Ukraine War Thread Part 2
The following 2 users liked this post by West Coast:
More dead meat on the way, they just don’t realise it.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...28909658067002
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...28909658067002
Edited to add: It looks like the Iranian attack on Israel is putting major pressure on House speaker Johnson to advance the Israeli and Ukrainian aid bills. Let's hope so.
The following 2 users liked this post by Winemaker:
Nutty, perhaps if large parts of NATO hadn't been neglecting their treaty obligations regarding military spending for the last 50+ years - and letting the US pick up the slack - NATO wouldn't find it itself nearly so dependent on USA largeness to supply Ukraine.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
The following 9 users liked this post by tdracer:
Nutty, perhaps if large parts of NATO hadn't been neglecting their treaty obligations regarding military spending for the last 50+ years - and letting the US pick up the slack - NATO wouldn't find it itself nearly so dependent on USA largeness to supply Ukraine.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
As second, the US spending hasn't been solely NATO spending. A big portion is due other theaters eg the Pacific, SE Asia, Middle East, and other hot spots like Afghanistan (where, btw, other countries, including non-NATO countries participated and lost troops as well, taking Finland as an example).
I emphasize that the 2% club is important, but it has to be considered as a separate topic in the context of supporting Ukraine.
The US of A has the biggest arsenal in the western hemisphere, the only arsenal that matches the Russian stocks. Why that arsenal exists is not solely due to NATO, but regarding support to Ukraine, NATO membership is irrelevant and therefore NATO spending should not be used as an excuse.
The following 7 users liked this post by Beamr:
The following 7 users liked this post by Fortyodd2:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
An optimistic forecast from China…
Feng Yujun, one of the China's leading Russianists and a professor at Peking University: Russia is sure to lose in Ukraine – The Economist
Four reasons why Russian Federation will lose to Ukraine, according to Feng Yujun:
🔹 The first is the level of resistance and national unity shown by Ukrainians, which has until now been extraordinary.
🔹 The second is international support for Ukraine, which, though recently falling short of the country’s expectations, remains broad.
🔹 The third factor is the nature of modern warfare, a contest that turns on a combination of industrial might and command, control, communications and intelligence systems. One reason Russia has struggled in this war is that it is yet to recover from the dramatic deindustrialisation it suffered after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
🔹 The final factor is information. When it comes to decision-making, Vladimir Putin is trapped in an information cocoon, thanks to his having been in power so long. The Russian president and his national-security team lack access to accurate intelligence. The system they operate lacks an efficient mechanism for correcting errors. Their Ukrainian counterparts are more flexible and effective.
His conclusion is as follows:
🔸 Russia will be forced to withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea.
🔸 Russia's nuclear capability is no guarantee of success. Feng Yujun gives the example of the United States, which left Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan with no less nuclear potential than the Russian Federation has today.
🔸 Kyiv has proven that Moscow is not invincible, so a ceasefire under the "Korean" scenario is ruled out.
🔸 The war is a turning-point for Russia. It has consigned Putin’s regime to broad international isolation. He has also had to deal with difficult domestic political undercurrents, from the rebellion by the mercenaries of the Wagner Group and other pockets of the military — for instance in Belgorod — to ethnic tensions in several Russian regions and the recent terrorist attack in Moscow. These show that political risk in Russia is very high. Mr Putin may recently have been re-elected, but he faces all kinds of possible black-swan events.
🔸 After the war, Ukraine will have the chance join both the EU and NATO, while Russia will lose its former Soviet republics because they see Putin's aggression there as a threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
According to Feng Yujun, the war, meanwhile, has made Europe wake up to the enormous threat that Russia’s military aggression poses to the continent’s security and the international order, bringing post-cold-war EU-Russia detente to an end. Many European countries have given up their illusions about Mr Putin’s Russia.
Source: https://archive.ph/2024.04.13-195439...pert-on-russia
![](https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1213x1620/image_3555ab47bf537de1292c307b9d1101d9b82fff49.png)
Feng Yujun, one of the China's leading Russianists and a professor at Peking University: Russia is sure to lose in Ukraine – The Economist
Four reasons why Russian Federation will lose to Ukraine, according to Feng Yujun:
🔹 The first is the level of resistance and national unity shown by Ukrainians, which has until now been extraordinary.
🔹 The second is international support for Ukraine, which, though recently falling short of the country’s expectations, remains broad.
🔹 The third factor is the nature of modern warfare, a contest that turns on a combination of industrial might and command, control, communications and intelligence systems. One reason Russia has struggled in this war is that it is yet to recover from the dramatic deindustrialisation it suffered after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
🔹 The final factor is information. When it comes to decision-making, Vladimir Putin is trapped in an information cocoon, thanks to his having been in power so long. The Russian president and his national-security team lack access to accurate intelligence. The system they operate lacks an efficient mechanism for correcting errors. Their Ukrainian counterparts are more flexible and effective.
His conclusion is as follows:
🔸 Russia will be forced to withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea.
🔸 Russia's nuclear capability is no guarantee of success. Feng Yujun gives the example of the United States, which left Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan with no less nuclear potential than the Russian Federation has today.
🔸 Kyiv has proven that Moscow is not invincible, so a ceasefire under the "Korean" scenario is ruled out.
🔸 The war is a turning-point for Russia. It has consigned Putin’s regime to broad international isolation. He has also had to deal with difficult domestic political undercurrents, from the rebellion by the mercenaries of the Wagner Group and other pockets of the military — for instance in Belgorod — to ethnic tensions in several Russian regions and the recent terrorist attack in Moscow. These show that political risk in Russia is very high. Mr Putin may recently have been re-elected, but he faces all kinds of possible black-swan events.
🔸 After the war, Ukraine will have the chance join both the EU and NATO, while Russia will lose its former Soviet republics because they see Putin's aggression there as a threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
According to Feng Yujun, the war, meanwhile, has made Europe wake up to the enormous threat that Russia’s military aggression poses to the continent’s security and the international order, bringing post-cold-war EU-Russia detente to an end. Many European countries have given up their illusions about Mr Putin’s Russia.
Source: https://archive.ph/2024.04.13-195439...pert-on-russia
![](https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1213x1620/image_3555ab47bf537de1292c307b9d1101d9b82fff49.png)
The following 4 users liked this post by ORAC:
Nutty, perhaps if large parts of NATO hadn't been neglecting their treaty obligations regarding military spending for the last 50+ years - and letting the US pick up the slack - NATO wouldn't find it itself nearly so dependent on USA largeness to supply Ukraine.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
But the general thrust of what you say is right.
With generation Z and more preferring to get their information from social media without the remotest knowledge of the source or motivation, MTG is simply a useful idiot riding on a wave of populist support propagating Trumps conspiracies. We have them too lest we forget Farrage, Galloway, Robinson etc.al.
The damage this is causing is immeasurable
Fiddling while Rome burns.
Moving back on topic, Shapps is attempting to accelerate completion of the Dragonfire laser for shipment to Ukraine. If it works, it can be a game changer for troop protecton. With no ballistic trajectory or shells to track, it could negate artillery radar to direct return fires. Taking out surveillance drones removes the primary method of tracking troop and formation movements. Not until 2027 though.
Administrator
The following 4 users liked this post by RetiredBA/BY:
Nutty, perhaps if large parts of NATO hadn't been neglecting their treaty obligations regarding military spending for the last 50+ years - and letting the US pick up the slack - NATO wouldn't find it itself nearly so dependent on USA largeness to supply Ukraine.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
No, I'm not happy about what some in the GOP are doing and I'm no fan of Trump (and MTG is an embarrassment), but Trump wasn't wrong when he said other NATO countries need to step up and meet their obligations rather than leaning on a (nearly bankrupt) USA.
The following 6 users liked this post by Video Mixdown:
Interestingly, since ~1980, the UK has basically exchanged £ for £ spending on defence, for spending on benefits.
I would advocate for the UK to spend ~4% of GDP on defence, with 1% on support for Ukraine, and make it a bipartisan public commitment until Russia withdraws from every inch of Ukrainian territory.
The following 3 users liked this post by KeyPilot:
Thanks Nutty,and S-D.....
Sorry if this comes across as a bit dumb, as I have no real understanding of American politics or Presidential power.
In the UK we often hear of US Presidential Executive Powers, does this just relate to pardoning their mates, or could they instruct the military to get the kit on planes, fly it to Poland and give it to Ukraine?
In the UK we often hear of US Presidential Executive Powers, does this just relate to pardoning their mates, or could they instruct the military to get the kit on planes, fly it to Poland and give it to Ukraine?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Has the like facility been pulled and if so why?
It’s reappeared
and then disappeared, have they put in place a like limit?
It’s reappeared
![Smilie](https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
As I read somewhere, April 1st is the only day in the year that the public question what is posted on the internet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,192 Likes
on
1,339 Posts