Arming the Ukrainians

[Spud]

Changing that particular restriction would not be difficult - whilst some officials might be using it as part of the justification, the reality is that politically it's not seen as an appropriate move to escalate the situation in that way, at this time. I disagree, but I haven't been elected to make those decisions.

However, the idea that NATO forces attacking Russian military capacity would result in the Russian military suddenly developing capability they've not shown in the past two years of conflict in Ukraine is laughable. NATO troops in NATO countries would be in no real danger at all - the danger is to civilian targets near the border, and to NATO troops on any front lines in Russia, and that's a political risk that the Western leaders don't appear to be willing to take right now.

O.

NATO troops are in danger anywhere in Ukraine, and  Russia wouldn't need additional capabilities. It could attack a target in Poland in the same way as it does in Ukraine.

[Spud]

Do you realise that the state of the war shows that there is a reasonable chance, though, that they will not be wiped out? So it makes sense.

Only if they can be effective enough that they are killing the opposition at a faster rate than their own politics will accept them losing their own people, and if they can keep their economy afloat in the meantime. It's a war of attrition, but it's a asymmetric one, and manpower isn't the only critical resource.

Why? They are holding their ground, they are imposing far more significant casualties on the Russians than they are suffering, their technical capacity to prosecute the war is increasing, they have taken the strategic advantage by spreading the Russian front line even thinner, they have changed the Russian domestic narrative by occupying actually Russian territory, and their foreign support is stronger and more widespread than Russia's (for now, there are potential fractures in that support).

Even if everything you said was true, and it's not, your conclusion still isn't valid. Evil will only flourish when good men stand by and do nothing, after all. In terms that you might appreciate more than I do they are choosing:

“Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy. Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:3-4)

"Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause" (Isaiah 1:17)

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9)

O.

So what you're implying is that NATO should go in and defend Ukraine, and as per my previous two posts, avoiding expanding the conflict outside Ukraine.
The problem with this as I see it is that other countries could help Russia in the same way, so it would be never-ending.
I agree that Ukraine are holding their ground to an extent, but they are slowly being pushed out of Donbas.

[jeremyp]

I heard that the reason NATO will not consent to allowing Ukraine to attack Russian airfields (etc) is because the equipment used in doing so will have to be operated, or coordinated, by NATO personel. That is NATO attacking Russia, and will lead to Russia attacking NATO airfields (etc) in response.

They've already used NATO equipment to attack targets that Russia would consider inside itself. Russia will not attack NATO airfields because soon after, their military will cease to exist.

[ad_orientem]

I suppose this is russia's way of trying to intimidate Finland for having Jan Petrovsky, a rusich member, in a prison cell. Still, it changes nothing for us. There's always been nazis on the russian side of the border.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2024/09/neo-nazi-mercenaries-help-fsb-guard-border-finland

[Outrider]

So what you're implying is that NATO should go in and defend Ukraine, and as per my previous two posts, avoiding expanding the conflict outside Ukraine.

On the evidence that's available to the public, my take is that NATO members should go in and support Ukraine more forcefully than they have been. I don't think it should be a NATO operation - NATO is a defensive alliance, and Russia hasn't attacked NATO, but obviously there's a degree of crossover between the groups. Certainly it would be pitched by Russian commentators and their allies that NATO was overstepping it's remit.

The problem with this as I see it is that other countries could help Russia in the same way, so it would be never-ending.

It's a possibility, but not I think a strong likelihood. There may be information that is not in the public domain to this effect which would start to explain why European governments are not moving in that direction.

I agree that Ukraine are holding their ground to an extent, but they are slowly being pushed out of Donbas.

They are slowly pulling back, yes, but they are costing Russia more than they are gaining. It's a calculation in the war of attrition, and Russia's resources and good-will are not endless. It's a slow race, and it's too close to call. Every time the West sends Ukraine aid it tips that balance in Ukraine's favour, and very few regimes are increasing their practical support for Russia.

O.

[Spud]

On the evidence that's available to the public, my take is that NATO members should go in and support Ukraine more forcefully than they have been. I don't think it should be a NATO operation - NATO is a defensive alliance, and Russia hasn't attacked NATO, but obviously there's a degree of crossover between the groups.

Yes, I see what you mean.

[Spud]

It's a possibility, but not I think a strong likelihood. There may be information that is not in the public domain to this effect which would start to explain why European governments are not moving in that direction.

I recall that when Western countries started signing mutual defence agreements with Ukraine earlier this year, Russia did a similar thing with China, and this seemed to startle the West iirc.

[Outrider]

I recall that when Western countries started signing mutual defence agreements with Ukraine earlier this year, Russia did a similar thing with China, and this seemed to startle the West iirc.

China committed to supplying weapons, as the West did for Ukraine. So far, Europe have held up their end of their bargain more than China have, but Russia hasn't been asking for a huge amount, yet. From what I gather, Western nations have also offered training and control systems for the weapons, which have allowed them to be integrated into the Ukrainian plans and utilised, whereas the Chinese have just offered the weapons. Russia was already using some Chinese systems, so those supplies have been useful, but it's a slow process to reverse engineer control systems for the new ones. They might prove useful eventually, but not any time soon.

O.

[Spud]

Speaking earlier in the day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said: “The key point, is that only servicemen of Nato countries can input flight missions into these missile systems.

"Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. Therefore this is not about permitting or not permitting the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons.

"This is about whether or not Nato countries take the decision to directly participate in the military conflict

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgxgvw38xjo

[ad_orientem]

The midget in the Kremlin is talking bullshit again, Spud. ATACMS, for instance, uses the same launch systems as HIMARS and Ukrainians have full control over them.

[jeremyp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgxgvw38xjo

Putin said: “The key point, is that only servicemen of Nato countries can input flight missions into these missile systems.

You know Putin is an untrustworthy lying bastard? Why you would take his word on anything is a complete mystery to everybody else on this message board.

[Spud]

The midget in the Kremlin is talking bullshit again, Spud. ATACMS, for instance, uses the same launch systems as HIMARS and Ukrainians have full control over them.

But who has control over the launch system of a storm shadow?

[ad_orientem]

But who has control over the launch system of a storm shadow?

The launch system is a fighter jet. The missiles themselves are preprogrammed. That can be done by Ukrainians.

[Spud]

The launch system is a fighter jet. The missiles themselves are preprogrammed. That can be done by Ukrainians.

I hear that Putin is saying they will shoot down the satellites that guide the missiles, which are apparently American. Can Ukraine operate them without that?

[ad_orientem]

I hear that Putin is saying they will shoot down the satellites that guide the missiles, which are apparently American. Can Ukraine operate them without that?

I'm not sure that would help. Storm Shadow is only partially guided by gps (there are about 20 gps satellites in use). Storm Shadow also uses terrain mapping, as is the norm for cruise missiles.

[jeremyp]

I hear that Putin is saying they will shoot down the satellites that guide the missiles, which are apparently American. Can Ukraine operate them without that?

That’s the standard GPS satellites. He’s bullshittting as usual.

[Nearly Sane]

Listening to Ben Wallace being interviewed on Ukraine yesterday, I can't help but think he's an outlier not only in terms of where the US is, but most of the Tory Party. I don't agree with him but I have to admire the clarity.

[jeremyp]

Listening to Ben Wallace being interviewed on Ukraine yesterday, I can't help but think he's an outlier not only in terms of where the US is, but most of the Tory Party. I don't agree with him but I have to admire the clarity.

What did Ben Wallace say about Ukraine?

[Nearly Sane]

What did Ben Wallace say about Ukraine?

A little detail here

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvdyd4nnzro.amp

It was yesterday's Today programme so you could find it on Sounds. Basically he's of the opinion that if your aim is for Ukraine to win you give them the support they need, that Putin keeps drawing red lines that are crossed but no effective action is then taken, nor is he capable of taking it.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see how Zelensky's hope that Biden helps him achieve a peace works as Putin just holds out to the election. He needs to get a firm commitment from Harris that she picks this up. That said giving he and Shapiro were signing bombs the other day maybe that commitment is already there. Trump though...



https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07n811zyp2o


https://www.yahoo.com/news/josh-shapiro-blasted-signing-missile-163511704.html

[ad_orientem]

Further confirmation that Trump fully intends to bendover to Putin at the first opportunity. He's the bitch of every dictator around.

Really don't understand the objection to signing bombs. It's always been done.

[Nearly Sane]

Further confirmation that Trump fully intends to bendover to Putin at the first opportunity. He's the bitch of every dictator around.

Really don't understand the objection to signing bombs. It's always been done.

Doesn't stop it always having been crass.

[ad_orientem]

Doesn't stop it always having been crass.

People should save their self-righteousness for condemning russian crimes instead.

[Nearly Sane]

People should save their self-righteousness for condemning russian crimes instead.

Amazingly you can do both, rather than indulging in stupid vacuous arsery.

[ad_orientem]

Amazingly you can do both, rather than indulging in stupid vacuous arsery.

Sure, if you don't really understand what's going on. Meanwhile, I feel an urge to make a donation to "sign my rocket".

https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1838654612385206734?s=19