Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I am too busy to participate in the match day thread, and frankly, I think there's too much fog of war to take any news at face value or to comment on it. Consider these headlines for context:
I usually don't comment on such news, but I find it to be clearly unreliable.

As someone who focuses on the bigger picture, I admit that I struggle to understand the strategic necessity of promising NATO membership to Ukraine. It seems illogical to me. Expanding NATO into countries with unstable conditions or those adjacent to potentially hostile neighbors increases the risk to American lives, given United States' obligation to defend each new member state. The only way this makes sense is from Lockheed's, Boeing's, Raytheon's, Northrop's and Halliburton's point of view.

NATO membership isn't being prioritized for them. As a sovereign state, they are eligible to apply for it without any coercion or intimidation to prevent them from handling their own affairs by their neighbor.

If you're interested in the bigger picture then you should consider why Putin doesn't want a strong and stable democratic state populated with considerable Russian speakers right on his own border - he is after all an authoritarian strong man who suppresses democracy in Russia to preserve his own life, because he knows a Russian population who see freedom in Ukraine will want the same for themselves; something that would lead to him being overthrown and probably killed in the process.

The bits about defense contractors is also not accurate. Unlike China and Russia, who have the luxury of nationalizing their respective defense industrial bases, the US as a capitalist nation doesn't have such a luxury and must instead rely on the private companies within the US to help generate the military hardware needed to be prepared for potential conflicts. Its therefore simply capitalism 101 that the US creates contracts with companies to supply them with what is needed.
 
I am too busy to participate in the match day thread, and frankly, I think there's too much fog of war to take any news at face value or to comment on it. Consider these headlines for context:
I usually don't comment on such news, but I find it to be clearly unreliable.

As someone who focuses on the bigger picture, I admit that I struggle to understand the strategic necessity of promising NATO membership to Ukraine. It seems illogical to me. Expanding NATO into countries with unstable conditions or those adjacent to potentially hostile neighbors increases the risk to American lives, given United States' obligation to defend each new member state. The only way this makes sense is from Lockheed's, Boeing's, Raytheon's, Northrop's and Halliburton's point of view.
Nobody gives a rats ass about Nazirusaia, free Ukraine is a sovereign state and valuable NATO ally in the near future. And all war criminals will be punished.
 
The link has nothing to do with Ukraine.

If you're seeking a link, it will become apparent once the 'fog of war' clears. Given the context – U.S. taxpayers channeling aid through the Pentagon, a department infamous for waste, fraud, and abuse, underscored by its failure to pass an audit, to a nation that has been and remains among the most corrupt in Eastern Europe – there will undoubtedly be ample material to consider.
 
If you're seeking a link, it will become apparent once the 'fog of war' clears. Given the context – U.S. taxpayers channeling aid through the Pentagon, a department infamous for waste, fraud, and abuse, underscored by its failure to pass an audit, to a nation that has been and remains among the most corrupt in Eastern Europe – there will undoubtedly be ample material to consider.

Until "it becomes apparent", maybe its a good idea to not suggest it exists. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence and all that.
 
I am too busy to participate in the match day thread, and frankly, I think there's too much fog of war to take any news at face value or to comment on it. Consider these headlines for context:
I usually don't comment on such news, but I find it to be clearly unreliable.

As someone who focuses on the bigger picture, I admit that I struggle to understand the strategic necessity of promising NATO membership to Ukraine. It seems illogical to me. Expanding NATO into countries with unstable conditions or those adjacent to potentially hostile neighbors increases the risk to American lives, given United States' obligation to defend each new member state. The only way this makes sense is from Lockheed's, Boeing's, Raytheon's, Northrop's and Halliburton's point of view.
NATO officials made it very clear that Ukraine could only join once the war is over. This might even mean that Ukraine has to give up territory now occupied by Russia to fulfill this requirement. For NATO it makes sense to add another battle-proven army as long as NATO doesn't have to join a war - and looking at the current state of the Russian army it is pretty clear that a full scale war with NATO about a NATO member is something Russia wouldn't dare.

And for Ukraine the reasoning is quite obvious. So far no treaty has stopped Russia from becoming aggressive against Ukraine, so only force will stop them. And there is no bigger available diplomatic force in the world than becoming a NATO member if you don't want to be invaded.
 
NATO membership isn't being prioritized for them. As a sovereign state, they are eligible to apply for it without any coercion or intimidation to prevent them from handling their own affairs by their neighbor.

If you're interested in the bigger picture then you should consider why Putin doesn't want a strong and stable democratic state populated with considerable Russian speakers right on his own border - he is after all an authoritarian strong man who suppresses democracy in Russia to preserve his own life, because he knows a Russian population who see freedom in Ukraine will want the same for themselves; something that would lead to him being overthrown and probably killed in the process.

The bits about defense contractors is also not accurate. Unlike China and Russia, who have the luxury of nationalizing their respective defense industrial bases, the US as a capitalist nation doesn't have such a luxury and must instead rely on the private companies within the US to help generate the military hardware needed to be prepared for potential conflicts. Its therefore simply capitalism 101 that the US creates contracts with companies to supply them with what is needed.

How is it inaccurate? Today the U.S. can produce around 30,000 artillery shells a month. In 1995 the army could produce 867,000 shells a month. Was US a communist country in the 90's?
 
NATO officials made it very clear that Ukraine could only join once the war is over. This might even mean that Ukraine has to give up territory now occupied by Russia to fulfill this requirement. For NATO it makes sense to add another battle-proven army as long as NATO doesn't have to join a war - and looking at the current state of the Russian army it is pretty clear that a full scale war with NATO about a NATO member is something Russia wouldn't dare.

And for Ukraine the reasoning is quite obvious. So far no treaty has stopped Russia from becoming aggressive against Ukraine, so only force will stop them. And there is no bigger available diplomatic force in the world than becoming a NATO member if you don't want to be invaded.

Ukraine joining NATO was discussed in 2008 Summit in Bucharest and discarded after opposition from France and Germany.
 
How is it inaccurate? Today the U.S. can produce around 30,000 artillery shells a month. In 1995 the army could produce 867,000 shells a month. Was US a communist country in the 90's?

In case you haven't noticed, war fighting is done very differently today than during the cold war. Technology is a much bigger player in the process so far less rounds need to be produced by a super power (even though smaller countries continue to need them for regional conflicts).
 
Ukraine joining NATO was discussed in 2008 Summit in Bucharest and discarded after opposition from France and Germany.
That was 15 years ago in a completely different political environment, that is totally irrelevant to the current discussion.
 
Ukraine joining NATO was discussed in 2008 Summit in Bucharest and discarded after opposition from France and Germany.

This has nothing to do with the present situation of Ukraine joining after the war is over. Also, the Ukraine of 2008 was a much more corrupt nation than the Ukraine of today (even through corruption continues to be an issue that would need to be further addressed before they are allowed to join NATO).
 
How is it inaccurate? Today the U.S. can produce around 30,000 artillery shells a month. In 1995 the army could produce 867,000 shells a month. Was US a communist country in the 90's?
The US essentially decided that they don't need and want to be a significant artillery force. They focused much more on their Air Force to fulfill the tactical tasks the artillery would perform for other countries. That's why it makes no sense to compare the US and the Russian artillery production capabilities.
 
What's a PDB podcast? And what's Peter Thiel's involvement here, I am not following?

They are part of the usual consortium of anti-Ukraine support hyper capitalists who believe its better to take the heat off Russia to open up economic opportunity in the Russian sphere.
 
Get the frick out of here - Ukraine is going to liberate every single inch of their country & join the European Union & NATO when they want it to.
 
They are part of the usual consortium of anti-Ukraine support hyper capitalists who believe its better to take the heat off Russia to open up economic opportunity in the Russian sphere.

Interesting. I didn't think the Palantir guy would be anti-war, but ok.
 
Interesting. I didn't think the Palantir guy would be anti-war, but ok.
He would surely love to sell his surveillance stuff to Russia to make a lot of money? It's the kind of technology Russia really could use to further control it's own people.
 
The US essentially decided that they don't need and want to be a significant artillery force. They focused much more on their Air Force to fulfill the tactical tasks the artillery would perform for other countries. That's why it makes no sense to compare the US and the Russian artillery production capabilities.

Stefan that's a significant assumption: "they focused much more on their Air Force."

Best estimates are we run out of all guided munitions in a large conventional war in about a month. Simply put, U.S. military is not structured to fight or support an extended conflict.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems

230109_Military_Inventories_Graphic.jpg
 
Its the russian culture, not just Putin, so i'm not sure it helps to have a change of leadership.

Russia, as a people, are completely unhinged, obsessed with being the big empire, east europeans should just shut up and count themselves lucky that they get to be ruled by their superiors.

Fascinating - what do you think we should do to contain these unhinged people?
 
Stefan that's a significant assumption: "they focused much more on their Air Force."

Best estimates are we run out of all guided munitions in a large conventional war in about a month. Simply put, U.S. military is not structured to fight or support an extended conflict.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems

230109_Military_Inventories_Graphic.jpg

This entire argument is misleading because the weapons you're citing are largely based around old warfighting strategies where armor and artillery were prominently used against the likes of Iraq 30 and 20 years ago. There have since been two major revisions in US warfighting doctrine which don't involve many of the above weapons because the latest strategy is built around data supremacy, not the old, outdated notions of two armies battling it out via tanks and artillery. This is also not coincidentally is giving some of its existing stocks to the Ukrainians and not replenishing them in their entirety.
 
This entire argument is misleading because the weapons you're citing are largely based around old warfighting strategies where armor and artillery were prominently used against the likes of Iraq 30 and 20 years ago. There have since been two major revisions in US warfighting doctrine which don't involve many of the above weapons because the latest strategy is built around data supremacy, not the old, outdated notions of two armies battling it out via tanks and artillery. This is also not coincidentally is giving some of its existing stocks to the Ukrainians and not replenishing them in their entirety.

Sure - I get that. The U.S. had an inflection point in the early '90s with the defeat of the USSR, the unipolar moment, etc. The Pentagon needed to discard the two-and-a-half war doctrine and gear up to fight insurgencies instead. The Pentagon also went through a rapid consolidation of the defense sector, which inadvertently weakened the defense industrial base, followed by a decline in preparation for large-scale conventional warfare, as attention was diverted to smaller, more asymmetrical conflicts. This has led to a gap in addressing capabilities and alliances of major state actors.

And the problem is that our opponents didn't stand still. Thirty years later they are stronger than in the '90s, and in an alliance. In a conflict with Russia or China, when they too possess nukes, hypersonic and long-range precision-guided missiles, ECM, air defense systems, and plenty of drones, how do you battle it out? Do you battle it out?
 
Yawn.

So, again, anything from the 20s specifically illuminating this massive money laundering scheme you purport is happening?

Asked and answered.

But you're the type of troll that even when presented with cold hard data in other threads, resorts to snidey remarks, so I am not sure you're worth my time.
 
Asked and answered.

But you're the type of troll that even when presented with cold hard data in other threads, resorts to snidey remarks, so I am not sure you're worth my time.
Figured you were a DYOR proponent. Typical escape hatch. Nothing even remotely close to being germane to the issue.

So, it's nothing more than a regurgitated right wing trope talking point then. Sounds about right.

How do you get said talking points, via fax, Whatsapp, Telegram? What's the frequency?

It's gotta be draining having to go to bat with the same debunked shit every day.
 
Stefan that's a significant assumption: "they focused much more on their Air Force."

Best estimates are we run out of all guided munitions in a large conventional war in about a month. Simply put, U.S. military is not structured to fight or support an extended conflict.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems

230109_Military_Inventories_Graphic.jpg
Imagine the stockpiles it would need to keep the entire US military firing for over a month. And how much keeping that stockpile would have cost over the previous 78 years... It's a mute point anyway because no country that doesn't have nukes could survive a month of the US throwing everything at it anyway.
 
Liberation of Kherson city was a year ago.



And barely any changes to the front-lines since then ... just Bakhmut meatgrinder.

I know no one likes to hear this, but given the situation in Middle East, upcming US and European elections, and latest hints and groans among the Western politicians, I can see them pushing Ukraine to enter negotiations within the next 6 months. I'm sure ukraine will ask for one more chance at a counter-offensive in Spring/Summer 2024, but what guarantee that it'll succeed? The 2023 one has had the frontlines changed by ~15-20km at cost of 70,000 AFU soldiers (including 2 family members of the Ukrainians I know here in Canada)....I have a feeling some serious conversations will be had about this war soon.



"U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official."
 
And barely any changes to the front-lines since then ... just Bakhmut meatgrinder.

I know no one likes to hear this, but given the situation in Middle East, upcming US and European elections, and latest hints and groans among the Western politicians, I can see them pushing Ukraine to enter negotiations within the next 6 months. I'm sure ukraine will ask for one more chance at a counter-offensive in Spring/Summer 2024, but what guarantee that it'll succeed? The 2023 one has had the frontlines changed by ~15-20km at cost of 70,000 AFU soldiers (including 2 family members of the Ukrainians I know here in Canada)....I have a feeling some serious conversations will be had about this war soon.



"U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official."


Recommending negotiations isn’t going to change the Ukrainians’ minds on fighting though. As long as morale remains sufficiently high, they have the weapons and manpower-and they are committed to getting their land back, they will continue to fight.
 
Recommending negotiations isn’t going to change the Ukrainians’ minds on fighting though. As long as morale remains sufficiently high, they have the weapons and manpower-and they are committed to getting their land back, they will continue to fight.

Them getting the weapons is heavily dependent on Western support continuing though. I'm not saying it won't....but let's not pretend that Ukraine has the finances or the domestic defence industry to arm themselves independently for this war.
 
And barely any changes to the front-lines since then ... just Bakhmut meatgrinder.

I know no one likes to hear this, but given the situation in Middle East, upcming US and European elections, and latest hints and groans among the Western politicians, I can see them pushing Ukraine to enter negotiations within the next 6 months. I'm sure ukraine will ask for one more chance at a counter-offensive in Spring/Summer 2024, but what guarantee that it'll succeed? The 2023 one has had the frontlines changed by ~15-20km at cost of 70,000 AFU soldiers (including 2 family members of the Ukrainians I know here in Canada)....I have a feeling some serious conversations will be had about this war soon.



"U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official."


We know the US elections pose a big threat to Ukraine (and the world). Its ok to say that, but Ukraine doesn't seek peace just cos US pulls funding, not a chance. There's been 100 articles like that since this started and there will be plenty more. On the off chance those stories are true, we know US is full of nutjob/compromised "officials" willing to earn a buck.
 
NATO and particularly US trainers tend to train Ukrainian soldiers to fight like American soldiers. The Ukrainian soldiers we interviewed find value in US training and combat drills but are frustrated by US military doctrine and training assumptions biased toward maneuver. Ukraine’s armed forces fight in a context of Russian (and now Ukrainian) continuous defense in depth that is beyond the experience of most US trainers.


 
Can anyone explain me the point of negotiations when Russia openly keeps saying that it won’t stop until Ukraine is taken? Sure, let’s give them a few years to fully regroup/ recover to have another go? For the Kremlin regime a sovereign Ukraine is not an option. The sad thing is that White House still after 2 years of war haven’t set Ukrainian victory as a military goal as reflected by the scope and quantity of weapons provided. Lack of political will in Biden admin is disheartening to see.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone explain me the point of negotiations when Russia openly keeps saying that it won’t stop until Ukraine is taken? Sure, let’s give them a few years to fully regroup/ recover to have another go? For the Kremlin regime a sovereign Ukraine is not an option.

The assumption is probably that Russian officials are spouting these things for domestic consumption etc and they're not to be taken seriously.
In other words, people believe Putin would in fact sit down for negotiations if Ukraine proposed to negotiate.