(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:So this one is a question from me. Despite the Putin cameo, is this expected to have any impact on the war? That would make absolutely no sense, those countries have basically none of the factors that would make a common currency work. The EU isn't integrated enough to make a common currency work smoothly, five countries with almost nothing in common certainly don't. poor waif fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Apr 1, 2023 |
#
¿
Apr 1, 2023 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
buglord posted:Crimea talk but slightly different: completely independent of whether or not Ukraine can/cannot/intends to take back the Crimean peninsula, how has Ukraine managed since the seizure of it in 2014? Several YouTube videos/lectures on the war that I’ve watched have placed various levels of importance in that area, from critical to less immediate, but is Ukraine somehow neutered if they were to never get that back? It's a loss of territory and population, both problematic economically. Worse than that, it is a location that is much less sustainable if disconnected from the Ukrainian mainland, which is partly why it was placed under Ukrainian administration in the first place. The Russian perspective appears to be that without the land bridge through Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Donetsk, Crimea is in a tenuous position militarily and infrastructure-wise. If Ukraine were to cede just Crimea to Russia, Russia would have lots of reasons to keep interfering with Ukraine in order to establish that land bridge to secure permanent communications with Russia. Prior to 2014, this was resolved through a formal lease of the Black Sea fleet bases. That isn't really possible anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2023 06:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This story includes some content from the leak. It's strange how Russia seems to be trying to win a long war, but also uses up all its most expensive resources for minimal short-term gains. Spetsnaz, tanks, artillery etc would be much more useful against a Ukraine that has expended all its resources on counteroffensives. It would make more sense for Russia to be on the defensive, since Ukraine clearly wants its land back. Is Russia not trying to win a long war? What's the rush?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Another interview with the gruff Ukrainian artillery guy came out recently, didn't see it posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHI0LcozVd0 They talk about (among other things) Bakhmut, what Western weapons they need, US policy regarding Ukraine, etc. Interesting Ukrainian perspective on things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/evan-gershkovich-in-court-appeal-against-wsj-reporters-detention-rejected-2xbszrxm9 Can't they take Glenn Greenwald too, just for good measure?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yeah, that was one time the leaks just repeated things we already knew for almost a year now. Back then (it was even posted about in this thread, I think) it turned out the Bundeswehr had really pushed to get the system despite peace time and sleepy German politicians doing their hardest to prevent it from happening. So when the war started, the Bundeswehr had one half-finished system in testing and the company making them was building the first production model. Not knowing anything about GBAD, couldn't they be using the IRIS-T for its radar? Might be possible to link it up to some other solution for actually firing missiles, if there are no IRIS-T missiles available.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:The unfortunate truth is that while Ukraine has been pulling off what is very close to miracle at this point, it also badly skews the expectations. There is no guarantee that the Ukrainian counteroffensive gets anything done, similarly as it is probable that since Russia will never run out of cannon fodder they will keep pushing the front inwards, no matter how slow their progress may be. I don't feel that Ukraine has to win the war with quick and decisive counteroffensives or risk a frozen conflict like Korea. In the end, I think even in a long war Ukraine has the advantage. Few Russians are willing to truly suffer so that Russia can annex Pisky or Avdiivka. Ukrainian land will always be more important to Ukrainians than to Russians. There is clearly a limit to what Russia is willing to commit to this war, since their initial push was lackluster, and the following mobilisations have been weak as well. They could spend 50% of their GDP on the war, fully mobilise their economy, mobilise millions and send them to the front to learn on the job armed with AKs and shovels. If this war was terribly important to Russia, they could go full Great Patriotic War, if they wanted to. They don't, because Russian leaders understand that there is no possibility to pretend that this war is that critical to the Russian state. It is a war started because of a miscalculation. For Russians, it's not a fight for survival. They can always go home with more or less no consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Wow 200k troops is, like, the entire active Russian military. There's the DNR and LNR too, both of which probably have taken enormous numbers of casualties. Same goes for mobilised and prisoners.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So other than the F-16 being more modern than the MIG29, would it really enhance Ukraine's performance in the upcoming counteroffensive? It would allow Ukraine to use western air-to-air missiles, which have much longer range than what they use now among other advantages. That would reduce the risk of Russian CAS. They would also be able to use more air-launched precision fires, which the west has quite a lot of.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...f0856aad1f26177 The dam might be the easiest place to put down a bridge. If they do want a bridgehead, it might be the place to do it. Would also be the place to fake trying to establish a bridgehead, so who knows!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:recently i had been thinking what a bad sign for russia that after 2 months of concentrated sustained effort they still haven't taken the entirety of bakhmut. i think it's too early to say whether this was some kind of victory for ukraine when it's not clear what their losses look like, but this continues to point to a stalemate being russia's best possible outcome from the war as long as the west can keep adequate supplies flowing. if ukraine does indeed launch an offensive and it has any level of operational success, one would think russia will be forced to reevaluate its strategy of digging in and holding out for a favorable diplomatic conclusion to the war Would a stalemate actually be better than a full withdrawal? Seems like you're just creating trouble for yourself over territory that just isn't that useful for Russia. Sure, they'll create problems in Ukraine, but those problems will apply just as much in Russia. This isn't a Transnistria or Abkhazia situation, it's a "turn your country into a global pariah in order to gain some bombed out cities with a population of traumatised pensioners who don't want to live in your country".
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Putin is going to be extremely reluctant to order a withdrawal. If he did it what would he have to show for the whole spectacle? The premise was that Nazi Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, withdrawal would mean admitting either that it was a lie or that Putin can't defend Russia. For Putin, whatever keeps him alive and in power for another year is what's best. For Russia, I don't see how any concession could be better than sanctions relief, etc. A frozen conflict wouldn't get them that, at least not for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Qtotonibudinibudet posted:can north koreans even freely leave? North Korea already leases its workers to various Russian work camps, has been going on for ages.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2023 13:54
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:Soldiers that surrender are soldiers you don’t have to fight later. It’s the easiest and best way forward for everyone involved. Russian POWs can also be exchanged for Ukrainian POWs.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 09:15
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Russia claiming they killed a Patriot. What does it mean to kill a patriot? Is it a launcher, the radar system, or all the launchers and the radar and the command module? Seems unlikely that they would get the lot in a single barrage.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:I'm assuming that this is do divert Russian troops from the frontlines? Might also be a diversion to spoil Russia's propaganda win in Bakhmut.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 13:04
|
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:What they do to occupied territories that resist them is a lot worse, so I think at the outset of the war it was a lot more reasonable for people to advocate a quick surrender and cessation of hostilities/quick russian victory. It's still a nonsensical position. Pro-russians generally want all financial and military aid to Ukraine to end yesterday, which would lead to an unconditional surrender followed by an insurgency at best. Russia has shown zero interest in negotiations. Why would they be more likely to negotiate if a complete victory is made easier by stopping all supplies to Ukraine? What is there even to negotiate about? Should Zelensky stop being a nazi and Ukraine fully demilitarise despite being surrounded on three sides by a hostile Russia, while also surrendering territory that Russia annexed without ever having held? No pro-Ukrainian is demanding an unconditional surrender by Russia, they just want Russia to leave Ukraine.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 10:15
|
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:"Sue for peace" here means being willing to give up ukrainian territory That's not what Russia is demanding though, and it's not its stated reason for starting the war. Russia's position is that it won't even start negotiations unless Ukraine gives Russia whatever it wants first. Then they can negotiate about what else Ukraine can give them. Ukraine giving Russia land just means Russia will come back later and want more land, at which point Ukraine will be weaker because it has less land and less population. It's complete nonsense. People can hold whatever opinions they like, but those opinions can also be really dumb.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 10:26
|
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:They can be wrong and dumb without being bad faith pro-russian propoganda I mean, it's a legitimate position in the same way as someone could have the opinion that the Iraq war could have been avoided if Iraq had scrapped it's WMD programs and stopped supporting Al-Qaida. It's an opinion that's based on Russian propaganda, and only makes sense if you fully believe Russian propaganda. Parroting Russian propaganda without even being paid for it just means you need to have a talk with your agent, you're getting a raw deal.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 10:37
|
|
|
MikeC posted:It is at times like these that I really dislike how the modern usage of the word fascist (among other terms) has grown so wide and nebulous that it ceases to have any real meaning and is instead used whenever a person seeks to preemptively take the moral high ground to shut down discussion on their position. Fascism is a pretty useless term these days. People will support authoritarian regimes conducting genocides, heavy use of propaganda, using nationalism to start wars, jailing/murdering members of the opposition, running concentration camps etc, as long as they don't make use of certain specific aesthetics. To me, the aesthetics of fascism is possibly the least objectionable aspect of it, but to others, it's the only thing that matters. Conscription can be a powerful tool for resisting fascism. Smaller countries can put up a plausible defense against larger neighbours using conscription, which would be difficult with an entirely professional army. Ideally, it also equalises society more, since conscription ideally hits everyone equally, whether rich or poor or black or white or whatever. In practice, that's not always the case, especially not in places like Russia, but still. Not having a dedicated warrior class means you don't need to find busywork for your warrior class, which should be good for peace. I feel like people will also be less likely to support aggressive wars if their family will be directly affected due to conscription, but I don't have any sources for that.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Is anyone able to expand upon what he means by Soviet Mindset? How is this different compared to other militaries? What people often mean is that Soviet militaries are top-down and hierarchical, where commanders provide very detailed objectives that should be followed fully by the soldiers with no deviation. NATO emphasises mission command, where soldiers are given an objective, but they have more freedom for how to make it happen.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:Genuine question for those in the thread who are currently against a ceasefire or peace while Russia has illegally occupied/annexed Ukrainian territory - what do you think Ukraine should do if the counteroffensive fails to achieve a significant result? Is there any price in casualties and infrastructure that you would consider too steep for Ukraine to pay? Listening to Ukraine is key, of course. It's their land and their culture being erased, it would be ridiculous for me to sit in safety and dictate their conditions so that Germany can have some more gas. Still, it's not like the day Russia gets all the land and NATO nonsense its little heart desires means no more deaths and suffering. Russia would have to start integrating hostile territories, which undoubtedly would mean more death and suffering. Is it better for 10000 Ukrainians to be tortured to death in school basements than for 10000 Ukrainians to die in a counteroffensive? It's not an obvious calculus to me, and it's one Ukrainians are keenly aware of, in my experience.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Ukraine should receive binding security guarantees from Western countries for this reason. How would those protect in an LNR/DNR scenario where Russia supports ostensibly local insurgents? My only solution would be making sure Ukraine has a plausible defense on its own, basically what Zelensky talked about when he said Ukraine has to turn into another Israel.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Nobody needs to be another Israel, and everybody knows what L and DNR were and are. I don’t see the problem. It could mean potentially continuous instability until Russia decides to come to its senses. NATO can't provide intelligence services or be in a constant state of article 5, and it doesn't cost much for Russia to send its yearly harvest of Girkin wannabes. I doubt NATO/whatever security guarantor would be happy to conduct a full invasion of Russia next time it decides that Odessa really wants to be part of Russia, with plausible deniability. I don't mean Israel in the sense of invading the Gaza Strip every five years, but it has the ability to defend itself against most scenarios without fully depending on how the US feels at that particular moment. edit: Finland might be a better example, actually. poor waif fucked around with this message at 08:07 on May 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 07:57
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:Genuine question here, how do you negotiate a ceasefire or peace with Russia in its current state? They've repeatedly said they're not interested in it and have repeatedly broken agreements. With the Minsk agreements as a backdrop, a ceasefire seems to be pretty meaningless. "it's not Russia bombing Kherson, it's the entirely independent country of DNR and/or Ukraine doing it to themselves" and so on. A ceasefire requires some level of trust, or some enforcement mechanism. Maybe if the UN got involved somehow?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:The only reason it worked then was because the Ukrainian military was in shambles. It was a serious wake up call that led to extensive reforms of the Ukrainian military so it wouldn't happen again. Right, but Russia can do a lot to screw with Ukraine without fully invading. Before 2014 they were regularly poisoning politicians, messing with the gas supply, funding various political movements, threatening military action, assassinations. Now, I'd suspect the gloves are off even more than then. None of those things would be covered by a security treaty with e.g. NATO. An Odessa People's Republic doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to disrupt society as long as they don't do whatever Russia wants.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 09:05
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Yeah I’m mostly talking about Boris the night shift security guard at the Russian nasa research center who gets to go home to his wife and kids every day and eat 3 meals a day. What is his incentive for volunteering into the research center’s PMC to give up his life and go to Ukraine? I mean I guess a 4x increase in salary is quite a bit but in my mind I can’t see anyone volunteering for it, so I guess I was more wondering if these were just people who were voluntold to die, and if so, why didn’t they just quit and find another job (or even the same job, after the other guy that didn’t quit dies and they still need to fill the security guard position). It's mad that someone would volunteer for a gamble where there's a 50% chance you die a horrible death, 50% chance you get $25000. There must be easier ways to get that amount of money if you're willing to do absolutely anything for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Kinda hard to keep fighting if your supply of weapons gets cut off. Which is a very real possibility if Trump or Desantis gets elected. Especially if we are in the midst of a massive recession from defaulting on the debt ceiling. Europe, countries like Pakistan, Egypt, South Korea, as well as Ukrainian producers could probably sustain the war if the will exists. It would be bad, but it wouldn't necessarily be the end of anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Lol if you think Ukraine can sustain this war with only EU weapon contributions. The EU can barely arm itself. What is that based on? European countries have issues with stockpiles, not necessarily production. Europe has quite robust production lines for things like 155mm shells, ATGM (NLAW, AT-4, Matador, Carl Gustaf are all produced primarily in Europe), SPGs, 5.56mm ammunition, etc. It is also a decent source for newly produced Soviet-style kit in e.g. Bulgaria and Romania. From what I've seen, it's more a question of will, more than anything else. Certain items (tanks and jet fighters for instance) will be harder to ramp up, but overall I think Europe has a decent production capacity for ammunition, if it wants to use it. Russia has been burning up their stockpiles, so their expenditure will necessarily go down as they have to rely on newly produced stuff. I think Europe can quite easily keep up with Russian production rates for most types of ammunition.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 09:03
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Aside from political will to throw money at the problem it also depends on practical constraints like factory setup and supply chains. A factory and supply chain set up to for economic efficiency is not necessarily able to cope with expanded production beyond peacetime rates if the production line, factory layout and storage etc is not explicitly made for spare capacity and/or rapid expansion to wartime rates. Since the Soviet union fell western Europe has in general been keen on dismantling such spare capacity as a part of the peace dividend. If the factories of Russia and its ammo suppliers has a better spare capacity in their plants than those in Europe then Europe will be even slower to ramp up production in comparison, possibly too slow, even if their output after a couple of years time will be really high. Right, but the EU alone (not counting the UK or Turkey) produces something like 20% of world arms exports. Maybe they produce one 155mm shell every five years and sell it for $30 billion, but I'd think it's more likely that there probably is substantial capacity for production. Even if Trump steps in with dictatorial powers in a year and a half, and also decides to dedicate all his political power to gutting American arms exports, Europe could sustain a whole lot. That's not counting Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Egypt, Australia and loads of other countries with arms industries and a willingness to ship arms to Ukraine in exchange for money. The EU is aiming at producing one million 155mm shells a year within 12 months, which would let Ukraine fire thousands of shells per day, indefinitely, from only the EU, without affecting stockpiles. It's not going to mean that the war is over tomorrow, but it's hardly "lol the eu can't even arm itself". poor waif fucked around with this message at 11:26 on May 25, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 10:53
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:One million shells per year sounds great and it’s obviously a huge improvement, but assuming they’re all earmarked for Ukraine it results in 2,700 rounds per day. UAF is firing something like 7,000 rounds per day, and I’m sure they’d fire more if they had them. The sheer volume of artillery ammunition required is breathtaking. Right, so the EU alone, without digging into stockpiles, will be able to supply about 40% of Ukraine's sustainment needs using only 155mm shells. Not to forget the EU is also producing 152mm, MLRS ammunition and mortar ammunition and so on. That's assuming the EU does absolutely nothing else to ramp up production in the next year and a half. Does this not contradict "lol the eu can't even arm itself" and the idea that Trump being elected will end Ukraine's ability to fight instantly?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 11:45
|
|
|
Kallikaa posted:They're digging into stocks though: This was the original comment for context: Charliegrs posted:Kinda hard to keep fighting if your supply of weapons gets cut off. Which is a very real possibility if Trump or Desantis gets elected. Especially if we are in the midst of a massive recession from defaulting on the debt ceiling. I'm talking about 12 months from now, when then plan supposedly produces 1 million shells per year. Today, both the EU and the US is providing shells from stocks. I was just saying that there are other suppliers than the US, and they would be able to sustain the war if they had the will. The EU alone planning to produce 40% of their current expenditure in 12 months is an example of that. Current expenditures are based on existing stocks, both on the Ukrainian and Russian side, so they are likely to come down once supply is limited by production. This is my hot take: Trump is unlikely to become president in the next 12 months, and once he does, he's unlikely to cut of all supplies to Ukraine from every source. Those sources could probably sustain the war, if the will to do so exists.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:I'm pretty sure you meant this, but to make it 100% clear: If Trump or Desantis cut off all aid to Ukraine as their first act as president, that won't happen 12 months from now, but 20 months from now. Yeah, in 12 months the EU is meant to be reaching their 155mm shell production target. If Trump becomes president before then, I fear we've got bigger problems.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I agree that a hypothetically isolationist president being elected in 2024 is less of a danger to Ukraine’s ability to prosecute the war than the OP you quoted. I'd love it if they made stronger commitments to produce more. Even if it costs a few billion, it's worth it to not have Putin in Lviv sending little green men everywhere. Ramping up takes time, and I'd imagine the supply chain work that is needed is quite difficult. There are needs and wants, though. What they're currently spending means that Russia can't make any real progress, and Ukraine has been able to husband its supplies so that they have enough for a counteroffensive. They clearly don't need more to credibly defend their territory. More would be great for reducing casualties and risk, and I'm all for providing more. I think reducing supply means Ukraine has to take more risk and more casualties to get the same outcome, but the outcome might not necessarily change dramatically. It's also possible it does change the outcome completely, it's hard to get a clear view of this, for me at least 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:It's interesting to me that the border raids is basically equivalent to a smash and grab with no real intent to hold ground. I guess I am skeptical of what effects such raids could have since I thought there have been similar border skirmishes the whole time? Does anything change if its just a bigger border skirmish? I guess it primarily forces Russian troops to move away from places where they're actually going to be useful in a counteroffensive. Apparently, Ukraine has been firing at those newly arrived troops with artillery from across the border, since the Russians haven't had time to set up proper entrenchments yet. It's also just yet another problem for the Russian state to deal with.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Lots of Russians with Ukrainian descent, hopefully this doesn't lead to some kind of witch hunt. From a propaganda perspective, it'd make it even harder to convince Ukrainians that living in Russia might not be so bad. They want to keep pretending Ukrainians are just confused Russians, a witch hunt wouldn't help with that.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Heck, we don't even know what 1200mm mortar stockpiles are like right now. The advantage of the 1.2 meter mortar is that you don't need very many of them to make a big impact.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:https://twitter.com/polidemitolog/status/1662044505678249984?t=qlbxHU6nkLRaPpp-Xlgd_w&s=19 It's interesting speaking to Russians in the west about this, because every single opposition politician except their favourite is controlled opposition. There's this paranoia where depending on who you speak to, Navalny, Sobchak (reasonable arguments here, maybe), Yashin, Kara-Murza, Roizman, Katz etc are all either controlled by Putin, or the person who will save Russian democracy. It's clearly an effective strategy, which seems to manage to depoliticise Russians even when they're outside of the grasp of the regime. The incessant infighting and accusations of corruption etc also means you can never build a coalition, because nobody trusts anyone. Ukrainians I've spoken to have no interest at all in cooperating with them either, and usually for quite understandable reasons. There's no sense of having a common enemy, at least not from what I've heard.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 10:23
|
|
|
HDC posted:I don’t think anybody unironically calls himself a “good russian”, if at all Kasparov and others were proposing a special visa scheme where if you could be shown to be a "good Russian"/"European Russian" (паспорт хорошего русского) you would be able to travel to the EU easier, rather than having blanket bans on Russian citizens. It required filling out a form where you'd say that Crimea was Ukraine, the war is bad, etc. Not sure that "good Russian" was what they actually wanted to call it, but it was what people were calling it when they were discussing it afterwards, at least.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Doesn't sound like a trap at all The idea was that you'd burn bridges with the Putin regime, and get advantages when travelling/fleeing out of Russia. I think. My experience is that Kasparov is kind of a doofus politically.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 15:35
|
|