Arming the Ukrainians

[Nearly Sane]

Crowdfunding Ukraine in Slovakia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68843542

[Nearly Sane]

'US Speaker Mike Johnson may pay political price for Ukraine deal' - interesting that Trump did stay so quiet on the run up to this though as the article notes he has had other things on his mind.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68866912

[Nearly Sane]

'Kyiv can use British weapons inside Russia - Cameron'.

Doesn't feel like a surprise, at the same time, it's part of the diplomatic chess going on. Macron's continued hawkishness is very interesting but I see little backing from others. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po

[ad_orientem]

'Kyiv can use British weapons inside Russia - Cameron'.

Doesn't feel like a surprise, at the same time, it's part of the diplomatic chess going on. Macron's continued hawkishness is very interesting but I see little backing from others. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po

UK leading the way. Main Bastards rule (Medvedev called us that). I also like what Macron is saying. Russia's threats are all bluffs. We need to realise this.

[Nearly Sane]

North Korea supplying weapons to Russia

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68933778

[ad_orientem]

North Korea supplying weapons to Russia

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68933778

Fortunately they're shit. Alot of them are duds and blow up in the barrel.

[ad_orientem]

All the big guns out today issuing nuclear threats, including the chronic drunk Medvedev. It means they're worried. This is exactly the time we need to double down in our support of Ukraine. Their threats are just empty bluffs.

https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1787427096320430252?s=19

[Spud]

All the big guns out today issuing nuclear threats, including the chronic drunk Medvedev. It means they're worried. This is exactly the time we need to double down in our support of Ukraine. Their threats are just empty bluffs.

https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1787427096320430252?s=19

But undeniably, Cameron has contradicted the UK's original assurance that UK missiles wouldn't be used to strike Russia. He might as well have added to his comments, "and don't believe any talk that  Russia will attack UK military bases in response".

https://youtu.be/l1vNFEKEKKg?si=du1jDAARZCmcJUqM

[Outrider]

But undeniably, Cameron has contradicted the UK's original assurance that UK missiles wouldn't be used to strike Russia. He might as well have added to his comments, "and don't believe any talk that  Russia will attack UK military bases in response".

https://youtu.be/l1vNFEKEKKg?si=du1jDAARZCmcJUqM

Has he contradicted the original stance, or has he updated the world that the UK policy has changed in response to the developing situation? I'd suggest it's the latter, but given Russia's demonstrated history for the norms of international relations, British military establishments were at risk already.

The reality is, though, given Russia's struggles to prosecute an effective campaign in Ukraine, it's extremely unlikely that they'll risk extend their efforts to the UK, especially with the likelihood that would trigger a NATO response. Even if Trump were to somehow smuggle himself into the Whitehouse early next year, with the implications for NATO that come with that, I still don't see Russia being that stupid.

They might surprise us, and be that stupid, but it seems unlikely.

O.

[Spud]

Has he contradicted the original stance, or has he updated the world that the UK policy has changed in response to the developing situation? I'd suggest it's the latter, but given Russia's demonstrated history for the norms of international relations, British military establishments were at risk already.

The reality is, though, given Russia's struggles to prosecute an effective campaign in Ukraine, it's extremely unlikely that they'll risk extend their efforts to the UK, especially with the likelihood that would trigger a NATO response. Even if Trump were to somehow smuggle himself into the Whitehouse early next year, with the implications for NATO that come with that, I still don't see Russia being that stupid.

They might surprise us, and be that stupid, but it seems unlikely.

O.

The French, Polish and Italian climbdown after Russia's warnings suggests they believe Russia would indeed risk attacking their military facilities beyond Ukraine. UK and US both have elections this year, so they want to minimise talk of direct war with Russia - for the moment. I guess Cameron, not running for election, would be more likely to say something provocative.

[Outrider]

The French, Polish and Italian climbdown after Russia's warnings suggests they believe Russia would indeed risk attacking their military facilities beyond Ukraine.

What 'climb-down'? Macron is still one of the most vocally aggressive European voices calling for action against Russia, and if you think the Polish are ever going to take even a metaphoric step back in the face of Russian hostilities you've not been paying attention for the last seventy years.

UK and US both have elections this year, so they want to minimise talk of direct war with Russia - for the moment. I guess Cameron, not running for election, would be more likely to say something provocative.

Cameron, who is part of the Conservative government that is very much in an election this year? On the contrary - and particularly for the mainstream Tory voters, if not necessarily the 'red wall' - robust defiance of Russian aggression in Europe, especially if contrasted with the majority of the EU nations' more moderate responses, would sit well in an election year and speak to the traditional (if not necessarily justified) depiction of Labour and the Lib Dems as weak in the face of foreign aggression.

Italy, I'll grant, seem to be following the Trumpian line of officially prioritising home concerns whilst not wanting to agitate the Russian propoganda machines that are happy to prop up their authoritarian and right-wing stances. Biden, by contrast, has been fairly steadfast, and is amongst the groups that have managed to get Congress to recently free up funds for Ukraine - so hardly playing their cards close to their chest for fear of election blowback.

O.

[Spud]

What 'climb-down'?

As I understand it, the climbdown follows Russia's warnings to the French and British ambassadors, and announcing it will begin drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia was responding to Cameron's comments, and also to two recent articles in the Asia Times. One said that France is sending 1500 troops to Ukraine, the other said that the US would eventually also have to send troops. France, US, Italy and Poland subsequently stated that they will not be sending troops to Ukraine.

[Maeght]

As I understand it, the climbdown follows Russia's warnings to the French and British ambassadors, and announcing it will begin drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia was responding to Cameron's comments, and also to two recent articles in the Asia Times. One said that France is sending 1500 troops to Ukraine, the other said that the US would eventually also have to send troops. France, US, Italy and Poland subsequently stated that they will not be sending troops to Ukraine.

What climbdown?

[Spud]

What climbdown?

If Macron says he is sending troops to fight Russia, he's effectively saying France is at war with Russia .
If a French official then denies that they are sending troops, and also says they are not at war with Russia, they recognise Putin as the president and send a delegate to his inauguration - that climbdown.

[Outrider]

As I understand it, the climbdown follows Russia's warnings to the French and British ambassadors, and announcing it will begin drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia was responding to Cameron's comments, and also to two recent articles in the Asia Times. One said that France is sending 1500 troops to Ukraine, the other said that the US would eventually also have to send troops. France, US, Italy and Poland subsequently stated that they will not be sending troops to Ukraine.

So Macron has been urging the rest of Europe to step up its support, and he's been committing France to the support of any NATO ally that's attacked assuring them France will respect its Article V commitments. He hasn't, though, announced any troops being sent to fight in Ukraine, and therefore not sending them isn't any sort of 'climb-down', it's reinforcing the current restraint that Western nations have been showing in the face of Russia's latest breach of international borders.

O.

[Maeght]

If Macron says he is sending troops to fight Russia, he's effectively saying France is at war with Russia .
If a French official then denies that they are sending troops, and also says they are not at war with Russia, they recognise Putin as the president and send a delegate to his inauguration - that climbdown.

He didn't say he is sending troops did he? Rather that it could happen and shouldn't be ruled out. Has he changed that stance?

[ad_orientem]

It seems russia is trying to move on Kharkiv. They have 50,000 troops on the border. Initial reports aren't great for the russians though.

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1788947734923247708?s=19

[ad_orientem]

It seems russia is trying to move on Kharkiv. They have 50,000 teoops on the border. Initial reports aren't great for the russians though.

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1788947734923247708?s=19

Whether this fails or not, this is a direct result of the stalling of US aid for six months.

Also this from this morning.

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1788885196957274160?s=19

[Spud]

He didn't say he is sending troops did he? Rather that it could happen and shouldn't be ruled out. Has he changed that stance?

He seems to have softened it, yes. https://youtu.be/oCPmiNUeNXQ?si=Cl_gMdjDFeQTnyRm

[Spud]

He didn't say he is sending troops did he? Rather that it could happen and shouldn't be ruled out. Has he changed that stance?

True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war. Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory. Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.

[ad_orientem]

True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war. Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory. Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.

In your dreams. Almost half a million katsaps dead.

[Spud]

In your dreams. Almost half a million katsaps dead.

50,000 Russians, according to the BBC in April, not including militia from DPR and LPR. Even if your figure is right, Ukraine has lost as many, and has a quarter of the population of Russia.

[Maeght]

True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war. Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory. Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.

So he didn't say it, therefore there hasn't been a climbdown.

[Outrider]

True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war.

Well of course that's Russia's response, it has to be under the circumstances. Whether anyone believes them or not is a fundamentally different matter.

Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory.

Western countries will not be seen to be escalating without sufficient grounds - in practical reality, at least as things stand at the moment, I don't see western nations sending troops unless Russia can be shown to have directly struck against one of the NATO alliance countries. At the moment there seems to be more restraint than I think is good, but I'm not the one making the decisions and some of that apparent restraint might be posturing.

One errant missile falling in to somewhere like Poland, however, and that might change significantly. The front is a long way from that border at the moment, though.

Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.

Well, Russia's chewing through troops faster, but has a better reserve. What Russia doesn't have is money - it's a race between Ukraine running out of troops and Russia running out of capacity to keep its populace placid in the face of increasing shortages and struggles. The more it has to fall back on the likes of North Korean munitions, the safer Ukrainian troops are. The more it needs to rely on worse and worse standards of reluctant conscripted troops and early-release prisoners the safer Ukrainian troops are.

Of course, if saving the lives of Ukrainian troops were important, you'd be agitating for the Russian withdrawal from it's illegally occupied Ukrainian territories that would solve everyone's problems...

O.

[Spud]

Well of course that's Russia's response, it has to be under the circumstances. Whether anyone believes them or not is a fundamentally different matter.

Western countries will not be seen to be escalating without sufficient grounds - in practical reality, at least as things stand at the moment, I don't see western nations sending troops unless Russia can be shown to have directly struck against one of the NATO alliance countries. At the moment there seems to be more restraint than I think is good, but I'm not the one making the decisions and some of that apparent restraint might be posturing.

One errant missile falling in to somewhere like Poland, however, and that might change significantly. The front is a long way from that border at the moment, though.

Well, Russia's chewing through troops faster, but has a better reserve. What Russia doesn't have is money - it's a race between Ukraine running out of troops and Russia running out of capacity to keep its populace placid in the face of increasing shortages and struggles. The more it has to fall back on the likes of North Korean munitions, the safer Ukrainian troops are. The more it needs to rely on worse and worse standards of reluctant conscripted troops and early-release prisoners the safer Ukrainian troops are.

Of course, if saving the lives of Ukrainian troops were important, you'd be agitating for the Russian withdrawal from it's illegally occupied Ukrainian territories that would solve everyone's problems...

O.

The more weapons we give Ukrainians, the more they become targets, which is why I'm agitating to stop arming them. They are slowing the Russians down, but not stopping them. Once Russia has taken the historically Russian, and strategically important, territory, I imagine it will go defensive (not push on into the rest of Ukraine or Europe) and focus on destroying any military hardware entering the country. When it clicks in the West that Russia isn't steamrolling Europe, the West will agree to Ukrainian neutrality.