|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons 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=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately 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.
On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that?
For what specifically?
|
On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
The west is trying to bleed Russia dry militarily and economically.
[...]
I personally don't think the west has to or is trying to prolong the war by restricting arms sent to Ukraine.
How can both of these make sense?
Surely if the aim is bleeding out Russia then arms deliveries are the best means to achieve that.
|
|
|
On January 11 2023 03:50 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
To your diaspora point, in our last elections in Romania the most nationalist party got 9% of the overall vote and 23% of the diaspora vote.
Diaspora polls are not a good workaround to quantify what people in Russia/China/Iran/etc think.
|
GH's response seems reasonable to me. The West is trying to bleed Russia through sanctions and aiding Ukraine in resisting is bleeding them militarily. Both benefit the West if Russia is determined to be a bad actor.
And he agrees the West is sending what it can and that despite sending what we can the war will keep going.
Tho I don't think a stalemate is actually what the west wants (not counting the military industrial complex), its just that its unavoidable in the current situation (aka the West not directly getting involved in the fighting)
|
On January 11 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons 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=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately 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. Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that? For what specifically?
That the West is sacrificing Ukrainians and "innocent" Russian civilians to bleed Russia's military dry or that the West seeks a stalemate. There is literally zero evidence for any of that. The West "sacrificing Ukrainians" would imply that we are somehow making Ukrainians fight. That's nonsense. This is an existential war for them and they have the will to win it. They are sacrificing their own lives for that. The West "sacrificing innocent Russian civilians" would imply that there is some collateral damage on the Russian side. There isn't. Unless by "innocent civilians" you meant mobilized soldiers. In that case, they are neither civilians nor innocent.
There is also no evidence that the West wants a stalemate. As pointed out earlier, in the US Congress, there are two camps - neither of them is interested in a prolonged conflict. In Europe, there are all sorts of points of view. The majority supports Ukraine and wants the war to end as soon as possible. Some want to go back to business as usual, and then there are the Putin bootlickers. Again, nobody is advocating for a prolonged conflict.
|
|
|
On January 11 2023 06:37 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:
GH's response seems reasonable to me. The West is trying to bleed Russia through sanctions and aiding Ukraine in resisting is bleeding them militarily. Both benefit the West if Russia is determined to be a bad actor.
And he agrees the West is sending what it can and that despite sending what we can the war will keep going.
Tho I don't think a stalemate is actually what the west wants (not counting the military industrial complex), its just that its unavoidable in the current situation (aka the West not directly getting involved in the fighting) Thinking about it more, I do have to wonder if the deliberate gradual escalation is a boiling frog analogy to keep Russia from saying a red line's been crossed
Of course is it. We don't know whether Putin is a lunatic or just acting like one. The escalation is gradual to avoid a knee-jerk reaction.
|
|
|
On January 11 2023 06:37 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:
GH's response seems reasonable to me. The West is trying to bleed Russia through sanctions and aiding Ukraine in resisting is bleeding them militarily. Both benefit the West if Russia is determined to be a bad actor.
And he agrees the West is sending what it can and that despite sending what we can the war will keep going.
Tho I don't think a stalemate is actually what the west wants (not counting the military industrial complex), its just that its unavoidable in the current situation (aka the West not directly getting involved in the fighting) Thinking about it more, I do have to wonder if the deliberate gradual escalation is a boiling frog analogy to keep Russia from saying a red line's been crossed
I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the boiling frog is a combination of keeping Ukraine's logistics from being over stressed by adding things too fast but also to boiling frog china.
There is some stark truth that right now the usa can supply the equipment needed to launch a comprehensive, if not extremely costly, strike on the kertch bridge and to strike even Moscow with tactical missiles.
|
How much escalating has the West been doing tho? As Kwark correctly pointed out a lot of tanks were already send early in the conflict, they were just Russian because it was easier to integrate. Same with artillery.
You could probably point to delivery of HIMARS as a slow(ish) escalation. But sending patriots is less frog boiling and more a reaction to Russia changing strategies with their move to attack power and heat infrastructure.
|
On January 11 2023 06:31 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 03:50 maybenexttime wrote: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. To your diaspora point, in our last elections in Romania the most nationalist party got 9% of the overall vote and 23% of the diaspora vote. Diaspora polls are not a good workaround to quantify what people in Russia/China/Iran/etc think.
Pretty much every source of information points in the same direction...
|
On January 11 2023 06:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 06:37 plasmidghost wrote:On January 11 2023 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:
GH's response seems reasonable to me. The West is trying to bleed Russia through sanctions and aiding Ukraine in resisting is bleeding them militarily. Both benefit the West if Russia is determined to be a bad actor.
And he agrees the West is sending what it can and that despite sending what we can the war will keep going.
Tho I don't think a stalemate is actually what the west wants (not counting the military industrial complex), its just that its unavoidable in the current situation (aka the West not directly getting involved in the fighting) Thinking about it more, I do have to wonder if the deliberate gradual escalation is a boiling frog analogy to keep Russia from saying a red line's been crossed I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the boiling frog is a combination of keeping Ukraine's logistics from being over stressed by adding things too fast but also to boiling frog china. There is some stark truth that right now the usa can supply the equipment needed to launch a comprehensive, if not extremely costly, strike on the kertch bridge and to strike even Moscow with tactical missiles. I think not wanting to send long range missiles is a very clear point of the West having set itself a line to stop overly antagonising Russia by not giving Ukraine the ability to strike at Russia itself with Western weapons.
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
On January 11 2023 04:05 plasmidghost wrote: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.
Ammunition-wise - yes, Russia definetly spent much more, than it could produce in summer, due to having huge stockpiles built both in Soviet and Russian times (though these stockpiles were severely depleted by the destruction of older munitions in late 00s-10s). Some sources estimate production in 2020 of 300 000 shells (both new ones and restored old ones) and 20 000 rockets for BM-21. These numbers surely went up in 2022, but the main bottleneck would still be lack of production lines in different departments, as well as qualified techincians, even if current plants are working 24/7.
Also having much smaller numbers in summer, Russia had no choice but use sheer amount of firepower to continue their advance. But since ammo stocks are going down, they have to work out different tactics with artillery instead of throwing train after train of shells, though that speaks a lot about "shitty Russian logistics", which was capable of delivering thousands of tons of ammunition alone daily. Peak numbers per day in summer were 60 000 shells, with an average of 20 000 shells. With Russian main caliber being 152-mm, it means 43 kg shell and 10-12 kg charge - its 1000 tons a day on average and 3000 tons a day at peak.
On January 11 2023 04:05 plasmidghost wrote:
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?
Wagner still maintains its presence in Africa at least, there were few recent photos from Mali and CAR. But there are a lot of people with combat experience in Syria and Africa, that are now fighting in Ukraine, that's true, and maybe some returned recently.
Though Wagner's African contigent seems not to be large enough to be relevant in Ukraine war. CAR seem to have around a thousand, few hundred in Mali and Syria, some probably still in Lybia and South Sudan.
Also people close to Wagner on Russian military forums disagree with the number, saying that there are around 25-30k "musicians" in Ukraine. Though I doubt we'll get a distinct figure until long after the end of the war.
P.S.: Also Prigozhin just now released a statement (together with his photo with Wagner soldiers in something resembling a salt mine), claiming that "Wagner controls all of Soledar's territory, in the center there are still pockets of Ukrainian fighters remaining, that are being cleared out, only Wagner and no other troops took part in taking the Soledar".
|
|
|
Wagner antagonizing Russian forces is a stupid calculation.
If the Russian forces stop providing them weapons, they are dead.
The Russian military is the most likely party to turn if the stars align.
Also Wagner have large numbers, being a prisoner does not make you a fighter, or a war hero.
Wagner will collapse by betrayal. I wonder how many officer of Wagner has to be eliminated to render those 10's of thousands of prisoners absolutely useless, even borderline comedic situation where Russian forces would be ordered to take them into their units...
|
On January 11 2023 06:35 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons 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=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately 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. On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that? For what specifically? That the West is sacrificing Ukrainians and "innocent" Russian civilians to bleed Russia's military dry or that the West seeks a stalemate. There is literally zero evidence for any of that. The West "sacrificing Ukrainians" would imply that we are somehow making Ukrainians fight. That's nonsense. This is an existential war for them and they have the will to win it. They are sacrificing their own lives for that. The West "sacrificing innocent Russian civilians" would imply that there is some collateral damage on the Russian side. There isn't. Unless by "innocent civilians" you meant mobilized soldiers. In that case, they are neither civilians nor innocent. There is also no evidence that the West wants a stalemate. As pointed out earlier, in the US Congress, there are two camps - neither of them is interested in a prolonged conflict. In Europe, there are all sorts of points of view. The majority supports Ukraine and wants the war to end as soon as possible. Some want to go back to business as usual, and then there are the Putin bootlickers. Again, nobody is advocating for a prolonged conflict.
I think Gor covered it. I'd add that obviously the west (MIC's influence and their profits notwithstanding) wants Russia to just lose, Putin to be removed from power and to start the scramble for breaking off pieces of Russia to bring under western influence. A stalemate (one the US-MIC is certainly profiting from) sacrificing Ukrainian lives is just the "best" they can hope for given the circumstances (most of which were foreseeable about a month into the war). I've made clear before that I don't mean Ukrainians are being forced (other than reasonably by circumstance and will) to fight and die, just that the west's integral support isn't contingent on them being able to win, or Ukrainians ending up with a better life, or limited by a magic body count, but on it costing Russia more of it's "disposable" blood and treasure than the west's (or at least setting Russia on a path to run out first), Ukraine continuing to fight (even if their population grows weary of war) , and it remaining viable politically in the US.
As for the innocent Russian civilians, I'm talking about their exacerbated immiseration through sanctions.
|
On January 11 2023 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 06:35 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons 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=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately 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. On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that? For what specifically? That the West is sacrificing Ukrainians and "innocent" Russian civilians to bleed Russia's military dry or that the West seeks a stalemate. There is literally zero evidence for any of that. The West "sacrificing Ukrainians" would imply that we are somehow making Ukrainians fight. That's nonsense. This is an existential war for them and they have the will to win it. They are sacrificing their own lives for that. The West "sacrificing innocent Russian civilians" would imply that there is some collateral damage on the Russian side. There isn't. Unless by "innocent civilians" you meant mobilized soldiers. In that case, they are neither civilians nor innocent. There is also no evidence that the West wants a stalemate. As pointed out earlier, in the US Congress, there are two camps - neither of them is interested in a prolonged conflict. In Europe, there are all sorts of points of view. The majority supports Ukraine and wants the war to end as soon as possible. Some want to go back to business as usual, and then there are the Putin bootlickers. Again, nobody is advocating for a prolonged conflict. I think Gor covered it. I'd add that obviously the west (MIC's influence and their profits notwithstanding) wants Russia to just lose, Putin to be removed from power and to start the scramble for breaking off pieces of Russia to bring under western influence. A stalemate (one the US-MIC is certainly profiting from) sacrificing Ukrainian lives is just the "best" they can hope for given the circumstances (most of which were foreseeable about a month into the war). I've made clear before that I don't mean Ukrainians are being forced (other than reasonably by circumstance and will) to fight and die, just that the west's integral support isn't contingent on them being able to win, or Ukrainians ending up with a better life, or limited by a magic body count, but on it costing Russia more of it's "disposable" blood and treasure than the west's (or at least setting Russia on a path to run out first), Ukraine continuing to fight (even if their population grows weary of war) , and it remaining viable politically in the US. As for the innocent Russian civilians, I'm talking about their exacerbated immiseration through sanctions.
You said that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Words have meaning, you know. Saying that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives means that we are somehow making them fight. It strips the Ukrainians of agency.
As for the sanctions, they were specifically designed to not hurt the general population. An average Russian was hardly affected by them. Also calling losing Netflix or higher than expected inflation "being sacrificed" is ridiculous. ;-)
And I'm still waiting for any evidence regarding the West supposedly wanting a stalemate.
|
On January 11 2023 08:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 06:35 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons 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=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately 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. On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that? For what specifically? That the West is sacrificing Ukrainians and "innocent" Russian civilians to bleed Russia's military dry or that the West seeks a stalemate. There is literally zero evidence for any of that. The West "sacrificing Ukrainians" would imply that we are somehow making Ukrainians fight. That's nonsense. This is an existential war for them and they have the will to win it. They are sacrificing their own lives for that. The West "sacrificing innocent Russian civilians" would imply that there is some collateral damage on the Russian side. There isn't. Unless by "innocent civilians" you meant mobilized soldiers. In that case, they are neither civilians nor innocent. There is also no evidence that the West wants a stalemate. As pointed out earlier, in the US Congress, there are two camps - neither of them is interested in a prolonged conflict. In Europe, there are all sorts of points of view. The majority supports Ukraine and wants the war to end as soon as possible. Some want to go back to business as usual, and then there are the Putin bootlickers. Again, nobody is advocating for a prolonged conflict. I think Gor covered it. I'd add that obviously the west (MIC's influence and their profits notwithstanding) wants Russia to just lose, Putin to be removed from power and to start the scramble for breaking off pieces of Russia to bring under western influence. A stalemate (one the US-MIC is certainly profiting from) sacrificing Ukrainian lives is just the "best" they can hope for given the circumstances (most of which were foreseeable about a month into the war). I've made clear before that I don't mean Ukrainians are being forced (other than reasonably by circumstance and will) to fight and die, just that the west's integral support isn't contingent on them being able to win, or Ukrainians ending up with a better life, or limited by a magic body count, but on it costing Russia more of it's "disposable" blood and treasure than the west's (or at least setting Russia on a path to run out first), Ukraine continuing to fight (even if their population grows weary of war) , and it remaining viable politically in the US. As for the innocent Russian civilians, I'm talking about their exacerbated immiseration through sanctions. You said that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Words have meaning, you know. Saying that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives means that we are somehow making them fight. It strips the Ukrainians of agency. + Show Spoiler +
As for the sanctions, they were specifically designed to not hurt the general population. An average Russian was hardly affected by them. Also calling losing Netflix or higher than expected inflation "being sacrificed" is ridiculous. ;-)
And I'm still waiting for any evidence regarding the West supposedly wanting a stalemate
.
No, it doesn't. People can sacrifice themselves and be sacrificed by a third party simultaneously. If someone puts a gun to lover's head and says "it's you or your lover" you can both agree on sacrificing you without stripping anyone of agency (beyond the existential threat) as a simple example. Your lover isn't making you sacrifice yourself (it's a reasonable response to your circumstances), but they are consciously sacrificing you.
Poverty kills and we know sanctions exacerbate poverty, this is especially true when applied to authoritarian regimes. afaik the crowd willing to still argue this isn't the case is ever dwindling.
It's generally accepted that regardless of stated intentions:
Economic sanctions lead to an increase in the poverty gap and deprived sections of the population feel the most impact.
For the most part sanctions fail to achieve their aims and elites manage to negotiate the adverse effects to a far greater level than poorer citizens.
Sanctions have a damaging effect on income inequality and impact ordinary people more than the sanctioned country’s leaders.
Sanctions tend to harm rural and non-industrialised areas more, as resources are refocused in power and production centres.
Between 1976 and 2012 UN sanctions led to a 25.5 percent aggregate decline in GDP per capita of the sanctioned countries (Neuenkirch & Neumeier, 2015).
The negative impact that sanctions have on economic growth affect women, minority communities and other marginalised groups to a greater extent.
Sanctions have a significant negative impact on the living standards and humanitarian situation of the population in the sanctioned state.
gsdrc.org
|
United States44289 Posts
On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons 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=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately 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.
Ukrainians are willing to sacrifice their own lives for freedom which is completely rational if you look at how Russia brutalizes the people in “Russian” Ukraine. The west isn’t sacrificing them, they want to fight if the alternative is occupation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
