican roost just a few years ago. How have they been silenced by the MAGAs?
I believe the Tea Party supplanted them in the name of fiscal conservatism and they paved the way for the current incarnation.
Politics is weird stuff. They say one thing and often do another. I knew Republican administrations had run up the National debt, but this stuff from Dark Brandon and Company is a mite disturbing.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/15/fact-sheet-the-congressional-republican-agenda-to-increase-the-debt-by-over-3-trillion/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/15/fact-sheet-the-congressional-republican-agenda-to-increase-the-debt-by-over-3-trillion/)
I guess finding aid for Ukraine is certainly not the only issue with contemporary US politics. This hope they can get this one issue worked out soon.
-
Congress just returned from recess (when they take time off from official business, not to run around during elementary school - although sometimes I'm not sure which one is taking place in Congress). A short delay to decide the budget makes sense, but they have done nothing but delay making a budget.
I hope Congress will spend money at U.S. arms factories, and also send weapons to Ukraine.
-
3 days of very heavy fighting (and losses of Russian material). They are storming Robotyne, the village where the Ukrainian summer asault created a pocket in the Russian lines, bot no punch through.
There is the story that 4 Ukrainian soldiers managed (with heavy drone support) to repel a night attack of 3 IFV + 3 dozen troops.
-
Gee, I remember when 25 artillery pieces destroyed in one day was awesome. And then when the Ukrainians set a record of over 30. And then when they set a record for over 40. Recently, anything *under* 40/day is the aberration.
-
Just the same - What happened to the neocons? They ruled the Republican roost just a few years ago. How have they been silenced by the MAGAs?
They thought they could use the MAGAs to gain or keep power. Useful idiots and all that. But then the lunatics took over the asylum.
Which is why you see more and more 'moderate' democratic converts in a lot of areas, because there is no room in the Republican party for anything other than servicing one man's fragile but desperate ego. Everything else is subordinate to that, it is all about fealty to that gibbering moron. Governance, alliances, treaties, human decency - all irrelevant to the current Republican party.
it's a damn shame really. A healthy bird needs two wings to fly, left and right. Now we have one wing trying desperately to keep the bird in the air while the other wing has transformed into something else entirely that assumes the bird flies without effort and is instead yelling about transgender people for some reason. [Insert sound effect of fighter plane corkscrewing into the ground here]
-
Just the same - What happened to the neocons? They ruled the Republican roost just a few years ago. How have they been silenced by the MAGAs?
They thought they could use the MAGAs to gain or keep power. Useful idiots and all that. But then the lunatics took over the asylum.
Which is why you see more and more 'moderate' democratic converts in a lot of areas, because there is no room in the Republican party for anything other than servicing one man's fragile but desperate ego. Everything else is subordinate to that, it is all about fealty to that gibbering moron. Governance, alliances, treaties, human decency - all irrelevant to the current Republican party.
it's a damn shame really. A healthy bird needs two wings to fly, left and right. Now we have one wing trying desperately to keep the bird in the air while the other wing has transformed into something else entirely that assumes the bird flies without effort and is instead yelling about transgender people for some reason. [Insert sound effect of fighter plane corkscrewing into the ground here]
I guess you are right. They are supposed to be the party of Lincoln. They've had Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and a lot of good politicians. Even Nixon started the EPA and OSHA. I can't picture today's Republicans coming up with something good.
Maybe the No Name people will coalesce into a new party or the Forward Party will gain some momentum. It's not much of a democracy if you don't have the choice of a viable alternative.
-
Ukraine is keeping it's shedule of one ship per month. This time it was the Sergey Kotov
A patrol ship from Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Sergey Kotov, was hit and destroyed in an overnight attack orchestrated by Ukraine's military intelligence agency (HUR), HUR confirmed.
It was hit by naval drones close to the Kerch bridge. (Whatever close means here)
Interestingly there are reports that Russians planned to put air defence system on it - I guess to protect the Kerch bridge.
-
Just wondering - Ukraine has been blowing up more and more stuff inside Russia in recent weeks. If they escalate this, what will happen?
Will Russians be more committed to the "Special Military Operation?" Will this give Russians a "real" reason to support this crazy war?
Will Russians see this and have the voice of sanity prevail? Will they say, it's time to stop this war fighting their Ukrainian cousins?
Russia is a big country and things are really spread out. Maybe there will be no effect. Putin may ensure that one part of the country simply doesn't know what s happening in other parts of the country.
-
Nobody knows. My 2 cents:
People that are behind the war anyway, that will not change much, or they are against it and that will only make them more against. But they will not speak up, because they know what happens to them if they do.
Will they say, it's time to stop this war fighting their Ukrainian cousins?
They fight against an attack from NATO. And if Ukrainians cannot stop doing what NATO orders them, then those weaklings should be killed.
The Russian society is a mafia mind. I know how that sounds, but everything I have seen in the last years points to this. Trample the weak, who isn't my follower is my enemy and so on.
Either Ukraine get's wiped from the map (except a small Russia-controlled buffer), or Russia loses the ability to fight.
Again, at current rates this will happen in about 1,5 years. Russia is currently losing heavy vehicles at double the speed they can produce or get them from storage. Only 20% is new. And the stuff from storage will get worse and worse.
Artillery shell production is also at 1/3-1/2 of needs - this is at 24h shifts. New factories (and supply for them) will take several years.
If Ukraine is supplied by the West, it will likely win in 2-3 years. If not, it will lose at the end of this year (with Russians pushing through lines in the summer).
You do not win wars with logistics, but you lose them without.
Also, additionally to pure military production, the war costs and sanctions will also take about 1-2 years more to reach critical levels in the general society.
Nothing in Russian society will stop that war before then.
-
Generally I agree with all of the above, and note that the rate of attrition is determined by the level of NATO support as much as it is by Russian stocks. If they increase their level support above anything they have done so far that timeframe could be accelerated.
If not, it will lose at the end of this year (with Russians pushing through lines in the summer).
I don't think I see that. It would just become again a situation like March 2022, where they are no longer able to hold a solid minimum length line, and have to trade territory for Russian losses. Russia still does not have the forces to take the country all at once given the organized, determined, and still well armed resistance. They'd have to move at a snails pace in order to digest what they chew off, otherwise results would be similar to 2022. The exception I guess might be if Ukraine loses it's air defenses and Russia is able to fly whatever it wants wherever it wants, then guerilla warfare is the best they could hope for. I think that is unlikely though, Russia would always be at great risk flying over Ukraine.
I'll add that if NATO, for any reason whatsoever including all the blah blah reasons that have been raised in the thread, fails to arm Ukraine sufficiently to defeat Russia, then history will judge them very harshly and so will I. All I've seen is dithering and talking and undercutting, and even the most effective actions have been deliberately half-assed and purposely limited in effectiveness.
-
I'll add that if NATO the United States, for any reason whatsoever including all the blah blah reasons that have been raised in the thread, fails to arm Ukraine sufficiently to defeat Russia, then history will judge them very harshly and so will I. All I've seen is dithering and talking and undercutting, and even the most effective actions have been deliberately half-assed and purposely limited in effectiveness.
Fixed that for you.
-
I'll add that if NATO the United States, for any reason whatsoever including all the blah blah reasons that have been raised in the thread, fails to arm Ukraine sufficiently to defeat Russia, then history will judge them very harshly and so will I. All I've seen is dithering and talking and undercutting, and even the most effective actions have been deliberately half-assed and purposely limited in effectiveness.
Fixed that for you.
That was a better focus. After I read that I thought that maybe the name of Mike Johnson could be put in that slot instead of the United States. Then I read this linked article. Marjorie Taylor Greene could be listed as the cause for the lack of support to Ukraine.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/4/2227393/-Democrats-are-really-ramping-up-the-pressure-on-House-speaker-for-Ukraine-aid (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/4/2227393/-Democrats-are-really-ramping-up-the-pressure-on-House-speaker-for-Ukraine-aid)
Just the same, what's more important retaining an important political position where you are basically stopped from doing what the people want or doing the right thing? Speaker Johnson is purported to be a mega Christian guy. Well - I remember stories about brave Christians who willingly sacrificed themselves to Roman lions. Perhaps Speaker Johnson will sacrifice himself to see some good is done in this world.
-
I'll add that if NATO the United States, for any reason whatsoever including all the blah blah reasons that have been raised in the thread, fails to arm Ukraine sufficiently to defeat Russia, then history will judge them very harshly and so will I. All I've seen is dithering and talking and undercutting, and even the most effective actions have been deliberately half-assed and purposely limited in effectiveness.
Fixed that for you.
That was a better focus. After I read that I thought that maybe the name of Mike Johnson could be put in that slot instead of the United States. Then I read this linked article. Marjorie Taylor Greene could be listed as the cause for the lack of support to Ukraine.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/4/2227393/-Democrats-are-really-ramping-up-the-pressure-on-House-speaker-for-Ukraine-aid (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/4/2227393/-Democrats-are-really-ramping-up-the-pressure-on-House-speaker-for-Ukraine-aid)
Just the same, what's more important retaining an important political position where you are basically stopped from doing what the people want or doing the right thing? Speaker Johnson is purported to be a mega Christian guy. Well - I remember stories about brave Christians who willingly sacrificed themselves to Roman lions. Perhaps Speaker Johnson will sacrifice himself to see some good is done in this world.
Seems like every time I hear about shenanigans (cheating, basically) it's always some jerk on the right.
-
Sure, you say that as an American, but Europe would be judged even more harshly. They'd suffer all the same consequences as the US would, but Ukraine is much closer to their homes and lives and therefore more relevant to them. Plus they'd have put their own defense needs in the hands of the US (lol, dumbasses) and found themselves unsupported when they needed it. That said if the US is unable to do such an easy and obviously self interested thing as support Ukraine, then really the whole post-WW2 system could just disappear along with all the trade and prosperity that came with it. In a poker analogy, other nations would be calling our apparent bluff. It doesn't matter in this case if our cards are any good, just being called will be very costly.
In other news Victoria Nuland, outspoken proponent of Ukraine, was passed over for promotion and retired.
George Galloway, paid Russian propogandist, was elected to the British Parliament.
Even having said months ago that propaganda was Russia's only path to victory and therefore we should see all possible efforts concentrated on that front, it's still breathtaking to watch them mercilessly paralyze and tear down our nations at will.
-
Not sure it indicates anything real but the YouTube video channels showing the war from the Ukrainian perspectives have comment sections that seem to be overwhelmed by Russian supporters lately.
-
Even having said months ago that propaganda was Russia's only path to victory and therefore we should see all possible efforts concentrated on that front, it's still breathtaking to watch them mercilessly paralyze and tear down our nations at will.
The root problem of why Western democracies cannot seem to agree on defending themselves has something to do with the root problem of why the American middle class keeps voting against its own interests.
It has something to do with a lifestyle where we spend hours every day exposing ourselves to digital media paid for by unseen interests who want us to do something we wouldn't otherwise do.
-
Even having said months ago that propaganda was Russia's only path to victory and therefore we should see all possible efforts concentrated on that front, it's still breathtaking to watch them mercilessly paralyze and tear down our nations at will.
The root problem of why Western democracies cannot seem to agree on defending themselves has something to do with the root problem of why the American middle class keeps voting against its own interests.
It has something to do with a lifestyle where we spend hours every day exposing ourselves to digital media paid for by unseen interests who want us to do something we wouldn't otherwise do.
Did Orwell get it slightly wrong? Is Big Brother actually these capitalist organizations that blast endless advertising at us? The idea that it even leaves us with a poor defense posture is disturbing.
-
Even having said months ago that propaganda was Russia's only path to victory and therefore we should see all possible efforts concentrated on that front, it's still breathtaking to watch them mercilessly paralyze and tear down our nations at will.
The root problem of why Western democracies cannot seem to agree on defending themselves has something to do with the root problem of why the American middle class keeps voting against its own interests.
It has something to do with a lifestyle where we spend hours every day exposing ourselves to digital media paid for by unseen interests who want us to do something we wouldn't otherwise do.
Did Orwell get it slightly wrong? Is Big Brother actually these capitalist organizations that blast endless advertising at us? The idea that it even leaves us with a poor defense posture is disturbing.
There's a common idea that if we can just avoid government control of industry we can avoid Orwellian authoritarianism. But what else is the definition of communism, if not the merger of government and industry?
If the tech billionaires do not call themselves a politburo, but nonetheless control politics, propaganda, and what people think, are we really in a different position than the people who live under a politburo? We simply changed the name of our leadership, and yet they still control both politics and the means of production.
-
Even having said months ago that propaganda was Russia's only path to victory and therefore we should see all possible efforts concentrated on that front, it's still breathtaking to watch them mercilessly paralyze and tear down our nations at will.
The root problem of why Western democracies cannot seem to agree on defending themselves has something to do with the root problem of why the American middle class keeps voting against its own interests.
It has something to do with a lifestyle where we spend hours every day exposing ourselves to digital media paid for by unseen interests who want us to do something we wouldn't otherwise do.
Did Orwell get it slightly wrong? Is Big Brother actually these capitalist organizations that blast endless advertising at us? The idea that it even leaves us with a poor defense posture is disturbing.
There's a common idea that if we can just avoid government control of industry we can avoid Orwellian authoritarianism. But what else is the definition of communism, if not the merger of government and industry?
If the tech billionaires do not call themselves a politburo, but nonetheless control politics, propaganda, and what people think, are we really in a different position than the people who live under a politburo? We simply changed the name of our leadership, and yet they still control both politics and the means of production.
I think we've avoided the dystopia of Orwell but not Huxley.
-
I think we're headed more for a dystopia in the style of Ready Player One.
-
Did Orwell get it slightly wrong? Is Big Brother actually these capitalist organizations that blast endless advertising at us? The idea that it even leaves us with a poor defense posture is disturbing.
Yes, yes, and yes.
-
Even having said months ago that propaganda was Russia's only path to victory and therefore we should see all possible efforts concentrated on that front, it's still breathtaking to watch them mercilessly paralyze and tear down our nations at will.
The root problem of why Western democracies cannot seem to agree on defending themselves has something to do with the root problem of why the American middle class keeps voting against its own interests.
It has something to do with a lifestyle where we spend hours every day exposing ourselves to digital media paid for by unseen interests who want us to do something we wouldn't otherwise do.
Did Orwell get it slightly wrong? Is Big Brother actually these capitalist organizations that blast endless advertising at us? The idea that it even leaves us with a poor defense posture is disturbing.
At least it's good for stocks!... at least for a while.
-
I think we're headed more for a dystopia in the style of Ready Player One.
Ready Player One and WALL-E (mounds of refuse, willfully helpless humans, throw away consumerism).
-
Ukraine might have severely damaged another A-50 "AWACS" airplane.
-
The SUN had a video on YouTube showing a large four engine transport going down. One engine was on fire. Wasn't sure how that disabled the plane as a whole but maybe it wrecked the controls too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OUch6Y37X0
-
Ukraine might have severely damaged another A-50 "AWACS" airplane.
There's been a bunch of action over the last 48 hours. Multiple refineries and oil depots hit, a refurbishment facility for the A-50 hit (with potentially two A-50's), and some incursion into Russian territory by some non-Ukrainian-military groups. It looks like Russia managed to destroy a Patriot launcher for the first time. The US military found another $300 million in the couch cushions, so they're sending another tranche of missiles.
And a Czech-led consortium has assembled $800 million to supply Ukraine with a whole lotta artillery shells, with deliveries expected to start in the next couple weeks.
-
So like . . . the sanctions against Russia have been ineffective then, right? I remember when this war started everyone was predicting that Russia's economy would be crippled. But they're expected to grow faster than the G7 nations this year.
-
Regarding Republicans, you guys are trying to use Neocon talking points on people who have rejected Neoconservativism. People saw how that philosophy worked out in the Iraq War.
The neoconservatism that supported the Iraq war was about remaking a dictatorship into a democracy. Supplying arms to Ukraine is preventing a democracy from being taken over by a dictator.
.
Very good point - Comparing apples and oranges. I am slowly beginning to recognize more and more "Whataboutisms" that just don't hold up under even my own ignorant scrutiny.
Just the same - What happened to the neocons? They ruled the Republican roost just a few years ago. How have they been silenced by the MAGAs?
They moved to the Democrat party. Bill Bristol considers himself to be a Democrat since Trump was president
-
It's easy to "grow" an economy when you're draining your national reserves, and when you're cooking the books...
-
It's easy to "grow" an economy when you're draining your national reserves, and when you're cooking the books...
The IMF says Russia's economy is going to grow 2.6% this year - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-sanctions-economy-1.7141305 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-sanctions-economy-1.7141305), and they're going to do 240 billion in trade with China alone.
-
So like . . . the sanctions against Russia have been ineffective then, right? I remember when this war started everyone was predicting that Russia's economy would be crippled. But they're expected to grow faster than the G7 nations this year.
I struggle to find any example in history when sanctions have led to regime change or a policy pivot by a foreign country. It seems we believe sanctions will work despite them never having accomplished anything in the past.
There's a solid argument that sanctions reduce the business class in the targeted country and increase their dependency on government, making them less able to influence policy. Thus they help dictators consolidate their grip on the economy while neutralizing the opposition.
-
It's easy to "grow" an economy when you're draining your national reserves, and when you're cooking the books...
The IMF says Russia's economy is going to grow 2.6% this year - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-sanctions-economy-1.7141305 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-sanctions-economy-1.7141305), and they're going to do 240 billion in trade with China alone.
That article makes me think Ukraine needs to target Russian oil production & shipping facilities & equipment. Stop the oil flow & stop the cash flow.
-
It's easy to "grow" an economy when you're draining your national reserves, and when you're cooking the books...
The IMF says Russia's economy is going to grow 2.6% this year - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-sanctions-economy-1.7141305 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-sanctions-economy-1.7141305), and they're going to do 240 billion in trade with China alone.
Yes, that happens in a war spending time.
But Russia is losing reservers at a fast rate, and proced stuff is of less quality and more expensive than it would have been without sanctions.
But whoever said the economy would collapse in a few month because of the sanctions is stupid and you should stop listening.
The US blockade (not just a few sanctions) of Cuba have made the country needlessy poor and killed many thousands of Cubans but they didn't "collapse" the economy even though that was the goal.
The sanctions never intended to collapse Russian economy.
The intention was to make war more costly, and while that hasn't been such a success as intended because of China and lacking oversight (Somehow exports to Russias neighbors have increased dramatically for some goods, in some areas people must have more washing machines than hands by now.)
-
I think we're headed more for a dystopia in the style of Ready Player One.
Ready Player One and WALL-E (mounds of refuse, willfully helpless humans, throw away consumerism).
I saw the movie before I read the book. The book is, of course, so much better. And so much darker. Ready Player Two, even more so.
-
That article makes me think Ukraine needs to target Russian oil production & shipping facilities & equipment. Stop the oil flow & stop the cash flow.
And indeed they are. And to tie the subjects back together, it looks like it'll take Russia longer than anticipate to repair the earlier-attacked refineries, thanks in large part to ....sanctions!
-
Leaks from the French Ministry of Defense.
https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron
Archive (https://archive.is/rPZ2s)
They don't believe that Ukraine can win. Ukraine will need 35,000 new troops a month for survival. Ukraine is also unable to build fortifications like the Surovikin line because of a lack of equipment and materials.
-
Leaks from the French Ministry of Defense.
https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron
Archive (https://archive.is/rPZ2s)
They don't believe that Ukraine can win. Ukraine will need 35,000 new troops a month for survival. Ukraine is also unable to build fortifications like the Surovikin line because of a lack of equipment and materials.
I didn't see the part about Ukraine needing 35,000 new troops a month in the translated link. Maybe it was linked to your link.
I do believe the sanctions work. The sanctions I am talking about are the Ukrainian sanctions. When Ukrainians blow up Russian oil supplies and refineries, they are sanctioning Russian oil. It may not be permanent, but they can't sell oil they cannot ship. They cannot use that oil for the "Special Military Operation." Unlike the financial sanctions, human resources are needed to repair / rebuild such sanctions.
Let's imagine the worst. What if Russia wins this war? Will the people who fled the country go back? Will the European market return to purchasing Russian oil and gas? Will Russia need to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding Ukraine? Will Russia be able to develop the gas fields in Ukraine which it covets? If Russia does begin to rebuild Ukraine, won't that take needed resources that have long been needed for the crumbling infrastructure of Russia? Unless they kill the bulk of the Ukrainian population, won't they be facing guerrilla fighters for many years to come? How will they face a Europe that now appears largely united and hostile to Russia?
I just kind of wonder. What will they have really won?
How long can Putin keep his people subjugated in this modern age? It appears he has to keep tightening the social control screws and is quickly returning to the techniques of Stalin.
Who may have really won? China. China is in the catbird's seat when it comes to any negotiations with Russia. Russia is dependent on China today and not the other way around.
-
Leaks from the French Ministry of Defense.
https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron
Archive (https://archive.is/rPZ2s)
They don't believe that Ukraine can win. Ukraine will need 35,000 new troops a month for survival. Ukraine is also unable to build fortifications like the Surovikin line because of a lack of equipment and materials.
I didn't see the part about Ukraine needing 35,000 new troops a month in the translated link. Maybe it was linked to your link.
I do believe the sanctions work. The sanctions I am talking about are the Ukrainian sanctions. When Ukrainians blow up Russian oil supplies and refineries, they are sanctioning Russian oil. It may not be permanent, but they can't sell oil they cannot ship. They cannot use that oil for the "Special Military Operation." Unlike the financial sanctions, human resources are needed to repair / rebuild such sanctions.
Let's imagine the worst. What if Russia wins this war? Will the people who fled the country go back? Will the European market return to purchasing Russian oil and gas? Will Russia need to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding Ukraine? Will Russia be able to develop the gas fields in Ukraine which it covets? If Russia does begin to rebuild Ukraine, won't that take needed resources that have long been needed for the crumbling infrastructure of Russia? Unless they kill the bulk of the Ukrainian population, won't they be facing guerrilla fighters for many years to come? How will they face a Europe that now appears largely united and hostile to Russia?
I just kind of wonder. What will they have really won?
How long can Putin keep his people subjugated in this modern age? It appears he has to keep tightening the social control screws and is quickly returning to the techniques of Stalin.
Who may have really won? China. China is in the catbird's seat when it comes to any negotiations with Russia. Russia is dependent on China today and not the other way around.
Machine Translation
The combativity of Ukrainian soldiers is deeply affected », mentions a prospective report on’year 2024.« Zelensky would need 35,000 men a month, he n’en is not recruiting half, while Putin pickaxe in a pool of 30,000 monthly volunteers », a soldier returned from Kiev.
-
Leaks from the French Ministry of Defense.
https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron
Archive (https://archive.is/rPZ2s)
They don't believe that Ukraine can win. Ukraine will need 35,000 new troops a month for survival. Ukraine is also unable to build fortifications like the Surovikin line because of a lack of equipment and materials.
I didn't see the part about Ukraine needing 35,000 new troops a month in the translated link. Maybe it was linked to your link.
I do believe the sanctions work. The sanctions I am talking about are the Ukrainian sanctions. When Ukrainians blow up Russian oil supplies and refineries, they are sanctioning Russian oil. It may not be permanent, but they can't sell oil they cannot ship. They cannot use that oil for the "Special Military Operation." Unlike the financial sanctions, human resources are needed to repair / rebuild such sanctions.
Let's imagine the worst. What if Russia wins this war? Will the people who fled the country go back? Will the European market return to purchasing Russian oil and gas? Will Russia need to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding Ukraine? Will Russia be able to develop the gas fields in Ukraine which it covets? If Russia does begin to rebuild Ukraine, won't that take needed resources that have long been needed for the crumbling infrastructure of Russia? Unless they kill the bulk of the Ukrainian population, won't they be facing guerrilla fighters for many years to come? How will they face a Europe that now appears largely united and hostile to Russia?
I just kind of wonder. What will they have really won?
How long can Putin keep his people subjugated in this modern age? It appears he has to keep tightening the social control screws and is quickly returning to the techniques of Stalin.
Who may have really won? China. China is in the catbird's seat when it comes to any negotiations with Russia. Russia is dependent on China today and not the other way around.
Machine Translation
The combativity of Ukrainian soldiers is deeply affected », mentions a prospective report on’year 2024.« Zelensky would need 35,000 men a month, he n’en is not recruiting half, while Putin pickaxe in a pool of 30,000 monthly volunteers », a soldier returned from Kiev.
OK - It' always hard to argue with a French speaking machine.
So -35,000 a month. Why so many? Are that many dying? 35,000 X 12 = 420,000 That's lot of casualties.
Here's today's list of Russian casualties.
13.03.2024
Tanks — 6752 (+5)
Armored fighting vehicle — 12921 (+20)
Artillery systems — 10554 (+32)
MLRS — 1017 (+1)
Anti-aircraft warfare — 715 (+2)
Planes — 347
Helicopters — 325
UAV — 8205 (+22)
Cruise missiles — 1919
Ships (boats) — 26
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 13932 (+62)
Special equipment — 1699 (+8)
Military personnel — aprx. 426870 people (+980)
Looks like Mr.Putin has to get maybe 800/ day X 30 days per month = 24,000 each month to replace his losses.
35,000 < 24,000 Good thing he doesn't care about his troops or his potential victory could be painful.
I do hope the French speaking machine s wrong.
-
Leaks from the French Ministry of Defense.
https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/guerre-en-ukraine-endurance-russe-echec-de-la-contre-offensive-ce-que-cache-le-virage-de-macron
Archive (https://archive.is/rPZ2s)
They don't believe that Ukraine can win. Ukraine will need 35,000 new troops a month for survival. Ukraine is also unable to build fortifications like the Surovikin line because of a lack of equipment and materials.
I didn't see the part about Ukraine needing 35,000 new troops a month in the translated link. Maybe it was linked to your link.
I do believe the sanctions work. The sanctions I am talking about are the Ukrainian sanctions. When Ukrainians blow up Russian oil supplies and refineries, they are sanctioning Russian oil. It may not be permanent, but they can't sell oil they cannot ship. They cannot use that oil for the "Special Military Operation." Unlike the financial sanctions, human resources are needed to repair / rebuild such sanctions.
Let's imagine the worst. What if Russia wins this war? Will the people who fled the country go back? Will the European market return to purchasing Russian oil and gas? Will Russia need to spend trillions of dollars rebuilding Ukraine? Will Russia be able to develop the gas fields in Ukraine which it covets? If Russia does begin to rebuild Ukraine, won't that take needed resources that have long been needed for the crumbling infrastructure of Russia? Unless they kill the bulk of the Ukrainian population, won't they be facing guerrilla fighters for many years to come? How will they face a Europe that now appears largely united and hostile to Russia?
I just kind of wonder. What will they have really won?
How long can Putin keep his people subjugated in this modern age? It appears he has to keep tightening the social control screws and is quickly returning to the techniques of Stalin.
Who may have really won? China. China is in the catbird's seat when it comes to any negotiations with Russia. Russia is dependent on China today and not the other way around.
Machine Translation
The combativity of Ukrainian soldiers is deeply affected », mentions a prospective report on’year 2024.« Zelensky would need 35,000 men a month, he n’en is not recruiting half, while Putin pickaxe in a pool of 30,000 monthly volunteers », a soldier returned from Kiev.
OK - It' always hard to argue with a French speaking machine.
So -35,000 a month. Why so many? Are that many dying? 35,000 X 12 = 420,000 That's lot of casualties.
Here's today's list of Russian casualties.
13.03.2024
Tanks — 6752 (+5)
Armored fighting vehicle — 12921 (+20)
Artillery systems — 10554 (+32)
MLRS — 1017 (+1)
Anti-aircraft warfare — 715 (+2)
Planes — 347
Helicopters — 325
UAV — 8205 (+22)
Cruise missiles — 1919
Ships (boats) — 26
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 13932 (+62)
Special equipment — 1699 (+8)
Military personnel — aprx. 426870 people (+980)
Looks like Mr.Putin has to get maybe 800/ day X 30 days per month = 24,000 each month to replace his losses.
35,000 < 24,000 Good thing he doesn't care about his troops or his potential victory could be painful.
I do hope the French speaking machine s wrong.
Ukraine requires 35,000 new troops each month. Right now they are only getting half that. Russia is getting a pool of 30,000 new troops each month. This allows them to rotate units off the front line.
-
Ukraine requires 35,000 new troops each month. Right now they are only getting half that. Russia is getting a pool of 30,000 new troops each month. This allows them to rotate units off the front line.
How do you square that with the reports that the casualty ratios are 7 or 8:1 in favor of Ukraine?
-
Ukraine requires 35,000 new troops each month. Right now they are only getting half that. Russia is getting a pool of 30,000 new troops each month. This allows them to rotate units off the front line.
How do you square that with the reports that the casualty ratios are 7 or 8:1 in favor of Ukraine?
Once a while ago, I was taught that people can lie and cheat with statistics. Later on I learned about "fake news." How does one say fake news in French? fausses nouvelles Maybe that 35,000 statistic is fausses nouvelles.
-
Maybe Ukraine wants 35K for troop rotation and so on. Something the Russians are not really concerned about anyway.
That is the reason for the back and fore about increased recruitment in Ukraine.
But don't forget that increasing draft is not only - understandably - unpopular but also endangers the economic base of the country. Every soldier is someone that consumes instead of producing.
Also don't forget that soldiers should get training. EU plans to train 30K this year. The training may not be as extensive as for normal soldiers, but it surely is a lot better as what the Russian meat gets - which is one reason for the loss rate difference.
For comparison: the whole German Bundeswehr has 180K soldiers, and yearly fluctuation is less than 20K.
If we train 5K on top it means we train 25% above our normal capacity.
-
Didn't we establish earlier in this thread that Cawl was spreading Russian propaganda?
-
Came across this on reddit.
#1: phone call between Macron and Putin, 6 days before the invasion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bday80/this_phone_call_between_putin_and_macron_4_days/
#2: phone call between Zelensky and Macron, 4 hours before the invasion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1beolfb/zelensky_and_macrons_phone_call_6_hours_before/
#3: Zelensky called Macron to inform him the invasion started:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bdsfkm/zelenskys_phone_call_to_macron_to_inform_him_that/
Context that the OP posted on one of the videos:
"For context, this is from a documentary called « Un Président, l’Europe et la guerre » (A President, Europe and war). Cameras were allowed to follow Macron and his team for 6 months (January to June 2022). The documentary was initially about France taking over the Presidency of the EU Council for these 6 months but since the war started in that time frame, it became the behind the scenes of what went down in regard to the invasion.
I already shared these 2 videos of other phone calls: Putin and Macron & Zelensky and Macron but the full thing can be watched here, for those who are interested to see more. It’s a must-watch imo, it’s not often we get to see behind the scene footages like this, especially in such a tense historical context."
https://gofile.io/d/a4w7wy <--link for the full documentary, a file sharing site of some sort. I was able to download it, it does play, and my antivirus hasn't freaked out. I haven't watched it all yet, but skipping through it seems like there are English subtitles.
-
Ukraine requires 35,000 new troops each month. Right now they are only getting half that. Russia is getting a pool of 30,000 new troops each month. This allows them to rotate units off the front line.
How do you square that with the reports that the casualty ratios are 7 or 8:1 in favor of Ukraine?
You've been getting cooked data. Dressed up for propaganda purposes.
-
Didn't we establish earlier in this thread that Cawl was spreading Russian propaganda?
So far no one has taken issue with the news outlet nor the idea of a "leak" from the French military. Nor has anyone refuted these leaks.
-
Ukraine requires 35,000 new troops each month. Right now they are only getting half that. Russia is getting a pool of 30,000 new troops each month. This allows them to rotate units off the front line.
How do you square that with the reports that the casualty ratios are 7 or 8:1 in favor of Ukraine?
You've been getting cooked data. Dressed up for propaganda purposes.
Not like the lupenreine truth from the Russian Army? :D :D :D
Too bad that only Germans can really appreciate my joke.
Putting the joke aside, to prevent confusions, those rates are for the defensive battle of e.g. Avdijivka, the average is more 1:3. (In the summer offensive it was about 1:1, which is phenomenal for someone attacking the thickest minefields ever seen without enough of the needed gear and lacking air suport.)
-
Didn't we establish earlier in this thread that Cawl was spreading Russian propaganda?
So far no one has taken issue with the news outlet nor the idea of a "leak" from the French military. Nor has anyone refuted these leaks.
I think you've stirred that pot about as far as you can.
-
Didn't we establish earlier in this thread that Cawl was spreading Russian propaganda?
So far no one has taken issue with the news outlet nor the idea of a "leak" from the French military. Nor has anyone refuted these leaks.
I think you've stirred that pot about as far as you can.
I will go relax then.
-
The first step in fixing flawed sanctions is recognizing the problem. Note despite this article's focus, many European countries are doing the same thing as the UK. And there are other countries besides Azerbaijan performing this sanctions-laundering (my term). But it provides a direct and clear illustration, which is sometimes needed to crystalize action. I hope sanctions against Russia get fixed.
Car industry insists 2,000% increase in sales to Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Russia
Sky News analysis found that over precisely the same period as British car exports to Azerbaijan rose sharply, there was a near-simultaneous rise in car exports from Azerbaijan to Russia.
https://news.sky.com/story/car-industry-insists-2000-increase-in-sales-to-azerbaijan-has-nothing-to-with-russia-13097685
-
At least Azerbeijani truckers make a good profit.
Anyone wants to bet if Russia manages to lose 1000 tanks in the first 3 month of this year? (reach 7000, since 6000 was very close to New Years if I am not mistaken)
On less savory news, Ukraine has real roubles holding the lines with the sparse artilley support. They even had to bring in the Western Tanks.
Let's hope the mud season gives them enough of a breather that they can harden the lines. In half a year the production should be up at least a bit.
Too bad they can't counterattack because of this, I imagine Russia must be pretty pressed for tanks and IFV by now. They have already lost more than a year of production and already tapping into the lower half of storage.
And I really hope our Chancellor get's his arse around to supplying Taurus. A few more smoking accidents at refineries and ammo depots can't hurt.
-
It seems like not too long ago Rasputitsa was the enemy, as Ukraine was on the offensive. Now we're hoping for it to come sooner, because Russia is pushing.
As for hitting refineries, it seems like Ukraine is doing a decent job on their own, even without Taurus.
I feel like Ukraine needs some indigenous anti-radar drones and home-on-jam drones, for taking out Russia's anti-air defenses and EW systems. They've put the AGM-88's to good use in the past, but those are expensive and require a jet to launch them.
-
It seems like not too long ago Rasputitsa was the enemy, as Ukraine was on the offensive. Now we're hoping for it to come sooner, because Russia is pushing.
As for hitting refineries, it seems like Ukraine is doing a decent job on their own, even without Taurus.
I feel like Ukraine needs some indigenous anti-radar drones and home-on-jam drones, for taking out Russia's anti-air defenses and EW systems. They've put the AGM-88's to good use in the past, but those are expensive and require a jet to launch them.
They keep saying they need shells. I hope the munitions factories in the US have kept production going realizing that the politicians will eventually bypass the roadblock.
-
European trade with Kazakhstan was up 1500% last year. Stuff is still getting into Russia, but it just costs more due to taking longer routes. Railcars and commercial aircraft are continuing to degrade, and automotive costs are through the roof. Saw a report yesterday that loans for new cars are at like 24% because the Russian economy is getting squeezed.
Depending on who is counting, Russia has lost at least 10% of its refining capacity in the last month or so. The kind of damage being inflicted takes months to repair.
Perun's latest video detailed how foreign arms sales coming out of Russia have pretty much crashed. The only stuff going out now is fulfilling some older contracts and whatever Russia is selling to Iran and China. It's a big deal because selling weapons abroad is pretty much the only way they can afford anything new for their own use.
EU members are pooling their piggy banks and appear to have found the money to buy 1.5 million artillery shells from various undisclosed sources, with delivery between now and June.
Lindsey Graham had a meeting with Zelensky in Ukraine yesterday and more or less said "We're with you, supporting you will prevent a war between NATO and Russia, but I voted against helping you because Trump told me not to. Also you need to mobilize your entire adult male population and keep slugging it out whether we help you or not."
They keep saying they need shells. I hope the munitions factories in the US have kept production going realizing that the politicians will eventually bypass the roadblock.
The DoD put out a press release a couple days ago saying that if these budget issues aren't fixed, artillery production will cap at 76k shells per month where our goal is 100k by the end of the year.
-
It's fascinating how the normal stereotypes between America and Europe are reversed when it comes to munitions. The EU appears to mostly buys shells from private companies, while in the USA our armed forces own a lot of the factories directly and can directly invest in scaling up manufacturing and production.
-
It's fascinating how the normal stereotypes between America and Europe are reversed when it comes to munitions. The EU appears to mostly buys shells from private companies, while in the USA our armed forces own a lot of the factories directly and can directly invest in scaling up manufacturing and production.
Sometimes direct ownership or services provided by government may be best. I can see the possibility of war profiteering otherwise. War profiteering gives you less bang for the buck.
-
It's fascinating how the normal stereotypes between America and Europe are reversed when it comes to munitions. The EU appears to mostly buys shells from private companies, while in the USA our armed forces own a lot of the factories directly and can directly invest in scaling up manufacturing and production.
Sometimes direct ownership or services provided by government may be best. I can see the possibility of war profiteering otherwise. War profiteering gives you less bang for the buck.
This was illustrated to hilarious effect by the character of Milo Minderbender in the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.
-
It looks like Rep. Greene has filed a motion to oust Speaker Johnson. Maybe the new Speaker will be more amenable to a floor vote for more aid to Ukraine.
-
It looks like Rep. Greene has filed a motion to oust Speaker Johnson. Maybe the new Speaker will be more amenable to a floor vote for more aid to Ukraine.
She filed it, but didn't move for a vote; that would be the real trigger. She called it a "warning."
You would think that a parent had figured out by now that ou don't make idle threats. Repeated threats dilute the potency of what you say.
-
It looks like Rep. Greene has filed a motion to oust Speaker Johnson. Maybe the new Speaker will be more amenable to a floor vote for more aid to Ukraine.
I imagine negotiations are ongoing with certain Democrats to support Johnson in return for a Ukraine vote. In fact, I bet Johnson has kept this control of a vote in his back pocket for just such an "emergency": protection from the extremist Freedom Caucas wing of the Republican Party.
Because what are Ukranian lives worth compared to him staying in power?
/s
-
Republicans won't oust speaker Johnson days before a government shutdown - they would incur 100% of the political blame, and they know it. It is an excellent move by Greene, because she doesn't deserve to be talked about - yet here we are.
Since foreign aid won't get passed under continuing resolutions, this at least paves the way to focus on sending military equipment to Ukraine and Israel. I mention Israel because some Democrats favor sending weapons to Ukraine but not Israel, so they oppose combined spending.
-
Ukraine lines are failing or close to failing pracitcally everywhere, the first line after Avdijika is lost and new defense lines are getting erected quite far away from fronts.
-
Ukraine lines are failing or close to failing pracitcally everywhere, the first line after Avdijika is lost and new defense lines are getting erected quite far away from fronts.
The strange lack of support from MAGA Republicans seems to be taking its toll. It shows me that a myopic foreign policy will yield poor results. Hopefully, Europe continues to pull together, deliver all those promised shells and enable Ukraine to stop the Russians. The idea of Putin wishing to increase the Russian hordes by another 500,000 is troubling.
-
Sending a half million fighting-age Russian men to the front is gonna do wonders for Russia's demographics. From what I've heard, they're running low on willing convicts to send, and their gains, however inexorable they have been, have been exceedingly costly. Like a few hundred square meters per man lost.
Here's hoping the artillery shipments courtesy of the Czechs start arriving and having an impact soon!
-
I found this latest article published by the Institute for the Study of War to be rather well written. It does a good job of articulating some points I have tried to make when discussing this issue with friends and family in the past.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/denying-russia%E2%80%99s-only-strategy-success
-
Update: The general situation has not changed, Russia is pressing attacks and Ukraine is very slowly losing ground.
There was a big assault on Krasnohorivka (the town in front of Donetsk), where Russians took the outer part of the city, but were repelled by reaction forces. I think this is why there is such a huge APV count today. (And also where they used that something-1500 vacuum bomb.)
If you didn't pay attention, Russia managed to lose 1000 tanks in the first 3 month this year, which also means they have lost half of the higher estimates of their Soviet stockpile. I am actually surprised they can still keep those attacks going because repairing isn't getting easier the older the stuff is.
Meanwhile The White House is getting angry that the Ukrainians dare to attack the oil infraastructure, since that could increase gas prices in the US.
Honestly, just stop being to reliant on cars for everything guys! It's stupidly expensive, stupidly unhelathy, stupidly time consuming and makes you stupidly reliable on your enemy keeping up production.
-
Honestly, just stop being to reliant on cars for everything guys! It's stupidly expensive, stupidly unhelathy, stupidly time consuming and makes you stupidly reliable on your enemy keeping up production.
I agree it's a strategic weakness, but it's not simply a mind change, and it's done. There has been 100 years of infrastructure change that encouraged the use of cars and discouraged "older" ways of living. Many US cities would have to be fully rebuilt to realize this change. And only a few places now even think this is necessary
I live in the middle of an area which doesn't just deny the need, but thrives on the high costs. It is one of 3 areas in this metro area of 7 million which is moderately walkable. And yet, we are surrounded by housing developments of multiple thousands, whose residents need to drive out of the neighborhood to get milk or bread. And even in this moderately walkable area, most parents who live too close to the school to qualify for bussing (1 mile) choose to drive their kid to school, waiting in a car line for 30 minutes (to try to be first) with their cars idling to keep the AC on against the heat.
Until the living arrangements make this lifestyle uncomfortable, the inertia of the now-historical ways of life will persist. A good doubling of gas prices would be a start. (note: this would just put us on par with the EU. Drastic for here, but not many other places. With the current spike in crude, gas is now $3 per gallon / €0.73/L )
-
Honestly, just stop being to reliant on cars for everything guys! It's stupidly expensive, stupidly unhelathy, stupidly time consuming and makes you stupidly reliable on your enemy keeping up production.
IDK why, but Americans cannot comprehend this. You can say it, observe the brain being stunned for half a second, and then watch the conversation pivot to something else as if this was a some kind of sidebar instead of a root problem.
If you press the matter, you'll be asked "how am I supposed to get around?" and realize you don't have an immediate answer for the person because everything is spread out and there's no other infrastructure.
-
Update: The general situation has not changed, Russia is pressing attacks and Ukraine is very slowly losing ground.
There was a big assault on Krasnohorivka (the town in front of Donetsk), where Russians took the outer part of the city, but were repelled by reaction forces. I think this is why there is such a huge APV count today. (And also where they used that something-1500 vacuum bomb.)
If you didn't pay attention, Russia managed to lose 1000 tanks in the first 3 month this year, which also means they have lost half of the higher estimates of their Soviet stockpile. I am actually surprised they can still keep those attacks going because repairing isn't getting easier the older the stuff is.
How cow, 73 APVs, 50 artillery, 15 tanks, and 61 other vehicles? That's a big day, even if the number of Russian casualties is under 900.
I saw a twitter thread a couple months back that analyzed Russia's pace of losses vs their production capacity, and projected that Russia would be completely out of armor in the next 18-24 months at this pace. As a thought experiment, if we assume Russia keeps pushing at their current rate, that doesn't get them much more ground before they completely exhaust their military.
Even with Mike Johnson's moronically cynical stonewalling of aid to Ukraine, I feel like there's still a whole lot the Biden administration could be doing to help. We pay tons of money to safely dispose of nearing-expiration munitions, cluster bombs, etc. Can we not just ship them over? And with the money saved on disposal, we could afford to send more stuff at the same time? Sell a couple thousand Bradleys to NATO countries that could then donate them to Ukraine?
-
Update: The general situation has not changed, Russia is pressing attacks and Ukraine is very slowly losing ground.
There was a big assault on Krasnohorivka (the town in front of Donetsk), where Russians took the outer part of the city, but were repelled by reaction forces. I think this is why there is such a huge APV count today. (And also where they used that something-1500 vacuum bomb.)
If you didn't pay attention, Russia managed to lose 1000 tanks in the first 3 month this year, which also means they have lost half of the higher estimates of their Soviet stockpile. I am actually surprised they can still keep those attacks going because repairing isn't getting easier the older the stuff is.
How cow, 73 APVs, 50 artillery, 15 tanks, and 61 other vehicles? That's a big day, even if the number of Russian casualties is under 900.
I saw a twitter thread a couple months back that analyzed Russia's pace of losses vs their production capacity, and projected that Russia would be completely out of armor in the next 18-24 months at this pace. As a thought experiment, if we assume Russia keeps pushing at their current rate, that doesn't get them much more ground before they completely exhaust their military.
Even with Mike Johnson's moronically cynical stonewalling of aid to Ukraine, I feel like there's still a whole lot the Biden administration could be doing to help. We pay tons of money to safely dispose of nearing-expiration munitions, cluster bombs, etc. Can we not just ship them over? And with the money saved on disposal, we could afford to send more stuff at the same time? Sell a couple thousand Bradleys to NATO countries that could then donate them to Ukraine?
I do believe there would be bipartisan support for some of those ideas. The world has changed quickly. Aren't there any of these neocon guys around any more? They would support sending armaments to Ukraine in a heartbeat.
-
Meanwhile The White House is getting angry that the Ukrainians dare to attack the oil infraastructure, since that could increase gas prices in the US.
Yup, this is really dumb and a sign the Biden administration is no longer competently handling the situation. Striking Russian crude production would be a double edge sword because production would go down, but crude prices would go up benefitting Russia's margin and harming Ukraine's allies. Striking Russian refining is genius because Russia doesn't have very much refining capacity. In fact they stopped exporting refined oil products because of shortage:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-bans-gasoline-exports-6-months-march-1-2024-02-27/
Striking Russian refining is all around great because it won't impact crude prices, and may depress them if Russia has to sell oil it can't refine to others. Ukraine's allies are net oil refiners but they are not net oil producers, so higher prices for refined oil and low prices for crude benefit Ukraine allies and at best do nothing for Russia. If Ukraine can significantly damage Russian refining Russia'd have to buy high priced refined products back wasting their foreign currency from oil sales. This is the relationship between the US and Venezuela for example. Meanwhile they'd be trying to sell a glut of crude oil into a flooded market at low prices. So it's a great strategy that should be encouraged and aided, and unless I see solid reasons to the contrary I will say anyone trying to get Ukraine to stop is a badly incompetent moron on several levels.
-
Meanwhile The White House is getting angry that the Ukrainians dare to attack the oil infraastructure, since that could increase gas prices in the US.
Yup, this is really dumb and a sign the Biden administration is no longer competently handling the situation. Striking Russian crude production would be a double edge sword because production would go down, but crude prices would go up benefitting Russia's margin and harming Ukraine's allies. Striking Russian refining is genius because Russia doesn't have very much refining capacity. In fact they stopped exporting refined oil products because of shortage:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-bans-gasoline-exports-6-months-march-1-2024-02-27/
Striking Russian refining is all around great because it won't impact crude prices, and may depress them if Russia has to sell oil it can't refine to others. Ukraine's allies are net oil refiners but they are not net oil producers, so higher prices for refined oil and low prices for crude benefit Ukraine allies and at best do nothing for Russia. If Ukraine can significantly damage Russian refining Russia'd have to buy high priced refined products back wasting their foreign currency from oil sales. This is the relationship between the US and Venezuela for example. Meanwhile they'd be trying to sell a glut of crude oil into a flooded market at low prices. So it's a great strategy that should be encouraged and aided, and unless I see solid reasons to the contrary I will say anyone trying to get Ukraine to stop is a badly incompetent moron on several levels.
Wasn't the original statement kind of weasel worded? I think they said something like they don't "encourage" the destruction of oil refineries. I'm too lazy to look.
-
So it's a great strategy that should be encouraged and aided, and unless I see solid reasons to the contrary I will say anyone trying to get Ukraine to stop is a badly incompetent moron on several levels.
Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Blocking aid to Ukraine is deeply important to the MAGA wing of the GOP. Recall, last winter MAGA Republicans stated any aid to Ukraine would be contingent on border security funding, thinking this would make it a poison pill for the Democrats. However, Democrats agreed to include border funding as part of a Ukraine aid package, but MAGA Republicans blocked it anyway.*
While the US is a net oil exporter, the price of oil is set on the global market. A disruption anywhere causes prices to spike everywhere. Russia is one of the largest exporters of refined petroleum in the world and Ukraine's attacks have already caused the price of crude oil to rise (https://news.sky.com/story/oil-price-rises-after-ukraine-attacks-major-russian-refinery-13107022). And our economy is tied to the price of oil. If the oil goes up, the price of everything goes up.
So why don't we as Americans take one for the team and accept higher prices? Most Americans don't care too much about aid to Ukraine, but they deeply care about the price of gas and Americans tend to punish their politicians for high gas prices. Biden is on shakey ground for reelection already as are a number of House Democrats. High gas prices will cause election problems for them and if Trump wins and Republicans extend their lead in the House, there will be no more US aid to Ukraine, period. Conversely, if the economy is going well next summer and fall, Democrats could gain control of the House and Republicans would no longer be able to block aid to Ukraine. I understand why Ukraine is targeting refineries, but it would be smarter to wait seven months rather than increase the chances of a Trump win. Because whatever benefits Ukraine is getting, the potential downsides are far, far greater.
*I'll put this as a footnote because it is a bit off topic for thread...The Republicans reasoning for blocking border funding was that it didn't include as much as they wanted. This explanation is very childish and so transparently false it is almost painful. They got most of what they wanted, including addressing the two biggest border needs by far, the asylum process and lack of detention facilities. Instead of getting most of what they wanted and simply trying to fill in the gaps the next cycle, they are getting nothing. Which shows how important this issue actually is to them, which is to say not at all.
-
So it's a great strategy that should be encouraged and aided, and unless I see solid reasons to the contrary I will say anyone trying to get Ukraine to stop is a badly incompetent moron on several levels.
Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Blocking aid to Ukraine is deeply important to the MAGA wing of the GOP. Recall, last winter MAGA Republicans stated any aid to Ukraine would be contingent on border security funding, thinking this would make it a poison pill for the Democrats. However, Democrats agreed to include border funding as part of a Ukraine aid package, but MAGA Republicans blocked it anyway.*
While the US is a net oil exporter, the price of oil is set on the global market. A disruption anywhere causes prices to spike everywhere. Russia is one of the largest exporters of refined petroleum in the world and Ukraine's attacks have already caused the price of crude oil to rise (https://news.sky.com/story/oil-price-rises-after-ukraine-attacks-major-russian-refinery-13107022). And our economy is tied to the price of oil. If the oil goes up, the price of everything goes up.
So why don't we as Americans take one for the team and accept higher prices? Most Americans don't care too much about aid to Ukraine, but they deeply care about the price of gas and Americans tend to punish their politicians for high gas prices. Biden is on shakey ground for reelection already as are a number of House Democrats. High gas prices will cause election problems for them and if Trump wins and Republicans extend their lead in the House, there will be no more US aid to Ukraine, period. Conversely, if the economy is going well next summer and fall, Democrats could gain control of the House and Republicans would no longer be able to block aid to Ukraine. I understand why Ukraine is targeting refineries, but it would be smarter to wait seven months rather than increase the chances of a Trump win. Because whatever benefits Ukraine is getting, the potential downsides are far, far greater.
Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oil. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.
I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.
-
Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oilrefined petroleum products. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.
I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.
I think you made a slip there, and I fixed it.
While you're right that hitting Russian refineries has a more disparate impact on Russia than the rest of the world, compared to hitting crude production and export, it's also worth noting that refined products are also subject to global demand. If Russia has to start importing gasoline and diesel, that'll push those prices up globally. And while the resulting high prices would benefit exporters of refined products (like US oil companies), it would have a negative impact on consumers everywhere.
I suppose, then, that it's doubly logical then for the Biden administration to discourage it--they don't want consumers (voters) to see higher fuel prices, and especially don't want the oil companies to see higher fuel prices!
-
Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oilrefined petroleum products. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.
I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.
I think you made a slip there, and I fixed it.
While you're right that hitting Russian refineries has a more disparate impact on Russia than the rest of the world, compared to hitting crude production and export, it's also worth noting that refined products are also subject to global demand. If Russia has to start importing gasoline and diesel, that'll push those prices up globally. And while the resulting high prices would benefit exporters of refined products (like US oil companies), it would have a negative impact on consumers everywhere.
I suppose, then, that it's doubly logical then for the Biden administration to discourage it--they don't want consumers (voters) to see higher fuel prices, and especially don't want the oil companies to see higher fuel prices!
So,....How much oil and gas of the world does Russia consume? How big of an effect will that be?
These guys say 3.7 percent.
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-consumption-by-country/ (https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-consumption-by-country/)
It might be more because of their stupid "Special Military Operation." Even at 5 percent, I think the world can handle it. Besides most folks are served by specific refineries. The loss of refiners in Russia may not have that big effect on my local market.
How about the crude thing? It seems like they are working harder and harder to cut Russian oil off from the world? Will this have a long term effect?
It seems like they are discovering more oil all over all of the time. It certainly takes some time to develop it, but wise investors may see a further loss of Russian crude and recognize an opportunity. Here are some new discoveries.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/topic/discoveries/ (https://www.rigzone.com/news/topic/discoveries/)
Many of these are very recent.
From somewhere in the bowels of the internet:
"Russia is the third-largest producer of oil worldwide, accounting for over 12 percent of global crude oil production. Rich in natural resources, the country concentrates its energy production in the West Siberia and Volga-Ural oil and gas provinces.Dec 21, 2023"
I would guess the world has, at present, enough margin to cover the loss of Russian oil. I think there would be a blip in prices for a few months, but the market would adjust and prices would come back down.
One must also realize that not all crude oil is the same. Refineries are set up to handle specific types of crude. So the supply demand thing is more complicated.
I'm sure some of you folks know even more details and / or can correct my suppositions.
-
I used to work in the industry, and can fill in a few details :)
15-20 years ago, Russia (and OPEC as a whole) really shot themselves in the foot by artificially keeping prices a bit too high for a bit too long. The high prices enabled/encouraged the development of technology (like fracking) that unlocked a whole lot of previously-unprofitable oil and gas. Once that genie escaped the bottle, there was no putting it back in. It takes years to develop (i.e. start production from) an oil field once you make the decision to build it out--drilling takes years, engineering all the facilities takes years, building takes a couple years, commissioning takes a year. Since not every project happens at the same time, the impact of that technology took a long time to percolate. But the impact is huge: the US became a net exporter of petroleum products, then a net exporter of crude oil. ExxonMobil's Golden Pass LNG terminal, originally slated to import LNG from the middle east (Qatar?), was redesigned to instead export LNG. And now they're building a second export terminal (CP2).
Aaaaanyway, OPEC has a whole lot less power over the O&G industry than they used to. They used to have a stranglehold (remember the embargo in the 70's?), but nowadays, everyone kinda shrugs and moves on when they cut production. For Russia, this will continue to deteriorate. They have little ability to develop their own oil reserves, and have historically partnered with the big multinational oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, etc), splitting the profits. From now on, however, those companies will be a lot less willing to partner with Russia--the risk calculations are a whole lot worse than they used to be.
One more thing about gas prices: the demand curve for gasoline in the US seems to be pretty flat--sure, people complain about high gas prices, but you don't see them doing much to curb their consumption. (Hey, look, we're back on a MMM topic!)
-
Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oilrefined petroleum products. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.
I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.
I think you made a slip there, and I fixed it.
While you're right that hitting Russian refineries has a more disparate impact on Russia than the rest of the world, compared to hitting crude production and export, it's also worth noting that refined products are also subject to global demand. If Russia has to start importing gasoline and diesel, that'll push those prices up globally. And while the resulting high prices would benefit exporters of refined products (like US oil companies), it would have a negative impact on consumers everywhere.
I suppose, then, that it's doubly logical then for the Biden administration to discourage it--they don't want consumers (voters) to see higher fuel prices, and especially don't want the oil companies to see higher fuel prices!
Agreed and good correction. If I was scoring it, I'd say Ukraine crushing Russian refining might be:
Russia: -6
Global oil refiners: +3
Global oil consumers: -2
US oil refiners: +2
US oil consumers: -1
US geopolitical position: +2
It's still a substantial benefit (4:1 by my score) for the US, however the benefits either accrue in the abstract world of geopolitics and manifest years later in apparently unrelated ways, or accrue specifically to oil refiners. Meanwhile there would be a small near term downside to US oil consumers. However China for example is a big importer of refined oil. Most of the people Russia exported refined oil to are not friendly to the US. IMO this is easily one of the most effective ways Ukraine has of crippling Russia's economy, harming its allies' foes, while minimizing negative economic effects to its allies.
-
Even with Mike Johnson's moronically cynical stonewalling of aid to Ukraine, I feel like there's still a whole lot the Biden administration could be doing to help. We pay tons of money to safely dispose of nearing-expiration munitions, cluster bombs, etc. Can we not just ship them over? And with the money saved on disposal, we could afford to send more stuff at the same time? Sell a couple thousand Bradleys to NATO countries that could then donate them to Ukraine?
We can't just ship munitions to a country that we don't have any kind of military trade/alliance with on the President's say-so. That was the whole point of the Presidential Drawdown Authority that Johnson is blocking. It takes Congress allowing the transfers if there isn't already a treaty in place. I'm not familiar with every clause in those laws, but I imagine there's something in there preventing us from just using a proxy like France to donate weapons and vehicles.
-
So there's been a lot of movement on Congress' funding for Ukraine the last couple days. For some reason, Johnson decided to move the whole package forward and it, the Israel, and the Taiwan support bills will go up for a vote Saturday. The procedural votes have sailed through, the nutjobs in the HFC tried swamping the docket with amendments that are literally cut and paste from two year old Russian propaganda messages, and despite clear indications that they're going to try to vacate him, Johnson's rhetoric has been "I'm a Reagan Republican...We must be strong...I'm doing this out of principle." Now I don't really believe any of that given that he's sat on this for about six months with thousands of soldiers and civilians dying while we waited, but it seems like it's going to happen. Stay tuned.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237 (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237)
Also, a Russian Tu-22M strategic bomber went down in flames last night on its return trip from firing cruise missiles at Ukraine. Russians are saying "malfunction" while Ukrainians are saying "300km max-range shot with an S200." Most if not all of the crew managed to bail out. This is the first time one of these planes has gone down in this war from mechanical failure or hostile action.
https://vxtwitter.com/Faytuks/status/1781175921740783644 (https://vxtwitter.com/Faytuks/status/1781175921740783644)
-
So there's been a lot of movement on Congress' funding for Ukraine the last couple days. For some reason, Johnson decided to move the whole package forward and it, the Israel, and the Taiwan support bills will go up for a vote Saturday. The procedural votes have sailed through, the nutjobs in the HFC tried swamping the docket with amendments that are literally cut and paste from two year old Russian propaganda messages, and despite clear indications that they're going to try to vacate him, Johnson's rhetoric has been "I'm a Reagan Republican...We must be strong...I'm doing this out of principle." Now I don't really believe any of that given that he's sat on this for about six months with thousands of soldiers and civilians dying while we waited, but it seems like it's going to happen. Stay tuned.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237 (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237)
Also, a Russian Tu-22M strategic bomber went down in flames last night on its return trip from firing cruise missiles at Ukraine. Russians are saying "malfunction" while Ukrainians are saying "300km max-range shot with an S200." Most if not all of the crew managed to bail out. This is the first time one of these planes has gone down in this war from mechanical failure or hostile action.
https://vxtwitter.com/Faytuks/status/1781175921740783644 (https://vxtwitter.com/Faytuks/status/1781175921740783644)
Looks like Ukraine aid "finally" passed the House. Now it's time to see if MAGA and/or others have some tricks up their sleeves in the Senate to cause further delays.
-
I could be wrong, but I believe Ukraine aid has been passed by the Senate multiple times, with Republican support
-
I could be wrong, but I believe Ukraine aid has been passed by the Senate multiple times, with Republican support
Yeah, the Senate passed a similar bill 70-29 in Feb. Only a minority (22) of Republicans supported it in the Senate, so there will be some drama and grandstanding.
-
79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.
-
79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.
And it's funny how different that is seen. From the US I basically hear "That is the BIG THING". And here the reactions are a lot more subdued. To quote one headline from this morning: "It just allows Ukraine to hold the line".
btw. near Avdiivka the Russians penetrated the front line. It's a small hole and a hard to hold position, but if they manage to establish this position, the whole front in this area might break down and move dozens of kilometers.
-
Ukraine holding the line vs collapsing and being entirely occupied by Russia seems like a big thing to me.
If this aid is enough to allow that (not a given, but seems at least possible), that would outstanding, at least from my perspective.
-
79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.
This makes me very happy. What's even better is that, now that it's passed once, and with bipartisan support, it'll be a lot easier to pass future aid as well. I hope.
Russia's been grinding away at the front lines recently. They've even been able to fly fixed wing air support over Ukrainian positions. That's a bad sign. Resupplying and improving Ukraine's anti-air defenses (and everything else) is going to make it a lot harder for Russia to continue pushing.
-
79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.
This makes me very happy. What's even better is that, now that it's passed once, and with bipartisan support, it'll be a lot easier to pass future aid as well. I hope.
Russia's been grinding away at the front lines recently. They've even been able to fly fixed wing air support over Ukrainian positions. That's a bad sign. Resupplying and improving Ukraine's anti-air defenses (and everything else) is going to make it a lot harder for Russia to continue pushing.
Some have said that Russia is pushing very hard now because they know that aid is coming. How much does Russia have left?
24.04.2024
Tanks — 7242 (+1)
Armored fighting vehicle — 13928 (+12)
Artillery systems — 11808 (+43)
MLRS — 1048 (+2)
Anti-aircraft warfare — 771 (+2)
Planes — 348
Helicopters — 325
UAV — 9439 (+32)
Cruise missiles — 2117
Ships (boats) — 26
Submarines — 1
Cars and cisterns — 15892 (+47)
Special equipment — 1944 (+8)
Military personnel — aprx. 461940 people (+880)
If these numbers are anywhere near correct, Russian munitions are greatly lessened. I note only one tank has been taken out. This source says that 7,000 have been taken out. Their navy largely now flees Crimea. Their jets stay away from the battlle and fire the missiles from afar. Russia has had huge flood problems. Ukraine wisely attacks Russian oil refineries. Russian gas sales are way down. Reports are that Russian oil sales are also way down. There is a labor shortage in Russia due to the demand from their defense industry. Their prime interest rate is at 16 percent. It seems I hear of additional sanctions being applied every other week. Many of their best professionals have left the country. They had great infrastructure problems with heat and electricity this past Winter.
Videos are shown of Russian soldiers attacking on Chinese Go Carts and Motorcycles. These have been easy targets.
One would think the Russians would end this war with imaginary Nazis. Make peace. Call it a victory. Hold parades. Give the people bread and circuses.
-
Putin has himself entangled in his own propaganda. Russia still does not control everything that has "voted" to be part of Russia. Very hard to say you were victorious with that.
Also the jewish Nazi Selensky is still there and NATO still attacking.
I do wonder how the sales of all those "At War With NATO" books have developed in the last years. That would probably give you a more accurate number on the support than any survey.
-
If these numbers are anywhere near correct, Russian munitions are greatly lessened. I note only one tank has been taken out. This source says that 7,000 have been taken out.
That "+1" is the daily increase. Yesterday, 7241 total tanks had been destroyed, today the total is 7242.
It's difficult to get a good view into what Russia still has left to throw at Ukraine. A year ago, analysts were saying that Russia had lost 50% of its pre-war military capability. They've incurred 460k casualties, out of the initial 150-200k they sent into Ukraine. They've only (?) lost about 10% of their air force, but that's because their aircraft usually lob cruise and ballistic missiles from hundreds of miles within their own borders.
How many tanks does Russia have left? That's a hard question to answer. The original headline was that Russia had 10,000 tanks, with lots and lots more in various depots that could be refurbished. They've lost 3/4 of the original number, and satellite photos are showing the depots being stripped pretty quickly (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782479780421444020.html). Sure, Russia continues to produce new tanks and, but at nowhere near replenishment levels.
The question at this point is: what will halt the current grinding offensive? Well, from what I've learned, it has to be artillery. Russia has adapted their tactics, and now often 1) hit with lots of artillery and/or aerial bombardment, 2) deliver a few dozen troops with APCs as fast as possible to the front line, and 3) then pull back the APCs before they all get destroyed. Ukraine has to interdict those advancing APCs before the troops get to a defensible position, and between the lack of artillery shells, electronic warfare systems, terrain, and lack of air support, they simply haven't been able to do so. Given sufficient artillery ammunition, Ukraine can be a whole lot more effective not just at stopping those advancements, but also at counterbattery fire.
Russia, without artillery support, simply can't advance. And if Ukraine has enough shells and HIMARS rockets, they can take out that critical artillery.
The passage of the aid bills has stirred up excited discussions about destroying the Kerch Strait bridge once again, but the immediate need is for stuff right at the front line.