OhFunny posted:

spacetoaster posted:

My friend's nephew was drafted in central Ukraine in September. He was killed 5 days later.

He was 22, and they didn't send him to get any training because he had the mandatory training as a teen years ago.

OhFunny posted:

Raskolnikov38 posted:

don’t forgot bojo upon whom 90% of this rests

Owlbear Camus posted:

Listening to the latest season of Blowback and it's to hear the CIA fuckery details of the Afghan Trap (and it's colossal human toll) and not see America up to the same old tricks as always.

VoicesCanBe posted:

It was great timing because the US' original strategy for Ukraine was basically identical to the Afghan Trap. Draw Russia in, then bog them down in a years long quagmire. All of the early weapon shipments, like javelins, are proof of this - these were weapons for a sustained insurgency, not two armies fighting artillery duels.

The strategy hinged on an almost immediate collapse of the AFU and Ukrainian government.

VoicesCanBe posted:

It was great timing because the US' original strategy for Ukraine was basically identical to the Afghan Trap. Draw Russia in, then bog them down in a years long quagmire. All of the early weapon shipments, like javelins, are proof of this - these were weapons for a sustained insurgency, not two armies fighting artillery duels.

The strategy hinged on an almost immediate collapse of the AFU and Ukrainian government.

The FT posted:

What if Russia wins?

A counterfactual view of the conflict in Ukraine

The west is toying with the idea of letting Vladimir Putin have Ukraine. Newly committed western aid to the country dropped nearly 90 per cent from a year earlier, even before the US and EU failed this month to approve more funds, calculates the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Voters, egged on by the pro-Putinist far right, are getting bored with Ukraine’s war. The west, after an 18-month hiatus, is resuming its 15-year appeasement of Putin’s aggression. “If Russia wins” is an increasingly plausible scenario. Here’s what that might look like:

1. Russia exacts terrible victor’s justice on Ukrainians. This isn’t speculation. It’s precisely what the Russians have already done in Ukraine: mass executions, castrations, rapes, torture and abductions of children. Remember Russia’s pre-invasion lists of Ukrainian public figures to be “removed”.

Guerrilla attacks by Ukrainian partisans would trigger more Russian reprisals. Millions more Ukrainians would flee west, this time permanently. Remember that the arrival of 1.3mn refugees in 2015 turbocharged Europe’s far right.

2. A free state might survive in western Ukraine, writes former British diplomat Peter Ricketts. It might even join the EU. Putin doesn’t seem very bothered about the region. But it could expect repeated Russian attacks, no matter what “treaties” were signed. Russia constantly violated the post-2014 Minsk Agreements, too. A rolling Russian advance would take territory when it could.

3. Putin would control close to a quarter of the world’s wheat exports. He has already been upgrading from gas as a weapon to food as a weapon.

4. Putin’s success would encourage countries interested in invading a neighbour: China, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and, indeed, Russia. Dara Massicot of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “Every time the Russians think that they have ‘won’ in a conflict under Putin — Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, Syria 2015 — they learn something about us . . . become overconfident in their abilities and in a few years they try bigger and bolder operations.” The likely creation of a Ukrainian army in exile running sorties from European countries would further incentivise Russian attacks on those places.

Putin has already built a war economy. His army has updated its methods by decades in less than two years. His population has shown it will tolerate even a big war. Why not keep taking bites out of neighbouring states? Putin’s cheerleader Viktor Orbán ought to reflect that Hungary borders Ukraine.

5. A discredited Nato would face its biggest test. Nato and the EU are possibly the strongest remaining multinational alliances in a nationalistic world. Putin seeks to prove they won’t hold.

If he attacked the Baltics, Nato would probably send troops. But for how long? Once a few hundred western soldiers came back dead, far-right parties would demand “peace”, meaning unenforceable peace treaties with Putin. Western countries could retreat, saying they had met their obligation under the Nato treaty’s Article 5 to fight for an ally. Nobody would want to escalate to nuclear war.

Article 5 isn’t sacrosanct. Other international agreements — from the UN’s Convention against Torture to the EU’s rules on budget deficits — are routinely breached with impunity. Russia’s army in Ukraine, Hamas and Israel’s army in Gaza have all recently violated international law on camera. In any case, two pillars of the so-called “international community” — the British government and a prospective Trump Administration — seem to be done with international treaties. Donald Trump has said (according to his former national security adviser John Bolton), “I don’t give a poo poo about Nato”, and, as president, often threatened to leave it.

Americans and western Europeans feel immune: Putin isn’t coming for them. No wonder some eastern European officials have begun musing about attacking Russia first, instead of just sitting around waiting for it to attack them. A more likely scenario: many European countries spend fortunes on defence, reintroduce conscription and invest in nukes, while also letting Putin bully them.

Ditching Ukraine would be a choice. There is an alternative. Russia has a low-tech economy about the size of Canada’s. The Europeans could help Ukraine withstand Putin even if Trump pulled out. We’d have to build up our arms industries fast, but the effort required of us would be tiny compared with Russia’s. We’d also need to replace American aid to Ukraine — €71.4bn in the war’s first 21 months, according to the Kiel Institute, or €40.8bn on an annualised basis. That’s €70 a year per European citizen of Nato. We could find that if we wanted.

Pistol_Pete posted:

A sobering, and grim reminder of the horrors that will follow from a Russian victory in Ukraine:

https://www.ft.com/content/a788b749-c94c-4d9e-99e4-47300b0c6ea8

Pistol_Pete posted:

A sobering, and grim reminder of the horrors that will follow from a Russian victory in Ukraine:

quote:

That’s €70 a year per European citizen of Nato. We could find that if we wanted.

quote:

The likely creation of a Ukrainian army in exile running sorties from European countries would further incentivise Russian attacks on those places.

Pistol_Pete posted:

A sobering, and grim reminder of the horrors that will follow from a Russian victory in Ukraine:

https://www.ft.com/content/a788b749-c94c-4d9e-99e4-47300b0c6ea8

quote:

The likely creation of a Ukrainian army in exile running sorties from European countries would further incentivise Russian attacks on those places.

No wonder some eastern European officials have begun musing about attacking Russia first, instead of just sitting around waiting for it to attack them

Cerebral Bore posted:

also the general indignant tone about how the voters are betraying the sacred duty of forever war is just funny as all hell

Raskolnikov38 posted:

don’t forgot bojo upon whom 90% of this rests

bedpan posted:

Just saw this line. lmao.

Phigs posted:

I watched a video on Brexit today and it was so loving sad to hear people talk about how they trusted that clown. I don't understand it. That's at least 2 countries now that threw themselves into the toilet because they trusted Boris Johnson.

Officer Sandvich posted:

I hope this is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GOXFqokI

CongoJack posted:

Zelenskyy comes off very anxious for someone who has been a public presenter for a long time.

quote:

Sometimes, political reporters without a background in business journalism make egregious errors in their coverage of the business exodus from Vladimir Putin’s Russia–and even fall for the strongman’s Potemkin Village-like economic façade. A recent article, entitled How Putin Turned a Western Boycott Into a Bonanza, wrongly suggested that the historic business exits of over 1,000 multinational companies from Russia have somehow been a huge win for the Russian war effort, while paradoxically suggesting that multinational firms did not really exit. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We write not as mere spectators but as some of the leaders who helped catalyze this unprecedented business exodus from Russia. (Although the New York Times article names the first author extensively and egregiously omits the prominent role played by the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) in chronicling the business exodus and continuing to encourage companies to exit today).

If the business exodus was so helpful to Putin, we would like to know why all four of us have been placed on Putin’s sanctions list, with the first author ranked #6 on that enemies list (even higher than Senator Mitch McConnell).

In addition to helping catalyze the business exodus, our research collaboration has helped counter Putin’s propaganda by showing the economic devastation wrought by his war. Russia is no longer remotely an economic power and has suppressed the minimum reporting of transparent national income statistics that is required to retain IMF membership. With industrial might below that of Chile, Putin’s Russia survives merely by seizing assets. The increasingly state-dominated economy is cannibalizing its own companies to maintain Putin’s war machine.

A MISGUIDED PREMISE

We are concerned that the authors of the NYT article may be falling for the same kind of Russian propaganda we have been so tirelessly debunking over the past two years. In fact, they back their critique by unquestioningly quoting Kremlin officials: Putin’s discredited spokesperson Dmitri Peskov, a Putin-picked Russian buyer of assets, as well as Putin himself. The last word is given to Dmitri Medvedev, the unhinged former Russian president who casually and regularly threatens to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. No wonder the Russian government is enthusiastically tweeting out the NYT article across official accounts.

In reality, the exits of over 1,000 global enterprises from Russia (out of 1,400 major global enterprises before the war) have had a crippling effect on business confidence, foreign investment, and the overall Russian economy. Even the Kremlin admits that “it prefers that companies remain in Russia,” as the article duly notes.

To support their erroneous thesis that the business retreats have paradoxically only helped Putin, the reporters focus on the costs incurred by multinational companies in leaving Russia, pointing to billions in asset write-downs and lost revenues. But this fails to capture the full picture.

The companies that exited Russia outperformed those that remained, according to our analysis of market data. As we noted last year, the increase in market capitalization of the exiting companies was more than double the value of asset write-downs–hardly surprising considering that for most companies, Russia represented no more than ~1-2% of their global revenues. Plainly put, exiting Russia was value additive, not value destructive, for global multinational companies. Looking only at the value of Russian asset write-downs ignores the financial and reputational benefits reaped across the rest of the world by the companies that exited Russia.

As further evidence that the business retreats are helping Putin, The reporters focus on how the Kremlin is mandating companies sell their Russian assets for at least a 50% markdown as supposed evidence that Russian buyers are getting “good deals”–but conveniently ignore how the valuations of Russian assets have plummeted across the board since Putin’s invasion.

In fact, the total enterprise value of leading Russian state-owned companies has plummeted even lower. For example, Gazprom’s enterprise value shrank by 75%, far in excess of the valuation markdowns incurred by most foreign companies. The Times characterizes the Russian asset divestitures of global multinationals as a “huge transfer of wealth” to Putin’s cronies, but with valuations of even Russia’s top state-owned companies down so much, the real story is one of massive, unprecedented wealth destruction as Russian assets plummet, whether they’re owned by Russians or foreigners.

It seems that to the reporters, businesses can do nothing right. In the same breath, they attack companies that have exited Russia for enabling a transfer of wealth to Putin cronies, they falsely claim “most foreign companies remain in Russia, unwilling to lose the billions they’ve invested there over decades.” The reporters note that companies leaving Russia were forced to pay $1.25 billion in taxes to fund Putin’s war effort–and ignore the 75% decline in the annual amount of taxes Putin received from foreign companies before the war as demonstrated by KSE.

The NYT article also blatantly mischaracterizes the first author’s track record by claiming that “the question of who would end up with those companies was of little concern” to the first author. That is demonstrably false. Over the last 18 months, the first author has been a strong and consistent advocate for sanctioning Russians who take over Western companies and enable Putin’s war machine, and has spent considerable time advising the U.S. Treasury Department informally on individuals of sanctions interest, alongside colleagues such as Amb. Michael McFaul’s of the McFaul-Yermak Sanctions Working Group, as well as the co-authors of this Commentary piece from the Kyiv School of Economics. Together, we have been vocal in our shared frustration that tougher sanctions enforcement is needed, with KSE continuing to track sanctions gaps and efficacy daily.
What’s really happening with Russia’s economy

The wave of nationalizations and asset seizures raised in the article reflect Putin’s weakness, not strength, as we’ve noted before. Russia is becoming a kleptocracy, with Putin cannibalizing the entire productive economy to fund his whims. The state is commandeering more of the economy to add to its cookie jar to fund the war. Business activity needs continuous investment in capital, people, technology, and ideas to sustain itself. Putin can pad his coffers in the short-term with thuggish asset seizures and nationalizations, but he is setting the Russian economy on the path to ruin. Thanks to Putin’s seizures, no multinational firm can justify returning to, or increasing investment in, Russia as long as he remains in power.

As the reporters should have noted, only Putin cronies are buying discarded Russian assets from exiting multinationals because nobody outside of Russia wants to invest a penny into the country. Even the Chinese are hardly rushing to snatch up discounted Russian assets. If Russian assets are really such a “good deal,” why is it that even Russia’s allies refuse to buy in?

Although the Russian economy is struggling by any measure, with several sectors of the economy down by at least 90%, and energy export revenues down by half, it is fair to say that the initial potential of the Russian business retreats, paired with economic sanctions, to completely cripple the Russian economy is not being fully realized at the moment, with escalatory economic measures put on the back burner in favor of fighting it out militarily on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. But to say that the Russian business retreats are somehow helping Putin is false.

Simply put, when businesses pull out of Russia, Putin loses, no ifs, ands, or buts. The transfer of defunct or imploding assets to Putin’s cronies does not enrich Russia. There are no lines of eager diners around Moscow’s former McDonalds. And even as they stumble onwards in the short term, few Russian companies have a future without Western technology. In aviation, for example, the number of aircraft failures in Russia increased by 320% this year, and domestic commercial airlines have stopped offering many routes, with the S7 airline unable to operate at least 20% of its fleet due to difficulties in servicing Airbus planes.

With U.S. funding for Ukraine potentially running out amidst our domestic political dysfunction and military setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine, this may be the most perilous moment for Ukraine since Putin’s initial assault on Kyiv.

Journalists have a responsibility to get their facts straight without parroting Vladimir Putin’s propaganda. Already, Putin has kidnapped the courageous young Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has spent the last nine months in a Russian prison. Gershkovish’s only “crime” was to document the unraveling of Russia’s economy due to sanctions and mass business exits through his field research in Russia.

Days after publishing the evidence of shuttered factories, mass talent flight, and the halt of investment in Russia, the Russian authorities arrested that brave American reporter. But Putin cannot hijack the truth–unless we let him.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice at the Yale School of Management. Tymofiy Mylovanov is the President of the Kyiv School of Economics and a former minister in the cabinet of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Nataliia Shapoval is the Vice President for Policy Research at the Kyiv School of Economics and Chair of the KSE Institute. Steven Tian is Research Director at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute.

quote:

The likely creation of a Ukrainian army in exile running sorties from European countries would further incentivise Russian attacks on those places.

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/KamepinUa/status/1737834529518411968?t=VefMfnOKV-LkM3x99_M-vg&s=19

Lol

Sucks to suck, nafo dudes

fizziester posted:

Source: Kyiv Independent

https://kyivindependent.com/germany-announces-88-5-million-euros-in-winter-aid-for-ukraine/

Germany announces 88.5 million euros in winter aid for Ukraine
by Nate Ostiller and The Kyiv Independent news desk
December 21, 2023
2:55 PM
1 min read

Germany will provide Ukraine with an additional 85.5 million euros ($94 million) in aid to help the country endure the winter and withstand Russian attacks on critical infrastructure, the Foreign Ministry announced on Dec. 21.

The funds are jointly procured from the Foreign Ministry and the Economy Ministry and will help pay for spare parts for critical energy infrastructure, repairs, and equipment, such as generators and transformers.

In addition, the funds will be directed towards the "green reconstruction" of Ukraine, helping the country replace outdated equipment with modern, sustainable energy infrastructure.

Moscow attempted during the fall and winter of 2022-2023 to destroy Ukraine's energy infrastructure, which led to frequent blackouts and a lack of heating across the country.

As Ukraine prepares for a likely repeat of the strategy, its allies have announced new winter aid packages, including air defense, energy infrastructure equipment, and other measures to help alleviate the combined impact of cold weather and Russian attacks.

The latest announcement of aid from Germany brings the country's total commitment to supporting Ukraine's energy infrastructure to 218 million euros ($240 million).

fizziester posted:

https://kyivindependent.com/umerov-ukraine-will-mobilize-ukrainian-men-living-abroad/

Umerov: Ukraine will mobilize Ukrainian men living abroad
by Nate Ostiller
December 21, 2023 11:15 AM
2 min read

Ukraine will recruit Ukrainians living abroad and may sanction those who do not show up to recruitment offices, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said in an interview with German media outlet Die Welt on Dec 21.

President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a press conference on Dec. 19 that Ukraine plans to mobilize 450,000-500,000 new soldiers. He instructed Umerov and Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi in November to formulate a new procedure for mobilizing such a significant number of people.

Zelensky also said that the plan will need to address a number of key issues before he can officially support it, including provisions for the rotation and demobilization of troops that have been fighting for almost two years.

Umerov said that Ukrainian men living abroad would first be "invited" to report to recruiting offices, but added that measures would be taken if they did not show up willingly.

"We are still discussing what will happen if they don’t come voluntarily,” Umerov said.

BBC Ukraine reported in November that as many as 650,000 Ukrainian men of military age had left the country for Europe since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.

Under martial law, it is prohibited for men aged 18-60 to leave Ukraine, barring special circumstances.

Hatebag posted:

i thought the houthis were letting all non-western ships through. not just russia. specifically they are letting chinese and east asian ships through.

Hatebag posted:

i thought the houthis were letting all non-western ships through. not just russia. specifically they are letting chinese and east asian ships through.

fizziester posted:

Source: Reuters


https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-hopes-find-ways-unblock-border-with-poland-this-week-2023-12-21/

Ukraine hopes to find ways to unblock border with Poland this week
Reuters
December 21, 2023
9:58 PM
GMT+8
Updated 9 hours ago

KYIV, Dec 21 (Reuters) - Ukraine hopes to reach agreement with the new Polish government this week to end truck blockades at the countries' border crossings, Ukraine's deputy prime minister said on Thursday.

On Monday Polish truckers resumed their blockade of one of the main crossings at the Ukrainian border, demanding that the European Union reinstate a system whereby Ukrainian companies need permits to operate in the bloc.

Polish drivers have been blocking several border crossings with Ukraine since Nov. 6, but the blockade at the major Yahodyn-Dorohusk crossing was temporarily lifted after a local mayor took action to stop it because he feared it would threaten jobs.

"We plan to come to a common position this week in Kyiv together with representatives of the Polish government," Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov was quoted as saying after he met with new Polish infrastructure minister Dariusz Klimczak in Warsaw.

Kubrakov, who is also Ukraine's minister of infrastructure, restoration and communities, said the unblocking the border was the main topic of the meeting because major crossings were completely blocked and only three trucks had left Yahodyn in the past day.

Kubrakov said government representatives of Ukraine and Poland would hold another meeting in Kyiv before the end of this week.

Polish truckers complain they are losing out to Ukrainian companies which offer cheaper prices for their services and which are transporting goods within the EU, rather than just between the bloc and Ukraine.

"We presented key figures and analytical data on freight traffic by Ukrainian and Polish carriers, which show that the problems that the protesters are talking about do not actually exist," he said.

Ukrainian transport analysts say about 3,900 trucks are on the Polish side waiting for permission to enter Ukraine.

Poland's newly appointed Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last week that the new government will try to put an end to the truck drivers' protest at the Ukrainian border quickly.

Corky Romanovsky posted:

Not sure where your confusion came from. Let's take a look at the world map: