• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 18:29
CET 00:29
KST 08:29
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10[ASL20] Finals Preview: Arrival13
Community News
[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation13Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada4SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA8StarCraft, SC2, HotS, WC3, Returning to Blizzcon!45$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship7
StarCraft 2
General
[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t RotterdaM "Serral is the GOAT, and it's not close" RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 3 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest Tenacious Turtle Tussle Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 500 Fright night Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened
Brood War
General
FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ What happened to TvZ on Retro? SnOw's ASL S20 Finals Review BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL21] RO32 Group D - Sunday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO32 Group C - Saturday 21:00 CET
Strategy
PvZ map balance Current Meta Simple Questions, Simple Answers How to stay on top of macro?
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Clair Obscur - Expedition 33 Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread About SC2SEA.COM Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Korean Music Discussion Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Dyadica Gospel – a Pulp No…
Hildegard
Coffee x Performance in Espo…
TrAiDoS
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Reality "theory" prov…
perfectspheres
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2177 users

Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 343

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 341 342 343 344 345 875 Next
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.
plasmidghost
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Belgium16168 Posts
January 10 2023 16:05 GMT
#6841
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

Yugoslavia will always live on in my heart
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States43232 Posts
January 10 2023 16:28 GMT
#6842
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
January 10 2023 16:29 GMT
#6843
NSFW. Close combat, radio message.


"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5656 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 16:34:33
January 10 2023 16:30 GMT
#6844
@plasmidghost

Where does she say that? If anything, she says the exact opposite - that many Western politicians have no appetite for a protracted conflict and the support will eventually dwindle, so we should help Ukraine finish the business ASAP.

On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Article:

+ Show Spoiler +
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States43232 Posts
January 10 2023 16:38 GMT
#6845
On January 11 2023 01:30 maybenexttime wrote:
@plasmidghost

Where does she say that? If anything, she says the exact opposite - that many Western politicians have no appetite for a protracted conflict and the support will eventually dwindle, so we should help Ukraine finish the business ASAP.

Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Article:

+ Show Spoiler +
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Yeah, looks like she’s urging to military to pursue transferring as much as possible as quickly as possible to get things done before the political will (this is code for the Russian aligned MAGA wing taking over) to help Ukraine declines.

That’s a perfectly reasonable take for a civilian with an interest in politics to have. Though I suspect that the military calculus is different and that although they’re also trying to get Ukraine to win as quickly and cleanly as possible they’re dealing with practicalities that Condie isn’t.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
plasmidghost
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Belgium16168 Posts
January 10 2023 17:11 GMT
#6846
On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Oh yeah, forgot it's paywalled. Here's the text of her statement with Gates:
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.


When she says statements like what I bolded, it's a diplomatic way of saying that the US is keeping Ukraine on a lifeline despite knowing that Putin will not give up the invasion and will keep throwing bodies at Ukraine, so by keeping a gradually increasing amount of equipment going to Ukraine, there will be more and more Russian deaths, but at the cost of Ukrainian lives and resources and that Russia will overrun Ukraine soon if supplies aren't increased
Yugoslavia will always live on in my heart
plasmidghost
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Belgium16168 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 17:19:55
January 10 2023 17:12 GMT
#6847
On January 11 2023 01:30 maybenexttime wrote:
@plasmidghost

Where does she say that? If anything, she says the exact opposite - that many Western politicians have no appetite for a protracted conflict and the support will eventually dwindle, so we should help Ukraine finish the business ASAP.

Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Article:

+ Show Spoiler +
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Am I misinterpreting what she's saying? I posted what it read to me but I could very well have read it wrong. I don't know why the US would be providing the amount it is if they're not trying to bleed Russia, but is that not what she's saying ? I'm confused
Yugoslavia will always live on in my heart
zeo
Profile Joined October 2009
Serbia6306 Posts
January 10 2023 17:31 GMT
#6848
On January 10 2023 21:02 Ardias wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 10 2023 20:16 Magic Powers wrote:
On January 10 2023 17:12 warding wrote:
Julian Röpke is one of the least reliable journalists out there by the way. The guy was claiming the Kherson offensive was a massive failure two days into it.


Thanks for the note. I think his bias is noticable in this comment: "All those “it’s a strategic meat grinder” folks should swallow their words." How can he say that if the situation is still unfolding? If I'm not mistaken Bakhmut was under Russian occupation initially during the war, so in that region Ukraine is fighting to hold reclaimed territory. So far it's looking like a repeat of Kherson.

Bakhmut was never under Russian control. It came into artillery firing range in May, and the battle itself unfolded in late July-early August (though fighting was still happening before, just further from the city).

Artemovsk was one of the first settlements to rise up in armed rebellion against the post-coup Maidan government in Kiev. Only days after the Slavyansk SBU offices were taken over (April 12th, 2014), local Artemovsk police and militias took control of the town from the central government in Kiev. The population of the town took part in the DPR referendum (May 2014) whos military was made up of many locals from Artemovsk... though as with other populations centers where the majority of the population identified as Ukrainian they were more for a federalized Ukraine that took centralized power away from Kiev, or an independent state, rather than a merger with Russia.

Over time and with armed conflict / intense propaganda, these positions were polarized to either in or out of Ukraine. It comes down to semantics weather you can call it 'under Russian control', but there was a time when it was under the control of its own people inside the DPR, and the power structures inside Donetsk, rather than Kiev. Until July of 2014, after which it has been under the control of the Kiev government, who's post-Maidan leadership opted to change the name of the settlement to Bakhmut in 2016.
"If only Kircheis were here" - Everyone
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5656 Posts
January 10 2023 17:45 GMT
#6849
On January 11 2023 02:11 plasmidghost wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Oh yeah, forgot it's paywalled. Here's the text of her statement with Gates:
Show nested quote +
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.


When she says statements like what I bolded, it's a diplomatic way of saying that the US is keeping Ukraine on a lifeline despite knowing that Putin will not give up the invasion and will keep throwing bodies at Ukraine, so by keeping a gradually increasing amount of equipment going to Ukraine, there will be more and more Russian deaths, but at the cost of Ukrainian lives and resources and that Russia will overrun Ukraine soon if supplies aren't increased

I'm pretty sure she's merely saying that Ukraine is in a precarious situation, highly dependent on the West (mainly the US), so if that help dries up, Ukraine is screwed. As far as I can tell, the bolded part is not even hinted in the article. She described two camps in the American Congress: one in favour of supporting Ukraine and another saying the US has no business helping Ukraine. There's no mention of anyone cynically protracting the conflict.

On January 11 2023 02:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 01:30 maybenexttime wrote:
@plasmidghost

Where does she say that? If anything, she says the exact opposite - that many Western politicians have no appetite for a protracted conflict and the support will eventually dwindle, so we should help Ukraine finish the business ASAP.

On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Article:

+ Show Spoiler +
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Am I misinterpreting what she's saying? I posted what it read to me but I could very well have read it wrong. I don't know why the US would be providing the amount it is if they're not trying to bleed Russia, but is that not what she's saying ? I'm confused

I honestly think you are, indeed, misreading it quite badly, no offence.
plasmidghost
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Belgium16168 Posts
January 10 2023 17:48 GMT
#6850
On January 11 2023 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 02:11 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Oh yeah, forgot it's paywalled. Here's the text of her statement with Gates:
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.


When she says statements like what I bolded, it's a diplomatic way of saying that the US is keeping Ukraine on a lifeline despite knowing that Putin will not give up the invasion and will keep throwing bodies at Ukraine, so by keeping a gradually increasing amount of equipment going to Ukraine, there will be more and more Russian deaths, but at the cost of Ukrainian lives and resources and that Russia will overrun Ukraine soon if supplies aren't increased

I'm pretty sure she's merely saying that Ukraine is in a precarious situation, highly dependent on the West (mainly the US), so if that help dries up, Ukraine is screwed. As far as I can tell, the bolded part is not even hinted in the article. She described two camps in the American Congress: one in favour of supporting Ukraine and another saying the US has no business helping Ukraine. There's no mention of anyone cynically protracting the conflict.

Show nested quote +
On January 11 2023 02:12 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:30 maybenexttime wrote:
@plasmidghost

Where does she say that? If anything, she says the exact opposite - that many Western politicians have no appetite for a protracted conflict and the support will eventually dwindle, so we should help Ukraine finish the business ASAP.

On January 11 2023 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On January 11 2023 01:05 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.

I mean, I don't think it's tankie propaganda when Condoleezza Rice is the one that said it

https://twitter.com/CondoleezzaRice/status/1612510272245354497

Can’t read it without an account. Can you quote the sections where she says the US is deliberately holding back to bleed both sides?

Article:

+ Show Spoiler +
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Am I misinterpreting what she's saying? I posted what it read to me but I could very well have read it wrong. I don't know why the US would be providing the amount it is if they're not trying to bleed Russia, but is that not what she's saying ? I'm confused

I honestly think you are, indeed, misreading it quite badly, no offence.

All good, I kinda figured I was. Too exhausted to really comprehend things properly anymore tbh
Yugoslavia will always live on in my heart
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3252 Posts
January 10 2023 18:10 GMT
#6851
*Really* hate to spend time discussing Condoleezza Rice in 2023 but I think her intention there is more to respond to the weird right-wing faction here in the US that’s either isolationist or explicitly pro-Putin. I don’t think she’s saying we’ve been intentionally withholding aid to prolong the conflict, although she might be saying we (either Biden admin officials or Congress) have been either too slow solving logistical problems, or too conservative with the budget. My impression is the Biden admin is fully committed to pulling every lever it can to give Ukraine more aid, and the challenge is either logistics (how do we get it there?) or diplomacy (how do we keep our European allies full throttle on supplying aid?).

Willing to be shown I’m wrong, but as far as I can tell, the only factions in the US reticent to fully support Ukraine are either certain radical leftists (“No war but class war!”) or right-wing crazies (“Something something globalists, something something America First…”).
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5656 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 18:30:04
January 10 2023 18:27 GMT
#6852
An important interview with the scientific director of the Levada Center, Russia's only independent pollster. It shows the depths of moral depravity of the Russian society.

DER SPIEGEL: The war itself isn’t being questioned.

Gudkov: No, the attacks on Ukraine and the massacres play no role. The Russians have little compassion for the Ukrainians. Almost no one here talks about the fact that people are being killed in Ukraine.

DER SPIEGEL: Can you quantify that?

Gudkov: The share is just 1.5 to 2 percent of respondents. And only an average of 10 percent of the population feels guilt and shows empathy – Russian society is amoral. Of course, they don’t want war, but people behave submissively, passively and don’t want to engage in open conflict with the state.
ZeroByte13
Profile Joined March 2022
775 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 18:45:45
January 10 2023 18:40 GMT
#6853
From my experience (and I heard opinions of ~ 100-200 Russians, I'd guess) - this is BS.
It all comes from what type of people are happy to participate in the survey. I know I wouldn't participate.

It's people who feel safe sharing their opinions. Guess what type of opinion is safe to share there.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11632 Posts
January 10 2023 18:47 GMT
#6854
On January 11 2023 03:40 ZeroByte13 wrote:
From my experience (and I heard opinions of 100-200 Russians, I'd guess) - this is BS.
It all comes from what type of people are happy to participate in the survey. I know I wouldn't participate.

It's people who feel safe sharing their opinions. Guess what type of opinion is safe to share there.


Yeah, i think surveys in Russia are something you need to be generally suspicious off. If saying the wrong thing to the wrong person gets you into massive trouble, and that has been the case basically since forever, the people who would say that kind of thing just simply don't talk, or lie. So even if the surveyors are serious, you still get a distorted view of public opinion. I would be very surprised if survival strategies from the soviet era don't still massively influence how Russians talk in public.
ZeroByte13
Profile Joined March 2022
775 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 18:50:18
January 10 2023 18:49 GMT
#6855
On January 11 2023 03:47 Simberto wrote:
I would be very surprised if survival strategies from the soviet era don't still massively influence how Russians talk in public.
Oh believe me they do...
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5656 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 18:51:51
January 10 2023 18:50 GMT
#6856
On January 11 2023 03:40 ZeroByte13 wrote:
From my experience (and I heard opinions of ~ 100-200 Russians, I'd guess) - this is BS.
It all comes from what type of people are happy to participate in the survey. I know I wouldn't participate.

It's people who feel safe sharing their opinions. Guess what type of opinion is safe to share there.

If that were the case, then why are polls conducted among the Russian diaspora in Europe painting a similar picture? Ukrainians with families in Russia are reporting the same. Same for my interactions with Russians, whether in person or online. For every ZeroByte13, I've seen several other Russians saying the exact opposite.
ZeroByte13
Profile Joined March 2022
775 Posts
Last Edited: 2023-01-10 18:59:18
January 10 2023 18:59 GMT
#6857
Well, I don't see reasons to argue about this, tbh - I know what I see/hear from the ~80-90% of the people I know.
No poll made by unknown to me people with unknown agenda amongst unknown to me audience will change this, obviously.

Most people here made their mind long ago and won't change it, so why bother.
plasmidghost
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Belgium16168 Posts
January 10 2023 19:05 GMT
#6858
CNN published an article outlining the ammo situation for Russia and how artillery fire from Russia has decreased 75% from peak days in the war (20k to 5k). It did not give a definitive reason why.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its 11th month, US and Ukrainian officials tell CNN that Russia’s artillery fire is down dramatically from its wartime high, in some places by as much as 75 percent.

US and Ukrainian officials don’t yet have a clear or singular explanation. Russia may be rationing artillery rounds due to low supplies, or it could be part of a broader reassessment of tactics in the face of successful Ukrainian offenses.

Either way, the striking decline in artillery fire is further evidence of Russia’s increasingly weak position on the battlefield nearly a year into its invasion, US and Ukrainian officials told CNN. It also comes as Ukraine is enjoying increased military support from its western allies, with the US and Germany announcing last week that they will be providing Ukrainian forces for the first time with armored fighting vehicles, as well as another Patriot Defense missile battery that will help protect its skies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, is apparently clambering to shore up domestic political support, US intelligence officials believe, for a war he initially would only describe as a limited “special military operation.”

US officials believe the 36-hour ceasefire Putin ordered in Ukraine last week to allow for the observance of Orthodox Christmas was an attempt to pander to Russia’s extensive Christian population, two people familiar with the intelligence told CNN, as well as an opportunity for Putin to blame Ukrainians for breaking it and paint them as heretical heathens.


In the same article, it talks about Wagner.

Much of the domestic opposition Putin and his generals have faced over the handling of the war has come from one of the Russian leader’s closest allies: Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the mercenary organization Wagner Group. Prigozhin has complained that the Russian Ministry of Defense has botched the war effort, and that Wagner Group should be given more equipment, authority and autonomy to carry out operations in Ukraine.

But Wagner Group has lost thousands of fighters in Ukraine the last two months alone, a senior US official said.

Russia suffered another setback earlier this month when Ukrainian forces hit a weapons depot in Makiivka in eastern Ukraine, destroying more Russian supplies and killing scores of Russian troops housed nearby. The strike also raised questions among prominent Russian military bloggers about the basic competence of the Russian military brass, which had apparently decided to house hundreds of Russian troops next to an obuvious Ukrainian target.

“Maybe this one strike is a drop in the bucket, but the bucket is getting smaller,” a US defense official said, referring to the Russians’ dwindling stockpiles.


There's a lot more good info in it, but I had a question:

Prigozhin’s ambitions are not limited to greater political power, however, the US believes. There are also indications that he wants to take control over the lucrative salt and gypsum from mines near Bakhmut, a senior administration official tells CNN.

“This is consistent with Wagner’s modus operandi in Africa, where the group’s military activities often function hand in hand with control of mining assets,” the official said, adding that the US believes these monetary incentives are driving Prigozhin and Russia’s “obsession” with taking Bakhmut.

The official also said that Wagner Group has suffered heavy casualties in its operations near Bakhmut since late November.

“Out of its force of nearly 50,000 mercenaries (including 40,000 convicts), the company has sustained over 4,100 killed and 10,000 wounded, including over 1,000 killed between late November and early December near Bakhmut,” the official said, adding that about 90% of those killed were convicts.

The official said that Russia “cannot sustain these kinds of losses.”

“If Russia does eventually seize Bakhmut, Russia will surely characterize this, misleadingly, as a ‘major victory,” the official added. “But we know that is not the case. If the cost for each 36 square miles of Ukraine [the approximate size of Bakhmut] is thousands of Russians over seven months, this is the definition of Pyrrhic victory.”


Does anyone know if this figure of 50,000 mercs (which I read is only for Ukraine) includes any trained forces that came from places like Syria, the Central African Republic, or other overseas places Wagner operates? If these numbers are accurate and Wagner's punted away 28% of their forces, would they bring in their mercs from outside of Ukraine?
Yugoslavia will always live on in my heart
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23472 Posts
January 10 2023 20:49 GMT
#6859
On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:
On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:
This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe).

https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539

Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal.

The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed.

Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table.

I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap

This is tankie propaganda. + Show Spoiler +
We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.

Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.

It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.

Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.

The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”.
Just for clarity as someone politically closest to "tankies"

The west is trying to bleed Russia dry militarily and economically. The west is willing to sacrifice Ukrainian (and innocent Russian civilian) lives to make that happen.

Ukraine has to keep fighting or its government collapses under outstanding obligations.

Putin has to keep fighting or he loses his head.

How weapons play into that is a bit more complicated.

I personally don't think the west has to or is trying to prolong the war by restricting arms sent to Ukraine. They can send everything they reasonably can and still get the stalemate they want while holding out hope for Russia to collapse.

"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5656 Posts
January 10 2023 21:01 GMT
#6860
@GH

Do you have any evidence for that?
Prev 1 341 342 343 344 345 875 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
23:00
WardiTV Mondays #59
CranKy Ducklings45
LiquipediaDiscussion
BSL 21
20:00
ProLeague - RO32 Group D
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
ZZZero.O251
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 235
Ketroc 32
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 370
ZZZero.O 251
yabsab 6
Dota 2
Pyrionflax188
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 372
Counter-Strike
fl0m1518
kRYSTAL_107
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox610
AZ_Axe88
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor176
Other Games
tarik_tv6639
Grubby4514
ToD143
Maynarde103
Organizations
Other Games
EGCTV971
gamesdonequick813
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 22 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 77
• RyuSc2 41
• davetesta31
• musti20045 28
• HeavenSC 25
• Adnapsc2 7
• OhrlRock 2
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21705
• Ler72
League of Legends
• Doublelift2665
Other Games
• imaqtpie1673
• Shiphtur311
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
12h 31m
Monday Night Weeklies
17h 31m
Replay Cast
23h 31m
WardiTV Korean Royale
1d 12h
BSL: GosuLeague
1d 21h
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
BSL: GosuLeague
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Korean Royale
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
5 days
IPSL
5 days
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
RSL Revival
6 days
Wardi Open
6 days
IPSL
6 days
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-14
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
CSCL: Masked Kings S3
SLON Tour Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 3
META Madness #9
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.