• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 07:56
CET 13:56
KST 21:56
  • 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 Revival - 2025 Season Finals Preview8RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12
Community News
Weekly Cups (Jan 5-11): Clem wins big offline, Trigger upsets4$21,000 Rongyi Cup Season 3 announced (Jan 22-Feb 7)15Weekly Cups (Dec 29-Jan 4): Protoss rolls, 2v2 returns7[BSL21] Non-Korean Championship - Starts Jan 103SC2 All-Star Invitational: Jan 17-1833
StarCraft 2
General
SC2 All-Star Invitational: Jan 17-18 Stellar Fest "01" Jersey Charity Auction Weekly Cups (Jan 5-11): Clem wins big offline, Trigger upsets When will we find out if there are more tournament SC2 Spotted on the EWC 2026 list?
Tourneys
OSC Season 13 World Championship SC2 AI Tournament 2026 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $21,000 Rongyi Cup Season 3 announced (Jan 22-Feb 7) $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 508 Violent Night Mutation # 507 Well Trained Mutation # 506 Warp Zone Mutation # 505 Rise From Ashes
Brood War
General
[ASL21] Potential Map Candidates How Rain Became ProGamer in Just 3 Months BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] Grand Finals - Sunday 21:00 CET [BSL21] Non-Korean Championship - Starts Jan 10
Strategy
Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2 Simple Questions, Simple Answers Game Theory for Starcraft Current Meta
Other Games
General Games
Awesome Games Done Quick 2026! Beyond All Reason Nintendo Switch Thread Mechabellum Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread
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
Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas
Community
General
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Trading/Investing Thread
Fan Clubs
Innova Crysta on Hire
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
My 2025 Magic: The Gathering…
DARKING
Physical Exercise (HIIT) Bef…
TrAiDoS
Life Update and thoughts.
FuDDx
How do archons sleep?
8882
James Bond movies ranking - pa…
Topin
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1034 users

Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 343

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 341 342 343 344 345 911 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 States43460 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
Poland5739 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 States43460 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
Serbia6334 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.
"No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot." - Mark Twain
maybenexttime
Profile Blog Joined November 2006
Poland5739 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 States3277 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
Poland5739 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
780 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
Germany11713 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
780 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
Poland5739 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
780 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 States23579 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
Poland5739 Posts
January 10 2023 21:01 GMT
#6860
@GH

Do you have any evidence for that?
Prev 1 341 342 343 344 345 911 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
12:00
Season 13 World Championship
ArT vs BabymarineLIVE!
NightMare vs TriGGeR
YoungYakov vs TBD
WardiTV564
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Lowko263
BRAT_OK 61
trigger 27
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 35934
PianO 3222
Shuttle 1400
EffOrt 509
Stork 418
Larva 326
Zeus 299
BeSt 288
ZerO 256
Hyuk 249
[ Show more ]
Soma 213
Mong 185
Snow 185
firebathero 172
Rush 114
hero 110
Killer 103
Hyun 87
Dewaltoss 85
Leta 72
Sea.KH 58
Barracks 52
ToSsGirL 45
Yoon 27
Noble 19
zelot 18
yabsab 17
Terrorterran 17
Free 16
Bale 15
scan(afreeca) 15
JulyZerg 14
GoRush 14
Sacsri 13
HiyA 8
Shine 7
ivOry 5
Dota 2
XcaliburYe128
ODPixel65
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1702
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King75
Other Games
singsing2615
B2W.Neo1318
crisheroes291
DeMusliM215
Sick208
oskar104
Livibee66
QueenE59
ArmadaUGS19
ZerO(Twitch)18
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1989
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HappyZerGling 111
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 8
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV454
League of Legends
• Jankos2330
• TFBlade541
Upcoming Events
All-Star Invitational
13h 19m
INnoVation vs soO
Serral vs herO
Cure vs Solar
sOs vs Scarlett
Classic vs Clem
Reynor vs Maru
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
23h 4m
AI Arena Tournament
1d 7h
All-Star Invitational
1d 13h
MMA vs DongRaeGu
Rogue vs Oliveira
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 21h
OSC
1d 23h
Replay Cast
2 days
Wardi Open
2 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-01-14
Big Gabe Cup #3
NA Kuram Kup

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
CSL 2025 WINTER (S19)
Escore Tournament S1: W4
OSC Championship Season 13
Underdog Cup #3
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S1: W5
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
HSC XXVIII
Rongyi Cup S3
SC2 All-Star Inv. 2025
Nations Cup 2026
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League Season 23
ESL Pro League Season 23
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
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 © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.