|
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 July 14 2022 12:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Since the extent of the west’s involvement is also controlled by optics and politics, Iran getting involved means the west can up their involvement as well. Keep in mind the US could dispatch the entire Russian incursion on their own, if they ignored the optics and politics of it. The slow drip of military increases as needed doesn’t really have an end. It is drops from a million gallon barrel.
“Iran is bombing Ukraine” is a really easy cover for upping western involvement. Iran will increase everyone’s involvement if they actually end up sending drones.
Not to get too much into US politics-specific stuff, but with Biden in Israel at the moment, I don't think it's a reach to assume that one of his goals will be to get the Israelis to help Ukraine, perhaps by using Iran's potential involvement as a motivator. Part of me does wonder if the Iran deal will even happen or if the US is pushing that story as a justification for more involvement
|
|
|
On July 14 2022 13:20 JimmiC wrote:
I think Iran would be crazy to help RU, Israel/US is looking for any reason to hit inside of Iran (will do it now at times). I could see Iran arming RU and no western increase in Ukraine and many direct mission on Iran.
Definitely a possibility. I also think that there may not be commitment of physical forces to Iran (at least, at the beginning) in favor of cyber warfare
|
Good point. Biden showing up in Israel shortly after releasing info of Iran being douchebags is clearly not a coincidence.
|
On July 14 2022 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote:The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale. + Show Spoiler +Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat. The US is functionally paying them. The US is paying for almost everything including things like their national pension system (which was in a precarious condition prior to the war). The US (and world bank) recently announced it's paying Ukraine's healthcare workers. In addition, the US is paying for Ukraine keeping gas and electricity running in hospitals/schools, while also paying salaries of civil servants and teachers. So in that aspect I'd say the threat is US politicians cutting Ukraine off for political expediency at home.
That's too US centric. Aid is not just from the US. The EU and European countries give as much humanitarian and financial assistance. The US does give a lot more military assistance. But aid and lending from international financial instutitions only provided 40% of the funding in total. 39% is funded through QE and the rest via selling bonds to investors.
sources:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24/ukraine-budget-lifeline-at-risk-as-biggest-bond-buyer-gets-antsy
|
On July 14 2022 15:16 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2022 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote:The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale. + Show Spoiler +Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat. The US is functionally paying them. The US is paying for almost everything including things like their national pension system (which was in a precarious condition prior to the war). The US (and world bank) recently announced it's paying Ukraine's healthcare workers. In addition, the US is paying for Ukraine keeping gas and electricity running in hospitals/schools, while also paying salaries of civil servants and teachers. So in that aspect I'd say the threat is US politicians cutting Ukraine off for political expediency at home. That's too US centric. Aid is not just from the US. The EU and European countries give as much humanitarian and financial assistance. The US does give a lot more military assistance. But aid and lending from international financial instutitions only provided 40% of the funding in total. 39% is funded through QE and the rest via selling bonds to investors. sources: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-sethttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24/ukraine-budget-lifeline-at-risk-as-biggest-bond-buyer-gets-antsy
I'm familiar with the US's aid so that's why I mentioned it (with specific examples of what they are funding) but the point applies across the West.
My point is that Ukraine's economy already isn't paying their basic/essential bills, the West (with the US paying the lion's share when including military aid) is.
|
On July 14 2022 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2022 15:16 RvB wrote:On July 14 2022 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote:The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale. + Show Spoiler +Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat. The US is functionally paying them. The US is paying for almost everything including things like their national pension system (which was in a precarious condition prior to the war). The US (and world bank) recently announced it's paying Ukraine's healthcare workers. In addition, the US is paying for Ukraine keeping gas and electricity running in hospitals/schools, while also paying salaries of civil servants and teachers. So in that aspect I'd say the threat is US politicians cutting Ukraine off for political expediency at home. That's too US centric. Aid is not just from the US. The EU and European countries give as much humanitarian and financial assistance. The US does give a lot more military assistance. But aid and lending from international financial instutitions only provided 40% of the funding in total. 39% is funded through QE and the rest via selling bonds to investors. sources: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-sethttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24/ukraine-budget-lifeline-at-risk-as-biggest-bond-buyer-gets-antsy I'm familiar with the US's aid so that's why I mentioned it (with specific examples of what they are funding) but the point applies across the West. My point is that Ukraine's economy already isn't paying their basic/essential bills, the West (with the US paying the lion's share when including military aid) is.
I do wonder if the US is going to use the $600 billion they froze that belonged to the Russian central bank or whichever institution to finance rebuilding Ukraine. Given the current amount of damage to the country, I would be shocked if it would cost less than $100 billion to rebuild Ukraine at this moment should every Russian soldier leave immediately and return all territory
|
Topical reading after yet another RU atrocity against civilians, including children, in Vinnytsia earlier today.
|
On July 14 2022 13:20 JimmiC wrote:
I think Iran would be crazy to help RU, Israel/US is looking for any reason to hit inside of Iran (will do it now at times). I could see Iran arming RU and no western increase in Ukraine and many direct mission on Iran.
Israel doesn't really need a reason to strike targets in Iran. They have done so in the past. But they won't go in this time. They have an understanding with Russia regarding the Middle East, why would they jeopardize that in an attempt to help Ukraine?
And regarding the US: I have a hard time seeing US attacking Iran while being entangled in support for Ukraine and with China eyeing Taiwan. Doesn't really make sense to pick another fight. And isn't it better for US, that those drones will be used in Ukraine rather than against US/allied assets in the Middle East?
Not to mention that US currently discussing restarting JCPOA with Iran. Attacking them would be an end to those negotiations and any prospect for peace or normalizing relations for the next 10-20 years.
|
Would any EU residents be able to provide some perspective on this potential deal? It seems like a decent temporary stopgap for gas shortages that would likely otherwise occur this winter
|
Expect a lot of terrorist attacks and other forms of sabotage...
|
Anything that could come out from that deal shouldn't change the situation in the coming winter.
I guess it sucks for the Armenians because they might be forced to trade their independence in exchange for Russian protection from Azerbaijan.
|
On July 15 2022 00:35 Sent. wrote:
Anything that could come out from that deal shouldn't change the situation in the coming winter.
I guess it sucks for the Armenians because they might be forced to trade their independence in exchange for Russian protection from Azerbaijan.
Oh yeah, the Armenians would really get fucked here. I hope it wouldn't be the absolute worst-case scenario, but I don't know of any other way they'd be alright
|
On July 13 2022 12:46 plasmidghost wrote:
I kind of assumed this was the case, but it's good that people way smarter and more knowledgeable are confirming (as much as confirming can be done in the war). I do have to wonder if Russia comes up with any ad hoc way to stop HIMARS and I honestly don't think they can.
It depends. Anti-air defences aren't really made to prevent smaller artillery rockets. They are usually optimised for aircraft, though they may also be optimised for larger missiles. Some rocket artillery can be close to cruise missile sized in length but not in diameter and fin width which will be a different radar signature and mostly likely a reduced radar signature too. I doubt for instance that Luhansk is now bereft of air defences.
____
I simply don't understand why Russia is using their limited and valuable cruise missiles to hit civilian targets. It makes no sense. In terms of civilian casualties, you need something apocalyptic to force a surrender onto a fighting nation, equivalent to dropping two nuclear bombs. As such strategic weapons, they would normally be only fired under the command of a high ranking officer, who would know of the pointlessness of striking such civilian targets, especially in such relaitive small amounts.
The only other alternative is that an idiot who happens to hold power over military officers is ordering these pointless targets, the Russian command system is in poor discipline that lower ranks are firing at random targets of opportunity or the Russians are genuinely thinking they are striking military targets.
|
On July 15 2022 05:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2022 12:46 plasmidghost wrote:I kind of assumed this was the case, but it's good that people way smarter and more knowledgeable are confirming (as much as confirming can be done in the war). I do have to wonder if Russia comes up with any ad hoc way to stop HIMARS and I honestly don't think they can. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1546986491506745346 It depends. Anti-air defences aren't really made to prevent smaller artillery rockets. They are usually optimised for aircraft, though they may also be optimised for larger missiles. Some rocket artillery can be close to cruise missile sized in length but not in diameter and fin width which will be a different radar signature and mostly likely a reduced radar signature too. I doubt for instance that Luhansk is now bereft of air defences. ____ I simply don't understand why Russia is using their limited and valuable cruise missiles to hit civilian targets. It makes no sense. In terms of civilian casualties, you need something apocalyptic to force a surrender onto a fighting nation, equivalent to dropping two nuclear bombs. As such strategic weapons, they would normally be only fired under the command of a high ranking officer, who would know of the pointlessness of striking such civilian targets, especially in such relaitive small amounts. The only other alternative is that an idiot who happens to hold power over military officers is ordering these pointless targets, the Russian command system is in poor discipline that lower ranks are firing at random targets of opportunity or the Russians are genuinely thinking they are striking military targets.
Thank you for informing me on the AA defenses!
As for the second part, I've seen a ton of focus on that missile strike today that killed 20+ people, including the mom and her daughter that had just posted on Instagram. I don't know how public sentiment is going to change, but it might very well cause more support for Ukraine as people see the absolute nightmare that happened
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On July 15 2022 05:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2022 12:46 plasmidghost wrote:I kind of assumed this was the case, but it's good that people way smarter and more knowledgeable are confirming (as much as confirming can be done in the war). I do have to wonder if Russia comes up with any ad hoc way to stop HIMARS and I honestly don't think they can. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1546986491506745346 It depends. Anti-air defences aren't really made to prevent smaller artillery rockets. They are usually optimised for aircraft, though they may also be optimised for larger missiles. Some rocket artillery can be close to cruise missile sized in length but not in diameter and fin width which will be a different radar signature and mostly likely a reduced radar signature too. I doubt for instance that Luhansk is now bereft of air defences. ____ I simply don't understand why Russia is using their limited and valuable cruise missiles to hit civilian targets. It makes no sense. In terms of civilian casualties, you need something apocalyptic to force a surrender onto a fighting nation, equivalent to dropping two nuclear bombs. As such strategic weapons, they would normally be only fired under the command of a high ranking officer, who would know of the pointlessness of striking such civilian targets, especially in such relaitive small amounts. The only other alternative is that an idiot who happens to hold power over military officers is ordering these pointless targets, the Russian command system is in poor discipline that lower ranks are firing at random targets of opportunity or the Russians are genuinely thinking they are striking military targets.
Considering the fact, that Ukrainian security services stated that they arrested few dozen men suspected to coordinate the missile strike
https://gordonua.com/news/war/v-vinnice-zaderzhali-neskolko-desyatkov-chelovek-pravoohraniteli-proveryayut-ih-na-prichastnost-k-korrektirovke-raketnogo-udara-monastyrskiy-1617141.html
it wasn't just random hit on a civilian area, it was made based on some information given by locals. So those, who launched the strike, expected to hit something in particular. In fact, they did, at least one missile struck The House of Officers (cultural patriotic building honoring Armed Forces, was common in Soviet era, we have one here as well), which was just across the street. It was reportedly used for military purposes, which is indirectly confirmed by number of military personnel on site, even though Vinnitsa is in deep rear area.
https://t.me/bbbreaking/129896
Though I agree that hitting such target at daylight in the middle of the city was made with complete disregard to collateral civilian damage.
|
On July 14 2022 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2022 15:16 RvB wrote:On July 14 2022 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2022 22:26 schaf wrote:The threat to Ukraine now is more in a very prolonged war going on for one or two more years, right? I mean it just kills the national economy and any opportunity of growth. Might even lead to problems in paying their soldiers, which would be very bad for morale. + Show Spoiler +Russian organization in the first offensive was built upon very fast movement and resupplying in the field - food from sympathetic civilians, for example. Taking Kyiv fast was the main objective and neither the Russians nor anyone else outside the country expected such fierce resistance. If i recall correctly there was an armored advance in the first days towards the region around Gostomel where the tanks had to pause before entering Kyiv. The supply convoy that followed them was then ambushed and they had to retreat. The US is functionally paying them. The US is paying for almost everything including things like their national pension system (which was in a precarious condition prior to the war). The US (and world bank) recently announced it's paying Ukraine's healthcare workers. In addition, the US is paying for Ukraine keeping gas and electricity running in hospitals/schools, while also paying salaries of civil servants and teachers. So in that aspect I'd say the threat is US politicians cutting Ukraine off for political expediency at home. That's too US centric. Aid is not just from the US. The EU and European countries give as much humanitarian and financial assistance. The US does give a lot more military assistance. But aid and lending from international financial instutitions only provided 40% of the funding in total. 39% is funded through QE and the rest via selling bonds to investors. sources: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-sethttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24/ukraine-budget-lifeline-at-risk-as-biggest-bond-buyer-gets-antsy I'm familiar with the US's aid so that's why I mentioned it (with specific examples of what they are funding) but the point applies across the West. My point is that Ukraine's economy already isn't paying their basic/essential bills, the West (with the US paying the lion's share when including military aid) is.
Right, I agree with that. Ukraine relies on the west for aid and if it stops it'll be a huge problem for them.
|
Russian stock of cruise and ballistic missiles is far larger than most people think. For example Soviet Union built around 3000 of KH-22 missille family (which is basicaly anti-carrier missile, but as we can see have also other uses). Noone outside of Russian military really knows how much they still have in stock (some were scrapped). I saw some estimates they have around 1000 of them still.
And this is only KH family. They also have Iskanders, Kalibr and Toczkas (which they say they dont have anymore, but videos show they do). I am pretty sure there are also other missile families they can use in this role.
Many people underestimate how much weaponery Russia inherited from Soviet Union.
|
On July 15 2022 18:05 Silvanel wrote:
Russian stock of cruise and ballistic missiles is far larger than most people think. For example Soviet Union built around 3000 of KH-22 missille family (which is basicaly anti-carrier missile, but as we can see have also other uses). Noone outside of Russian military really knows how much they still have in stock (some were scrapped). I saw some estimates they have around 1000 of them still.
And this is only KH family. They also have Iskanders, Kalibr and Toczkas (which they say they dont have anymore, but videos show they do). I am pretty sure there are also other missile families they can use in this role. 'they build 3k missiles 30+ years ago" is why Russian missiles had a 60% failure rate, and those were the 'fresh' missiles they used at the start of the conflict.
You can't just throw a missile in storage for decades, ignore their maintenance because corruption and then expect them to work.
|
I dont get Your point. They use KH-22 and they are killing people in shopping centers and residential buildings with it... Apperently they think they have enough of them to do exactly just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
