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 February 14 2023 15:06 Velr wrote: In Switzerland they try to separate Ukrainian refugees from other refugees in the early integration/language classes, probably to appease right wing folks. All the teachers i know hate the idea and assured me it's not done due to former education or language level. It's mostly done to grant the illusion that these refugees will return home soon, which we know won't happen, the balkan wars thought us that. These classes are usually pretty small and used to decide which "normal" classes the children should attend once they have gotten some language proficiency. Are they doing similar stuff in your countries?
That's kinda weird. I know that Swiss people can be a bit xenophobic/isolationist but they're also usually very conscious politically. Ukrainian refugees are one of the best things that could happen to most European countries actually, since most of them are highly developed countries and have bad demographic curve (too many old people, not enough young ones, bad for economy).
Compared to refugees from further away Ukrainians are much easier to integrate into western society since they mostly share the same values and are actually eager to be a part of it.
Since they don't do anything for UA, at least they could help some refugees... FFS come on Switzerland
I think you missunderstood.
No refugees are sent back as long as the conflict is going on. I somewhat hope the policy was inacted at a point were there was hope that this was a quick conflict, because it makes 0 sense. If anything people, among them other refugees, here argue that ukrainians are treated better than others.
The no help thing is also just plain untrue. There are no weapons, plenty of other help.
I decided to google it. 104 mn $ is ~1 day of what the EU gives as an institution per day. So if the fuckery with other peoples weapons prolongs the war 1 day it's a net negative contribution to Ukraine. It's also highly likely that this has caused other allies (especially Germany) x10 the cost to come up with alternative sources of ammo.
All the while selling weapons to Saudi Arabia because apparently they are not involved in a war in Yemen.
I think Switzerland will probably need to make some pretty hard decisions very soon if they don't want a post-war reminder of that they are a single surrounded small country that is reliant on the good will of the European union.
Suggestions could include change tune now and not only permitting arms sales but actually sending weapons, adding a 0 behind the current aid number or seizing the 7,5 billion worth of frozen assets and transferring them to Ukraine.
On February 14 2023 21:17 Silvanel wrote: This indeed looks crazy, if this footage is true than I dont know what to think... Even most stubborn and reckless people should understand what a minefield is...
Mines aren’t killing the crew, just the tank. If they get nearer the UAF they’ll eat a javelin and get burned alive. Mines are a great way to keep your tank from putting you in danger. As long as you’re not a true believer in the cause it makes perfect sense to lose your tank and tell command you tried your best.
It's probably still going to injure the driver, and now that all the tanks are disabled, it's a pretty good target for a drone to go out and permanently kill half a dozen vehicles.
Russia has a ton of armor, but that is a hugely wasteful way to use it.
Yeah, it’s not a good military tactic, just like shooting yourself in the foot isn’t a good military tactic. But when you have no confidence in commanders, don’t believe in the mission, and don’t feel like dying today you shoot yourself in the foot to get out of going over the top. I’m saying this is the tank equivalent of that. You don’t care about the loss of the tank, you just don’t want to be in it when it gets into javelin range.
Or hit by artillery. Tank half life in an attack is short and it's either javelin, artillery or a mine that will get you.If it's an Excalibur round you are dead, otherwise it's probably like 50-50 if your dead or the tank is just disabled with artillery.
I agree that hitting a mine with a track sounds like an excellent idea. In the initial phase they perforated fuel tanks or drove into ditches but that kind of sabotage is likely more risky now.
On February 14 2023 21:17 Silvanel wrote: This indeed looks crazy, if this footage is true than I dont know what to think... Even most stubborn and reckless people should understand what a minefield is...
Mines aren’t killing the crew, just the tank. If they get nearer the UAF they’ll eat a javelin and get burned alive. Mines are a great way to keep your tank from putting you in danger. As long as you’re not a true believer in the cause it makes perfect sense to lose your tank and tell command you tried your best.
It's probably still going to injure the driver, and now that all the tanks are disabled, it's a pretty good target for a drone to go out and permanently kill half a dozen vehicles.
Russia has a ton of armor, but that is a hugely wasteful way to use it.
Yeah, it’s not a good military tactic, just like shooting yourself in the foot isn’t a good military tactic. But when you have no confidence in commanders, don’t believe in the mission, and don’t feel like dying today you shoot yourself in the foot to get out of going over the top. I’m saying this is the tank equivalent of that. You don’t care about the loss of the tank, you just don’t want to be in it when it gets into javelin range.
Or hit by artillery. Tank half life in an attack is short and it's either javelin, artillery or a mine that will get you.If it's an Excalibur round you are dead, otherwise it's probably like 50-50 if your dead or the tank is just disabled with artillery.
I agree that hitting a mine with a track sounds like an excellent idea. In the initial phase they perforated fuel tanks or drove into ditches but that kind of sabotage is likely more risky now.
From what i know, due to how russian tanks are built, it's more of a 100% chance of dying if anything penetrate the armor. And thats from any angle since russian tanks already didn't have the appropriate armor when they were conceived..
On February 14 2023 21:17 Silvanel wrote: This indeed looks crazy, if this footage is true than I dont know what to think... Even most stubborn and reckless people should understand what a minefield is...
Mines aren’t killing the crew, just the tank. If they get nearer the UAF they’ll eat a javelin and get burned alive. Mines are a great way to keep your tank from putting you in danger. As long as you’re not a true believer in the cause it makes perfect sense to lose your tank and tell command you tried your best.
It's probably still going to injure the driver, and now that all the tanks are disabled, it's a pretty good target for a drone to go out and permanently kill half a dozen vehicles.
Russia has a ton of armor, but that is a hugely wasteful way to use it.
Yeah, it’s not a good military tactic, just like shooting yourself in the foot isn’t a good military tactic. But when you have no confidence in commanders, don’t believe in the mission, and don’t feel like dying today you shoot yourself in the foot to get out of going over the top. I’m saying this is the tank equivalent of that. You don’t care about the loss of the tank, you just don’t want to be in it when it gets into javelin range.
Or hit by artillery. Tank half life in an attack is short and it's either javelin, artillery or a mine that will get you.If it's an Excalibur round you are dead, otherwise it's probably like 50-50 if your dead or the tank is just disabled with artillery.
I agree that hitting a mine with a track sounds like an excellent idea. In the initial phase they perforated fuel tanks or drove into ditches but that kind of sabotage is likely more risky now.
From what i know, due to how russian tanks are built, it's more of a 100% chance of dying if anything penetrate the armor. And thats from any angle since russian tanks already didn't have the appropriate armor when they were conceived..
T-72 crew can usually survive if it drives over a mine. Unless it also damages the shells stored inside which results in violent explosion and instant death of all crew (known weak point). Vehicles shown in the video are not tanks though but IFVs, which aren't as well armored.
On February 14 2023 15:06 Velr wrote: In Switzerland they try to separate Ukrainian refugees from other refugees in the early integration/language classes, probably to appease right wing folks. All the teachers i know hate the idea and assured me it's not done due to former education or language level. It's mostly done to grant the illusion that these refugees will return home soon, which we know won't happen, the balkan wars thought us that. These classes are usually pretty small and used to decide which "normal" classes the children should attend once they have gotten some language proficiency. Are they doing similar stuff in your countries?
That's kinda weird. I know that Swiss people can be a bit xenophobic/isolationist but they're also usually very conscious politically. Ukrainian refugees are one of the best things that could happen to most European countries actually, since most of them are highly developed countries and have bad demographic curve (too many old people, not enough young ones, bad for economy).
Compared to refugees from further away Ukrainians are much easier to integrate into western society since they mostly share the same values and are actually eager to be a part of it.
Since they don't do anything for UA, at least they could help some refugees... FFS come on Switzerland
I think you missunderstood.
No refugees are sent back as long as the conflict is going on. I somewhat hope the policy was inacted at a point were there was hope that this was a quick conflict, because it makes 0 sense. If anything people, among them other refugees, here argue that ukrainians are treated better than others.
The no help thing is also just plain untrue. There are no weapons, plenty of other help.
All google says is Switzerland is basically doing jackshit to help. Like the bare minimum to be on the list of helping countries. Pretty embarrassing if you ask me. And here Germany gets all the blame for "not doing enough"
On February 14 2023 15:06 Velr wrote: In Switzerland they try to separate Ukrainian refugees from other refugees in the early integration/language classes, probably to appease right wing folks. All the teachers i know hate the idea and assured me it's not done due to former education or language level. It's mostly done to grant the illusion that these refugees will return home soon, which we know won't happen, the balkan wars thought us that. These classes are usually pretty small and used to decide which "normal" classes the children should attend once they have gotten some language proficiency. Are they doing similar stuff in your countries?
That's kinda weird. I know that Swiss people can be a bit xenophobic/isolationist but they're also usually very conscious politically. Ukrainian refugees are one of the best things that could happen to most European countries actually, since most of them are highly developed countries and have bad demographic curve (too many old people, not enough young ones, bad for economy).
Compared to refugees from further away Ukrainians are much easier to integrate into western society since they mostly share the same values and are actually eager to be a part of it.
Since they don't do anything for UA, at least they could help some refugees... FFS come on Switzerland
I think you missunderstood.
No refugees are sent back as long as the conflict is going on. I somewhat hope the policy was inacted at a point were there was hope that this was a quick conflict, because it makes 0 sense. If anything people, among them other refugees, here argue that ukrainians are treated better than others.
The no help thing is also just plain untrue. There are no weapons, plenty of other help.
All google says is Switzerland is basically doing jackshit to help. Like the bare minimum to be on the list of helping countries. Pretty embarrassing if you ask me. And here Germany gets all the blame for "not doing enough"
Switzerland just recently blocked Spain from sending Swiss-made Gepards to Ukraine. They're doing less than nothing.
Nobody expected anything from the Swiss though. Fascists will always be welcomed in Switzerland as long as they bring gold. People expect things of Germany because it has dominated Central Europe since it was formed.
On February 15 2023 17:37 KwarK wrote: Nobody expected anything from the Swiss though. Fascists will always be welcomed in Switzerland as long as they bring gold. People expect things of Germany because it has dominated Central Europe since it was formed.
Pretty much.
Germany spent a couple of decades positioning itself as the de facto leader of Europe, so people are going to expect them to step up when Europe is threatened.
There is no military aid and blocking arms is due to law that went into effect a few years ago after a public referendum. I don't like the law but mainly because i feel it's hypocritical, but at the moment, it's the law. There is some push to change it again but it will take time because it's damn sure that this would require another popular referendum.
From March - August swiss aid was about 100 million. In november another 100 million in aid was granted, so in total it's about as much as Sweden or Norway gave. About 70'000 ukranian refugees are in Switzerland atm, thats more than Sweden or Norway took in.
I'm not happy with how Switzerland is handling all this but acting like it does "nothing" is just not true.
On February 15 2023 18:35 Velr wrote: There is no military aid and blocking arms is due to law that went into effect a few years ago after a public referendum. I don't like the law but mainly because i feel it's hypocritical, but at the moment, it's the law. There is some push to change it again but it will take time because it's damn sure that this would require another popular referendum.
From March - August swiss aid was about 100 million. In november another 100 million in aid was granted, so in total it's about as much as Sweden or Norway gave. About 70'000 ukranian refugees are in Switzerland atm, thats more than Sweden or Norway took in.
I'm not happy with how Switzerland is handling all this but acting like it does "nothing" is just not true.
This is untrue.
Norway gave around 1.2 billion so far. Sweden about 0.8 billion.
In no world is 200 million 'about as much' as 800 million or 1200 million.
edit: the above numbers are up to and including november 2022. Considering both Sweden and Norway have since sent and/or pledged (much) more, that skews it even further.
Some interesting stuff. I didn't really know that Dutch F-35s get scrambled to turn away Russian aircraft from Polish airspace.
Air policing rotates between the Nato partners and there is also the occasional mix and matching. In this case for example, we had the dutch F-35s with some german support taking care of it
This event is by no means something unusual. Last year Nato had almost 600 cases where they send up jets to respond to russian military aircraft. Without the ukraine war going on you would probably not even have heard about it unless it was a very slow news week.
BRUSSELS, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Germany's defence minister said he was in favour of raising NATO's military spending target, as allies gathered in Brussels on Wednesday for talks on whether defence expenditures of 2% of GDP are sufficient with a war raging in Ukraine.
At their Wales summit in 2014, NATO leaders agreed to move towards spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence within a decade.
NATO's decision was a reaction to what it perceived as a severely deteriorated security situation in Europe months after Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula Crimea.
Almost ten years after the Wales pledge and one year into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, NATO defence ministers will launch a discussion at their meeting in Brussels on how to adapt the spending target.
A decision is expected at a NATO summit in Lithuania in July.
"I think moving towards the 2% target alone will not be enough, it can only be the basis for further steps," German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said when he arrived for the talks at NATO's headquarters in Brussels.
"We are in the process of coordinating our position on this within the government," he added.
With his remarks, Pistorius echoed calls from NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg who has stressed that the 2% target is not a ceiling but rather a minimum with regard to military spending.
Several allies are pushing for higher military spending, given there is a war raging in Europe, while others such as Germany are far away from meeting even the 2% goal.
In 2022, Germany was expected to reach defence expenditures of almost 1.5%, while France was seen as coming close to meeting the 2%, according to NATO estimates published last June.
According to these figures, Britain and Poland are amongst those countries meeting the target but falling short of the U.S.'s defence spending which is seen at almost 3.5% of GDP.
The Russians, he said, “primarily the Wagner group, are attacking but there's a what I would describe as a really a very significant grinding battle of attrition with very high casualties, especially on the Russian side. There's no fancy arts of maneuver going on here. This is frontal attacks. Wave attacks. Lots of artillery with extremely high levels of casualties in that particular area.”
How long the fighting in Bakhmut will last, said Milley, “is difficult to say actually, it's been going on for weeks, and I think it will continue to go on until the Russians culminate. I don't think the Ukrainians will just collapse or fold. I think they're gonna continue to fight.”
Despite the heavy costs in terms of personnel and equipment Ukraine is incurring while defending Bakhmut, the U.S. is not telling Kyiv what to do there, the White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters in Washington Tuesday.
“I am certainly not going to talk about any of the conversations that we have [had] with the Ukrainians,” Kirby said when asked if the U.S. was advising Kyiv to surrender and conserve its resources for an offensive later on this year.
“They decide what operations they're going to conduct and with what energy and resources they're going to conduct them,” Kirby said. “We don't do that for them. We don't tell them what to do or what not to do.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “has been very clear about how he regards the fighting,” said Kirby. "He and his military have been fighting bravely to prevent it from falling to the Russians, more specifically to Mr. Prigozhin and his ex-convicts.”
If this is true then things must be very bad. Though I find it hard to believe, what with their border with China etc. Unless I am confused meaning 97% of the Army branch rather than say their Marines etc. It is also being reported that Russia is burning the bodies in occupied Crimea of casualties to hide their losses.
Dead Russian soldiers are being cremated "around the clock" in the annexed territory of Crimea, according to Ukraine's military.
A local crematorium in the village of Krazna Zorka is being used, with a "constant line of military vehicles" of up to 10 trucks outside carrying dead soldiers and mercenaries, the General Staff said.
It said Russia is aiming to "hide the number of dead".
Over the weekend, the UK Ministry of Defence said Russia had likely suffered its highest rate of casualties over the past two weeks since the first week of the invasion.
"The mean average for the last seven days was 824 casualties per day, over four times the rate reported over June-July 2022," the MoD said.
The fiercest battles are currently around the towns of Bakhmut and Vuhledar in the east of Ukraine.
Almost all of Russia's army is already in Ukraine, the UK's defense minister said, making it hard for Russia to have enough trained troops to help reverse its losses in the war.
Ben Wallace told the BBC on Wednesday that Russia had not been able to amass a single force to "punch through" Ukrainian defenses.
"That has come at a huge cost to the Russian army. We now estimate 97% of the Russian army, the whole Russian army, is in Ukraine."
He also reiterated the 97% number as he defended the UK's military support for Ukraine, saying that "helping Ukraine defeat Russia in Ukraine actually adds to our own security at home."
"If 97% of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine, with an attrition rate very, very high, and potentially their combat effectiveness depleted by 40%, and nearly two thirds of their tanks destroyed or broken, that has a direct impact on the security of Europe," he told the BBC.
Wallace also compared Russia's efforts to advance to "almost First World War levels of attrition and with success rates of a matter of metres rather than kilometres."
It is unclear how many troops Russia has in Ukraine in total.
Russia could keep adding more troops through mass mobilization efforts or smaller, more stealthy conscription drives.
But those efforts would be calling on men who likely do not have military experience, and who Russia would need to spend time training if they wanted them to enter Ukraine with any real skills.
Russian defectors and Western intelligence have repeatedly highlighted that many Russian troops received almost no training before being sent to Ukraine.
Some Russians called up in the September mobilization recieved so little training that some were sent home in body bags within just one month of being called up to fight in Ukraine.
But experts also caution that a high troop death rate does not appear to bother Russia's leaders, and indeed fits into its strategy when fighting Ukraine, a country that has Western help with troop training.
Russian soldiers have described being used as cannon fodder.
At this time, one must ask seriously the question, where is the catch.
Does Putin needs the whole military gone, to be rebuilt as his own instrument of power?
The only real menace to his regime could have been seen as a military coup, but with military gone, he might feel more secure in his position.
People keeping the order within Russia will do so by fear of being sent to war. And he doesn't need much to keep his "living standard" or the rest of his life.
He is also shredding the adult male population of regions where the problems could arise.
It really feels like something Orwellian is being actively designed.
EPT
