|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 06 2022 18:56 SC-Shield wrote:I think "Rebuild Ukraine" fund doesn't make much sense at the moment unless it's for cities like Kyiv. Shelling from Russia is still largely unpredictable. On the other hand, defense and medical aid are perfectly good aims.  At company level we have donations that are matched, so I used that earlier to donate for Ukraine. I think I donated like $20-25, so it became $40-50 in total. I remember donating to "Nova Ukraine" and a combo fund (Nova Ukraine and a few others).
'Rebuild Ukraine' probably also covers things like propping up their economy, I think ukrains GDP halved after the russian invasion. Propping up their financials and economy is just as vital as supplying them with weapons and aid, you have to make sure people are still getting paid. You would not want ukraine to defend itself militarily, but then collapse internally.
I am very happy the EU decided on financial aid for rebuilding ukraine after the war very early on into the conflict, as my fear has always been and to an extend still is, that ukraine gets abandoned as soon as the russians kicked out / sufficiently hurt. Initiatives like the EU promising financial aid for when that day comes, as well as donations towards that make me feel more at ease on that issue.
|
On May 06 2022 19:01 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2022 18:56 SC-Shield wrote:I think "Rebuild Ukraine" fund doesn't make much sense at the moment unless it's for cities like Kyiv. Shelling from Russia is still largely unpredictable. On the other hand, defense and medical aid are perfectly good aims. At company level we have donations that are matched, so I used that earlier to donate for Ukraine. I think I donated like $20-25, so it became $40-50 in total. I remember donating to "Nova Ukraine" and a combo fund (Nova Ukraine and a few others). 'Rebuild Ukraine' probably also covers things like propping up their economy, I think ukrains GDP halved after the russian invasion. Propping up their financials and economy is just as vital as supplying them with weapons and aid, you have to make sure people are still getting paid. You would not want ukraine to defend itself militarily, but then collapse internally. I am very happy the EU decided on financial aid for rebuilding ukraine after the war very early on into the conflict, as my fear has always been and to an extend still is, that ukraine gets abandoned as soon as the russians kicked out / sufficiently hurt. Initiatives like the EU promising financial aid for when that day comes, as well as donations towards that make me feel more at ease on that issue.
Yeah, I didn't mean this "Rebuild Ukraine" is useless. I meant that it's probably not the right time. Then again, it needs some explanation what it means. If it means "let's start construction of residential buildings 7-8 floors high", I don't think that's good at the moment or not until Russians start retreating more or stop shelling cities at random.
If "Rebuild Ukraine" is wider in effect, so driving economy during war, then sure. That's needed but needs some clarification for donators to know how money would be spent. I usually check how they plan spending before donation at least.
|
On May 06 2022 19:14 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2022 19:01 Artesimo wrote:On May 06 2022 18:56 SC-Shield wrote:I think "Rebuild Ukraine" fund doesn't make much sense at the moment unless it's for cities like Kyiv. Shelling from Russia is still largely unpredictable. On the other hand, defense and medical aid are perfectly good aims. At company level we have donations that are matched, so I used that earlier to donate for Ukraine. I think I donated like $20-25, so it became $40-50 in total. I remember donating to "Nova Ukraine" and a combo fund (Nova Ukraine and a few others). 'Rebuild Ukraine' probably also covers things like propping up their economy, I think ukrains GDP halved after the russian invasion. Propping up their financials and economy is just as vital as supplying them with weapons and aid, you have to make sure people are still getting paid. You would not want ukraine to defend itself militarily, but then collapse internally. I am very happy the EU decided on financial aid for rebuilding ukraine after the war very early on into the conflict, as my fear has always been and to an extend still is, that ukraine gets abandoned as soon as the russians kicked out / sufficiently hurt. Initiatives like the EU promising financial aid for when that day comes, as well as donations towards that make me feel more at ease on that issue. Yeah, I didn't mean this "Rebuild Ukraine" is useless. I meant that it's probably not the right time. Then again, it needs some explanation what it means. If it means "let's start construction of residential buildings 7-8 floors high", I don't think that's good at the moment or not until Russians start retreating more or stop shelling cities at random. If "Rebuild Ukraine" is wider in effect, so driving economy during war, then sure. That's needed but needs some clarification for donators to know how money would be spent. I usually check how they plan spending before donation at least.
Yeah fair point, I agree with that. I just assumed its for stuff that is needed right now, because like you said, if I its for stuff that should be done way later after the bigger problems (aka the war) are out of the way, I would probably not feel enticed to donate for that now.
|
On May 06 2022 18:56 SC-Shield wrote:I think "Rebuild Ukraine" fund doesn't make much sense at the moment unless it's for cities like Kyiv. Shelling from Russia is still largely unpredictable. On the other hand, defense and medical aid are perfectly good aims. At company level we have donations that are matched, so I used that earlier to donate for Ukraine. I think I donated like $20-25, so it became $40-50 in total. I remember donating to Nova Ukraine and a combo fund (Nova Ukraine and a few others). Just because you can donate for the rebuilding now doesn't mean they have to spend it tomorrow. they can safe it for a time in the future when they can rebuild towns that have been shelled into the ground.
|
On May 06 2022 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2022 18:56 SC-Shield wrote:I think "Rebuild Ukraine" fund doesn't make much sense at the moment unless it's for cities like Kyiv. Shelling from Russia is still largely unpredictable. On the other hand, defense and medical aid are perfectly good aims. At company level we have donations that are matched, so I used that earlier to donate for Ukraine. I think I donated like $20-25, so it became $40-50 in total. I remember donating to Nova Ukraine and a combo fund (Nova Ukraine and a few others). Just because you can donate for the rebuilding now doesn't mean they have to spend it tomorrow. they can safe it for a time in the future when they can rebuild towns that have been shelled into the ground.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it as they say. No one knows how long this war would take although some experts already suggest months if not years. I'd donate to such a fund when there is more clarity, when war is about to stop or shelling becomes much rarer. For now, I'd rather donate to more pressing issues like humanitarian aid to help people on the ground. Buildings without people are nothing. Of course, this is only my opinion and everyone is free to donate as they wish. I just express my reasoning here.
|
On May 06 2022 19:32 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2022 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2022 18:56 SC-Shield wrote:I think "Rebuild Ukraine" fund doesn't make much sense at the moment unless it's for cities like Kyiv. Shelling from Russia is still largely unpredictable. On the other hand, defense and medical aid are perfectly good aims. At company level we have donations that are matched, so I used that earlier to donate for Ukraine. I think I donated like $20-25, so it became $40-50 in total. I remember donating to Nova Ukraine and a combo fund (Nova Ukraine and a few others). Just because you can donate for the rebuilding now doesn't mean they have to spend it tomorrow. they can safe it for a time in the future when they can rebuild towns that have been shelled into the ground. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it as they say. No one knows how long this war would take although some experts already suggest months if not years. I'd donate to such a fund when there is more clarity, when war is about to stop or shelling becomes much rarer. For now, I'd rather donate to more pressing issues like humanitarian aid to help people on the ground. Buildings without people are nothing. Of course, this is only my opinion and everyone is free to donate as they wish. I just express my reasoning here. Entirely fair and understandable, but the option is there for people who want to.
|
Something to watch, RU frigate Makarov might have been hit.
|
No, it wasn't hit. It was just sent on special underwater operation. 
|
Head of Finnish defence forces intelligence: " conclusion: RU needs to improve cooperation with western intelligence services to know the state of their troops."
|
Germany sending more heavy weapons to Ukraine.
Germany agreed to deliver seven rapid-fire artillery systems to Ukraine to shore up the country’s efforts to fend off Russian forces as relations between the two countries thaw following a diplomatic spat.
The government will send the PzH 2000 and train Ukrainian soldiers on the self-propelled, armored howitzer, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht said Friday during a visit to Slovakia.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is slated to travel to Kyiv after Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy cleared up “irritations“ with Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s head of state, over an aborted visit, Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Twitter. Baerbock’s trip is an “important result“ of a telephone talk between the two on Thursday, he added.
After resisting the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine, Scholz’s administration is stepping up efforts to supply Kyiv. It authorized the transfer of 50 Gepard anti-aircraft tanks last week, but the plans have been held back by a lack of available ammunition.
The PzH 2000 systems, which can fire nine rounds a minute at targets 30 kilometers (19 miles) away, will come from German military stocks. The Bundeswehr is servicing some of its fleet to make the systems ready for operation.
Source
|
Usually, I would consider OSINTdefender a decent source. But Forte11 is flying this route now for multiple months. Every single day. (okay, they deviated during the days when there were explosions in Transnistria...) This was their standard route even before the war started. And I'm pretty sure OSINTdefender exactly knew that. Making it sound like this adds any credibility to the story is really weird.
|
I would assume that NATO has had plans in place for decades about what to do about different pieces having different or unified abilities to shoot the same ammo across platforms. Keeping coherency vs having lots of different tools is a balance of pros and cons.
The best thing you can do with any of your weapon stocks right now is to ship whatever you can to Ukraine. If you believe that the Russians are coming for you they will be used just as much now as later, if you don't believe they are coming to you they are better off not being on your books.
Nothing gory but a picture of a burning tank that the reporter says is a T-90M only 20 are in existence and was said to be destroyed by a javelin missile. This is the best piece of equipment that the Russians have other than the T-14 armada that may or may not exist outside a factory and won't allow to be destroyed.
+ Show Spoiler +
It appears that the Russian assault in the east is starting to stall and the Ukrainians have signaled that they are going to be counterattacking from the north. If they are able to cut off a sizeable portion of the assault elements of Russia this war can tilt very fast. I don't think Putin will allow a retreat and to admit defeat in a second offensive.
|
I sincerely doubt that money donated to "rebuild Ukraine" wouldn't immediately be used for the far more pressing needs of defence and medical aid. It'll be kind of stupid to rebuild when a total loss of sovereignity is still possible. Call it a clever slight of words but there's no promise that the money will be allocated according to which option you click on, only that they will be transferred to the National Bank of Ukraine, then be allocated by assigned ministries. At no point does it say the specific proportion assigned correlates to the purpose you chose or that they will be held in three separate non-transferrable accounts.
|
On May 07 2022 03:11 Sermokala wrote:
I would assume that NATO has had plans in place for decades about what to do about different pieces having different or unified abilities to shoot the same ammo across platforms. Keeping coherency vs having lots of different tools is a balance of pros and cons.
The best thing you can do with any of your weapon stocks right now is to ship whatever you can to Ukraine. If you believe that the Russians are coming for you they will be used just as much now as later, if you don't believe they are coming to you they are better off not being on your books.
I don't think any nato country is convinced that russia comes for them next, but you have to maintain defensecapabilities out of principle.
In regards to sending what you can, because its gonna be used either way: I strongly disagree. Its not about using your equipment 'because that is what it is for', but getting your investment worth. The more serious the threat, the more important it is that it pays off, aka if you truly believe the russians are coming for you next, you would weigh the risk of your equipment getting used in an inefficient way (insufficient training with it / you can't use its full potential because it needs to be integrated into your military infrastructure or whatever / you lack logistics or maintenance capabilities and thus risk your expensive equipment getting put out of service by minor damage etc etc), aka it gets put out of service before you where able to achieve enough of an effect with it, against the chance of it making enough of a difference / maybe not getting the full value out of it.
If you truly believe that russia is coming for you next, keeping stuff in reserve so you can ensure it will be used in a way that is most beneficial and effective for you, would be the way to go.
The people currently supporting ukraine is either because they do want ukraine to still exist for various reasons, they want to hurt russia, or a mix of both.
I don't think countries like poland or the baltics are worried, in fact I vividly remember a TV interview on some US news channel shortly after the russian invasion. I think they interviewed Kajas Kallas, the interview was pretty disgusting tbh. They clearly wanted some sensationalist and fearmongering answer, she smirked and then bulldozed them with a strong statement along the lines of nato having a 100% track record of protecting the sovereignty of its member states. The interview was disgusting because they basically cut her off after that and went back to fearmongerTV... But I think what she said is a good representation on how the eastern members of nato feel about russia. But you still gotta consider the option and plan accordingly I guess.
|
|
|
On May 07 2022 06:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2022 03:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I sincerely doubt that money donated to "rebuild Ukraine" wouldn't immediately be used for the far more pressing needs of defence and medical aid. It'll be kind of stupid to rebuild when a total loss of sovereignity is still possible. Call it a clever slight of words but there's no promise that the money will be allocated according to which option you click on, only that they will be transferred to the National Bank of Ukraine, then be allocated by assigned ministries. At no point does it say the specific proportion assigned correlates to the purpose you chose or that they will be held in three separate non-transferrable accounts. Certian pieces of infrastructure need to be rebuilt or fixed right away in parts that are controlled by Ukraine. I see no reason to assume they are lying.
There are official statements which talk about current rebuilding efforts such as restoring power to hundreds of thousands of people, clearing and fixing hundreds of kilometres of road, resupplying with gas, etc. The Russians did their best to destroy everything they touched, including basic necessities for civilians. These need to be rebuilt as soon as possible. It's especially disturbing to read sentences such as:
In the village of Borodyanka, almost 30% of all consumers are supplied with water, including water in the hospital. + Show Spoiler +
original
У селищі Бородянка забезпечено водопостачанням майже 30% усіх споживачів, зокрема вода є в лікарні
|
Someone transcribed and translated a well-known lecture from 2018 by an ex-intelligence officer turned university lecturer from Finland. He has been one of the most reliable of Finland's Russia experts since his retirement. This is him giving an intro course to students on how to understand Russia (not as a versteher, but as to how to predict what Russia will do). It's necessarily very general, but it's nice to have an overview from someone who's incredibly well grounded in terms of experience.
Some excerpts:
"Autocracy, orthodoxy and 'Russkiy mir' - or the Russian world - must be assembled under the protection of the wings of the Russian double eagle" and that "Russia's sacred mission is to act as a messenger of a higher civilization."
And: "A little warfare in the border areas is needed to maintain a patriotic spirit."
This was said in the 1800s century [by Czar Nikolai the First] but this could have been said in the 2010s or in 2018.
...
This is what the Russians fear: a time of turmoil. A time of turmoil as the time before Romanov was elected leader. This is their horror, a time of turmoil. The Russians also use the 1990s as a time of turmoil. When there's a weak leader, the country is in turmoil. That is, even if it hurts a little, they prefer a strong leader, because under a strong leader chaos is absent.
...
When Kennan was the U.S. ambassador to Moscow after World War II. He began to see how the Soviet Union would not necessarily be an ally for the United States now that Nazi Germany had been defeated. He wrote a long description of how Soviet policy was changing.
He wrote "The Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is based on their traditional and instinctive insecurity". So the Russians have a feeling of insecurity about "someone always attacking us."
..
This is also what Kennan wrote: "Russia is deaf to the logic of reason but very sensitive to the logic of power." Lenin once said: "Try it with a bayonet, if it's soft, push. If it's hard, leave." In other words, if we treat Russia in the Sea of Azov and in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine as before, by only resenting without doing anything else, there will always be more stitches coming from Russia.
But they are sensitive to the logic of power. Meaning that if there is a tough opponent against them, they leave.
...
I talked earlier about princes. There are two princes here today. We have a good tsar who is infallible and he will retire in 2024, probably. A new tsar will be elected to replace him. Here are two potential candidates. The prince must be a tough guy. He needs to be able to guarantee a peaceful rest of the life for the retiring tsar. Just as Putin guaranteed Yeltsin's life so that Yeltsin lived in peace from all legal action until he died. In exactly the same way, Putin is now looking for such a prince. Medvedev is too soft. He can't do it. Here are two candidates. ... [note, one of the "princes" literally fell off a cliff shortly after, so I guess we know who it's going to be.]
It's a long listen/read but well worth it. Dr. Kari has remained active, and is one of the primary experts in Finnish media describing the state of affairs in the current war.
Edit:
P.S. This is the real reason why experts criticize #notallRussians or the argument that if Putin is toppled, all of this will change. It's part of Russian strategic culture. That's what needs to change for Russia to join the international community.
|
Who is this second prince he's talking about ?
|
On May 07 2022 22:16 Erasme wrote:
Who is this second prince he's talking about ?
Alexey Djumin.
The Russian princely story requires that the prince is a hero. Before he becomes the infallible tsar he must be the hero. He is somehow heroic. Djumin is heroic, he has been awarded the title of Russian hero. He rescued Yanukovych in February 2014 from the clutches of fascists in Kiev. That is, he led the Yanukovych rescue operation from there when, according to the story, the fascists came to power in Kiev. He earned the title of Russian hero. He was a major general and Deputy Minister of Defence. He has then been recovered in that Tula area. He has earned the hero's cloak, he is safe in Tula. He has been castled. Russian chess gamers like to castle. Djumin has been castled there to the Tula area to wait. It is close to Moscow. In an area where nothing should go wrong, i.e. the hero will no longer do anything wrong before 2024. And he waits there, learning administration in a good Tula district.
|
On May 07 2022 04:35 Artesimo wrote:
I don't think countries like poland or the baltics are worried
I cannot say anything about balts, but I can say by my own perception and my worries after russian invasion are honest. To the time of ukrainian war I had impression that a large part (most of?) our population had no faith in NATO and treated it more as a bluff card, essencialy a deterrence tool, more than real saveguard for our security. Bold reactions of USA and UK in this conflict dramatically soften my scepticism. We do not want to see Russia burn for a sake of it, that's not how it works. We also are not conserned by faith of Ukrainians purely from empathical and humanitarian reasons. I personaly believe that appeasement is a wrong course of action with guys like Putin, who every concesion see as a proof of weakness. Even more, I believe that we pay dearly for our pro-ukrainian stance in this conflict, with economical catastrophy at least, and we still need it. Keeping weapons for ourself instead of arming Ukraine is a wrong way. Instead, the right way is giving them hardwere to harm both russian materially and lower their self-confidence to do another conflict and that's why I said at the beggining russian blitzkrieg was the worst scenario - it would cause another war.
And I still think that if the europe wouldn't react, Putin would not stop and might attempt more ambitious goals. Question is not if eastern flank countries really fears russia. Question is if Russian fear of NATO "encircling" them was ever genuine or just excuse for creating more and more puppets around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://scontent.ffsd3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279516015_10159220686049690_1266754357807504175_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=ilCtziBDLgkAX86f6cH&_nc_ht=scontent.ffsd3-1.fna&oh=00_AT8gzeh-jr7no-xlNUMVMz4lx5ICNQWcuIx-Y0c4vAqXEw&oe=62796638)
