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 August 28 2024 18:12 Excludos wrote: Not to go all "but what about..." on you, but I can't help but find the hilarity of not seeing the irony of attacking a nation for getting rid of political opponents connected to the country that just invaded you, when your own political figurehead regularly throws his political opponents out of windows.
These smoking guns you think you're finding genuinely belongs on The Onion at this point
The onion headline could be such "Putin supporter in shock finding out Ukraine will not held election while Navalny dies in jail"
On August 28 2024 15:39 Acrofales wrote: Why is it surprising that when you are at war, you ban political parties that have monetary and political ties to the nation that just invaded you?
An amusing reversal card played here. The propagandist declared that while Russia could easily win by bulldozing their way through any resistance the way they did in WW2 (equipped by the Americans) it would be so violent that millions of civilians would die.
To which his adversary demanded to know if he was impugning the actions of the Red Army in The Great Patriotic War. Completely shut them down because of the propagandist requirement to engage in doublethink.
Even Russians know that the Red Army was packed with murderers and rapists but they also know that they were heroes who liberated the grateful people of Eastern Europe, many of whom were so thankful they spontaneously got pregnant and died.
By making the comparison to WW2 violence the propagandist accidentally got too close to an unacceptable truth and so could be silenced by demanding to know which of the two opposing truths he was denying.
Incidentally here is a direct quote from Stalin explaining that the Yugoslavians should be more empathetic to their rape at the hands of Soviet soldiers.
Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?
On August 29 2024 17:36 Silvanel wrote: In 2025 Poland will spend 4,7% of budget on military. Thats three times increase from 2022 in absolute spending numbers (16,1-->48,9 bilion $).
Oof, that's a lot of money. Any specific reason for the increase? Other than general unrest at the border I mean. Only for one year or permanent?
On August 29 2024 17:36 Silvanel wrote: In 2025 Poland will spend 4,7% of budget on military. Thats three times increase from 2022 in absolute spending numbers (16,1-->48,9 bilion $).
Oof, that's a lot of money. Any specific reason for the increase? Other than general unrest at the border I mean. Only for one year or permanent?
We are generally very wary about the war across the border and are in process of massive hardware upgrades. Which takes money. A lot of money. -F35 and T50 -Apaches -K2 and Abramses -K9 and Krabs -Himarses and Chunmoos -Borsuks and Raks -Frigates and minelayers -Baryaktars and Reapers -AA -Thermo-optics, recoiless rifles, rifles, loitering munituion, drones, cruise missiles...
I mean we are upgrading and expanding in pretty much every area. This will take many years to complete to so I am expecting budget to stay in area of 3-4% for several years at least.
On August 29 2024 17:36 Silvanel wrote: In 2025 Poland will spend 4,7% of budget on military. Thats three times increase from 2022 in absolute spending numbers (16,1-->48,9 bilion $).
Oof, that's a lot of money. Any specific reason for the increase? Other than general unrest at the border I mean. Only for one year or permanent?
We are generally very wary about the war across the border and are in process of massive hardware upgrades. Which takes money. A lot of money. -F35 and T50 -Apaches -K2 and Abramses -K9 and Krabs -Himarses and Chunmoos -Borsuks and Raks -Frigates and minelayers -Baryaktars and Reapers -AA -Thermo-optics, recoiless rifles, rifles, loitering munituion, drones, cruise missiles...
I mean we are upgrading and expanding in pretty much every area. This will take many years to complete to so I am expecting budget to stay in area of 3-4% for several years at least.
This guy gives a nice recap of what we currently have and what we ordered:
And in other news, I don't know how credible it is but it seems that RSA has provided Russia with ammunition (despite it claiming to take neutral stance) and also blocked shell delivery to Poland from the Rheinmetall's plant.
The one good thing about the first Ukrainan F-16 getting destroyed already is that Russians won't be able to spam the same few pictures of the destroyed thing for weeks like they did with the first destroyed Leopards or Bradleys.
Ukraine's Air Force announces death of pilot after WSJ reports F-16 crash
Ukraine's Air Force announced on Aug. 29 that a pilot had been killed during Russia's mass attack on Aug. 26, shortly after the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that one of the recently delivered F-16 jets had been destroyed in a crash on the same day.
Ukraine received its first F-16s by the beginning of August, a year after its allies formed the fighter jet coalition at the NATO summit in Vilnius to support Kyiv with training and aircraft.
Just 10 jets have been delivered so far, according to media reports. Kyiv has been promised at least 79 F-16s from the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium.
While the jet was not downed by Russian fire, it did crash during Russia's mass attack on Aug. 26, the WSJ said.
Russia launched 200 missiles and drones on Aug. 26 as part of the largest-ever aerial attack against Ukraine. Strikes hit several civilian, energy, and fuel facilities, including part of the Kyiv Hydroelectric Power Plant, killing seven people and injuring at least 47 others.
"The crash was likely a result of pilot error," the WSJ said. "The Ukrainian Air Force wouldn't confirm the crash or the status of the pilot."
Shortly after the WSJ report was published, the Ukrainian Air Force's Western Air Command announced that pilot Oleksii Mes had been killed on Aug. 26.
On August 29 2024 17:36 Silvanel wrote: In 2025 Poland will spend 4,7% of budget on military. Thats three times increase from 2022 in absolute spending numbers (16,1-->48,9 bilion $).
Oof, that's a lot of money. Any specific reason for the increase? Other than general unrest at the border I mean. Only for one year or permanent?
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation. I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?)
On August 30 2024 11:13 cel000 wrote: Ignorance is bliss.
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation. I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?)
How would that make any sense? Trump isn't going to stop his pro Russian lean because of ground Ukraine makes and the Democrats, at worst, will see Ukraine as a way to slowly bleed Russia. Ukraine doesn't need to be "winning" for that, just lose slow enough.
It's moves and counter moves. Ukraine perhaps hoped to draw off the attack in the south by attacking Kursk. Russia perhaps decided they can slow down the advance and play for time around Kurk by throwing new recruits at the Ukrainians and keep slamming their main offensive in the south. And then maybe Ukraine also saw Kursk as another location they could trade losses much more favourably (rather than run into heavily mined terrain) as well as stick a fork in Putin's nonsensical 'you give us land we have not been able to conquer in exchange for us ceasing to invade your for five years when we've had enough time to build up again' "peace" aka capitulation plan.
Things don't look good in the south, which likely means Ukraine will have to do something more there. Wars are composed of multiple attempts to spoil the other side's plans. But you cannot always force the enemy to respond as you would like.
Could also be to show the West that Russia's red lines are toothless.
On August 30 2024 11:13 cel000 wrote: Ignorance is bliss.
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation. I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?)
How would that make any sense? Trump isn't going to stop his pro Russian lean because of ground Ukraine makes and the Democrats, at worst, will see Ukraine as a way to slowly bleed Russia. Ukraine doesn't need to be "winning" for that, just lose slow enough.
Being pro peace does not mean that he leans pro Russian, it means that he leans towards peace. I think the above poster is implying that Kiev might be blackmailing NATO into helping them more by bringing themselves to the point where NATO needs to go in. Both Russia and NATO have been careful to control the escalation so they still have room to maneuver and leave options open.
Compare both of them to Israel that went all-in right from the start and now are backed into a corner where they have to keep going all in but it does nothing and makes the situation worse.
This video is a pretty good attempt at explaining (one of) the Ukraine's reasons for invading the Kursk region. It goes over what a potential peace plan by Trump could look like, and what would that mean for Kiev. Finally, it gives insights in how the Kursk's offensive changes the calculation in a potential peace plan, preferably in Ukraine's favor.
I think that there can't really be any kind of peace there. Either Russia beats Ukraine and it gives up or Ukraine beats Russia and it withdraws to pre-2014 borders.
The first option is pretty bad for the Baltics because they're next on the list. The second one might actually lead to a complete fall of Russia and it splitting into independent republics.
Everyone knows that there can't really be any form of "peace" talks with Russia because it doesn't mean shit for them and they'll just invade again in a few years.
On August 30 2024 11:13 cel000 wrote: Ignorance is bliss.
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation. I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?)
How would that make any sense? Trump isn't going to stop his pro Russian lean because of ground Ukraine makes and the Democrats, at worst, will see Ukraine as a way to slowly bleed Russia. Ukraine doesn't need to be "winning" for that, just lose slow enough.
Being pro peace does not mean that he leans pro Russian, it means that he leans towards peace. I think the above poster is implying that Kiev might be blackmailing NATO into helping them more by bringing themselves to the point where NATO needs to go in. Both Russia and NATO have been careful to control the escalation so they still have room to maneuver and leave options open.
Compare both of them to Israel that went all-in right from the start and now are backed into a corner where they have to keep going all in but it does nothing and makes the situation worse.
Russian stooges like you continue to try to paint being for Russia (or for Ukraine surrendering) as pro-peace.
I am pro peace. Peace would be immediately achievable if Russia just left. But i am not pro surrendering to Russia to achieve that peace.
Being against sending weapons to Ukraine is not pro-peace. It is pro-Russia winning the war. The "peace" Russia tends to offer is basically always just a Ukrainian surrender. Like the insanely silly armistice proposals that start with "First you give up all the land we want, retreat from your lines, and then we can start talking about peace".
Lasting peace in europe can only be achieved if Russia loses this war. Else, Putin will just attack or bully the next country. He has been doing this shit continously for 20 years now, every escalating further.
Why can we not be pro peace and demand that Russia goes home?
On August 30 2024 11:13 cel000 wrote: Ignorance is bliss.
Elsewhere in the war, Russian troops continue to push toward the key logistics hub of Porkrovsk with growing indications that Ukrainian resistance in the area is melting away, according to the latest assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). thewarzone.
Both twz and ISW show a clear pro-Ukrainian bias and that is what they are saying. It is hard for me to understand how can anyone see with optimism Ukrainian actions and situation. I wonder if the whole Kursk offensive was just to gain support from the next US administration. (And after that, what? The West providing the weapons and Ukraine the cannon fodder?)
How would that make any sense? Trump isn't going to stop his pro Russian lean because of ground Ukraine makes and the Democrats, at worst, will see Ukraine as a way to slowly bleed Russia. Ukraine doesn't need to be "winning" for that, just lose slow enough.
Being pro peace does not mean that he leans pro Russian, it means that he leans towards peace. I think the above poster is implying that Kiev might be blackmailing NATO into helping them more by bringing themselves to the point where NATO needs to go in. Both Russia and NATO have been careful to control the escalation so they still have room to maneuver and leave options open.
Compare both of them to Israel that went all-in right from the start and now are backed into a corner where they have to keep going all in but it does nothing and makes the situation worse.
Russian stooges like you continue to try to paint being for Russia (or for Ukraine surrendering) as pro-peace.
I am pro peace. Peace would be immediately achievable if Russia just left. But i am not pro surrendering to Russia to achieve that peace.
Being against sending weapons to Ukraine is not pro-peace. It is pro-Russia winning the war. The "peace" Russia tends to offer is basically always just a Ukrainian surrender. Like the insanely silly armistice proposals that start with "First you give up all the land we want, retreat from your lines, and then we can start talking about peace".
Lasting peace in europe can only be achieved if Russia loses this war. Else, Putin will just attack or bully the next country. He has been doing this shit continously for 20 years now, every escalating further.
Why can we not be pro peace and demand that Russia goes home?
Being against sending weapons to Ukraine and not prolonging a lost war is a pro-peace stance. As a few posters on here have gladly stated they would be more than happy to have every single Ukrainian on the territory under the control of the Kiev government die if it can hurt the Russians even a little bit more. For me this isnt a pro-peace position to have but thats just my opinion.
With the collapse of the south Donetsk front over the last few weeks we have come to the point where the first time in ten years that the Ukrainians haven't randomly shelled the civilian population of Donetsk and this came about not because the Kiev militants just came to the realization that that is a bad thing. No, they were forced to move their artillery back. For ten years they have been terrorizing the people of Donetsk, by now its obvious that they are not just going to leave their homes that they have fought for nor will the many other people living in Ukraine that don't want to live under the current Kiev government give up hope. A Nazi collaborator LARPer doesnt get to decide for them who is Ukrainian and who isn't.
Weather you like it or not there will be peace at some point, we cannot now turn back time to 2014 and stop the coup and later war from happening. The damage was done, but wounds heal, even if someone tricks you into cutting off your own leg - life goes on.
On August 31 2024 00:00 Manit0u wrote: I think that there can't really be any kind of peace there. Either Russia beats Ukraine and it gives up or Ukraine beats Russia and it withdraws to pre-2014 borders.
The first option is pretty bad for the Baltics because they're next on the list. The second one might actually lead to a complete fall of Russia and it splitting into independent republics.
Everyone knows that there can't really be any form of "peace" talks with Russia because it doesn't mean shit for them and they'll just invade again in a few years.
I think Ukraine would be more than happy to accept limited concesions for peace, just not the territory Russia holds today.
I expect the war to end in 2025 regardless of who wins. Both sides are exhausted at this point but obviously not broken. But at some point in the next year there will be a clearer trajectory for what will happen and at that point a diplomatic solution will become more likely.
For example, say Russia does run out of steam and western support holds. It becomes obvious that Ukraine will keep figthing for years and the economy becomes worse. Maybe it would take Ukraine 2-3 more years to win in that scenario before Russia gives up. Or they can cede Crimea, get the rest back diplomatically and everyone goes home.
Or same thing the other way around.
In other news Chinas export controls on drones start in September. I don't know who this favours but in an ideal world this means fewer weaponized drones on both sides.
EPT
