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.
Putin was considered a good president by most Russians in early 2000s because of how much life improved for them after very hard 90s. Quite a few started asking questions in 2008 when Medvedev became a president but it was obvious who's in the lead, like "oh, he won't give away his power now, will he?".
But before 2008 most people were happy and for a very good reason. So there might be additional inertia for people older than 35-40 who remember those nasty 90s when you had a lot of personal freedom - with an empty stomach and rampant crime around, that is. It was not a good time, and many could come to questionable conclusions about what's to blame and how to fix it.
Much of the Putin prosperity was just German euros going to oligarchs who spent them locally. It’s a pale reflection of western prosperity. You let the gangsters sell your birthright and you call it stability because at least there are people invested in the status quo and at least you have jobs serving them.
It’s truly bizarre what Russians will put up with.
Well, he is on a tour. Currently in Denmark - we are donating 19 F16s (out of 40 airworthy). Timeline is training ongoing and delivery starting around New Years with 6 planes and final planes delivered in 2025. Danish PM also stated that Denmark would continue to support for as long as the war might take.
Well, he is on a tour. Currently in Denmark - we are donating 19 F16s (out of 40 airworthy). Timeline is training ongoing and delivery starting around New Years with 6 planes and final planes delivered in 2025. Danish PM also stated that Denmark would continue to support for as long as the war might take.
It seems to be a higher pace than the F35 replacements as well.
Time to clean up with the rise in fabricated anti-Ukrainian claims over the last few months. This video shows the true timeline surrounding the Euromaidan. If anyone ever asks again about the legitimacy of the protests, the subsequent political turmoil and the deposition of Yanukovych, this should serve as a quick refresher.
It addresses Yanukovych's initial move towards the EU, his sudden u-turn leading to the protests and his eventual ousting and escape from Ukraine. Both Russian and Western alleged meddling in Ukrainian political affairs are also being addressed, with a focus on the Western side.
On August 20 2023 02:56 Sent. wrote: There is a group of people who refuse to believe it was a suicide truck because they have this weird image of Ukrainians being righteous knights of freedom and tolerance who would never do anything that's morally questionable.
I fail to see how it matters. A missile or a drone exploding a bridge and killing some civilians is the exact same level of morally questionable as putting bombs in a truck. It's a valid military target, and as much as it sucks, sometimes military targets comes with expected civilians casualties.
Let's flip it on its head: Is it more ok for Russia to bomb hospitals with missiles than if they had put C4 on a truck and ran it into the building? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldn't dictate the morality of the results
Lets flip this on its head. The only way Al Qaeda could reach the United States in 2001 was through hijacking and slamming planes into the Pentagon besides other things. Lets be real here, is it more ok to shoot a missile at a legitimate military target or crash a plane into it? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldnt dictate the morality of the result i.e. the nobel cause of global jihad. As much as it sucks, military and economic targets sometimes come with expected civillian casualties.
Slava Ukraini being the new Allahu Akbar is the way a free and democratic society expresses their moral superiority over societies bound by outdated dogma like International Law. Its almost as if completely backing 100% everything and anything someone does gives them a God complex where they start believing that they are above the morality of regular humans.
On August 20 2023 02:56 Sent. wrote: There is a group of people who refuse to believe it was a suicide truck because they have this weird image of Ukrainians being righteous knights of freedom and tolerance who would never do anything that's morally questionable.
I fail to see how it matters. A missile or a drone exploding a bridge and killing some civilians is the exact same level of morally questionable as putting bombs in a truck. It's a valid military target, and as much as it sucks, sometimes military targets comes with expected civilians casualties.
Let's flip it on its head: Is it more ok for Russia to bomb hospitals with missiles than if they had put C4 on a truck and ran it into the building? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldn't dictate the morality of the results
Lets flip this on its head. The only way Al Qaeda could reach the United States in 2001 was through hijacking and slamming planes into the Pentagon besides other things. Lets be real here, is it more ok to shoot a missile at a legitimate military target or crash a plane into it? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldnt dictate the morality of the result i.e. the nobel cause of global jihad. As much as it sucks, military and economic targets sometimes come with expected civillian casualties.
Slava Ukraini being the new Allahu Akbar is the way a free and democratic society expresses their moral superiority over societies bound by outdated dogma like International Law. Its almost as if completely backing 100% everything and anything someone does gives them a God complex where they start believing that they are above the morality of regular humans.
The Twin towers weren't a military target. Whether Al Qaeda used a plane or missile matters none; thousands of civilians died in a direct attack meant to kill thousands of civilians and incur terror on the civilian population. So no, it's not more ok to purposefully shoot a civilian target with a missile than suicide.
But I understand your wish to defend it as such due to the numerous Russian missiles that have purposefully been targeting civilians. And I will absolutely claim moral superiority on using a van to blow up a military target with civilian casualties over using missiles to target civilians with no military benefits
Yeah its a really weird, and stupid, take to try and make 9/11 about the means they used to commit their acts of terrorism them about the targets. All in an attempt to what? Paint Ukraine as terrorists because they used a bomb truck?
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Atleast in this case Ukraine is very clearly fighting for their freedom as they are being invaded by a neighbour. While Russia is also very clearly not fighting for anyones freedom except their own freedom is bully and invade anyone around them.
On August 20 2023 02:56 Sent. wrote: There is a group of people who refuse to believe it was a suicide truck because they have this weird image of Ukrainians being righteous knights of freedom and tolerance who would never do anything that's morally questionable.
I fail to see how it matters. A missile or a drone exploding a bridge and killing some civilians is the exact same level of morally questionable as putting bombs in a truck. It's a valid military target, and as much as it sucks, sometimes military targets comes with expected civilians casualties.
Let's flip it on its head: Is it more ok for Russia to bomb hospitals with missiles than if they had put C4 on a truck and ran it into the building? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldn't dictate the morality of the results
Lets flip this on its head. The only way Al Qaeda could reach the United States in 2001 was through hijacking and slamming planes into the Pentagon besides other things. Lets be real here, is it more ok to shoot a missile at a legitimate military target or crash a plane into it? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldnt dictate the morality of the result i.e. the nobel cause of global jihad. As much as it sucks, military and economic targets sometimes come with expected civillian casualties.
Slava Ukraini being the new Allahu Akbar is the way a free and democratic society expresses their moral superiority over societies bound by outdated dogma like International Law. Its almost as if completely backing 100% everything and anything someone does gives them a God complex where they start believing that they are above the morality of regular humans.
The Twin towers weren't a military target. Whether Al Qaeda used a plane or missile matters none; thousands of civilians died in a direct attack meant to kill thousands of civilians and incur terror on the civilian population. So no, it's not more ok to purposefully shoot a civilian target with a missile than suicide.
But I understand your wish to defend it as such due to the numerous Russian missiles that have purposefully been targeting civilians. And I will absolutely claim moral superiority over using a van to blow up a military target with civilian casualties over using missiles to target civilians with no military benefits
A state actor deceiving multiple European countries, as well as their private citizens and companies to transport 21 tonnes of explosives over multiple state lines and no one in those countries knowing the goods were 21 tonnes of explosives is not something a state does. This might come as a shock for you but these are not things functional societies bound by moral norms do.
If that truck exploaded in Romania with a 21 tonne blast or in transit through Sofia while keeping the Romanian and Bulgarian governments in the dark what then? You dont smuggle 21t of explosives into countries, period. Rouge intelligence agencies doing this without anyone from the government knowing and bragging about it should be concerning for everyone. How is this even a conversation we are having?
What about Nordstream? What happens when they admit to that too?
Normal countries also don't invade other countries just because they feel like it's their territory and they want to cleanse the occupying people and its culture from those lands by killing or displacing said people. Well, I guess a truck blowing up is magnitudes more egregious than a literal war being started.
Or smuggling radioactive poison and nerve agents over multiple state lines to murder your own citizens - and casually murdering another country's citizens in the process. Or how about shooting down civilian airliners.
Shocking to some, but also not things functional societies bound by moral norms do.
Typical zeo ridiculousness aside: Of course a clandestine hit by secret service has a different taste than a strictly military strike. This goes for the Kerch bridge or the NS pipeline. And if they sent a regular trucker to his sure death than that is a fucked up thing to do, period. No need to sugar coat it.
On August 20 2023 02:56 Sent. wrote: There is a group of people who refuse to believe it was a suicide truck because they have this weird image of Ukrainians being righteous knights of freedom and tolerance who would never do anything that's morally questionable.
I fail to see how it matters. A missile or a drone exploding a bridge and killing some civilians is the exact same level of morally questionable as putting bombs in a truck. It's a valid military target, and as much as it sucks, sometimes military targets comes with expected civilians casualties.
Let's flip it on its head: Is it more ok for Russia to bomb hospitals with missiles than if they had put C4 on a truck and ran it into the building? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldn't dictate the morality of the results
Lets flip this on its head. The only way Al Qaeda could reach the United States in 2001 was through hijacking and slamming planes into the Pentagon besides other things. Lets be real here, is it more ok to shoot a missile at a legitimate military target or crash a plane into it? I'd say absolutely not. Your method shouldnt dictate the morality of the result i.e. the nobel cause of global jihad. As much as it sucks, military and economic targets sometimes come with expected civillian casualties.
Slava Ukraini being the new Allahu Akbar is the way a free and democratic society expresses their moral superiority over societies bound by outdated dogma like International Law. Its almost as if completely backing 100% everything and anything someone does gives them a God complex where they start believing that they are above the morality of regular humans.
The Twin towers weren't a military target. Whether Al Qaeda used a plane or missile matters none; thousands of civilians died in a direct attack meant to kill thousands of civilians and incur terror on the civilian population. So no, it's not more ok to purposefully shoot a civilian target with a missile than suicide.
But I understand your wish to defend it as such due to the numerous Russian missiles that have purposefully been targeting civilians. And I will absolutely claim moral superiority over using a van to blow up a military target with civilian casualties over using missiles to target civilians with no military benefits
A state actor deceiving multiple European countries, as well as their private citizens and companies to transport 21 tonnes of explosives over multiple state lines and no one in those countries knowing the goods were 21 tonnes of explosives is not something a state does. This might come as a shock for you but these are not things functional societies bound by moral norms do.
If that truck exploaded in Romania with a 21 tonne blast or in transit through Sofia while keeping the Romanian and Bulgarian governments in the dark what then? You dont smuggle 21t of explosives into countries, period. Rouge intelligence agencies doing this without anyone from the government knowing and bragging about it should be concerning for everyone. How is this even a conversation we are having?
What about Nordstream? What happens when they admit to that too?
This is some epic levels of hypotheticals and whataboutism, that in no way actually has any roots in reality. How about we stick to what actually happened? Ukraine blew up a bridge, nothing more, nothing less. It's a military target that incurred civilian casualties because it's unavoidable in war. The means to their ends is literally inconsequential; the truck didn't blow up in Romania, it blew up on the bridge. Or do you want to argue "what ifs" about Russian missiles while we're at it? "What if one veers off course and hits the wrong target?". This level of incompetence is clearly much much worse than using a surgical attack that actually reaches its intended target
On August 21 2023 19:14 zeo wrote: You dont smuggle 21t of explosives into countries, period.
Hahahahaha. Why the fuck not? Do you not realise these countries are at war? Do you at all understand the concept of sabotage? I think someone needs to read up on WW2 history. According to you, the sinking of SS Donau was completely unethical; they smuggled in explosives after all!
On August 21 2023 19:14 zeo wrote: How is this even a conversation we are having?
A question we're all asking ourselves. It's outright bizarre seeing Russian sympathisers try to argue that missile attacks on civilian targets on a country they invaded is somehow completely ok, but using a truck to blow up a military target to defend yourself somehow is not... The logic leap of some of these arguments makes me feel like I'm living in bizarro-land
The Biden administration’s sprint to supply Ukraine with weapons central to its military success against Russia has yielded a promising acceleration of arms production, including the standard NATO artillery round, output of which is expected soon to reach double its prewar U.S. rate of 14,000 a month.
The stakes in the U.S. effort to shake up a sclerotic defense acquisition system are particularly high as Kyiv tries to claw back territory from Russian control in a slow-moving counteroffensive whose fate, U.S. officials now say, hinges on the West’s ability to satisfy Ukraine’s astonishing hunger for artillery ammunition.
But industry experts warn of major challenges in sustaining an elevated output of arms and equipment needed not just to aid Ukraine but to ensure the United States’ own security in potential conflicts with Russia or China. Those include overcoming scarcity of key inputs including TNT and maintaining expanded capacity amid fluctuating budgets and uncertainty about future military needs.
“Whether you think it’s going well or it’s going poorly is whether you’re a glass-half-full person or glass-half-empty,” Cynthia Cook, a defense industry expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the attempt to ramp up arms manufacturing swiftly. “But also, it’s how much you work in defense acquisition.”
The war in Ukraine has brought a boom for American defense firms, which are racing to expand production and factory capacity. It also has meant a bureaucratic scramble at the Pentagon to get needed equipment in time.
A year and a half after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, production deals are only gradually being cemented. Of the $44.5 billion the United States has appropriated for manufacturing arms destined for Ukraine or replenishing donated U.S. stocks, the Defense Department to date has finalized contracts to produce weapons costing roughly $18.2 billion, or 40.8 percent of that total.
To Cook and other industry experts, that ratio, as modest as it appears, is an achievement for the military’s often slow, unwieldy acquisitions system, in which concluding a major contract often takes up to 16 months — let alone manufacturing a piece of complex equipment for use in battle.
Pentagon officials say the eventual value of Ukraine-related contracts concluded through Aug. 18 will be substantially higher than the $18.2 billion figure, largely because it doesn’t account for contracts that give companies about half the expected value up front, with additional costs finalized later.
Experts say the United States, as it invests in expanding the production of munitions, drones, air-defense missiles and other arms that Ukraine needs, also must ensure that it can sustain expanded capacity as requirements evolve. After grueling counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon has looked to fund the capacity to win, or deter, future conflicts that could require a very different set of capabilities and weapons systems — particularly against the threat posed by China’s burgeoning military. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine laid bare a NATO-wide munitions crunch, highlighting important vulnerabilities in fighting the war of the present. “The question is making sure that this problem, which is illuminated now, isn’t swept under the rug in future compromises,” Cook said.
Defense and industry officials spoke about the race to accelerate arms production on the condition of anonymity to provide a candid assessment of the evolving effort.
The administration has focused largely on expanding output of the 155mm artillery round, which has been a mainstay of the West’s conventional arsenal for decades and proved critical for Ukraine in the ongoing counteroffensive. Despite Ukrainian forces receiving U.S. training on modern combined-arms maneuvers over the winter, the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has largely jettisoned these tactics, instead embracing an attritional, artillery-heavy approach as it seeks to breach Russian minefields and fiercely defended lines of trenches.
U.S. officials now say that the tactical shift made by Ukraine will require sustaining the country with a robust supply of artillery shells. While Ukrainian forces have created a munitions advantage on the battle’s southern front by using extended-range missiles from France and Britain to strike Russian ammunition depots behind the front lines, they say those blows will prove consequential only if Ukraine also can penetrate Russian defenses.
Since February 2022, the Pentagon has concluded $2.26 billion of manufacturing contracts for the 155mm round, helping to increase U.S. output from 14,000 units a month before Russia’s invasion to around 24,000 per month today. Production is slated soon to reach 28,000 a month, with the goal of producing 1 million shells a year by fall 2025. Officials declined to say what share of that would go to Ukraine vs. being held in reserve in the United States.
A host of companies have different roles in manufacturing the shells, including forging steel projectiles and assembling them for battle. The Defense Department also is investing in expanding production lines.
The pace of the munitions ramp-up could have long-lasting effects for civilians in Ukraine after the Biden administration’s decision this summer to provide controversial cluster munitions, which White House officials described as a “bridge” solution until output of conventional artillery shells increases.
U.S. officials hope the cluster munitions, which consist of large pods that release hundreds of bomblets — some of which fail to detonate upon impact and can pose a danger to civilians for decades — can help Ukraine maintain momentum until more conventional shells are made. In the near term, the mix of artillery ammunition being sent to Ukraine will become heavier on cluster munitions, they said.
Officials in the U.S. Army, which is responsible for procuring the 155mm artillery rounds, are moving “as fast as humanly possible” to speed up production, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said this month.
“We’re going to be able to continue to provide the Ukrainians with munitions, I think, for a long time,” she told reporters. “I think they’re probably going to continue using [the cluster munitions] for a while as well.”
Although Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive is just months old, defense officials are already looking toward winter, when a potential lull in fighting could, as one official described, permit U.S. and allied production “to catch up and help sustain them.” But Moscow will not be static, either: A break could allow Russian forces also to rearm and harden their defensive lines.
The war has been a wake-up call for Ukraine’s backers across the West, where officials see an urgent need to augment their own munitions stockpiles. NATO officials have wondered how long the Western alliance could sustain a major conventional war. “No one had really asked themselves the question, well, what if ‘day one, night one’ becomes ‘week two, week three, week four?’” British Defense Minister Ben Wallace said last month.
Wormuth, without providing details, said the United States would aim also to set its artillery reserves as a higher level. “One of the lessons learned out of the Ukrainian experience is we need to go back and revisit those minimum standards. And we may have underestimated,” she told reporters this month.
Officials note that some contracts signed to replenish U.S. supplies or produce specific weapons for Ukraine have been finalized in 30 days or less, including deals to make Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost loitering drones and NASAM air defense systems. They also are employing, for the first time, multiyear contracts for munitions.
Restocking the U.S. arsenal will require finding basic weapons-making materials, experts say, a problem complicated by a global scarcity of chemicals and explosives. The United States no longer produces TNT and has since moved to a substitute called IMX, an explosive that provides power with less risk of accidental detonation.
But the dramatic increase in shell production has pushed the United States to seek out new global suppliers of TNT. Poland has been a primary U.S. source, but the Pentagon is working with its allies and partners to increase its supplies, potentially including from Japan.
The United States has healthy stockpiles of explosive fill, officials said. But as factories churn out more shells, “we know we’ll need additional production of both those propellants and those explosives,” another defense official said.
The war has cut the United States off from one source of TNT, as Russian forces now control an area of eastern Ukraine where an explosives company called Zarya agreed in 2020 to a multiyear deal to procure TNT for a U.S. contractor. The conflict disrupted the supply from Zarya, but officials said the company never was intended to be a major supplier to the United States.
The availability of propellant, a combustible charge that sends the artillery round through the barrel, is another constraint to sustaining increased U.S. and European production.
Martin Vencl, a spokesman for the state-owned Czech company Explosia, which makes propellant charges, noted the scarcity of related raw materials, such as nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose. The company is running at full capacity to make propellant for 155mm rounds, but long-term investment is needed to double its output, which the company hopes to achieve by 2026, Vencl said.
Camille Grand, who served as NATO’s assistant secretary general for defense investment from 2016 to 2022, noted that the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq did not consume artillery at anywhere close to the rapid pace as the war in Ukraine has, meaning that suppliers were not forced to tap so deeply into their stocks.
“We’re all relearning what it means to do mass production of ammunition, which had become a ... nonstarter” for many NATO members, Grand said.
Grand attributed some European countries’ paltry ammunition stockpiles to the preference for funneling limited defense funds to big-ticket items such as jets and main battle tanks.
“No defense minister would put on a T-shirt saying ‘I bought stockpiles and spare parts,’” Grand said. “They all want to be the guy who said, ‘I bought the last fighter aircraft.’”
European nations are trying to remedy that problem. This summer, the European Union approved a three-track plan ultimately to produce 650,000 rounds of large-caliber ammunition a year and committed itself to delivering 1 million rounds of artillery ammunition for Ukraine in a joint effort within the next 12 months.
Grand said the biggest obstacle is the timeline. “It’s good and nice to know that five years from now, we’ll be able to ramp up production and refill stockpiles,” he said. “But in the meantime, Ukraine is running short, and we’re going to be in trouble.”
Experts say it is important to avoid what one defense official called a “boom and bust” cycle by ensuring that Western militaries continue effectively to signal a demand for these weapons. Failure to do so could result in factory lines going cold, as occurred with Stinger missiles, with the manufacturer of the shoulder-fired missiles having to enlist retirees to help get production going again.
The challenge goes beyond accelerating near-term production. The Pentagon needs to “continue to procure at that level over a longer period of time so that we have not just healthy stocks, but a healthy production and industrial base that’s able to meet them,” the second defense official said.
“We want to make sure that we’re able to maintain focus across the government, and really across allies and partners on the need of maintaining just consistent high demand for these weapons,” the official said.
A senior industry official familiar with the Pentagon acquisition process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment, said the bureaucracy continues to struggle with articulating evolving needs, sometimes leaving defense companies to make hiring and investment decisions with incomplete information.
“The Defense Department does not have a very good track record of communicating requirements,” the official said. While it’s clear that producing artillery rounds is a priority within the agency right now, the official said, “the question becomes how strong the commitment is over fiscal years, over presidential administrations, and the administrations of other countries.”
Continued high levels of U.S. funding for Ukraine, which has enjoyed generally strong bipartisan support, may face increased opposition as a small but vocal minority of Republican legislators questions the wisdom of the commitment to the current fight. The Biden administration last week requested an additional $20 billion of security, economic and humanitarian aid for Ukraine.
So far, Republican leaders have managed to defeat attempts to curtail aid by critics within the party, including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). “The Biden administration is sleepwalking our great country into a world war,” he said on the House floor last month.
All missiles are smuggling. Nobody is filling out import customs paperwork as it crosses the border. It’s such a weird thing to have a problem with. Dresden was littering, the RAF dropped a bunch of stuff they had no intention of cleaning up but that’s not really the best way of describing it.