War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

(Thread IKs: fatherboxx)

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Pook Good Mook posted:

This is the right take. Any cease fire will at minimum be conditioned on keeping their currently conquered territory and will be extremely temporary. Russia would invent a new reason to try again within 5 years.

It would buy time to build up, though, no?

# ? Apr 21, 2024 17:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 6, 2024 07:20

Ikasuhito: Sep 29, 2013; Haram as Fuck.

mawarannahr posted:

It would buy time to build up, though, no?

For russia yes. I fear that Ukraine would find alot of support dry up once they are no longer in the news and so will not benefit from a breather as much.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 17:40

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Ikasuhito posted:

For russia yes. I fear that Ukraine would find alot of support dry up once they are no longer in the news and so will not benefit from a breather as much.

It has worked before and if anything there is a lot more media coverage and a growing European military industry than there was at the period Merkel was discussing:
https://www.zeit.de/2022/51/angela-merkel-russland-fluechtlingskrise-bundeskanzler/seite-4

quote:

Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich f�r falsch. Weder brachten die L�nder die n�tigen Voraussetzungen daf�r mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt h�tte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben.
Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um st�rker zu werden, wie man heute sieht. Die Ukraine von 2014/15 ist nicht die Ukraine von heute. Wie man am Kampf um Debalzewe Anfang 2015 gesehen hat, h�tte Putin sie damals leicht �berrennen k�nnen. Und ich bezweifle sehr, dass die Nato-Staaten damals so viel h�tten tun k�nnen wie heute, um der Ukraine zu helfen.

quote:

I considered the initiation of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, which was discussed in 2008, to be wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully thought through, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and with regard to NATO and its rules of engagement. And the 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time.

It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As we saw in the battle for Debaltseve in early 2015, Putin could have easily overrun it back then. And I very much doubt that the NATO states could have done as much to help Ukraine then as they do now.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 17:45

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

That's Merkel covering her rear end. During the same period she also had Nord Stream 2 built and turned blind eyes to sanction violations. To a large extent her and Obama's actions stated that what Russia was doing was not a big deal, which helped get us where we are now.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 18:07

Zasze: Apr 29, 2009

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

Didn't the UK already give Ukraine some Storm Shadows that are specifically really really good at destroying structures already though?

A quick google shows several articles from late last year saying they were given Storm Shadows with BROACH warheads, and used them, so it seems to be true. So this speculation doesn't seem to hold up at this point.

The storm shadows supposedly had uk operators which is more specifically the line they didn�t want to cross rather than whatever escalation fig leaf they are hiding behind this week.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 18:08

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

OddObserver posted:

That's Merkel covering her rear end. During the same period she also had Nord Stream 2 built and turned blind eyes to sanction violations. To a large extent her and Obama's actions stated that what Russia was doing was not a big deal, which helped get us where we are now.

So it wouldn't buy time?

# ? Apr 21, 2024 18:26

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

jarlywarly posted:

Perhaps you'd need so many of them they didn't have enough to be sure they would really put the bridge out for long enough so they used them on other targets.

If it was a 100+ I could see and agree with that as a issue but supposedly a dozen or 2 could do that job. That is still a fair amount of missiles but shouldn't be a major issue for a country like Germany.

Zasze posted:

The storm shadows supposedly had uk operators which is more specifically the line they didn�t want to cross rather than whatever escalation fig leaf they are hiding behind this week.

Yeah there are vague rumors of this but there doesn't seem to be much of anything backing that up. If the UK really did operate the missiles for the Ukrainians then it sounds like the line has already been crossed though from a NATO perspective.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 18:45

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Mr Luxury Yacht posted:

Kind of bizarre that they'd argue the Taurus is part of the "old cold war nuclear deterrent" considering it didn't start design until half a decade after the wall fell and didn't enter service until 2006.

Originally, some French cruise missile was supposed to fullfil that role, but in the 90s, priorities shifted. It's just that the new Taurus was still supposed to fill the old role, too.

Besides, that nuclear bullshit that went through the media during rumors of a new EU-nuclear umbrella is based on hearsay, anyway.

Fact is however, that Taurus is, even without the fancier types, still very good at destroying bunkers and landing strips. Its range is at roughly 50% of a maximum-range Stormshadow and therefore less of a threat in terms of "oh no, deep strikes into Russia".

That's why Taurus and Kerch tend show up in the discussion surrounding Taurus-missiles: A weapon designed to blast apart big, fat bunkers can also easily blow up a big, fat bridge. Scholz is paralyzed with fear of how Russia would react if German missiles destroy the Kerch-bridge, is my pet theory.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 18:52

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Libluini posted:

Scholz is paralyzed with fear of how Russia would react if German missiles destroy the Kerch-bridge, is my pet theory.

Putin will get mad and say something about the evil Anglo-Saxon influences in the world. Then a bunch of trolls will invade this thread.

That's about it.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 19:05

Nervous: Jan 25, 2005; Why, hello, my little slice of pecan pie.

Deteriorata posted:

Putin will get mad and say something about the evil Anglo-Saxon influences in the world. Then a bunch of trolls will invade this thread.

That's about it.

Those are pretty big stakes imo.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 19:59

Zasze: Apr 29, 2009

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

Yeah there are vague rumors of this but there doesn't seem to be much of anything backing that up. If the UK really did operate the missiles for the Ukrainians then it sounds like the line has already been crossed though from a NATO perspective.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak

It�s from the leaked calls that Russia has been dropping from the tapped German military phones. Germany confirmed they were authentic but won�t comment on the contents.

At this point I agree though NATO is in deep enough the distinction doesn�t matter regardless of the specific member states �advisors� or whatever.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 20:15

spankmeister: Jun 15, 2008

Zasze posted:

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak

It�s from the leaked calls that Russia has been dropping from the tapped German military phones. Germany confirmed they were authentic but won�t comment on the contents.

At this point I agree though NATO is in deep enough the distinction doesn�t matter regardless of the specific member states �advisors� or whatever.

Let's qualify that statement a bit (or quantify, rather), they got one phone call, which wasn't from a"military phone" but a German military staff officer calling in from his hotel in Singapore to a WebEx meeting.

# ? Apr 21, 2024 21:53

Mr. Apollo: Nov 8, 2000

Czech intelligence seem to have footage of an AfD politician receiving money from Russian sources.

It�s paywalled, but here�s the original link as well as the full article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/21/german-politician-allegedly-took-russian-money

quote:

German politician �filmed taking Russian money�

Petr Bystron of far-Right AfD party allegedly given �20,000 from pro-Kremlin broadcaster

A German politician was filmed taking large sums of cash from a Kremlin-supporting broadcaster, Czech intelligence has claimed.

Petr Bystron, who is standing for Alternative for Germany (AfD) at European parliamentary elections in June, allegedly received �20,000 (�17,000) in cash from the manager of a Russian propaganda network while sitting in a parked car, recordings indicate.

Mr Bystron, who also sits on the Bundestag�s foreign affairs committee, has previously denied allegations of taking Russian money as a �defamation campaign�.

The Security Information Service (BIS), the Czech Republic�s domestic intelligence agency, now says Mr Bystron met with Artem Marchevsky, who allegedly managed a Kremlin-backed propaganda front called Voice of Europe, at least three times in the past six months.

It said it had filmed him receiving packets of �unidentifiable objects� twice while being driven around with Mr Marchevsky.

A Czech MP who heard the recordings said Mr Bystron can later be heard �rustling and counting cash� while sitting in a parked car in Prague. The money was allegedly intended to fund new employees in the European Parliament.

The Czech government last month took down Voice of Europe�s website and imposed a travel ban and an assets freeze on its owner, the exiled Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, after a BIS investigation concluded it was being used as a front to pay pro-Russian politicians to peddle Kremlin propaganda.

It also sanctioned Mr Marchevsky, a close associate of Mr Medvedchuk, who it described as running the day-to-day affairs of the organisation.

Mr Medvedchuk is godfather to one of Putin�s daughters. He was arrested in Ukraine soon after the Russian invasion and later exchanged for Ukrainian prisoners of war. He is currently believed to be in Russia.

Reuters said they �were not able to reach Medvedchuk or Marchevskyi for comment on the sanctions�.

BIS has said it thinks the operation handed out at least half a million euros to pro-Russian politicians across Europe. Their investigation has triggered police raids in the Czech Republic, Poland and other European countries.

The Munich Public Prosecutor�s Office has started preliminary investigations against Mr Bystron for possible bribery of elected officials.

Petr Fiala, the Czech prime minister, warned that the aim was to help pro-Russian politicians into the European Parliament.

Mr Bystron told Germany�s DPA news agency: �This is just an attempt to keep the campaign against the AfD in the media until the EU elections.�

The FBI in March questioned Maximilian Krah, the leader of AfD�s faction in the European Parliament, over suspicions of taking money from Kremlin agents, Der Spiegel reported last week. Mr Krah confirmed he had been interviewed but denied being financed by Russia.

Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, the AfD�s joint leaders, called on Czech intelligence to make their evidence accessible and said that �at the current point, the board must assume the innocence of Mr Bystron�.

The leadership had previously called on Mr Bystron to explain himself to them in private meetings.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 00:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Neat, I'd not been following this propaganda group. It's remarkable how convenient it is that so many of the Russian propaganda entities are now using anti-censorship rhetorics- it's a great signifier.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 00:46

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

quote:

Mr Bystron, who also sits on the Bundestag�s foreign affairs committee, has previously denied allegations of taking Russian money as a �defamation campaign�.

Would this committee have access to intelligence?

# ? Apr 22, 2024 01:44

Budzilla: Oct 14, 2007; We can all learn from our past mistakes.

OddObserver posted:

Would this committee have access to intelligence?

Yes.

quote:

The Committee on Foreign Affairs is a committee privileged by the German constitution, as one of the four committees whose establishment each electoral term is prescribed by the Basic Law. As a classic political committee, it oversees the government’s foreign policy, above all in the run up to important decisions about foreign and security affairs. As a matter of principle, it works behind closed doors because the issues on which it deliberates are highly sensitive. For instance, its members take the lead role in deliberations on whether the German Federal Government should be allowed to deploy soldiers on missions abroad. There are 46 Members on the Committee.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 02:25

spankmeister: Jun 15, 2008

OddObserver posted:

Would this committee have access to intelligence?

Yea but it's better to give it to Der Spiegel directly because anything that gets shared with German intelligence seems to end up there anyway.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 05:46

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

I'm always astonished how absurdly cheap bribes to western politicians seem to be. Would any self-respecting Russian MP go for such a paltry sum?

# ? Apr 22, 2024 08:56

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Can't post for 8 hours!

ShadowHawk posted:

I'm always astonished how absurdly cheap bribes to western politicians seem to be. Would any self-respecting Russian MP go for such a paltry sum?

We don't know how much they have received in the past, or what kompromat Russians have on them...

# ? Apr 22, 2024 09:07

boofhead: Feb 18, 2021

I was actually thinking that 20k was quite a significant amount, western politicians and bureaucrats have been caught in corruption scandals for a fraction of that, or even just a lovely dinner and a prostitute, or even just out of spite or because it makes them feel important. Getting hitched to foreign state entities can also be part of their career path, the money in their pocket isn't as important as the support they receive in elections, networking, and so forth.

And that's in the west in a relatively high cost of living area - the further east you go, the cheaper life and institutionalised corruption become for these types.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 09:14

beer_war: Mar 10, 2005

ShadowHawk posted:

I'm always astonished how absurdly cheap bribes to western politicians seem to be. Would any self-respecting Russian MP go for such a paltry sum?

For one, this was an opposition MP, and there aren't many of those in Russia. :v:

I don't exactly know how much influence and access to intelligence a Russian MP has, but it's probably somewhat... limited.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 09:27

poor waif: Apr 8, 2007; Kaboom

ShadowHawk posted:

I'm always astonished how absurdly cheap bribes to western politicians seem to be. Would any self-respecting Russian MP go for such a paltry sum?

A Western politician who gets caught taking a bribe from a hostile government suffers no consequences, and has a bit more money. A Russian politician who gets caught taking a bribe from a hostile government will probably spend life in prison, or get shot on the street. Besides, Russian MPs don't really matter, they're just there to provide legitimacy to the regime.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 10:17

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

poor waif posted:

A Western politician who gets caught taking a bribe from a hostile government suffers no consequences, and has a bit more money. A Russian politician who gets caught taking a bribe from a hostile government will probably spend life in prison, or get shot on the street. Besides, Russian MPs don't really matter, they're just there to provide legitimacy to the regime.

I guess I meant to include domestic bribes in there too

# ? Apr 22, 2024 12:36

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

ShadowHawk posted:

I guess I meant to include domestic bribes in there too

In 2022, one Duma member was arrested for accepting ~$30 mil in bribes (probably split three ways)

quote:

According to the prosecution's version, from May 2010 to January 2014, Belousov, being an acting official, as well as Margarita Butakova, former chief accountant of JSC "First Bread-baking Plant" of Chelyabinsk, and ex-governor of the Chelyabinsk region Mikhail Yurevich and other co-conspirators in Moscow and Chelyabinsk, received a bribe from representatives of a road-building holding for general patronage in the distribution of government tenders for the maintenance, repair and construction of roads totalling 3 billion 253 million 147 thousand roubles on mutually beneficial terms.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 13:19

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Presumably not split enough ways to not get arrested?

# ? Apr 22, 2024 13:25

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

The prosecutor burst a tire on a particularly bad pothole and thought Never Again

# ? Apr 22, 2024 18:08

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Paladinus posted:

In 2022, one Duma member was arrested for accepting ~$30 mil in bribes (probably split three ways)

What happened? Did they "spend life in prison, or get shot on the street?" It would be nice if you linked a source.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 18:10

Nervous: Jan 25, 2005; Why, hello, my little slice of pecan pie.

mawarannahr posted:

What happened? Did they "spend life in prison, or get shot on the street?" It would be nice if you linked a source.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023...n-report-a82543
I'm thinking this is it. Sentenced to 10 years but on the run?

# ? Apr 22, 2024 18:17

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

mawarannahr posted:

What happened? Did they "spend life in prison, or get shot on the street?" It would be nice if you linked a source.

He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. But he left Russia and nobody saw him since. Maybe he will get shot later, who knows. Maybe he's already been shot.

https://rtvi.com/news/gosduma-dosrochno-lishila-mandatov-deputatov-vlasova-i-belousova/

E: Beaten.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 18:18

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nervous posted:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023...n-report-a82543
I'm thinking this is it. Sentenced to 10 years but on the run?

Paladinus posted:

He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. But he left Russia and nobody saw him since. Maybe he will get shot later, who knows. Maybe he's already been shot.

https://rtvi.com/news/gosduma-dosrochno-lishila-mandatov-deputatov-vlasova-i-belousova/

E: Beaten.

Interesting, thanks. Nothing yet on getting shot. Apparently his coconspirator was his mother in law :diet:

https://en.newizv.ru/news/2022-06-0...a-deputy-382947

# ? Apr 22, 2024 19:17

the heat goes wrong: Dec 31, 2005; I´m watching you...

ShadowHawk posted:

I'm always astonished how absurdly cheap bribes to western politicians seem to be. Would any self-respecting Russian MP go for such a paltry sum?

In early 2000s Jack Abramoff got busted forbribery and buying votes in congress. The biggest surprise for me wasn't the bribery, but how cheap the average congressmen vote could be. Average vote cost only around $5,000.
I remember it, because one of the members of russian parlament quipped that in russia, Duma member wouldn't even bothering answering the phone call for such a paltry amount of money.

# ? Apr 22, 2024 19:18

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

How long will this aid package last? I know in 55 Billion sounds like a lot but how much is that exactly to fund a whole conflict?

# ? Apr 23, 2024 05:11

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

Quite a bit, for reference Russia's military budget in 2023 was $103 billion, give or take some corruption. The US isn't the sole source of aid and Ukraine spent $64.8 billion directly (some of which was from financial aid from abroad, caveat). 55 billion is basically enough to cover half of the war for the year.

# ? Apr 23, 2024 05:13

GhostofJohnMuir: Aug 14, 2014; anime is not good

Gucci Loafers posted:

How long will this aid package last? I know in 55 Billion sounds like a lot but how much is that exactly to fund a whole conflict?

this state department webpage, dated march 12 of this year, lists $44 billion to date

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-...ne%20in%202014.

that covered approximately the following

quote:

One Patriot air defense battery and munitions;
12 National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and munitions;
HAWK air defense systems and munitions;
AIM-7, RIM-7, and AIM-9M missiles for air defense;
More than 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles;
Avenger air defense systems;
VAMPIRE counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (c-UAS) and munitions;
c-UAS gun trucks and ammunition;
mobile c-UAS laser-guided rocket systems;
Other c-UAS equipment;
Anti-aircraft guns and ammunition;
Air defense systems components;
Equipment to integrate Western launchers, missiles, and radars with Ukraine�s systems;
Equipment to support and sustain Ukraine�s existing air defense capabilities;
Equipment to protect critical national infrastructure; and
21 air surveillance radars.
Fires

39 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition;
Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb launchers and guided rockets;
198 155mm Howitzers and more than 2,000,000 155mm artillery rounds;
More than 7,000 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds;
More than 40,000 155mm rounds of Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems;
72 105mm Howitzers and more than 800,000 105mm artillery rounds;
10,000 203mm artillery rounds;
More than 200,000 152mm artillery rounds;
Approximately 40,000 130mm artillery rounds;
40,000 122mm artillery rounds;
60,000 122mm GRAD rockets;
47 120mm mortar systems;
10 82mm mortar systems;
112 81mm mortar systems;
58 60mm mortar systems;
More than 400,000 mortar rounds;
More than 70 counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars; and
20 multi-mission radars;
Ground Maneuver

31 Abrams tanks;
45 T-72B tanks;
186 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles;
Four Bradley Fire Support Team vehicles;
189 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers;
300 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;
250 M1117 Armored Security Vehicles;
More than 500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs);
More than 2,000 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
More than 200 light tactical vehicles;
300 armored medical treatment vehicles;
80 trucks and 124 trailers to transport heavy equipment;
More than 800 tactical vehicles to tow and haul equipment;
131 tactical vehicles to recover equipment;
10 command post vehicles;
30 ammunition support vehicles;
18 armored bridging systems;
Eight logistics support vehicles and equipment;
239 fuel tankers and 105 fuel trailers;
58 water trailers;
Six armored utility trucks;
125mm, 120mm, and 105mm tank ammunition;
More than 1,800,000 rounds of 25mm ammunition; and
Mine clearing equipment.
Aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems

20 Mi-17 helicopters;
Switchblade Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS);
Phoenix Ghost UAS;
CyberLux K8 UAS;
Altius-600 UAS;
Jump-20 UAS;
Hornet UAS
Puma UAS;
Scan Eagle UAS;
Penguin UAS;
Two radars for UAS;
High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs);
Precision aerial munitions;
More than 6,000 Zuni aircraft rockets;
More than 20,000 Hydra-70 aircraft rockets; and
Munitions for UAS.
Anti-armor and Small Arms

More than 10,000 Javelin anti-armor systems;
More than 90,000 other anti-armor systems and munitions;
More than 9,000 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
More than 35,000 grenade launchers and small arms;
More than 400,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition and grenades;
Laser-guided rocket systems and munitions;
Rocket launchers and ammunition; and
Anti-tank mines.
Maritime

Two Harpoon coastal defense systems and anti-ship missiles;
62 coastal and riverine patrol boats;
Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels; and
Port and harbor security equipment.
Other capabilities

M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment for obstacle clearing;
Obstacle emplacement equipment;
Counter air defense capability;
More than 100,000 sets of body armor and helmets;
Tactical secure communications systems and support equipment;
Four satellite communications (SATCOM) antennas;
SATCOM terminals and services;
Electronic warfare (EW) and counter-EW equipment;
Commercial satellite imagery services;
Night vision devices, surveillance and thermal imagery systems, optics, and rangefinders;
Explosive ordnance disposal equipment and protective gear;
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment;
Medical supplies, including first aid kits, bandages, monitors, and other equipment;
Field equipment, cold weather gear, generators, and spare parts; and
Support for training, maintenance, and sustainment activities.

so this is more aid than supplied to date, which is not insubstantial, but also for the last year has not seemed like enough for ukraine to confidently take the offensive. between russia's continued war industry mobilization, and the general funkiness of government accounting, i'm not entirely confident that a dollar of aid now will be equivalent to a dollar of aid in 2022

to my naive perspective, it seems like enough to continue a static war for at least another year if not more, but not enough for it to likely see ukraine through the rest of the war.

# ? Apr 23, 2024 05:47

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

the heat goes wrong posted:

In early 2000s Jack Abramoff got busted forbribery and buying votes in congress. The biggest surprise for me wasn't the bribery, but how cheap the average congressmen vote could be. Average vote cost only around $5,000.
I remember it, because one of the members of russian parlament quipped that in russia, Duma member wouldn't even bothering answering the phone call for such a paltry amount of money.

yeah it really is ridiculous.
MdB ~~salary~~ compensation is more than enough to live a worry free life. i don't understand why you'd lift a finger for a bribe less than like a full year's pay.

# ? Apr 23, 2024 08:10

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

31 Abrams tanks;

Wait, have we been sending them Abrams already?

# ? Apr 23, 2024 08:28

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

In terms of Russian ceasefire offers, Foreign Affairs had an article on the April 2022 talks last week. I don't agree with a lot of the analysis but the factual elements it presents are interesting.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine

quote:

There, they appeared to have achieved a breakthrough. After the meeting, the sides announced they had agreed to a joint communiqué. The terms were broadly described during the two sides’ press statements in Istanbul. But we have obtained a copy of the full text of the draft communiqué, titled “Key Provisions of the Treaty on Ukraine’s Security Guarantees.” According to participants we interviewed, the Ukrainians had largely drafted the communiqué and the Russians provisionally accepted the idea of using it as the framework for a treaty.
The treaty envisioned in the communiqué would proclaim Ukraine as a permanently neutral, nonnuclear state. Ukraine would renounce any intention to join military alliances or allow foreign military bases or troops on its soil. The communiqué listed as possible guarantors the permanent members of the UN Security Council (including Russia) along with Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Turkey.
The communiqué also said that if Ukraine came under attack and requested assistance, all guarantor states would be obliged, following consultations with Ukraine and among themselves, to provide assistance to Ukraine to restore its security. Remarkably, these obligations were spelled out with much greater precision than NATO’s Article 5: imposing a no-fly zone, supplying weapons, or directly intervening with the guarantor state’s own military force.

Although Ukraine would be permanently neutral under the proposed framework, Kyiv’s path to EU membership would be left open, and the guarantor states (including Russia) would explicitly “confirm their intention to facilitate Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.” This was nothing short of extraordinary: in 2013, Putin had put intense pressure on Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to back out of a mere association agreement with the EU. Now, Russia was agreeing to “facilitate” Ukraine’s full accession to the EU.

Although Ukraine’s interest in obtaining these security guarantees is clear, it is not obvious why Russia would agree to any of this. Just weeks earlier, Putin had attempted to seize Ukraine’s capital, oust its government, and impose a puppet regime. It seems far-fetched that he suddenly decided to accept that Ukraine—which was now more hostile to Russia than ever, thanks to Putin’s own actions—would become a member of the EU and have its independence and security guaranteed by the United States (among others). And yet the communiqué suggests that was precisely what Putin was willing to accept.

Russia agreeing to this communiqué in principle is probably why we saw some optimism from the Ukrainian side at this point. However, what Russia actually ended up offering in practice was extremely far from this (for context, April 15th was the last draft they shared):

quote:

First, whereas the communiqué and the April 12 draft made clear that guarantor states would decide independently whether to come to Kyiv’s aid in the event of an attack on Ukraine, in the April 15 draft, the Russians attempted to subvert this crucial article by insisting that such action would occur only “on the basis of a decision agreed to by all guarantor states”—giving the likely invader, Russia, a veto. According to a notation on the text, the Ukrainians rejected that amendment, insisting on the original formula, under which all the guarantors had an individual obligation to act and would not have to reach consensus before doing so.

Russia getting a veto over any international assistance made that clause completely meaningless. And in exchange for that worthless guarantee, Ukraine was to dismantle the majority of its armed forces:

quote:

As of April 15, the two sides remained quite far apart on the matter. The Ukrainians wanted a peacetime army of 250,000 people; the Russians insisted on a maximum of 85,000, considerably smaller than the standing army Ukraine had before the invasion in 2022. The Ukrainians wanted 800 tanks; the Russians would allow only 342. The difference between the range of missiles was even starker: 280 kilometers, or about 174 miles, (the Ukrainian position), and a mere 40 kilometers, or about 25 miles, (the Russian position).

In my view, no other concessions the Russians made on paper are in any way relevant - the key point is that Ukraine would've signed away most of its army in exchange for a guarantee not worth the paper it was printed on. This wouldn't have just led to Russia waiting a few years to re-arm and try again, they would just attack Kyiv and be all but guaranteed to take it the second Ukraine had finished disposing of its weapons. It's completely ludicrous to suggest these talks imply Russia was negotiating in good faith, or that taking this deal would've resulted in a good outcome for Ukraine rather than the war resuming a few months later with them at a critical disadvantage.

# ? Apr 23, 2024 08:29

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Volmarias posted:

Wait, have we been sending them Abrams already?

Some gimped export models, yes

# ? Apr 23, 2024 08:44

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Even the individual guarantees in the first draft are an absolutely ridiculous idea. Not a single nation in that list would have ever, under any circumstances accepted such an obligation. It basically means going to full scale war with Russia to defend Ukraine.

No democratic country could sell this to their electorate and China has no plausible way to defend Ukraine from across the world, even if they were willing to do it.

# ? Apr 23, 2024 09:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 6, 2024 07:20

CeeJee: Dec 4, 2001; Oven Wrangler

GABA ghoul posted:

Even the individual guarantees in the first draft are an absolutely ridiculous idea. Not a single nation in that list would have ever, under any circumstances accepted such an obligation. It basically means going to full scale war with Russia to defend Ukraine.

No democratic country could sell this to their electorate and China has no plausible way to defend Ukraine from across the world, even if they were willing to do it.

This is from Samuel Charap who has been pushing negitiations over arms for a long time like his "The West's Weapons Won't Make Any Difference To Ukraine" article from just before the war.

March 2022 Ukraine was also in a much weaker position and willing to accept a bad deal over being conquered which was still seen as a possibility.

edit: comparing NATO Article 5 to any agreement here is also nonsense, the consequences of that not being followed are the end of the alliance while not responding to a Ukraine security guarantee has no consequences except for Ukraine. Stating it's even better because of the text is incredibly misleading.

CeeJee fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Apr 23, 2024

# ? Apr 23, 2024 09:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

«‹›466 »