Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

You can never know if it's true of course, but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
To anyone who thinks China is "neutral" in this war. They would not do something like this without a direct order from Beijing.
 
Exclusive: Ukraine could get long-range missiles armed with US cluster bombs - officials
WASHINGTON, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The Biden administration is close to approving the shipment of longer-range missiles packed with cluster bombs to Ukraine, giving Kyiv the ability to cause significant damage deeper within Russian-occupied territory, according to four U.S. officials.

After seeing the success of cluster munitions delivered in 155 mm artillery rounds in recent months, the U.S. is considering shipping either or both Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that can fly up to 190 miles (306 km), or Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) missiles with a 45-mile range packed with cluster bombs, three U.S. officials said.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-ey...h-cluster-bombs-ukraine-officials-2023-09-11/
 
All three of us have conducted fieldwork in Ukraine, and we have learned via interviews that there was an extensive infiltration and support effort ahead of the invasion whose goal would have been to enable Russian airborne and special forces to quickly access the capital.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

Just for context, this is not a new pledge, but just realizing a pledge from July - Rheinmetall is busy refurbishing lots of vehicles to send them to Ukraine, currently mostly Leopard 1 MBT, so I guess these Marder will be rolled into the workshop as soon as the Leopards leave it.
 
Carolina Red said:
So the Starlink was so Ukraine could defend itself. But that can’t mean killing people. Yeah, my opinion of Elon remains unchanged.
Click to expand...

What are you on about? Starlink is a private company offering network services to the public. To quote the man "“Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.”

It's likely that utilizing the network for military purposes goes against its terms of use. If the US government wishes to supply services to Ukraine for military applications, they should do so through their own military contracts. This would guarantee compliance with the necessary military standards related to reliability, security, accuracy, latency, and other crucial factors, especially when it comes to weapon targeting. While I'm not a staunch supporter of Elon Musk, it seems somewhat unfair to place the blame on him for the inability of Washington, Pentagon, NATO, and others to deliver this kind of capability.
 
Suedesi said:
What are you on about? Starlink is a private company offering network services to the public. To quote the man "“Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.”

It's likely that utilizing the network for military purposes goes against its terms of use. If the US government wishes to supply services to Ukraine for military applications, they should do so through their own military contracts. This would guarantee compliance with the necessary military standards related to reliability, security, accuracy, latency, and other crucial factors, especially when it comes to weapon targeting. While I'm not a staunch supporter of Elon Musk, it seems somewhat unfair to place the blame on him for the inability of Washington, Pentagon, NATO, and others to deliver this kind of capability.
Click to expand...

Musk voluntarily sent tens of thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine while it was at war with Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/elo...tarlink-satellite-dishes-sent-to-ukraine.html

He then attempted to take it all back after moaning he was losing money (after the self-serving PR move of sending them there exhausted itself of course). DOD is now paying him for Starlink, which means its a defense contractor currently on contract with the US government.
 
B20 said:
Jesus. I don't know if you even realise how inhumane you sound here. What happened to your empathy, man?
Click to expand...

I am against war. My empathy lies with the civilians that are being used as cannon fodder in this proxy war.

There is a famous phone call that was leaked back in 2014, where our deputy secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, is on tape picking the new government of Ukraine, which came into effect a few weeks later after the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Yanukovych government. On that call, Nuland says she needs to get approval from Biden and Jake Sullivan as national security advisor for this new Ukrainian government that she's picking. So she basically is saying that Biden is the boss. As an aside, three months after that, Hunter Biden is appointed to the board of Burisma. Do you believe that the appointment was made for any other reason than Biden calling the shots on Ukraine?

The US has been heavily involved in Ukraine since (before) 2014 - on overthrowing Yanukovich, on picking the next government, on setting policy, on saying Ukraine should be part of NATO at the Bucharest summit in 2008 without a plan on laying out exactly how, and when, and how. What exactly did that accomplish? Putin is responsible for this war, but did our half-hazardous courting contribute to his aggression? If Russia was picking the government of Canada (Mexico), courting them to become members of the Warsaw Pact, don't you think the US might get just a bit nervous. Of course not, we'd have been totally cool - I mean we did obliterate Iraq over no WMD and no links to 9/11 after all.

And then we are constantly being misled by the media. Just a few months ago Petraeus and Ben Hodges were predicting a swift and successful Ukrainian counteroffensive, with plans to march across the Azov and cut off the Russian forces. However, the losses have been staggering, and it has turned into a disaster. The talking heads and media's enthusiastic support seems to serve the purpose of expediting appropriation bills. We've spent $115 billion on Ukraine, benefiting companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop etc while we've run out of ammunition and artillery shells* to support the effort. Washington's true interests may not align with freedom, liberty, and democracy in Ukraine; instead, it seems we are engaged in a proxy war with Russia, willing to fight until the last Ukrainian. This is a devastating conflict where innocent civilians are getting obliterated.

*How corrupt does the Pentagon have to be to receive an $880 billion annual budget, yet not provide healthcare or paid leave for service members and still run out of ammunition? What are they actually spending the money on?
 
Raoul said:
Musk voluntarily sent tens of thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine while it was at war with Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/elo...tarlink-satellite-dishes-sent-to-ukraine.html

He then attempted to take it all back after moaning he was losing money (after the self-serving PR move of sending them there exhausted itself of course). DOD is now paying him for Starlink, which means its a defense contractor currently on contract with the US government.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Starlink is now a defense contractor, but wasn't one last September when he cut off internet service.

DOD is paying Starlink as of June 2023

Musk ordered the deactivation of Starlink satellite service near the coast of Crimea last September
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Musk voluntarily sent tens of thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine while it was at war with Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/elo...tarlink-satellite-dishes-sent-to-ukraine.html

He then attempted to take it all back after moaning he was losing money (after the self-serving PR move of sending them there exhausted itself of course). DOD is now paying him for Starlink, which means its a defense contractor currently on contract with the US government.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty ridiculous take. Far from being merely a PR move, Ukraine and Nato leaders have made it very clear that the use of Starlink has been a critically important assist to them, particularly early in the war.

And the claim that Starlink is a defence contractor because they chose to help when nobody else could... Well, I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
 
Suedesi said:
Also, to follow on Biden's dirty involvement in Ukraine -


Wrong. Starlink is now a defense contractor, but wasn't one last September when he cut off internet service.

DOD is paying Starlink as of June 2023

Musk ordered the deactivation of Starlink satellite service near the coast of Crimea last September
Click to expand...

They are now because Musk inserted himself into the process and threatened to jearpordize US defense policy on Ukraine by pulling Starlink out. That's why its under contract now. He basically dangled it before the Ukrainians for a PR win (same as his dopey idea of building a kid sized submarine for the Thai kids trapped in the cave) then attempted to remove it when it didn't suit his needs any more and/or it began to anger Putin.
 
Belisarius said:
That's a pretty ridiculous take. Far from being merely a PR move, Ukraine and Nato leaders have made it very clear that the use of Starlink has been a critically important assist to them, particularly early in the war.

And the claim that Starlink is a defence contractor because they chose to help when nobody else could... Well, I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt it has benefited the Ukrainians. But Musk doesn't do anything out of altruism. He did it purely to interject himself, a private citizen, as a power broker into the international affairs of the nation, then behaved in a manner that was contradictory to US defense policy (of which he is a defense contractor on many fronts).
 
Suedesi said:
I am against war. My empathy lies with the civilians that are being used as cannon fodder in this proxy war.

There is a famous phone call that was leaked back in 2014, where our deputy secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, is on tape picking the new government of Ukraine, which came into effect a few weeks later after the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Yanukovych government. On that call, Nuland says she needs to get approval from Biden and Jake Sullivan as national security advisor for this new Ukrainian government that she's picking. So she basically is saying that Biden is the boss. As an aside, three months after that, Hunter Biden is appointed to the board of Burisma. Do you believe that the appointment was made for any other reason than Biden calling the shots on Ukraine?

The US has been heavily involved in Ukraine since (before) 2014 - on overthrowing Yanukovich, on picking the next government, on setting policy, on saying Ukraine should be part of NATO at the Bucharest summit in 2008 without a plan on laying out exactly how, and when, and how. What exactly did that accomplish? Putin is responsible for this war, but did our half-hazardous courting contribute to his aggression? If Russia was picking the government of Canada (Mexico), courting them to become members of the Warsaw Pact, don't you think the US might get just a bit nervous. Of course not, we'd have been totally cool - I mean we did obliterate Iraq over no WMD and no links to 9/11 after all.

And then we are constantly being misled by the media. Just a few months ago Petraeus and Ben Hodges were predicting a swift and successful Ukrainian counteroffensive, with plans to march across the Azov and cut off the Russian forces. However, the losses have been staggering, and it has turned into a disaster. The talking heads and media's enthusiastic support seems to serve the purpose of expediting appropriation bills. We've spent $115 billion on Ukraine, benefiting companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop etc while we've run out of ammunition and artillery shells* to support the effort. Washington's true interests may not align with freedom, liberty, and democracy in Ukraine; instead, it seems we are engaged in a proxy war with Russia, willing to fight until the last Ukrainian. This is a devastating conflict where innocent civilians are getting obliterated.

*How corrupt does the Pentagon have to be to receive an $880 billion annual budget, yet not provide healthcare or paid leave for service members and still run out of ammunition? What are they actually spending the money on?
Click to expand...

All near verbatim Russian talking points.
 
Suedesi said:
I am against war. My empathy lies with the civilians that are being used as cannon fodder in this proxy war.

There is a famous phone call that was leaked back in 2014, where our deputy secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, is on tape picking the new government of Ukraine, which came into effect a few weeks later after the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Yanukovych government. On that call, Nuland says she needs to get approval from Biden and Jake Sullivan as national security advisor for this new Ukrainian government that she's picking. So she basically is saying that Biden is the boss. As an aside, three months after that, Hunter Biden is appointed to the board of Burisma. Do you believe that the appointment was made for any other reason than Biden calling the shots on Ukraine?

The US has been heavily involved in Ukraine since (before) 2014 - on overthrowing Yanukovich, on picking the next government, on setting policy, on saying Ukraine should be part of NATO at the Bucharest summit in 2008 without a plan on laying out exactly how, and when, and how. What exactly did that accomplish? Putin is responsible for this war, but did our half-hazardous courting contribute to his aggression? If Russia was picking the government of Canada (Mexico), courting them to become members of the Warsaw Pact, don't you think the US might get just a bit nervous. Of course not, we'd have been totally cool - I mean we did obliterate Iraq over no WMD and no links to 9/11 after all.

And then we are constantly being misled by the media. Just a few months ago Petraeus and Ben Hodges were predicting a swift and successful Ukrainian counteroffensive, with plans to march across the Azov and cut off the Russian forces. However, the losses have been staggering, and it has turned into a disaster. The talking heads and media's enthusiastic support seems to serve the purpose of expediting appropriation bills. We've spent $115 billion on Ukraine, benefiting companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop etc while we've run out of ammunition and artillery shells* to support the effort. Washington's true interests may not align with freedom, liberty, and democracy in Ukraine; instead, it seems we are engaged in a proxy war with Russia, willing to fight until the last Ukrainian. This is a devastating conflict where innocent civilians are getting obliterated.

*How corrupt does the Pentagon have to be to receive an $880 billion annual budget, yet not provide healthcare or paid leave for service members and still run out of ammunition? What are they actually spending the money on?
Click to expand...

It's funny how absolutely every take supporting the proxy war, NATO expansion, Russia's hand forced etc. basically denies any agency from ukranian people, particularly in the last 10 years. Particularly weird specially considering they are -understandably- united against the invasion, supporting their president and rejecting any outcome other than a victory that secures their territories and independence from the invader. More than any other country willing to negotiate, including -of course- the US.

One would think that people supporting this kind of theories would have, I don't know, adjusted their opinions and beliefs in the last 18 months. I know I have; not that I supported this, but before the war I honestly thought the public opinion in Ukraine was more divided towards the russians and that that would eventually be their army's doom. Luckily I was wrong then.
 
Krakenzero said:
It's funny how absolutely every take supporting the proxy war, NATO expansion, Russia's hand forced etc. basically denies any agency from ukranian people, particularly in the last 10 years. Particularly weird specially considering they are -understandably- united against the invasion, supporting their president and rejecting any outcome other than a victory that secures their territories and independence from the invader. More than any other country willing to negotiate, including -of course- the US.

One would think that people supporting this kind of theories would have, I don't know, adjusted their opinions and beliefs in the last 18 months. I know I have; not that I supported this, but before the war I honestly thought the public opinion in Ukraine was more divided towards the russians and that that would eventually be their army's doom. Luckily I was wrong then.
Click to expand...

Being constantly bombed to shit by an invading army who also do lovely things like steal and brainwash your children does tend to focus the mind.
 
Suedesi said:
*How corrupt does the Pentagon have to be to receive an $880 billion annual budget, yet not provide healthcare or paid leave for service members and still run out of ammunition? What are they actually spending the money on?
Click to expand...
Just to answer this, Ukraine focuses on using artillery which is exactly what the US don't prioritize. So it is not surprising that they don't have massive stocks of this kind of ammunition.
 
Suedesi said:
But of course - every opinion that doesn't toe the party line comes from Moscow.

;-)
Click to expand...

Funny how all the original thinkers think the same thing though...I think your take is actually quite interesting and worthy by the way, just thoroughly wrong. Russia invading Ukraine isn't a US conspiracy, it's a Russian conspiracy. Obviously there will have been some meddling over the years in Ukrainian politics, largely from Russia of course, but that doesn't mean none of their decisions are there own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.