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 March 06 2025 06:59 maybenexttime wrote: Ukraine has been consistently hitting targets 1000+ km inside Russia with their long range weapons. I don't think concentration is that important. Scaling up the number of weapons and good intelligence are what matters, I'd say. If the targets are spread out, it's also difficult to cover them all with anti-air. Russia is spread so thin that they moved their anti-air assets from St Petersburg to Ukraine.
I meant that something has to be a certain size to be worth a missile. If there are thousands of tiny drills, they just wouldn't be worth a missile each. If there is one big drill, it is obviously worth a missile.
I just don't know anything about oil drilling, so i don't know where on the cost spectrum those drills actually fall.
A refinery is one obvious big target that is obviously worth a missile. But if an oil field is really big and spread out, the damage a missile can do might not be worth the cost of the missile (and the opportunity cost of not shooting it at something else).
On March 06 2025 21:10 KT_Elwood wrote: Poland is buying HIMARS at the moment.
Ukraine gets their HIMARS shut off by Hegseth while under russian attack.
Poland should not rely on Maga Whitehouse to keep the promises that the US made to polland for the big $ Armsdeals.
Trumps word/ signature is about as much worth as Putins
I honestly think Putins signature is worth more than Trumps. Putins is not worth much but he is likely to do things in his self interest in most cases. Trump does random things more often due to being less intelligent even if his core motivations are similar.
The major difference is that you can get other people in the US to sign it, those has slightly more reason to be trusted. In Russia you cannot since they have no power even in 4 years.
To be fair we've made an excess of $100 billion in extra income because of increased gas demand/prices as a consequence of the invasion and our sovereign wealth fund increased from rougly $1200 billion to $1900 billion between 2022 and 2024. I think there's a 'that's the least we can do' type of argument to be made here.
On March 07 2025 07:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: To be fair we've made an excess of $100 billion in extra income because of increased gas demand/prices as a consequence of the invasion and our sovereign wealth fund increased from rougly $1200 billion to $1900 billion between 2022 and 2024. I think there's a 'that's the least we can do' type of argument to be made here.
Yes, couldn't agree more. Any little bit is great, but this is only half of what was proposed only a few days ago. I'm hopeful more is to come; we really do owe Ukraine by enrichening ourselves through war profiteering. And it seems more and more people have had their eyes opened, and are pushing for it
US company Maxar is under orders to no longer sell satellite images to Ukraine.
Wow.. that's some "free market" for you - and why every non US citizen should get out of Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/Meta/Alphabet convinience right now.
This is something that is literally hurting US, in favour of helping Russia. I know this is said often, but how can there be any doubts left that Krasnov is a Russian agent? And how can anyone within the US still believe this is somehow making America great again?
Any russian asset would want to weaken the trust into an alliance with the US, as well as US products to weaken the US economy, which would put the society in even more of a rat race, not daring to risk their existence with a polical opinion that offends the ruling class.
On March 06 2025 21:10 KT_Elwood wrote: Poland is buying HIMARS at the moment.
Ukraine gets their HIMARS shut off by Hegseth while under russian attack.
Poland should not rely on Maga Whitehouse to keep the promises that the US made to polland for the big $ Armsdeals.
Trumps word/ signature is about as much worth as Putins
you can not rely on any agreements made by previous US Presidents. It is part of the fundamental nature of the US government system. Since 1988 the USA has been contravening free trade deals with Canada. Every time a new President is elected and sometimes even when a new Governor in a certain state gets elected Americans will start breaking whatever Free Trade Deal that was made a year or two earlier. The US Navy gets completely upended whenever a new Prez is elected. I imagine it is like that with many other government agencies... not just the US Navy.
So its not just Trump. The US Democracy creates unstable decision makers.
Interestingly, Trump has threatened to contravene the USMCA about 10,000 times since January 21, 2025 and yet he has actually adhered to it. Mere threats have scared investment away from Canada and into the USA though. Smart move by Trump.
Whatever deal any USA President makes ... do not expect it to stick. It is not a Trump thing... its a USA thing.
The US has had a pretty consistent foreign policy for 70/80 years. Not 100%, but the broad strokes are the same.
Trump’s administrations deviate massively from that course.
If I’m X small business, I have a supplier going back 20 years. Maybe they get bought out, maybe the kids take over, but our arrangement is much the same, we’ll occasionally renegotiate price, as one does. They’re a pretty reliable, predictable partner run by sane people.
In this analogy Trump takes over, just nulls and voids and previous arrangements, squeezes us with ludicrous demands. Maybe the previous reasonable folks get back in for a bit, but then Trump is back again.
It’s just not a reliable, predictable partner any more, I would be wise to find another supplier who is.
This is Trump’s ‘genius’ made flesh. Everyone has to second-guess what idiotic thing he and the US are going to do next, at all times and prepare for almost any eventuality.
That is new, it’s not how the US did business before, at least not with its historic allies.
Case in point, Trump wants Europe to basically do all the lifting in Ukraine, OK. He then does bilateral negotiations with Russia and just excludes Europe (and Ukraine) from those negotiations. It’s nonsensical stuff. Well, nonsensical unless one thinks he and his administration are severely compromised as regards Russia, which I think they are frankly.
POLISH PRIME MINISTER Donald Tusk has said his country must look at acquiring nuclear weapons in order to protect itself in the future.
Speaking in the Polish parliament today, he said it was about security, not war. “Let’s face it: it’s not something nice, nothing pleasant. We know that very well,” Tusk said.
“The problem is that in our environment, those we may be afraid of, or those who are at war, they all have it,” he added.
POLISH PRIME MINISTER Donald Tusk has said his country must look at acquiring nuclear weapons in order to protect itself in the future.
Speaking in the Polish parliament today, he said it was about security, not war. “Let’s face it: it’s not something nice, nothing pleasant. We know that very well,” Tusk said.
“The problem is that in our environment, those we may be afraid of, or those who are at war, they all have it,” he added.
POLISH PRIME MINISTER Donald Tusk has said his country must look at acquiring nuclear weapons in order to protect itself in the future.
Speaking in the Polish parliament today, he said it was about security, not war. “Let’s face it: it’s not something nice, nothing pleasant. We know that very well,” Tusk said.
“The problem is that in our environment, those we may be afraid of, or those who are at war, they all have it,” he added.
Just to clarify, from what I understand he was referring to Macron's idea of extending the French nuclear umbrella to Poland (and other countries).
It makes sense. If you aren't sure the US will hold up to their agreements any more or may even be bought out in a backroom deal then you need a sane partner. Paying the French to extend their program is much cheaper than building your own.
But as I've said multiple times. Trumps US will promote proliferation of nuclear weapons. If it is no longer willing to be a partner that stops proliferation it is sadly the only sane move. We will see more nations with nukes in the future since the US is unlikely to put the pressure they historically did against nations starting their programs.
To be effective deterent it needs to ensure nukes to be fired in retaliation, and relying on third party won't do it. Eventual invaders may believe that using there own nukes on non-nuclear party will not end with nuclear retaliation from its ally and for a good reason. Nobody wants to sign a death warrant on own country. I am also against getting nukes if it is supposed to be used in anything than retaliation for nuking us first. Getting defeated in conventional war is preferable to ensured existantional destruction. But if any party is gonna use it first anyway, than it's preferable to nuke it in response, to give the horrifying example to any deranged state to never do this again in future. That's why I believe that relying on foreign umbrella will not be effective and frontline states need their own arsenal.
On March 08 2025 01:33 hitthat wrote: To be effective deterent it needs to ensure nukes to be fired in retaliation, and relying on third party won't do it. Eventual invaders may believe that using there own nukes on non-nuclear party will not end with nuclear retaliation from its ally and for a good reason. Nobody wants to sign a death warrant on own country. I am also against getting nukes if it is supposed to be used in anything than retaliation for nuking us first. Getting defeated in conventional war is preferable to ensured existantional destruction. But if any party is gonna use it first anyway, than it's preferable to nuke it in response, to give the horrifying example to any deranged state to never do this again in future. That's why I believe that relying on foreign umbrella will not be effective and frontline states need their own arsenal.
Buying them from the French is probably something to look into then. Don't have to build up the entire industry, train all the people etc etc. Can instead invest that money into more tanks, artillery and drones for front line duty. Basically specialize, which is the modern economic system. Get the french to agree to stop doing their own tanks and buy them from you in return perhaps.
Interesting if nukes will be sold, even if isn't exactly on the open market.
EPT
