cinci zoo sniper posted:

https://www.ft.com/content/49233164-d28b-4d7d-868c-88e642e28e0b As speculated earlier, Germany is now putting everyone on blast for screaming about tanks. Pistorius talks a bit in the article about other countries sending tanks, and while not all of them are mentioned, the total by the article is like 17 2A6 (14 DE + 3 PT) and 30 2A4. Massive shade there at the readiness of Polish Leopards, though Poland disputes that and seems to be trying to convince Spain to send 2A4s (hopefully not to batch the refurb procurement request). Overall, German plan was to try sending 2 battalions (still idk which battalion this should be, but apparently NATO battalion) of tanks at once to Ukraine, and it's smelling increasingly dead now.

Antigravitas posted:

The USA is deliberately subdued in its messaging and playing its role as a nuclear-armed state. It is completely normal and expected that it would not make a big deal out of it.

buglord posted:

Something this thread talks about from time to time (as well as Perun) is about escalation and boiling the metaphorical frog, like how NATO et al just couldn’t send dozens of tanks off the bat because it might make Russia jittery and how Russia has all these red lines.

How does gently turning up the heat work with Russia (or I guess any nuclear adversary) when it comes to proxy wars? Do you experts in charge of these kind of things take time to figure out which red lines are bluster, which ones might provoke, etc? On one hand it seems like Russia has a lot of boundaries they never really acted on when crossed, but were those actual “trigger points” at one time early on that had to be avoided or what?

I figure this sort of thing has existed since forever and there’s a lot of good examples of countries defeating an adversary after slowly boiling the frog, vs counties that played too quickly and got squished for it? The whole thing is pretty interesting to me and I’d like to learn more about diplomacy psychology, preferably in YouTube form so I could listen.

Boris Galerkin posted:

Why does the average American care about this when everything costs more, everyone* is earning less, and everything life in general sucks?

*of course rich people get richer

E: like it or not but people do see these unlimited billion dollar aid packages to Ukraine and start to wonder what the gently caress their government is doing for them, misguided or not.

buglord posted:

Something this thread talks about from time to time (as well as Perun) is about escalation and boiling the metaphorical frog, like how NATO et al just couldn’t send dozens of tanks off the bat because it might make Russia jittery and how Russia has all these red lines.

Nelson Mandingo posted:

The conversation I'd rather my fellow american citizens have is along the lines of "The so-called second army of the world is explicitly and clearly a grand canyon behind us in technology, tactics, logistics, et al so why are we spending so much money on the military?"

Nelson Mandingo posted:

My problem with this messaging is it inherently implies money spent on Ukraine would otherwise be spent on US citizens. Which is -never- going to ever be the case without a progressive majority in basically all 3 branches of the government. That and supporting Ukraine is generally the correct thing to do, even if it aligns with elite interests. Self-determination for a country is a good thing, and Ukraine's fate under Russia's yoke is Chechnya. And who would honestly willingly choose that?

The conversation I'd rather my fellow american citizens have is along the lines of "The so-called second army of the world is explicitly and clearly a grand canyon behind us in technology, tactics, logistics, et al so why are we spending so much money on the military?"

Nelson Mandingo posted:

My problem with this messaging is it inherently implies money spent on Ukraine would otherwise be spent on US citizens. Which is -never- going to ever be the case without a progressive majority in basically all 3 branches of the government. That and supporting Ukraine is generally the correct thing to do, even if it aligns with elite interests. Self-determination for a country is a good thing, and Ukraine's fate under Russia's yoke is Chechnya. And who would honestly willingly choose that?

The conversation I'd rather my fellow american citizens have is along the lines of "The so-called second army of the world is explicitly and clearly a grand canyon behind us in technology, tactics, logistics, et al so why are we spending so much money on the military?"

Nelson Mandingo posted:

My problem with this messaging is it inherently implies money spent on Ukraine would otherwise be spent on US citizens. Which is -never- going to ever be the case without a progressive majority in basically all 3 branches of the government.

Boris Galerkin posted:

My last post on this topic cause I don’t wanna eat a probe, but when I said the bit about being misguided I was alluding to that same fact that the money spent on Ukraine would have never been spent on the US people. I know this and you know this, but most people don’t know this. Even among my friends who work in the defense industry and are thus 100% benefiting from this spending are starting to wonder what’s up with all this money being shipped offshore? My friends are generally progressive engineers that are well paid so the current economic situation isn’t really hurting them. Nonetheless, they (my friends) have less well off friends and family they interact with on the daily who are being negatively affected and harmed, and their (my friends friends) situation sure as hell isn’t getting better with more money being shipped to Ukraine. It being the right thing to do doesn’t put food on the table.

mrfart posted:

Yeah, it always reminds me of the brexit bus in the uk in the run up to the vote. The leave camp kept screaming that they could use the money they gave to Europe for the NHS instead. Which, of course, turned out to be a massive lie.
Unfortunately, it worked on a lot of people.

Moon Slayer posted:

I wish the administration would lean into this messaging a bit more, frame our (the US, that is) support of Ukraine as a patriotic endeavor reminiscent of these kind of pictures from World War 2.

But that would require a Democrat to be good at advertising when they actually do something good.

MikeC posted:

As a former professional, what is your opinion of the odds that the Ukrainians (or anyone else) being able to shift away from attrition style warfare without air superiority and the ability for aircraft to support Ukrainian attacks? Last month Reuters had an article citing Pentagon officials trying to get the Ukrainians to stop attrition style fights like Bakhmut and to try and husband resources for counter offensives with a specific focus on trying to 'match Russia shell for shell' which was unsustainable for stockpiles.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-officials-advise-ukraine-wait-offensive-official-says-2023-01-20/

I am wondering what this shift looks like when the Ukrainians have to fight without the typical air dominance US forces typically expect in battle given that the Ukrainians don't have the aircraft and even if they do, the Russian air defense network appears to remain dominate.

Like if we plopped a US division down in Ukraine right now and asked to fight, how much would no air support hamper your ability to fight an offensive on a theoretical level?

Ynglaur posted:

The other big enabler would be night vision. Soviet-era tanks largely have passive night vision nights; American tanks have thermal sights. The latter is significantly better in terms of target acquisition, both in speed and in distance. The US Army also practices extensively at night-time operations. I'd estimate at least half of the gunnery and maneuver exercises I participated in were at night. Think about that for a moment.

Icon Of Sin posted:

I came from the infantry side of things, but the attitude still seems to hold: if you can’t do fire/maneuver with live rounds at night/low-vis conditions, you’re way the gently caress behind as even a basic platoon leader. There’s an expensive logistical tail to putting a set of basic night vision optics on every soldier’s helmet, but there’s a very good reason it’s been pursued by nearly everybody since the first ones were introduced.

Nenonen posted:

EasilyConfused posted:

Anyone know why some of them are all tan and some have a black chassis and a tan turret?

Ynglaur posted:

You actually call out a good point: that ability to fight at night / in smoke / both is trained from squad level all the way through brigade. And it's just not the maneuver elements. Supply convoys? Do it at night. Rebuild a power pack? Do it at night. Also cover all of your lights. Ammo resupply? Yep, better do that in the dark too. Turn off that loving flashlight, do you want them to see you?

All that said, the other thing I would expect would be a much higher rate of casualties than the US has become accustomed to. Being inside of an armored vehicle is usually better than not being in one in terms of survivability, but 152mm HE will still ruin your day if it's close enough, and Russia has plenty of good anti-armor missile systems.

Boris Galerkin posted:

Why does the average American care about this when everything costs more, everyone* is earning less, and everything life in general sucks?

*of course rich people get richer

E: like it or not but people do see these unlimited billion dollar aid packages to Ukraine and start to wonder what the gently caress their government is doing for them, misguided or not.

Charlz Guybon posted:

I wonder how much could realistically be sent Ukraine's way for this?

https://mobile.twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1625542830566301697

Boris Galerkin posted:

My last post on this topic cause I don’t wanna eat a probe, but when I said the bit about being misguided I was alluding to that same fact that the money spent on Ukraine would have never been spent on the US people. I know this and you know this, but most people don’t know this. Even among my friends who work in the defense industry and are thus 100% benefiting from this spending are starting to wonder what’s up with all this money being shipped offshore? My friends are generally progressive engineers that are well paid so the current economic situation isn’t really hurting them. Nonetheless, they (my friends) have less well off friends and family they interact with on the daily who are being negatively affected and harmed, and their (my friends friends) situation sure as hell isn’t getting better with more money being shipped to Ukraine. It being the right thing to do doesn’t put food on the table.

Ynglaur posted:

MikeC posted:

Thank you. Sobering but educational. My optimism level for the Ukrainians is kinda getting eroded. I always understood Russia to have the capability of sustaining attrition much better than the Ukrainians (especially if Western flow of arms slows) but I never thought Putin or the Russian state would have the appetite for a multiyear conflict on this level. I thought they would dig in after Kherson and declare 'victory' of a sort for public consumption and fall back to land gained and refreeze the conflict. Seeing the Russians gear up for mobilization round 2 along with another sustained attack up and down the line made me wonder how much work the Ukrainians would actually need to put in to change their approach to this fight. 4 or 5 more Bakhmuts doesn't seem sustainable for them. They guard their casualty numbers but it is clear Territorial brigades are being rotated through at a rapid pace and they had to recently commit regulars back into the fight to stabilize the area.

quote:

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LLOYD J. AUSTIN III: Well, thanks, Patrick.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. We've just concluded our ninth meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. I'd like to thank Ukrainian Minister of Defense Reznikov and his team for once again joining us today.

Now, next week, the world will mark a grim milestone. It will have been a year since Russia invaded its peaceful neighbor, Ukraine, and our hearts are with the families of all the Ukrainian soldiers killed and wounded fighting to defend their country, their sovereignty and their fellow citizens. And we mourn alongside Ukrainian civilians who have lost children and parents and loved ones as Russia has deliberately attacked civilian targets.

Russia has inflicted a year of tragedy and terror on Ukraine, but the people of Ukraine have inspired the world. We deeply admire the resilience of the Ukrainian people and their determination to defend their territory, their sovereignty and their freedom.

And nations of goodwill have rallied together to reject Putin's vision of a world of chaos where tyrants can trample borders and conquer their peaceful neighbors and break the rules of war. And that's what this Contact Group represents. Together, we have made clear that we will support Ukraine's self-defense for the long haul, and we will move out with the urgency that the moment demands.

Earlier this month, the United States announced another round of security assistance for Ukraine. The presidential drawdown announcement included more ammunition for HIMARS. It included 190 heavy machine guns to counter unmanned aerial systems from Russia or Iran, 181 MRAP vehicles and more than 2,000 anti-tank munitions and other key capabilities. We also added $1.75 billion in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds for critical air defense capabilities, including counter-UAS systems and more.

And at today's Contact Group, we joined again with our valued allies and partners to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs, when it needs it, and we continue to work together to provide Ukraine with full combat-critical capabilities, and not just equipment. And that's why we discussed synchronizing our donations into an integrated training plan, and you can see the importance of our coordination and our common efforts to meet Ukraine's needs for armor.

Among the members of this Contact Group, we have given Ukraine's defenders more than eight combat brigades. This includes major contributions from the United States of Strykers and Bradleys and Abrams tanks. It includes the U.K.'s donation of Challenger tanks and the contribution of Senator Armored Personnel Carriers that Canada announced last month. It also includes the refurbished T-72 tanks that the United States, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic are in the process of delivering, as well as Poland's latest donation of T-72s, and it includes the important steps from Germany, Poland, Canada, Portugal, Spain, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands on Leopard battle tanks.

Now, we also heard today about significant new air defense donations. That includes Italy and France, which jointly announced that they will provide Ukraine with the SAMP/T air defense system, and France also announced that it will work with Australia to ramp up 155 millimeter ammunition production to support Ukraine.

And finally, let me also thank Norway, which just announced that it will provide 7.5 billion euros in military and civilian assistance to Ukraine over the coming five years. Now, that's a very significant commitment.

Now, all of these capabilities will continue to be important for Ukraine's success on the battlefield, but as I said last month in Ramstein, this isn't about one single capability; it's about delivering all the capabilities that we've promised, it's about integrating all these systems together, and it's about working with the Ukrainians to help them fight for their freedom.

Now, we also had an important discussion today on our ongoing work on accountability. It's a priority for me and my Contact Group colleagues to ensure that our donations continue to be used as intended, and that we move proactively to prevent arms proliferation. And we will keep working with our Ukrainian partners to ensure that all of the equipment that we're providing continues to reach the brave troops on the front lines.

Now, a year ago, Putin assumed that Ukraine was an easy target. Putin assumed that Kiev would easily fall. And Putin assumed that the world would stand by. But the Kremlin was wrong on every count. Over the past year Ukraine's soldiers have fought valiantly for their country. Ukraine's people have shown deep courage in the face of Russian cruelty. And countries of goodwill have rallied to defend an open order of rules and rights.

Together we seek a world where disputes are resolved peacefully, where sovereignty is respected, where borders are honored and where civilians are protected. Those are the values of this contact group. We stand united in our support for Ukraine's fight for freedom. And we will stand together, united and resolute, for as long as it takes.

And with that, let me turn it over to General Milley.

GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY: Thank you, Secretary Austin, and thank you for your leadership, leading this ninth successive contact group. This is an incredible level of effort by many, many countries. And it wouldn't be happening without the leadership of Secretary Austin.

Good afternoon, everyone, and let me start by giving my condolences to the people of Turkiye and Syria, with the tragic loss of life and suffering that has occurred because of the recent earthquake.

Also suffering are the Ukrainian people. We are approaching the one-year anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, the sovereign nation of Ukraine. And I want to thank the ministers of defense and the chiefs of defense that are here today representing 54 countries that continue to participate in this group. The actions of those leaders over the last year have contributed substantially, with real effect on the battlefield. And they collectively have demonstrated unwavering commitment to the defense of Ukraine.

And a special thank you to the Ukrainian Minister of Defense Reznikov and his deputy CHOD (Chief of Defense), who continue to display exceptional leadership, and my friend General Zaluzhnyi, who is on the battlefield every day, leading his country's defense.

Ten days from now is the one-year anniversary when Russia brutally, illegally and a completely unprovoked way invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine. As the secretary just pointed out, Putin thought he could defeat Ukraine quickly, fracture the NATO alliance and act with impunity. He was wrong. Ukraine remains free. They remain independent. NATO and this coalition has never been stronger. And Russia is now a global pariah. And the world remains inspired by Ukrainian bravery and resilience.

In short, Russia has lost. They've lost strategically, operationally and tactically. And they are paying an enormous price on the battlefield.

But until Putin ends his war of choice, the international community will continue to support Ukraine with the equipment and capabilities it needs to defend itself. Through this group, we are collectively supporting Ukraine's ability to defend its territory, protect its citizens and liberate their occupied areas.

In the face of a barbaric Russian invasion, Ukrainians remain resilient. The nation of Ukraine is united for one single purpose, to expel the Russian forces from their territory and to defend themselves.

For Ukraine, this is not a war of aggression. It is a war of defense. For Russia, it is a war of aggression. The Russian military is paying tremendous costs in their war of aggression. And now they have resorted to sending conscripts and prisoners to imminent death.

In recent months the group who gather here today pledge to provide significant quantities of battlefield capabilities, tanks, air defense and munitions. Eleven countries have pledged tanks. Twenty-two have pledged infantry fighting vehicles. Sixteen pledged artillery and munitions. And nine more pledged air defense artillery.

The group is focused, focused on delivering the capabilities committed and efficiently providing the training, the spare parts, the sustainment, logistics necessary for the full employment of these systems. Training, maintaining and sustaining Ukraine remains key for Ukraine to prevail.

Throughout this war Ukraine has shown incredible resourcefulness in how they integrate varied capabilities to adapt to the changing dynamics of this battlefield. Ukrainians have combined unbreakable will with innovative tactics and empowered their leaders to liberate their own country.

Russia, on contrast, is waging a very costly war of attrition, while Ukraine is effectively leveraging their asymmetric advantages in order to defend itself. And the most important asymmetric advantage they have is courage, resilience and tactical skill.

This war is extremely dynamic. And Ukraine today is fighting while training and evolving future operations. Ukraine will integrate recent commitments of armored vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and tanks with fires to achieve the effect of synchronized ground maneuver.

While Russia has waged this war for far too long, they will not outlast the Ukrainian people nor the group of allies and partners that met today. The purpose for the United States and allies, as said by our political leadership, is very simple. It's to uphold the rules-based international order, an order that rejects the idea that big, strong, powerful nations can attack other smaller countries, that borders shall not change just by the use of aggressive military force. This is the very underlying, founding principle of the United Nations at the end of World War II.

Ukraine does not stand alone. Fifty-four countries met today to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself and the principles that guide international conduct. And those principles will be upheld. We will remain a unified coalition. We will continue to uphold the values of sovereignty and freedom. And we will continue to support Ukraine.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

STAFF: Okay, we'll go to Tara Copp, AP.

Q: Secretary Austin, you said earlier this is a crucial moment for Ukraine and that the allies need to get air defenses and munitions into Ukraine now. What are you seeing from Russia that makes this moment different?

And the NATO secretary general has already warned that Ukraine is burning through the munitions faster than a rate that the allies can supply it. Will you at some point need to ask Ukraine to do more with less?

...

SEC. AUSTIN: So in terms of where we are -- thanks, Tara. In terms of where we are in the fight, what we've seen over the last several months is a contested battlefield, we see a lot of activity in the Bakhmut area, which is where Russia is focusing most of its effort. We see Russia introducing a number of new troops to the battlefield. Many of those troops are ill-trained and ill-equipped. And so their casualty rate has been really high.

What Ukraine wants to do in the -- at the first possible moment is to establish or create momentum and establish conditions on the battlefield that continue to be in its favor. And so we expect to see them conduct an offensive sometime in the spring.

And because of that, you know, we, all the partners in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, have been working hard to ensure that they have the armored capability, the fires, the sustainment to be able to be effective in creating the effects on the battlefield that they want to create.

And so we believe that there'll be a window of opportunity for them to exercise initiative and then change -- or continue to create the right conditions on the battlefield here.

In terms of munitions, this has been a tough fight throughout. You know, we've been -- Ukraine has been at this for a year. And so they have used a lot of artillery ammunition. We're going to do everything we can, working with our international partners, to ensure that we get them as much ammunition as quickly as possible and that we'll do everything we can to sustain our efforts there as well.

We are working with the Ukrainian soldiers in various places throughout Europe to emphasize additional training on maneuver so that as they place more emphasis on maneuver and shaping the battlefield with fires and then maneuvering, there's a good chance that they'll require less artillery munitions, but that's left to be seen.

So we're going to do everything we can to make sure that they have what they need to be successful, and that's what we continue to emphasize here in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, and we think the training will pay additional dividends as well.

...

STAFF: Okay, let's go to (Dmytro ?), Ukrinform.

Q: Thank you for your (inaudible). National News Agency of Ukraine, (inaudible). To Mr. Secretary, was the question of the plane supplies -- I mean, combat jet supplies to Ukraine, was it discussed or not? And what kind of security circumstances should be created inside Ukraine to deploy new type of aircrafts of such kind? Does it mean that it's possible, after the integrated air defense system is created?

And to General Milley, if I may, what is your risk assessment for supply routes of the delivery of Western equipment and ammunition to Ukraine and how it could be made more secured? Thank you.

SEC. AUSTIN: So on the issue of aircraft, I don't have any announcements to make on aircraft today. We're going to continue to work with Ukraine to address Ukraine's most pressing needs. Again, you know, they're contemplating an offensive in the spring, and that's just weeks away. And so we have a lot to get done.

So if you think about the numbers of systems that we're bringing together -- Bradleys, Strykers, Marders, CB90s, 113s, artillery, and the list goes on and on -- it's a monumental task to bring all those systems together, get the troops trained on those platforms, to make sure we have sustainment for all of those systems and get those systems into the fight. So that's really the focus of our of our conversation today.

GEN. MILLEY: So (Dmytro ?), lines of communication in warfare, in combat are always subject to enemy attack. No different here. And the lines of communication that stretch through the western portions of Ukraine are subject to Russian attack -- attack from the air, attack from artillery, attack from Special Operations Forces, et cetera.

So the key to ensure that the supplies get through -- maintain good operational security, vary your times, don't set patterns, take different routes, and make sure you disperse your force so that you have small penny packets, as opposed to one large, massive convoy.

The security from the Polish border or any other border, Romania or anywhere, that security is a part of the security plan for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They pick the stuff up and they do that, and they practice all the good tactics, techniques and procedures that I just described. I would say it's not without risk, but it's moderate, and it's been successful so far to get through.

Q: Thank you.

STAFF: Let's go to Felicia Schwartz, Financial Times.

Q: Thank you. First, for Secretary Austin, we've heard from Western officials that Russia's Air Force is well intact, and that the Russians are preparing to launch an air campaign as its land forces are depleted. Where is Russia amassing aircraft ahead of the offensive? How soon could this begin? Has this hastened the need to provide air defense to Ukraine? And has enough assistance been provided so that Ukraine is ready to defend against it?

And then for Chairman Milley, does Russia have the right equipment to pose a threat to the Ukrainians and breakthrough in the Donbas? And separately, but relatedly, is Ukraine going to get enough equipment in enough time and have a big enough force on the ground to be able to have a serious counteroffensive?

SEC. AUSTIN: Thanks, Felicia. In terms of whether or not Russia is massing its aircraft for some massive aerial attack, we don't currently see that. We do know that Russia has a substantial number of aircraft in its inventory and a lot of capability left. That's why we've emphasized that, you know, we need to do everything that we can to get Ukraine as much air defense capability as we possibly can. And recently, you've seen us step up and offer Patriots. You've seen other countries come forward with SAMP/T and IRIS-T. But it's not enough, and we're going to keep pushing until we get more because that threat is out there. But again, many countries have stepped up to the plate thus far. Our effort currently is to get this -- these capabilities into country as quickly as we can, and then integrate those capabilities so we have -- truly have an integrated air and missile defense capability.

And I would add that Ukraine's done a credible job of intercepting a lot of the rockets and missiles that have been launched by Russia in those recent attacks. But again, we want to make sure that they have the ability to protect themselves going forward in the event that Russia tries to introduce its Air Force into this fight. They haven't done so thus far because Ukraine's air defenses have been pretty gosh darn effective, as you know.

GEN. MILLEY: So Felicia, on whether or not the Russians have the capability and equipment, et cetera to continue the attack in the Donbas -- well, they are attacking the Donbas right now. Their progress is slow. It's a war of attrition. They're taking heavy casualties. Their leadership and morale is not great, and they're struggling mightily. However, they do have numbers, and as you know, President Putin did a call-up of several hundred thousand, and those folks have been arriving on the battlefield. So they do have numbers, and whether or not they're successful in pressing the fight, that remains to be seen. But that fight has been going on, and it's a slow, grinding battle of attrition in that general area.

For the Ukrainians, I don't want to project forward what the Ukrainians may or may not do. As you know from this particular conference here, we are plussing them up with a significant amount of capabilities, with ground-maneuver artillery, et cetera. What they do with that, that'll be up to the Ukrainians in the coming weeks and months

STAFF: We have time for one more. Let's go to Marcus Price at ARD television.

...

GEN. MILLEY: And Marcus, on the issue of the Russian offensive, this -- this offensive that you see ongoing right now generally in the Bakhmut area, you know, from Kharkiv all the way down to Kherson the front line is quite stable, even though very violent and a lot of fighting. It's relatively stable. Most of the dynamic movement back and forth is in -- generally in the vicinity of Bakhmut. The Ukrainians are holding. They're fighting the defense. The Russians, primarily the Wagner Group are attacking, but there's a -- what -- what I would describe it as is a very significant grinding battle of attrition with very high casualties, especially on the Russian side. There’s no fancy arts of maneuver going on here. This is frontal attacks, wave attacks, lots of artillery with extremely high levels of casualties in that particular area.

And how long that will last is difficult to say, actually. It's been going on for weeks, and I think it'll continue to go on until either the Russians culminate -- I don't think the Ukrainians will just collapse or fold; I think they're going to continue to fight. So that's a battle that we're paying attention to very, very closely and making sure that the Ukrainians have the capability to continue to defend.

As far as Kyiv, I'm not going to wonder what intelligence we have or don't have. I would just say that right now, there's always a potential threat. There's clearly air threats, the missile attack threats. Kyiv is the capital, and that was a significant objective early in the war. So I would never discount Russian capabilities to attack Kyiv, but right now, we're not seeing any significant indicators and warnings.

STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have available today. This concludes our press briefing.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

One big scoop from today's NATO pressers is that Russia is piling combat aircraft, both fixed wing and rotor, towards the border. That's what has been up with the recent focus on getting more air defence gear to Ukrainians, apparently, rather than the missile strikes alone. 80% of Russian combat aircraft are estimated to be in a combat-worthy shape, and western analysts speculate that they may try to run an air campaign to help the struggling land forces. https://www.ft.com/content/3fd6e91f-71e4-4c02-9360-be20a2a78763

Boris Galerkin posted:

My last post on this topic cause I don’t wanna eat a probe, but when I said the bit about being misguided I was alluding to that same fact that the money spent on Ukraine would have never been spent on the US people. I know this and you know this, but most people don’t know this. Even among my friends who work in the defense industry and are thus 100% benefiting from this spending are starting to wonder what’s up with all this money being shipped offshore? My friends are generally progressive engineers that are well paid so the current economic situation isn’t really hurting them. Nonetheless, they (my friends) have less well off friends and family they interact with on the daily who are being negatively affected and harmed, and their (my friends friends) situation sure as hell isn’t getting better with more money being shipped to Ukraine. It being the right thing to do doesn’t put food on the table.

Tomn posted:

I'm not sure how much there is in the way of frozen Russian assets but if they end up not quite matching up the costs of reconstruction (as I suspect they won't) then it will be other taxpayers who end up helping rebuild Ukraine, and I think it would be useful and worthwhile to try to build enthusiasm for winning the peace as well as the war.

Agronox posted:

Last spring the Guardian figured the Russian foreign reserves in allied custody at around 600 billion USD.

NTRabbit posted:

You mean another air campaign, after the first one resulted in smoking dots of Sukhois and Kamovs all over the Ukrainian countryside

Xerxes17 posted:

Those would be transport covers.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

One big scoop from today's NATO pressers is that Russia is piling combat aircraft, both fixed wing and rotor, towards the border. That's what has been up with the recent focus on getting more air defence gear to Ukrainians, apparently, rather than the missile strikes alone. 80% of Russian combat aircraft are estimated to be in a combat-worthy shape, and western analysts speculate that they may try to run an air campaign to help the struggling land forces. https://www.ft.com/content/3fd6e91f-71e4-4c02-9360-be20a2a78763

Nelson Mandingo posted:

My problem with this messaging is it inherently implies money spent on Ukraine would otherwise be spent on US citizens. Which is -never- going to ever be the case without a progressive majority in basically all 3 branches of the government. That and supporting Ukraine is generally the correct thing to do, even if it aligns with elite interests. Self-determination for a country is a good thing, and Ukraine's fate under Russia's yoke is Chechnya. And who would honestly willingly choose that?

The conversation I'd rather my fellow american citizens have is along the lines of "The so-called second army of the world is explicitly and clearly a grand canyon behind us in technology, tactics, logistics, et al so why are we spending so much money on the military?"

Nelson Mandingo posted:

Ukraine's fate under Russia's yoke is Chechnya. And who would honestly willingly choose that?

Kestral posted:

And the answer is, because this is all going to happen again, first in Taiwan, then somewhere else, forever, because that’s how humans are. And if everyone in the democratic world treats their military like an unwanted houseguest, then the Ukraines and Taiwans of the world will be at the mercy of their nearest aggressive neighbor.

Hannibal Rex posted:

Can't make it through the paywall from work, but Jack Watling is very much worth paying attention to.

HolHorsejob posted:

I'm surprised it's not being used to buy weapons for Ukraine. If we're gonna Appropriate it, might as well go all-in

Agronox posted:

Last spring the Guardian figured the Russian foreign reserves in allied custody at around 600 billion USD.