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 April 19 2024 09:59 KwarK wrote: You don’t think it’s unlikely that it won’t?
Yeah, I think it will last. Russia has built up quite the war machine and even when their economy fails it will take a while to get rid of Putin who is never going to back down. And there is no guarantee the next guy is not even worse.
I also think Ukraine will be able to stop the advancement but given how slow land taking is in the world of artillery and FPV drones it will take a long time to get their territory back.
I also doubt Putin will escalate to where nato gets involved, nor them doing it on their own.
On April 19 2024 09:59 KwarK wrote: You don’t think it’s unlikely that it won’t?
Yeah, I think it will last. Russia has built up quite the war machine and even when their economy fails it will take a while to get rid of Putin who is never going to back down. And there is no guarantee the next guy is not even worse.
I also think Ukraine will be able to stop the advancement but given how slow land taking is in the world of artillery and FPV drones it will take a long time to get their territory back.
I also doubt Putin will escalate to where nato gets involved, nor them doing it on their own.
You think it will end sooner?
I was just struggling with the triple negative.
Odd numbers would be no and even would be yes. Glad I can help.
You're not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not wrong.
Glad we could sort that out in a grammatical manner.
On April 19 2024 09:59 KwarK wrote: You don’t think it’s unlikely that it won’t?
Yeah, I think it will last. Russia has built up quite the war machine and even when their economy fails it will take a while to get rid of Putin who is never going to back down. And there is no guarantee the next guy is not even worse.
I also think Ukraine will be able to stop the advancement but given how slow land taking is in the world of artillery and FPV drones it will take a long time to get their territory back.
I also doubt Putin will escalate to where nato gets involved, nor them doing it on their own.
You think it will end sooner?
I was just struggling with the triple negative.
Odd numbers would be no and even would be yes. Glad I can help.
Clear writing is good, making a mess of negations is bad. Glad I can help.
Ukraine is claiming that they took a very modified S-200 system and made it mobile enough to do a “pop up patriot” style hit. Given the result I think it’s reasonable to assume they’re not lying, something downed this. 300km max range, twice that of Patriot.
While I doubt there are enough to prevent cruise missile attacks and jets always have the advantage of altitude and a static target (your effective range firing from 10,000 ft at something at 0ft and 0mph is a lot further than your effective range firing at something at 10,000 ft flying away at 300mph from 0 ft 0 mph) every hit like this places additional constraints and complications on Russian attacks. These cruise missiles have been killing children daily. Absolute win for Ukraine.
Rumor has it a lot of the aid was repositioned in Poland, so it rolls across the border immediately upon (or before) the bill finishes signing. Hopefully this stems the bleeding, it's been a rough winter to watch.
I might be completely wrong with this but it seems that this war is currently in a state that no one would be predicting. From the info and talks on the internet and through some of my own connections all I'm getting now is that it seems that:
Russia has all the men they need at the moment (hence no new mobilization) but is actually lacking equipment or has some serious problems with logistics seeing how their troops occupying Donbas have gone back to robbing people of livestock and food supplies.
Ukraine has the equipment but lacks men. Most of the younger people have been killed, fled the country or are dodging the drafts. EMTs that have been working over there say that most of the UA army is comprised of people aged 50-60. Other countries are promising them 200 F-16 planes or something while there are only 20 pilots of which only 6-8 pass the language barrier test to even begin training on F-16s...
No idea if any of the above is true and to what extent. But it is kind of the opposite of what I'd expect (ie: difficulties are reversed for the war participants).
I'm really glad that the help is arriving finally. I just hope there will be someone to use it.
On April 21 2024 11:04 Manit0u wrote: I might be completely wrong with this but it seems that this war is currently in a state that no one would be predicting. From the info and talks on the internet and through some of my own connections all I'm getting now is that it seems that:
Russia has all the men they need at the moment (hence no new mobilization) but is actually lacking equipment or has some serious problems with logistics seeing how their troops occupying Donbas have gone back to robbing people of livestock and food supplies.
Ukraine has the equipment but lacks men. Most of the younger people have been killed, fled the country or are dodging the drafts. EMTs that have been working over there say that most of the UA army is comprised of people aged 50-60. Other countries are promising them 200 F-16 planes or something while there are only 20 pilots of which only 6-8 pass the language barrier test to even begin training on F-16s...
No idea if any of the above is true and to what extent. But it is kind of the opposite of what I'd expect (ie: difficulties are reversed for the war participants).
I'm really glad that the help is arriving finally. I just hope there will be someone to use it.
I don't think that "most of the young people have been killed, fled the country or a dodging the drafts" is a correct statement. We have seen before that a lot of situations are very different when comparing different locations of the front. We've had, in the past, articles about Ukraine having no decent equipment or training, yet at the same time there are videos posted daily of very well equipped and very well trained troops retaking trenches. So I think that this is mostly a localized problem. I am sure that some EMTs deal with a lot of older people, but I suspect that those mostly come from the TDFs that are there to hold positions. And the Ukrainian army has always had this split between modern elements and some that are still subscribing to the old soviet style of warfare. I am not sure whether that is still true, but for a long while the only way you could get into assault brigades was by volunteering, not by conscription. And that makes sense. That both armies have a lot of older people serving is to be expected if you look at the demographics of the post-soviet states. Russia has exactly the same problem. But you can, if you are so inclined, look at the videos that the Ukrainian brigades are posting daily to see that when they are doing assaults, the teams consist almost exclusively of young people. Or at the very least of somewhat fit people in the 20-40 age bracket. I am sure that there is a bias there as well, but it won't be able to cover THAT big of a gap.
I am curious about the sources for the "only 20 pilots of which only 6-8 pass the language barrier test" though. Commercial pilots need to speak and understand enough English to communicate with different flight control personnel including tower control and similar roles. The claim that only 6-8 pilots in all of Ukraine can speak sufficient English to communicate like that seems a little outlandish.
There is also the case that Ukraine did an older draft from the start. They wanted to protect the young adults so they can have children. They don't want another WW2 where a large fraction of the youth died and thus you get 2 lost generations.
Ukraine having all the equipment it needs seems a strange stance to take when they are constantly asking for specific equipment they lack (especially air defence). For almost a year artillery grenades have been a shortage factor, so more artillery pieces havn't been as required. I assume the same holds true for a lot of other things as well, you don't need more equipment if you are lacking ammunition.
On April 21 2024 07:10 Excludos wrote: $60b no less. That's a pretty sizeable chunk
Based on what I have read less than 1/3 of that goes to equipment for Ukraine. Even the things that goes there are likely to be upsales, where they get old equipment but it is billed as if they are the modern replacement.
It is a good bill for Ukraine of course but the majority of that goes to other stuff.
On April 21 2024 03:06 KwarK wrote: Aid bill just passed.
With more than 3/4 of the House voting for it. It's fucking pathetic that it got held up for 6 entire months because the Republican leadership was so scared of the MAGA wing of their party.
So unbelievably frustrating that legislation with Supermajority support can just get held up indefinitely by a group of 20 or so loud mouths.
On April 21 2024 07:10 Excludos wrote: $60b no less. That's a pretty sizeable chunk
Based on what I have read less than 1/3 of that goes to equipment for Ukraine. Even the things that goes there are likely to be upsales, where they get old equipment but it is billed as if they are the modern replacement.
It is a good bill for Ukraine of course but the majority of that goes to other stuff.
Yes, it's split into various chunks. As I understand it, $23bn will be used to replenish US stockpile, aka used indirectly to send old US equipment to Ukraine, $14bn will be used to buy new equipment for Ukraine (from US contractors), $11bn will be used to fund US operations in the region (Intelligence gathering), and $10bn will be a direct money loan to Ukraine, to be paid back at a later time.
So of the entire aid package, only $10bn is a direct deposit, and even that is a loan (provided Ukraine wins the war that is, otherwise there won't be anyone left to pay it back I suppose). Everything else feeds directly back into the US economy. It's an absolute no-brainer win-win package for everyone, and should have been passed ages ago. The US system is absolutely fucked that a minority of traitors can keep this absolutely vital package back for so long
On April 21 2024 14:01 Nezgar wrote: I am curious about the sources for the "only 20 pilots of which only 6-8 pass the language barrier test" though. Commercial pilots need to speak and understand enough English to communicate with different flight control personnel including tower control and similar roles. The claim that only 6-8 pilots in all of Ukraine can speak sufficient English to communicate like that seems a little outlandish.
The RAF began delivering flying and English language training in August as part of the UK contribution to the international Air Capability Coalition for Ukraine, which will see allies and partners working together to bolster Ukraine’s air capabilities.
The group was formed of six experienced Ukrainian combat fighter pilots who received aviation-specific English language training to increase their ability to engage with coalition training and support.
I've read somewhere that out of the UA air force very few pilots are eligible to even begin the training for F-16s. Not just because of language but also lack of experience in flying fighter jets in general. Most don't really have the required basic training for fighter pilots and nowhere close to minimum hours flown required due to poor training standards and quality in the UA.
On April 21 2024 14:01 Nezgar wrote: I am curious about the sources for the "only 20 pilots of which only 6-8 pass the language barrier test" though. Commercial pilots need to speak and understand enough English to communicate with different flight control personnel including tower control and similar roles. The claim that only 6-8 pilots in all of Ukraine can speak sufficient English to communicate like that seems a little outlandish.
The RAF began delivering flying and English language training in August as part of the UK contribution to the international Air Capability Coalition for Ukraine, which will see allies and partners working together to bolster Ukraine’s air capabilities.
The group was formed of six experienced Ukrainian combat fighter pilots who received aviation-specific English language training to increase their ability to engage with coalition training and support.
I've read somewhere that out of the UA air force very few pilots are eligible to even begin the training for F-16s. Not just because of language but also lack of experience in flying fighter jets in general. Most don't really have the required basic training for fighter pilots and nowhere close to minimum hours flown required due to poor training standards and quality in the UA.
Thank you for linking the source, appreciate that. The only thing I could find in that though was that the UK is training 6 right now with a further 10 in earlier stages. Nowhere does it mention that there is a serious lack of potential pilots, nor that the 6 the UK is training now are the only ones being trained in basic flying lessons. It does mention further training efforts on the F-16 by Denmark, Netherlands and the US though. No doubt that Ukraine has lost a lot of skilled pilots. I'm curious how that is developing and what news we can expect going forward. But they are probably keeping the numbers of pilots trained and their progress close to the chest.
EPT
