US should just deplete it's inventories at this point and backfill it.
There is no scenario where US will be dependent on shells in it's fighting and if it reaches that point something has gone horribly wrong.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
US should just deplete it's inventories at this point and backfill it.
There is no scenario where US will be dependent on shells in it's fighting and if it reaches that point something has gone horribly wrong.
In the past, we were told that the US cannot send ATACMS to Ukraine, because that would be "escalation". The same with tanks, with F-16s, and with other weapons.
For some reason, this is not true anymore, and nobody explained to us why. Why was this "escalation" in 2022, but it is not "escalation" in 2024? Perhaps it was never "escalation"? But then why did our leaders force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?
I do not understand why Biden and Scholz made those decisions in 2022, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they both are morons.
Scholz ain’t a moron. He’s just corrupt and lacks morals. So that’s probably why.
A possible (still not great) explanation could be that Ukraine demonstrated the ability to strike deep within Russia using their own designs in the meantime. Which would mean that ATACMS improve the numbers and quality of the weapons they have, but are not a fundamentally new ability for them.
Firstly, I think the US / West was afraid of what might happen if NATO gave Ukraine the tools to strike logistics hubs & various military targets inside Russia - it might embolden Russia to do the same inside, say, Poland. However, Ukraine is doing it anyway but with drones and there's not much anyone can do about it.
Secondly, I think we aren't as afraid of Russian rhetoric as we were. We all just want this over now and perhaps we are less concerned about what happens to Russia afterwards.
I'm thinking these long range weapons will massively lengthen Russian supply lines, so Russia may have more artillery but they won't be able to get it quickly or easily to the front.
Yes, as far as I understand it that is one of the big advantages. Right now Russia can use their overwhelming superiority with impunity. Just pushing their artillery further back, or making them more vulnerable to counter-attack, will make a massive difference. It won't nullify the advantage, but every little bit helps.
The reason why there was hesitation with ATACMS is because they're, quite literally, the only Ballistic missiles the US has outside of ICBM's.
Then, unsurprisingly, someone found thousands of them in a warehouse somewhere and the hesitation got withdrawn.
Then, unsurprisingly, someone found thousands of them in a warehouse somewhere and the hesitation got withdrawn.
Lockheed ramping up PrSM production could also have helped convince some hesitant people.
They also didn't hand them out because of concern the Ukrainians would go buck wild and start firing them towards Moscow. Now that they've proven they don't need them for that, they can actually start using them to hit occupied infrastructure in Crimea and Donbas.
As expected the Russian hawks are threatening Nuclear Armageddon following the latest passing of the US military aid for Ukraine.
Get fecked, Marge!
Surely no one believed that would happen.
Wonder of the coward Scholz will now give the Taurus missiles to Ukraine too.
Then they could finally blow up Putin's beloved Crimea bridge.
Then they could finally blow up Putin's beloved Crimea bridge.
Honestly, with the latest policy changes towards Ukrainians living abroad, the UKR government is no better than Russia's.
What on earth is this shit.
What on earth is this shit.
I want to say I'd bet that Sholz's hand will be twisted before the end of the year on Taurus, but then if Ukrainians follow up with their threats that Crimean bridge will be destroyed before then, there might be no need.
Anyhow, seems we're still few few months away from Ukraine being able to stop russian advances, still fair bit of pain incoming over spring/summer.
Anyhow, seems we're still few few months away from Ukraine being able to stop russian advances, still fair bit of pain incoming over spring/summer.
Surely it’s only a matter of weeks before they blow that bridge to Crimea.
Good summary on the current situation in Ukraine.
Wont happen. It will create a precedent for rich people to be taken their assets in any future conflict. And many shady rich people maje money in conflicts. And the people that decides about this are, or those rich people or they donors are or they are simply friends with them
Attack on Odesa today. Quite a bit if carnage circulating on Twitter.
What's the argument here? Is there any money still frozen from the ww2 era?
Can the UA just not finish off Kerch bridge with a major missile/drone attack already? They need to give their people something to cheer about, especially when the strikes on Russian oil refineries looked like they happened a long time ago.
No. The author is writing crap. Is more about asking reparations that is not the same than having current assets frozen. Which doesn't make sense.
The only problem that german politicians have is that it breaks a lot of laws (I imagine) and that Rich people don't want to screw over other rich people. Specially because probably they know well these rich people. Specially, again, in the case of German-Russia politicians relationships
I'm sure the Russians have taken appropriate countermeasures to protect it after all the recent news of ATACMS. The Ukrainians will start picking apart Russian military sites soon enough when they suspect the Russians aren't waiting for it.
Yup. Any thoughts on what Russia hopes to achieve with this? Demoralize Ukrainians, deplete Ukraine air defenses, or a mix of various reasons?
I think Odesa is an easier target because of where its located. Sad to see what's going on there as its a beautiful city.
Ask the Swiss banks
The whole thing is worth a watch - it's about Ukraine's frankly illegal attempts to get its male citizens sent back from Europe - but I'm posting it because "military analyst" Frank Ledwidge has spent 2 years being the British version of Ben Hodges, i.e., a completely delusional sociopath (at 4:10 in this interview he says he spent last week walking around Kiev counting potential cannon fodder and somehow establishing by mere sight that the guys he was counting weren't married or had children) who has been saying Ukraine will win the war and take back Crimea and Donbass. And now? "Candidly, none of that is going to happen. That's an unfortunate fact, it's very difficult to say, but it's just the way it is".
He also suggests the West needs to come up with some kind of realistic strategy for helping Ukraine get out of this. In other words: even he recognises that there currently isn't one and never has been.
Last edited:
I remain blissfully indifferent to the circus of U.S. politics, which is frankly too dull to merit attention. I'm bored by the so-called liberals who mimic the fascists they allegedly loathe, or the vacuous Christian zealots dominating the GOP— who have more in common with the Mullahs than they would care to admit. Both parties can get fcked.
Having said that, I'll address your point as respectfully as possible, acknowledging that we may not agree on fundamental principles. My perspective isn’t based on moral judgments but on realpolitik and the typical behaviors of major powers.
Russia will win in Ukraine, regardless of U.S. support. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, and based on last year's counteroffensive, there seems no feasible way for Ukraine to reclaim that land. Moving forward, it's likely that Ukraine will lose even more territory, and more lives will be lost. I'll posit to you that this is a war of attrition where the balance of manpower, artillery, and air-power is crucial. When considering these aspects—they decisively favor Russia, which boasts: i) a larger arsenal of conventional weapons; ii) more manpower; iii) air supremacy; iv) a bonus point - Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is ever going to be to U.S., France, the UK, etc.
These are the simple facts.
If you disagree with any of these points, I’m open to discussing how U.S. aid might change the war's trajectory and what success could realistically look like for Ukraine.