That's wholly compatible with Russia getting booted out of Ukraine. That Russia will be very low on friends and will have destroyed the most lucrative market for its primary exports.
The military aid package will include, among other things, the following:
60 boats, including offshore raiding craft, rigid raiding craft, and dive boats, as well as maritime guns;
More than 1,600 strike and air defense missiles, as well as additional Storm Shadow long-range precision-guided missiles;
More than 400 vehicles, including 160 protected mobility ‘Husky’ vehicles, 162 armored vehicles and 78 all-terrain vehicles;
Nearly 4 million rounds of small arms ammunition.
Russia was probably wise to move the rest of the BSF out of Sevastopol. But I'm sure other snacks can be found.
Especially as the US bill includes instructions to give Ukraine the full range ATACAMS
After the promise of a third Patriot system by Germany, Greece now considers sending one system in return for security assurances by the US against Turkey (Greece has been and is very unwilling to send anything from their military stocks because of the their relationship with Turkey), and Germany is pressuring the US to also send at least another Patriot system.
There'S another Ramstein Meeting on the 26th so maybe some more definite news about more anti-air systems then
While that's awesome of Greece, I think it's an unfortunate reality that the US should no longer be a reliable partner when it comes to a security assurance. If Biden wins? Absolutely. If Trump wins? Erdogan is Trump's buddy, and if he wants to fuck with Greece, well, Trump would probably think that's OK.
It's absolutely fucked that we're a coinflip away from the US electing someone who will betray the ideals of America's European foreign policy for the last eight decades, because he's friendly with authoritarian shitheels.
I'm honestly kind of sanguine about Ukraine's prospects in a 2nd Trump presidency. Trump is extremely susceptible to flattery and quid pro quo bargains, both of which are things Zelensky can do.
What?
Over the past decade literally the only thing Trump has shown loyalty to other than himself is Russia, and he's completely internalized Ukraine as being central to whatever insane Biden-centric conspiracy world he lives in. Zelensky is an enemy as far as Trump's concerned, and he holds permanent grudges.
Assistance to Ukraine would vanish on day one of a Trump presidency. Assistance to Russia starting on day two wouldn't surprise me in the least, given Trump's take on the whole conflict when the war started.
Also a reminder, it was Zelensky specifically who he tried to extort, and that act got him impeached the first time.
I can't think of a foreign leader that Trump would be nursing a bigger grievance against, than the current President of Ukraine. Trump might forget favors. He rarely forgets slights.
Yes, he allows Graham and Cruz and Rubio to kiss the ring despite blasting him, but as we see repeatedly, that's a political calculus, and he's happy to humiliate and demean them when the mood strikes. It's part of his power play.
That's my point - Zelensky can give him something he wants by rolling over on the whole Burisma and Hunter Biden nonsense. Trump cares more about hurting his local domestic enemies than feuding with a foreign president.
Your point is absurd and wrong, though.
Trump doesn't care about whether his enemies are foreign or domestic, he just cares that they're his enemies. He's built a large chunk of his identity around Zelensky specifically being one of those enemies, and has internalized the 'fact' that he's deep enough in all this imaginary Hunter Biden stuff that he's not going to be able to separate the two.
Add to that Trump's absolute loyalty, subservience, or both to Putin, which again is devoted enough that he instantly fired cabinet level officials for saying Russia did a thing the Russian government said it did. Trump supports the war. He's said several times that it was a brilliant move, and he's said that he would have liked the United States to fight alongside Russia to destroy Ukraine. He's browbeaten his party from nearly-unanimous opposition to the invasion to effectively supporting it, and the obstructionism he's kicked off has cost thousands of lives this year. He's stated that he'll support Russian military action against NATO members.
If Trump gets any policy-making levels of say in the matter, Ukraine ceases to exist.
tl;dw Good news from the Lyman theater. Ukraine managed to repulse further attacks on the frontline villages holding the river crossings NE of Lyman and resolidified their hold on ground outside the villages. Previously Russia had tried to attack through nearby roads with a heavy mechanized push and were stopped short.
I would expect Ukraine to keep their mouths shut about them until after they've returned from their first major operation
Heck, I'd settle for not mentioning them at all, as long as they're there.
Just shit blowing up deep behind enemy lines or in mainland Russia.
"Was that the F-16's?"
*blank look* "I dunno." *shrug*
"What F-16s?"
I'm not sure which would be better.
A continued blank stare.
Or a cartoonishly wide shit-eating grin.
Blank stare -> just the beginning of a shit-eating grin -> freeze frame -> Iron Eagle III theme plays as credits roll -> fade to ‘SLAVA UKRAINI’ title card.
1/9 It's important for Americans to realize that European support for Ukraine is often conducted in a secretive manner. Analysis by @joni_askola Image
2/9 Many refer to stats from the Kiel Institute to determine which country has provided the most assistance to Ukraine. However, this approach has limitations, as Kiel's methodology relies on announcements, and numerous European countries do not publicly disclose all their aid. Image
3/9 For months, there was widespread belief that France had provided less than 1 billion euros in military aid. However, the French Senate eventually acknowledged that they had actually already allocated nearly 4 billion euros in aid. Image
4/9 For instance, Finland does not publicly disclose its contributions and only includes the value of equipment that needs replacement. This makes it difficult to ascertain the actual extent of Finland's assistance. Image
5/9 Numerous other examples exist, including Bulgaria, which is recognized for providing and selling a significantly greater amount of equipment to Ukraine than what is officially reported. Image
6/9 It's also important to note that even based on official statistics, many European countries contribute a larger share of their GDP and defense budget to Ukraine than the US. Image
7/9 Comparing donations becomes challenging due to the varying methodologies and levels of transparency employed by each country. As highlighted by @ColbyBadhwar, Germany is likely the sole European country to approach a level of transparency comparable to that of the US. Image
8/9 In recent months, Europe has significantly increased its support. One positive outcome of Johnson's prolonged blocking and delay of Ukraine aid is that it compelled Europe to respond and ultimately enhance its assistance. Image
9/9 This doesn't imply that Europe has sufficiently increased its efforts. There is still much more that can be accomplished. However, it's important to recognize that Europe is actively engaged in a significantly greater level of support than many American analysts may realize. Image
It was ANZAC day today in Australia and New Zealand.
I don't know how to think about ANZAC day, so I donated $1,000 AUD to YOUkraine who amongst other projects buy and donate vehicles in Europe to the Ukrainian military on the basis of this vouch by the Operations Room Youtube channel (see bottom).
1/9 It's important for Americans to realize that European support for Ukraine is often conducted in a secretive manner. Analysis by @joni_askola Image
2/9 Many refer to stats from the Kiel Institute to determine which country has provided the most assistance to Ukraine. However, this approach has limitations, as Kiel's methodology relies on announcements, and numerous European countries do not publicly disclose all their aid. Image
3/9 For months, there was widespread belief that France had provided less than 1 billion euros in military aid. However, the French Senate eventually acknowledged that they had actually already allocated nearly 4 billion euros in aid. Image
4/9 For instance, Finland does not publicly disclose its contributions and only includes the value of equipment that needs replacement. This makes it difficult to ascertain the actual extent of Finland's assistance. Image
5/9 Numerous other examples exist, including Bulgaria, which is recognized for providing and selling a significantly greater amount of equipment to Ukraine than what is officially reported. Image
6/9 It's also important to note that even based on official statistics, many European countries contribute a larger share of their GDP and defense budget to Ukraine than the US. Image
7/9 Comparing donations becomes challenging due to the varying methodologies and levels of transparency employed by each country. As highlighted by @ColbyBadhwar, Germany is likely the sole European country to approach a level of transparency comparable to that of the US. Image
8/9 In recent months, Europe has significantly increased its support. One positive outcome of Johnson's prolonged blocking and delay of Ukraine aid is that it compelled Europe to respond and ultimately enhance its assistance. Image
9/9 This doesn't imply that Europe has sufficiently increased its efforts. There is still much more that can be accomplished. However, it's important to recognize that Europe is actively engaged in a significantly greater level of support than many American analysts may realize. Image
Last I checked, the EU has actually provided more actual dollar-value financial aid than the U.S, just significantly less actual "things that go boom" aid. Which shouldn't be surprising when the U.S has literally the world's largest stockpile of things that go boom.
25 April milvlogging (Russian attacks on Krasnohorivka (another of the fortress settlements that have contained the frontline around Donetsk city, although not as heavily fortified as Avdiivka)
Turns out that the widely mocked russian "turtle tank" is effective for the tactical situation it's in. With the terrain unsuited for deploying mechanized units from the Ukrainian side and a (speculated) lack of ATGMs, the extensive roof on the turtle tank (in combination with Russian drone jamming technology) becomes an effective protection against the two remaining Ukrainian anti-tank weapons, cluster munitions and FPV drones.
Cluster munitions detonate against the roof, which is sufficiently sturdy and has enough stand-off from the actual armor of the tank that it won't damage the tanks hull.
The drone jammer prevents low-flying precision strikes and the roof blocks what an FPV operator would do otherwise (ie, dive bomb in the FPV drone from above).
As a result Russian tanks start to return from their missions of escorting russian BMPs while they deploy infantry. BMPs lacking the armor and engine to use roofs of their own take the normal atrocious casualties, but Russians not losing their T-72 tanks every time they attack isn't great news for Krasnohorivka.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
+5
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
1/9 It's important for Americans to realize that European support for Ukraine is often conducted in a secretive manner. Analysis by @joni_askola Image
2/9 Many refer to stats from the Kiel Institute to determine which country has provided the most assistance to Ukraine. However, this approach has limitations, as Kiel's methodology relies on announcements, and numerous European countries do not publicly disclose all their aid. Image
3/9 For months, there was widespread belief that France had provided less than 1 billion euros in military aid. However, the French Senate eventually acknowledged that they had actually already allocated nearly 4 billion euros in aid. Image
4/9 For instance, Finland does not publicly disclose its contributions and only includes the value of equipment that needs replacement. This makes it difficult to ascertain the actual extent of Finland's assistance. Image
5/9 Numerous other examples exist, including Bulgaria, which is recognized for providing and selling a significantly greater amount of equipment to Ukraine than what is officially reported. Image
6/9 It's also important to note that even based on official statistics, many European countries contribute a larger share of their GDP and defense budget to Ukraine than the US. Image
7/9 Comparing donations becomes challenging due to the varying methodologies and levels of transparency employed by each country. As highlighted by @ColbyBadhwar, Germany is likely the sole European country to approach a level of transparency comparable to that of the US. Image
8/9 In recent months, Europe has significantly increased its support. One positive outcome of Johnson's prolonged blocking and delay of Ukraine aid is that it compelled Europe to respond and ultimately enhance its assistance. Image
9/9 This doesn't imply that Europe has sufficiently increased its efforts. There is still much more that can be accomplished. However, it's important to recognize that Europe is actively engaged in a significantly greater level of support than many American analysts may realize. Image
Last I checked, the EU has actually provided more actual dollar-value financial aid than the U.S, just significantly less actual "things that go boom" aid. Which shouldn't be surprising when the U.S has literally the world's largest stockpile of things that go boom.
A short summary would be that the EU has provided very much more equipment, vehicles and planes, while the US provided very much more missiles and ammunition.
0
Options
Grudgeblessed is the mind too small for doubtRegistered Userregular
I just love Finland.
Regarding the recent statment from Russia that they intend to station ballistic missiles in Karelia.
Major General Harri Ohra-Aho on Russia's decision to move ballistic missiles closer to the Finnish border
"Of course, it's none of my business, but operationally it seems absurd to bring missile systems with such a long range closer to our border, they make easy targets for us"
+45
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
tl;dw Russian offensives continue east of Ocheretyne, the new salient west of Avdiivka. The next target is Novakolynove to the east, which holds a strong position to interdict further development of attacks in the area. Ukraine has managed to use drones and artillery to hit Russian artillery and tanks on their way in and is conducting active counterattacks to dislodge Russian infantry squads as they try to advance and entrench.
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) launched drone strikes against two oil refineries and a military airfield in Russia’s Krasnodar region overnight on April 27, a source in the security and defense forces told the Kyiv Independent.
The airfield was also successfully hit, this footage supposedly shows a storage facility for glide bomb kits destroyed, you can see jets in the background at the 11-12sec mark, unknown if any were damaged
I've been caught out by Russian/Ukrainian names before (two places with the same name), but if this is the Krasnodar that shows up as the first result on Google, that's pretty deep. About 150 miles east of Kerch, 150 miles south of Rostov On Don. Probably closer to 300 miles behind the lines, plus however far the launching was behind those lines.
Which might not seem like THAT far. But for comparison's sake, using just a random unspecific example just off the top of my head, the centre of Moscow is less than 350 miles from the Ukrainian border.
Ukraine has already hit Moscow with drone strikes, on multiple occasions. Although speculation abounds on exactly where and how those drones were launched from.
NB: On an entirely other level from the officially announced military aid, Ukraine is seething with Western (and Turkish!) defence manufacturers looking for a unique opportunity to test out their product tech. Ukraine wasn't exactly new to the whole defence industry thing, but they're a relatively small, undercapitalised economy and the level of technological advancement has been remarkable: they're getting a lot of support here.
On the subject of officially announced support, Silicon Bites talks about the recently announced aid with Anders Puck-Nielsen
Why have Russian forces advanced in multiple directions and what are the implications? What are the future prospects? Today's analysis by Frontelligence Insight centers on Chasiv Yar, Kurakhkove, and Ocheretyne
Why have Russian forces advanced in multiple directions and what are the implications? What are the future prospects? Today's analysis by Frontelligence Insight centers on Chasiv Yar, Kurakhkove, and Ocheretyne
Before proceeding, please like and share to aid visibility. 🧵Thread Image
2/ Ukrainian forces retreated from Ocheretyne and Solovyove. While the 115th brigade was blamed, the core issue is that many brigades are not in a condition to hold the enemy with disproportional advantage in personnel, artillery, vehicles, and air support along the frontline Image
3/ Our team has received reports of poor communication, coordination, and leadership. These problems are rooted in deeper systemic issues, like personnel shortages and challenges in preparing skilled officers for senior roles promptly and in holding them accountable
4/ Our assessment suggests that Russians are attempting to flank and launch a frontal assault on Chasiv Yar, similar to Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Additional Russian troops are reinforcing the area, likely aiming to take over the southern and northern sectors of Chasiv Yar. Image
5/ If Chasiv Yar falls to Russia, particularly the southern part, they could advance towards Kostyantynivka, disrupting logistics for the force south of Bakhmut. The situation could worsen if Russians move from Ocheretyne towards the road as well. Image
6/ In the Vuhledar-Donetsk area, Russians aim to cut off Kurakhove - a key logistical hub. The establishment of fire control over the road might severe logistics to Kurakhove. The loss of Kurakhove can put the entire grouping of forces in the Vuhledar area into a risky situation.
Image
7/ Russians are trying to exploit the current unfavorable situation to achieve ambitious operational goals. How did Ukraine find itself in this situation? It's the result of several factors: delayed mobilization efforts, delayed Western aid, and inadequate fortifications Image
8/ Trenches provide good protection, but with the excessive use of munition-dropping and kamikaze drones, it's crucial to have proper top cover for dugouts and trenches, along with concrete structures and drone-catching nets. It requires resources that understaffed brigades lack
9/ Can the Russians realistically achieve these objectives in 2024? According to the military theory, once defenses are breached, mechanized units can exploit the opening and move into an "operational space" - a geographical area where units can relatively freely maneuver.
10/ Overall, due to losses in vehicles and problematic frontline logistics, the Russian army is unlikely to conduct deep maneuvers into Ukrainian territory as they did during the initial invasion stage. Instead, they will likely focus on attempting to envelop Ukrainian forces
11/ The situation on the frontline is expected to stabilize with the arrival of new ammunition, weaponry, and freshly mobilized but trained recruits. However, it is unlikely that we will see stabilization anytime soon, as it takes time to arm, train, and prepare new recruits
12/ The situation should not be taken lightly, as the Russian military still has a reserve force equivalent to at least two corps, which could be deployed anywhere, including the Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts, or to reinforce existing axes of advance if weak spots are identified.
13/ It's one of the most favorable situations for Russia. Failing to capitalize on it would be an indication of their inability to achieve their goal of seizing the entire Donbas region in the foreseeable future. This, in turn, could force a reassessment of their own end goals
Fucks sake. Thats grim. I cant imagine the US would be too happy about a massive and total encirclement of large numbers of Ukranian forces, thats the kind of thing that could trigger other countries getting very worried and thinking about getting involved more directly
Its so infuriating. Without clear, strong and early support from the west, and with russia willing to just keep sending people to die, eventually Ukraine would always find itself pushed back. Horrible situation and if large amounts of territory starts falling to russians god knows what happens next.
Fuck every one of the Republicans who did this, fuck Johnson, congrats you got the bill done 6 months too late, and fuck Putin
Once again, big thanks to Russia's supporters such as Trump, Johnson, and the others. Even more thanks to the useful idiot "anti-escalationists" who have so radically miscalculated the bully mindset that they still don't realise that the only provocation Putin and his ilk recognise is weakness. Poland are not going to stand by and watch a general collapse on the front without taking some action. Nor I suspect will some other nations.
Where are your worries about "escalation" now, assholes?
Yes, we can't escalate the war and risk antagonising Russia. Instead we should allow the war to become a slow and drawn-out slog that kills many more people than if we'd just gone all in on defending Ukraine in the first place.
Ilya Ponomarev is a Russian-Ukrainian politician who was a member of the Russian State Duma from 2007 to 2016. After the 2022 Russian invasion, Ponomarev joined Ukraine's Territorial Defence Forces, and categorically denounced the invasion. While a member of the Russian State Duma, he was the only deputy not to vote in favour of the Russian gay propaganda law and to vote against Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014. In 2015, while in the US, Ponomarev was formally charged in Russia with embezzlement, which he called politically motivated. In 2016, he was impeached for not performing his duties, and he went into exile in Ukraine, where he obtained Ukrainian citizenship in 2019. Ilya Ponomarev has endorsed acts of sabotage and arson in Russia and claims to be a spokesman with insurgent Russian forces (National Republican Army) fighting on the side of Ukraine.
Yes, we can't escalate the war and risk antagonising Russia. Instead we should allow the war to become a slow and drawn-out slog that kills many more people than if we'd just gone all in on defending Ukraine in the first place.
Gaaaah!
We were never going to go all in and send troops to defend Ukraine. Ukraine isn’t in NATO. Russia was supposed to defend Ukraine against us ironically.
For NATO it is politically the most advantageous for most countries to give material/financial/lethal aid, but not put “boots on the ground.”
Because even with a direct intervention, with ideal conditions, the US would have taken casualties. And that would have been politically unpalatable.
The "escalate the war" rhetoric was never about western troops on the ground, it was always about offering literally anything to Ukraine that wasn't whatever the existing status quo was, revised regularly as needed since the day the invasion started.
Javelins didn't count because they were donated beforehand, but every other weapons system Ukraine been given has gotten the exact same "but we can't do this, we can't afford to let Ukraine fight back effectively because it's escalatory" rhetoric in response. The various loitering munitions, conventional tube artillery, obsolete Soviet-era aircraft, HIMARS, specific munitions used by HIMARS, air defenses(?!!), armoured vehicles, obsolete Western aircraft, etc., have all been met with identical handwringing about somehow making the war worse.
I think I remember commenting at the time that if the fucking British Conservatives look decisive and effectual in comparison, then you might have to consider that your policy is dogshit.
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The "escalate the war" rhetoric was never about western troops on the ground, it was always about offering literally anything to Ukraine that wasn't whatever the existing status quo was, revised regularly as needed since the day the invasion started.
Javelins didn't count because they were donated beforehand, but every other weapons system Ukraine been given has gotten the exact same "but we can't do this, we can't afford to let Ukraine fight back effectively because it's escalatory" rhetoric in response. The various loitering munitions, conventional tube artillery, obsolete Soviet-era aircraft, HIMARS, specific munitions used by HIMARS, air defenses(?!!), armoured vehicles, obsolete Western aircraft, etc., have all been met with identical handwringing about somehow making the war worse.
I disagree. I think the fears about escalating the war were valid, which is why Ukraine made each escalation of how far they could hit and so on. And once that didn't encounter the feared reaction, that strike was acceptable.
The country that was asking for direct military intervention by the west at the start of the war and which has had to beg for months on end for every new piece of eighties-vintage equipment they're given is absolutely not the country that has been pushing for equipment to be handed over in the most incrementally slow-rolled manner possible.
The fears are entirely people in the west who fail to understand that the war can't get further esclated than it already is - no, I completely dismiss the idea that Russia's going to bust out nukes - and thus insist that the safest thing is for Ukraine to have at least one hand tied behind its back at all times because they believe counterattacks are somehow more "aggressive" than unprovoked invasions with explicitly genocidal intent.
+5
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
The "escalate the war" rhetoric was never about western troops on the ground, it was always about offering literally anything to Ukraine that wasn't whatever the existing status quo was, revised regularly as needed since the day the invasion started.
Javelins didn't count because they were donated beforehand, but every other weapons system Ukraine been given has gotten the exact same "but we can't do this, we can't afford to let Ukraine fight back effectively because it's escalatory" rhetoric in response. The various loitering munitions, conventional tube artillery, obsolete Soviet-era aircraft, HIMARS, specific munitions used by HIMARS, air defenses(?!!), armoured vehicles, obsolete Western aircraft, etc., have all been met with identical handwringing about somehow making the war worse.
I disagree. I think the fears about escalating the war were valid, which is why Ukraine made each escalation of how far they could hit and so on. And once that didn't encounter the feared reaction, that strike was acceptable.
Considering that each escalation did not, in fact, lead to nuclear holocaust or really anything other than bluster from Moscow, I'm entirely comfortable saying that those fears were completely invalid.
The "escalate the war" rhetoric was never about western troops on the ground, it was always about offering literally anything to Ukraine that wasn't whatever the existing status quo was, revised regularly as needed since the day the invasion started.
Javelins didn't count because they were donated beforehand, but every other weapons system Ukraine been given has gotten the exact same "but we can't do this, we can't afford to let Ukraine fight back effectively because it's escalatory" rhetoric in response. The various loitering munitions, conventional tube artillery, obsolete Soviet-era aircraft, HIMARS, specific munitions used by HIMARS, air defenses(?!!), armoured vehicles, obsolete Western aircraft, etc., have all been met with identical handwringing about somehow making the war worse.
I disagree. I think the fears about escalating the war were valid, which is why Ukraine made each escalation of how far they could hit and so on. And once that didn't encounter the feared reaction, that strike was acceptable.
Considering that each escalation did not, in fact, lead to nuclear holocaust or really anything other than bluster from Moscow, I'm entirely comfortable saying that those fears were completely invalid.
Except it doesn't work that way. You can't say "I always knew it would come up 8" after you've already rolled the dice and they came up 8. And it's also not clear that slowly escalating the situation would have led to the same place as doing it quickly.
+21
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
You also don't get to constantly bray the hypothetical, "Well it could have been snake eyes so you shouldn't roll at all!"
Based on the evidence and what actually happened, I'm very comfortable saying that we should've kicked Putin in the mouth and given Ukraine everything they asked for up front instead of slow rolling it.
You also don't get to constantly bray the hypothetical, "Well it could have been snake eyes so you shouldn't roll at all!"
Based on the evidence and what actually happened, I'm very comfortable saying that we should've kicked Putin in the mouth and given Ukraine everything they asked for up front instead of slow rolling it.
Except again, you don't know that because we can't run the alternative scenario.
And even if it comes out exactly the same, information you know after the fact is useless for making decisions that have already passed. Because time only goes in one direction. Again "See, it came up 8, you should have guessed the dice would be 8" is literally useless. The information was not known when the decision had to be made. That's not how the universe works.
shryke on
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You also don't get to constantly bray the hypothetical, "Well it could have been snake eyes so you shouldn't roll at all!"
Based on the evidence and what actually happened, I'm very comfortable saying that we should've kicked Putin in the mouth and given Ukraine everything they asked for up front instead of slow rolling it.
If there's a 5% chance of MAD, you need to treat that as serious every time.
My uninformed opinion is that, while the Quislings in the US Congress are absolutely responsible for the current bad situation, that it is also probably true that the risk of Putin deciding that it really is an existential war with the West and he should fire the missiles has gone down the longer that Russian forces have been walking into a woodchipper and unable to close out the front. Throwing in everything and the kitchen sink week one would have been more plausibly “the West taking a hand in the fight,” while adding things in over the course of months gave more time for it to become plain that Russia doesn’t have what it takes to roll over Ukraine, just because Ukraine organically is too motivated and too capable to allow it. Obviously I don’t have direct evidence of this, but I would read a future history book showing that this was the analysis of NATO leadership with a total lack of surprise.
You also don't get to constantly bray the hypothetical, "Well it could have been snake eyes so you shouldn't roll at all!"
Based on the evidence and what actually happened, I'm very comfortable saying that we should've kicked Putin in the mouth and given Ukraine everything they asked for up front instead of slow rolling it.
Except again, you don't know that because we can't run the alternative scenario.
And even if it comes out exactly the same, information you know after the fact is useless for making decisions that have already passed. Because time only goes in one direction. Again "See, it came up 8, you should have guessed the dice would be 8" is literally useless. The information was not known when the decision had to be made. That's not how the universe works.
Except that - as pointed out at the time by me amongst others, the logical endpoint of that line of thought is that Putin gets to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants and we have to let him because nuuuuuuuuuukes.
The "escalation" being discussed wasn't a full scale invasion and conquest of Russia. It was countering an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign democratic nation. If that can't be opposed, then Putin can invade any non nuclear armed nation. Meaning that any nation within reach of Russia should immediately acquire nuclear weapons and announce that they can and will unilaterally use them.
Oh dear look what a state of affairs our "anti escalation" policy has brought us to!
+11
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well no, the point is we're opposing him, but on previously agreed to criteria. And then we can slowly push from there, and keep going.
The problem with that strategy is that Putin countered it with sympathetic legislators, which is a hard thing to deal with.
You also don't get to constantly bray the hypothetical, "Well it could have been snake eyes so you shouldn't roll at all!"
Based on the evidence and what actually happened, I'm very comfortable saying that we should've kicked Putin in the mouth and given Ukraine everything they asked for up front instead of slow rolling it.
Except again, you don't know that because we can't run the alternative scenario.
And even if it comes out exactly the same, information you know after the fact is useless for making decisions that have already passed. Because time only goes in one direction. Again "See, it came up 8, you should have guessed the dice would be 8" is literally useless. The information was not known when the decision had to be made. That's not how the universe works.
Except that - as pointed out at the time by me amongst others, the logical endpoint of that line of thought is that Putin gets to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants and we have to let him because nuuuuuuuuuukes.
The "escalation" being discussed wasn't a full scale invasion and conquest of Russia. It was countering an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign democratic nation. If that can't be opposed, then Putin can invade any non nuclear armed nation. Meaning that any nation within reach of Russia should immediately acquire nuclear weapons and announce that they can and will unilaterally use them.
Oh dear look what a state of affairs our "anti escalation" policy has brought us to!
Yes, that is the endpoint of these kind of tactics. That's why it's so fucking dangerous. Because you don't know at what point this becomes a threat worthy of nuclear escalation. People have been talking about the danger of this kind of thing since at least the Russo-Georgian war and how Russia is playing an insanely dangerous game with this shit.
And if you look at what current policy has gotten us, the big answer is "Not Nuclear War". Which is the biggest goal.
And yes, this is also why so many countries are looking to get under the blanket of nuclear protection (eg - decades of NATO expansion) or get nukes themselves (eg - Iran).
Posts
And Ukraine has already conducted at least 2 strikes with them in the past week
Your point is absurd and wrong, though.
Trump doesn't care about whether his enemies are foreign or domestic, he just cares that they're his enemies. He's built a large chunk of his identity around Zelensky specifically being one of those enemies, and has internalized the 'fact' that he's deep enough in all this imaginary Hunter Biden stuff that he's not going to be able to separate the two.
Add to that Trump's absolute loyalty, subservience, or both to Putin, which again is devoted enough that he instantly fired cabinet level officials for saying Russia did a thing the Russian government said it did. Trump supports the war. He's said several times that it was a brilliant move, and he's said that he would have liked the United States to fight alongside Russia to destroy Ukraine. He's browbeaten his party from nearly-unanimous opposition to the invasion to effectively supporting it, and the obstructionism he's kicked off has cost thousands of lives this year. He's stated that he'll support Russian military action against NATO members.
If Trump gets any policy-making levels of say in the matter, Ukraine ceases to exist.
Depends on which better fulfills varanyo.
Blank stare -> just the beginning of a shit-eating grin -> freeze frame -> Iron Eagle III theme plays as credits roll -> fade to ‘SLAVA UKRAINI’ title card.
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html?m=1
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1783045403794968730.html
I don't know how to think about ANZAC day, so I donated $1,000 AUD to YOUkraine who amongst other projects buy and donate vehicles in Europe to the Ukrainian military on the basis of this vouch by the Operations Room Youtube channel (see bottom).
Happily, the Australian Government is also shipping munitions and other support to the Ukrainian military as well, so my tax dollars are at work - Australia’s Provision of Military Assistance to Ukraine.
Last I checked, the EU has actually provided more actual dollar-value financial aid than the U.S, just significantly less actual "things that go boom" aid. Which shouldn't be surprising when the U.S has literally the world's largest stockpile of things that go boom.
Turns out that the widely mocked russian "turtle tank" is effective for the tactical situation it's in. With the terrain unsuited for deploying mechanized units from the Ukrainian side and a (speculated) lack of ATGMs, the extensive roof on the turtle tank (in combination with Russian drone jamming technology) becomes an effective protection against the two remaining Ukrainian anti-tank weapons, cluster munitions and FPV drones.
Cluster munitions detonate against the roof, which is sufficiently sturdy and has enough stand-off from the actual armor of the tank that it won't damage the tanks hull.
The drone jammer prevents low-flying precision strikes and the roof blocks what an FPV operator would do otherwise (ie, dive bomb in the FPV drone from above).
As a result Russian tanks start to return from their missions of escorting russian BMPs while they deploy infantry. BMPs lacking the armor and engine to use roofs of their own take the normal atrocious casualties, but Russians not losing their T-72 tanks every time they attack isn't great news for Krasnohorivka.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
A short summary would be that the EU has provided very much more equipment, vehicles and planes, while the US provided very much more missiles and ammunition.
Regarding the recent statment from Russia that they intend to station ballistic missiles in Karelia.
https://kyivindependent.com/source-sbu-hits-oil-refineries-military-airfield-in-russias-krasnodar-region/
1 refinery was definitely hit
The airfield was also successfully hit, this footage supposedly shows a storage facility for glide bomb kits destroyed, you can see jets in the background at the 11-12sec mark, unknown if any were damaged
Which might not seem like THAT far. But for comparison's sake, using just a random unspecific example just off the top of my head, the centre of Moscow is less than 350 miles from the Ukrainian border.
NB: On an entirely other level from the officially announced military aid, Ukraine is seething with Western (and Turkish!) defence manufacturers looking for a unique opportunity to test out their product tech. Ukraine wasn't exactly new to the whole defence industry thing, but they're a relatively small, undercapitalised economy and the level of technological advancement has been remarkable: they're getting a lot of support here.
On the subject of officially announced support, Silicon Bites talks about the recently announced aid with Anders Puck-Nielsen
https://nitter.poast.org/Tatarigami_UA/status/1784291236188160441#m
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1784291236188160441.html
Before proceeding, please like and share to aid visibility. 🧵Thread Image
2/ Ukrainian forces retreated from Ocheretyne and Solovyove. While the 115th brigade was blamed, the core issue is that many brigades are not in a condition to hold the enemy with disproportional advantage in personnel, artillery, vehicles, and air support along the frontline Image
3/ Our team has received reports of poor communication, coordination, and leadership. These problems are rooted in deeper systemic issues, like personnel shortages and challenges in preparing skilled officers for senior roles promptly and in holding them accountable
4/ Our assessment suggests that Russians are attempting to flank and launch a frontal assault on Chasiv Yar, similar to Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Additional Russian troops are reinforcing the area, likely aiming to take over the southern and northern sectors of Chasiv Yar. Image
5/ If Chasiv Yar falls to Russia, particularly the southern part, they could advance towards Kostyantynivka, disrupting logistics for the force south of Bakhmut. The situation could worsen if Russians move from Ocheretyne towards the road as well. Image
6/ In the Vuhledar-Donetsk area, Russians aim to cut off Kurakhove - a key logistical hub. The establishment of fire control over the road might severe logistics to Kurakhove. The loss of Kurakhove can put the entire grouping of forces in the Vuhledar area into a risky situation.
Image
7/ Russians are trying to exploit the current unfavorable situation to achieve ambitious operational goals. How did Ukraine find itself in this situation? It's the result of several factors: delayed mobilization efforts, delayed Western aid, and inadequate fortifications Image
8/ Trenches provide good protection, but with the excessive use of munition-dropping and kamikaze drones, it's crucial to have proper top cover for dugouts and trenches, along with concrete structures and drone-catching nets. It requires resources that understaffed brigades lack
9/ Can the Russians realistically achieve these objectives in 2024? According to the military theory, once defenses are breached, mechanized units can exploit the opening and move into an "operational space" - a geographical area where units can relatively freely maneuver.
10/ Overall, due to losses in vehicles and problematic frontline logistics, the Russian army is unlikely to conduct deep maneuvers into Ukrainian territory as they did during the initial invasion stage. Instead, they will likely focus on attempting to envelop Ukrainian forces
11/ The situation on the frontline is expected to stabilize with the arrival of new ammunition, weaponry, and freshly mobilized but trained recruits. However, it is unlikely that we will see stabilization anytime soon, as it takes time to arm, train, and prepare new recruits
12/ The situation should not be taken lightly, as the Russian military still has a reserve force equivalent to at least two corps, which could be deployed anywhere, including the Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts, or to reinforce existing axes of advance if weak spots are identified.
13/ It's one of the most favorable situations for Russia. Failing to capitalize on it would be an indication of their inability to achieve their goal of seizing the entire Donbas region in the foreseeable future. This, in turn, could force a reassessment of their own end goals
Its so infuriating. Without clear, strong and early support from the west, and with russia willing to just keep sending people to die, eventually Ukraine would always find itself pushed back. Horrible situation and if large amounts of territory starts falling to russians god knows what happens next.
Fuck every one of the Republicans who did this, fuck Johnson, congrats you got the bill done 6 months too late, and fuck Putin
Where are your worries about "escalation" now, assholes?
Gaaaah!
For NATO it is politically the most advantageous for most countries to give material/financial/lethal aid, but not put “boots on the ground.”
Because even with a direct intervention, with ideal conditions, the US would have taken casualties. And that would have been politically unpalatable.
Javelins didn't count because they were donated beforehand, but every other weapons system Ukraine been given has gotten the exact same "but we can't do this, we can't afford to let Ukraine fight back effectively because it's escalatory" rhetoric in response. The various loitering munitions, conventional tube artillery, obsolete Soviet-era aircraft, HIMARS, specific munitions used by HIMARS, air defenses(?!!), armoured vehicles, obsolete Western aircraft, etc., have all been met with identical handwringing about somehow making the war worse.
I disagree. I think the fears about escalating the war were valid, which is why Ukraine made each escalation of how far they could hit and so on. And once that didn't encounter the feared reaction, that strike was acceptable.
The fears are entirely people in the west who fail to understand that the war can't get further esclated than it already is - no, I completely dismiss the idea that Russia's going to bust out nukes - and thus insist that the safest thing is for Ukraine to have at least one hand tied behind its back at all times because they believe counterattacks are somehow more "aggressive" than unprovoked invasions with explicitly genocidal intent.
Considering that each escalation did not, in fact, lead to nuclear holocaust or really anything other than bluster from Moscow, I'm entirely comfortable saying that those fears were completely invalid.
Except it doesn't work that way. You can't say "I always knew it would come up 8" after you've already rolled the dice and they came up 8. And it's also not clear that slowly escalating the situation would have led to the same place as doing it quickly.
Based on the evidence and what actually happened, I'm very comfortable saying that we should've kicked Putin in the mouth and given Ukraine everything they asked for up front instead of slow rolling it.
Except again, you don't know that because we can't run the alternative scenario.
And even if it comes out exactly the same, information you know after the fact is useless for making decisions that have already passed. Because time only goes in one direction. Again "See, it came up 8, you should have guessed the dice would be 8" is literally useless. The information was not known when the decision had to be made. That's not how the universe works.
If there's a 5% chance of MAD, you need to treat that as serious every time.
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
Except that - as pointed out at the time by me amongst others, the logical endpoint of that line of thought is that Putin gets to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants and we have to let him because nuuuuuuuuuukes.
The "escalation" being discussed wasn't a full scale invasion and conquest of Russia. It was countering an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign democratic nation. If that can't be opposed, then Putin can invade any non nuclear armed nation. Meaning that any nation within reach of Russia should immediately acquire nuclear weapons and announce that they can and will unilaterally use them.
Oh dear look what a state of affairs our "anti escalation" policy has brought us to!
The problem with that strategy is that Putin countered it with sympathetic legislators, which is a hard thing to deal with.
Yes, that is the endpoint of these kind of tactics. That's why it's so fucking dangerous. Because you don't know at what point this becomes a threat worthy of nuclear escalation. People have been talking about the danger of this kind of thing since at least the Russo-Georgian war and how Russia is playing an insanely dangerous game with this shit.
And if you look at what current policy has gotten us, the big answer is "Not Nuclear War". Which is the biggest goal.
And yes, this is also why so many countries are looking to get under the blanket of nuclear protection (eg - decades of NATO expansion) or get nukes themselves (eg - Iran).