To me it’s still incomprehensible how timid France and Germany are in their military aid for Ukraine given the war is happening in our own backyard. European countries should be the ones with most interest in total and swift defeat of Russian army.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Vlad will fume
If you had any doubts that he’s now actively pushing Russian state propaganda:
Do you think the USA will make Israel pay for all the weapons they have been given over the years too? I should imagine not personally.
There are two possible interpretations of Zelensky's visit. One is that it will improve relations between the two nations and serve as a means for him to express his gratitude for the assistance.
The alternative, less encouraging explanation is that Zelensky is here to persuade and promote because Biden felt that the GOP Congress was likely to restrict, if not outright stop, the assistance in the coming years.
I hope it is closer to the first one. In reality, it might be a bit of both.
The alternative, less encouraging explanation is that Zelensky is here to persuade and promote because Biden felt that the GOP Congress was likely to restrict, if not outright stop, the assistance in the coming years.
I hope it is closer to the first one. In reality, it might be a bit of both.
Definitely some of both.
Absolutely. USA aren’t in the business of providing free weapons for the world. Isreal will be paying for them in some way, shape or form. As will any country they provide weapons for.
The US gives Israel billions in support each year that never gets paid back. The same will be true for Ukraine. That’s why it’s called “assistance”. The payback comes through strategic gains the weapons are used for. In the case of Ukraine, it allows the US to weaken or defeat Russia without any loss of blood or treasure to the American side, and in the process also advances democracy in a key country, thereby further advancing western norms in the former Soviet sphere.
There were likely direct briefings that the US wouldn't make remotely for security reasons as well. It's certainly an attempt to further build support in the US to maintain its support as well.
After listening to several experts on podcasts, it seems like Sweden's Saab Gripen would be the ideal candidate for Ukraine. It's a more rugged aircraft that is meant to operate from highways and short, makeshift runways and rely on less specialized mechanics. Most NATO aircraft are more high maintenance and intended to operate in better conditions than the Gripen. Ukraine could certainly use the F-16s, but, if possible, it seems that a better option would be the Gripen or F-18.
Most American combat aircraft are great, but they are also designed (along with tanks and other vehicles) to operate within parameters that the US and NATO would expect to fight within. Countries like Ukraine or Taiwan can't expect to establish air dominance so they need equipment that is created with those conditions in mind. I think it would be beneficial in the long-term for NATO for countries like Sweden to continue to develop weapons with that in mind.
I caught the latter part of Zelensky's speech and was very impressed. It was forcefully pro-American and tried to intertwine the fates of Ukraine with America's. At one point, Republicans would love that he was so positive about America, but now...
I don't know, I am not an expert on this.
However, I know that the war is going on for almost a year, and we are supporting Ukraine. I don't understand why we are letting them fight without any air force. Russia is much bigger, has more soldiers, has more planes, has more of everything, and is constantly bombing Ukraine's infrastructure while Ukraine has no response and can only defend itself. If we really want Ukraine to win, and I believe we do want them to win, we have to provide them with some modern aircraft. And with some modern tanks.
I’ve wondered this too and the only thing I can think of is that, maybe, some countries are worried about it escalating into a world war and a possible nuclear war. I know the threats haven’t amounted to anything yet but is it possible it’s in the backs of the West minds? It’s all finely balanced at the moment. But the West is already supplying lots of weapons already, is there a cut off point with them ‘you can have plenty of that but none of those’. The whole thing stresses me out to be honest, the fact it could tip at any moment. And it’s all being caused by one man. It’s insane.
I know that family. I didn't know he had that in him to write those texts. Hardly relevant though, he barely has any influence at all anymore (if he had any in the first place). Nor is it the view of the average Norwegian.
Last edited:
Just a little nitpick: Ukraine has more long range artillery which is crucial for their success. Otherwise I fully agree.
The big 100k milestone reached just before war hits 10 month mark. I know, it's probably just a rough estimate, evident by rounded numbers each day, but the true number must be staggering nontheless.
2 days ago also, 3k tanks lost milestone was reached.
2 days ago also, 3k tanks lost milestone was reached.
How big is this Patriot thing? Is it going to significantly affect the situation with Russian missile strikes?
Paywalls are easy to bypass, and they're also irrelevant: the sources are anonymous, so you won't believe it. Reading the article wouldn't change anything.
It wont make a massive difference but it's another piece of the puzzel and it brings the capability of intercepting ballistic missiles like the Iskander system which the NASAMS and IRIS-T is not capable of doing.
Its very expensive ($4m per missile) and requires a 100 trained soldiers to operate it. It would probably take about six patriot systems (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zap, Lviv, and Kherson/Mykolaev) to remove the threat of Russian missiles. They are highly effective though, which when combined with Ukrainian conventional means of shooting down missiles and drones, would probably neutralize the Russian missile threat.
I have said this before. Tanks and planes would be nice in the long term. But for the short and medium terms, supplying more (a lot more) artillery systems and ammunition would be far better and more effective for the UAF on the battle field.
The worrying thing is that the NATO countries don't have or produce them enough at this moment.
It is great if you are rich and have a lot of them protecting your skies.
One or two would not make much of difference in term of overall missile defending. But the country obviously needs every single piece of equipment to make a little bit safer for them.
I think this is what is mostly needed now, Russia has adapted to the threat from gmlrs munitions by moving their supply depots further back. Longer range precision strike capabilities would stretch their supply lines even further which in turn would make their frontlines even more vulnerable.
This is fantastic work by the NY Times, they have been able to link the killings of civilians in Bucha to the 234th guards parachute regiment from Pskov and they are able to show that the killings where sanctioned by their commanding officer.
Bobo and Rapey McForehead not impressed with Zelenskyy's speech last night
He evolving into Baron Afanas right before our eyes now.
The Russian have nukes and the goal for the US is to turn this war into something similar as the Soviet Afghan war(Bleed the Russians dry over time).
As someone who listened to the Tageschau podcast for years when studying, this staggers me:
It is a highly capable system, but just one will not make a huge difference. It's not even that big of a symbolic decision as Ukraine already got several modern Western air defense systems. But it is of course helpful and shows that the US is slowly willing to increase Ukrainian capabilities