Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Is there any source that it was Iris-T? Is there even a confirmation that it is stationed in/near Kiyv?
They already said no.
There's been some talk in here about alleged spying in Norway, with some arrests made. Drones and the like. I don't think much is known about those cases yet, but one person arrested in Svalbard is Andrey Yakunin, son of Vladimir Yakunin who has pretty close ties to Putin (Wiki link). https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/...-er-en-del-av-putins-absolutt-naermeste-krets
What the cases involving drones mean is hard to say, because with the sanctions it's illegal no matter how benign the filming is so it can be anything. In this specific instance it's also a bit more unclear about the legalities with Svalbard having some laws about discrimination based on nationality that may or may not be relevant here. More on that: https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/angriper-droneforbudet_-_-bryter-mot-svalbardtraktaten-1.16145691
Both articles in Norwegian, so you'll have to use a translator if you're interested in details.
What the cases involving drones mean is hard to say, because with the sanctions it's illegal no matter how benign the filming is so it can be anything. In this specific instance it's also a bit more unclear about the legalities with Svalbard having some laws about discrimination based on nationality that may or may not be relevant here. More on that: https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/angriper-droneforbudet_-_-bryter-mot-svalbardtraktaten-1.16145691
Both articles in Norwegian, so you'll have to use a translator if you're interested in details.
So... are the Russians allowed now to call this a "war" and not "special operation"?
Looks like Russian railway is slowly running out of wheel bearings and has to take wagons out of service. Not a quick win for this war, but it could slowly strangle both the Russian military and economy if they can't solve this.
The last Politico episode and the ongoing discussion about the prospect of a looming energy crisis within Ukraine due to power plants being damaged, is going to be the toughest part for the next months ahead.
There's a daily discussion about regional energy issues here in Estonia also, as there are briefings about potential developments which may cause regional problems - such as Finnish powerplants having issues and a potential way where Russia can disconnect Baltic countries from their energy grid " The risk that Russia could leave the power plants in Narva without vital cooling water has spurred Estonia's public authorities into action ".
Energy will be the main discussion, not gas or anything else*.
Was this question ever answered?
Sorry, missed that.
Original source in english seems to be: https://www.ft.com/content/1aa35421-35c3-4183-93ea-95c3007a4f3d
But that is paywalled and I read about it in German here: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wirtschaft-verantwortung/ukraine-braucht-dringend-geld-li.271538
Essentially the US pressuring the EU to send money to Ukraine so Ukraine can pay the leasing rates for the US lend/lease deliveries.
The US are the only Western state demanding such payments from Ukraine at the moment, everyone else is either directly sending weapons and/or setting up a fund for Ukraine to enable them to buy industry weapons (deliveries like the Matador have been provided under such a "here is money for you to buy weapons in Germany" deal, but there have been several examples for this all over the EU).
Or in other words, if we talk about supporting Ukraine, the complete US lend/lease deliveries are economically an EU contribution. And I stand by my verdict that it is a disgrace that the US take the opportunity to make money out of this.
The FT article states that the US is pressuring the EU to step up disibursement payments to Ukraine, because they have been slow in doing so.
Regarding a lending program, it is the IMF that is behind that, which is what it does in most countries in need.
"Separately, the IMF is studying ways to bolster its immediate assistance to Kyiv while simultaneously progressing towards a full-fledged lending programme, subjecting the country to certain economic and financial conditions. IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva also met EU leaders in New York, said a person briefed on the meetings, adding that a package to provide “budgetary support” to Kyiv was discussed".
Regarding US support, Putin would be personally strolling through Kyiv today if not for American weapons and ISR support.
Those two aren't mutually exclusive:The FT article states that the US is pressuring the EU to step up disibursement payments to Ukraine, because they have been slow in doing so.
Regarding a lending program, it is the IMF that is behind that, which is what it does in most countries in need.
"Separately, the IMF is studying ways to bolster its immediate assistance to Kyiv while simultaneously progressing towards a full-fledged lending programme, subjecting the country to certain economic and financial conditions. IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva also met EU leaders in New York, said a person briefed on the meetings, adding that a package to provide “budgetary support” to Kyiv was discussed".
Regarding US support, Putin would be personally strolling through Kyiv today if not for American weapons and ISR support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022
I don't know anything about whether what @stefan92 is claiming is true though. (I.E pressuring others to pay for what the US is making look like a gift).
What the language of the law says isn't what is being done. The weapons and aid are going to Ukraine and there's a very high chance they will not be paying anything back. His post also completely undercuts the fact that the US has been the main reason Ukraine still exists in the present.
No, the main reason Ukraine still exists are the men and women fighting for it's existence. The US have been the biggest ally and largest contributor, but aren't actually fighting Russians...
Other than that I'm not here to fight another posters corner in all honesty. I only pointed out what the actual law says, and am reserved as to whether the current President holds enough favor with the party opposite to go beyond the law on a bipartisan act. I think it's entirely possible that people are helping Ukraine for the right reasons and are still looking at making a buck while at it.
UK Rivet Joint reconnaissance planes started flying with escorts a couple of days ago, now we know why.
And those men and women wouldn't be fighting today if not for the weapons they've received. Otherwise this would've been over within a few weeks.
The US aren't going to be compensated for the billions in weapons they have given to Ukraine because they are intended for a strategic purpose of stopping Russian aggression in Europe (which benefits the NATO and the EU) and the Ukrainians wouldn't have the money to pay anyway. That's why they call it "aid". The US literally gives free money to a list of countries each year.
The first deliveries the US made are exempt of my criticism, you are right about them.
The lend lease act however clearly states that Ukraine has to pay and it is one if the reasons why Ukraine needs money now. This isn't about lending money to Ukraine, that's a totally different topic.
And there is no foundation for your claim that Ukraine won't have to pay for it, or do you have any sources that the US won't insist on paying that money? At best it is a huge political risk depending on who wins the next elections.
The US gives away billions in assistance to countries each year. If Ukraine is at war and has no resources, they won't be paying anything.
Again I ask what is your source that Ukraine won't have to pay for equipment delivered under the lend lease act? I am not talking about other aid packages, just about this specific part.
Is there a source that they will have to pay for the weapons?
The actual law, @Abizzz linked it above.
Keep in mind that militaty equipment is usually damaged or destroyed after a war, so following the law about repayment for such damaged loaned goods it effectively amounts to the full value of the weapons delivered under this act.
Its literally in the language. The law is not supposed to seek payment for anything. The language is specifically written that way to facilitate the US getting resources to Ukraine and the President can waive any of the provisions within the law, which means Biden can "loan" Ukraine as much as is needed and not seek repayment.
Ehm... no?
Again: "Any loan or lease of defense articles to the Government of Ukraine under paragraph (1) shall be subject to all applicable laws concerning the return of and reimbursement and repayment for defense articles loan or leased to foreign governments."
All rules about repayment for such goods are valid under this law, there is nothing in the law that Biden might just waive those demands.
There's a provision in the language called:
(4) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.—The President may delegate the enhanced authority under this subsection only to an official appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
What this means is that the President can waive any existing policy regarding lease or payment.
In summary: The law is set up as a special provision to get around existing US law, so that the the US government can quickly funnel resources to Ukraine (as they have).
The language of getting reimbursement is optional and at the discretion of the President.
No, that's not what the law says. (1) Authorizes the president to decide on lend or lease deals, (2) makes exemptions for export control, (3) explicitly states that the usual financial rules are valid, (4) allows the president to name someone who makes the decisions defined under (1) on behalf of the president.
There is no passage in that law that allows waiving payments.
The correct summary is that this law is a bypass around the usual US export rules.
And also it means that the US will be the actual owner of the delivered weapons, not Ukraine. It's possible that the US would like this fact to put some resrraints on how Ukraine might use some weapons as part of the respective loan deal.
Again. The purpose of the law is to expedite arms and aid to Ukraine so that the President can waive existing bureaucratic roadblocks in getting arms to Ukraine, not to profit off of the war as your initial post seemed to imply.
Also, more broadly, you are criticizing a US policy that you seem to be rather uneducated about, while posting from a nation who initially volunteered the contribution of 500 helmets to Ukraine, and then continually attempted to slither out of providing weapons until they had to have their arms twisted.
Therefore, you have very little moral leverage to criticize the US contribution (which is overwhelming and comprehensive to Ukraine's survival), by tapdancing around legal nuances in a US law that will never be enforced to collect any money off Ukraine or any other nation.
What does it matter which nationality I have? I'm not Olaf Scholz and haven't voted for him, I have criticised his reluctance to deliver weapons quite often in this thread before.
And you are right, the law is there to get rid of road blocks. It's not there to get rid of invoices as you keep suggesting.
And you are right, the law is there to get rid of road blocks. It's not there to get rid of invoices as you keep suggesting.
I'd be curious to know why the UK planes are in the Black Sea in the first place and where they are based out of
Operating from Romanian air force bases, this has been going on for a long time now. Electronic reconnaissance primarily.
Haven’t UK and US surveillance planes been flying out of Romania over the Black Sea on the regular?
You can track them as they keep their identifiers on so as not to be shot down as enemy aircraft. Because of course they’re neutral and not providing any intel or targeting data from the Crimea sector that they can cover from that distance to Ukraine (insert ‘sarcastic wink’ gif here).
Ukraine is the main reason Ukraine still exists in the present.