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.
Ukraine has repeatedly called on the West to urgently supply more weapons, especially heavy equipment, as Russian forces regroup in the country’s east for new offensive after withdrawing from the capital Kyiv and other regions.
NATO members are providing a wide range of weapon systems to the country, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday.
The Czech Republic has spare equipment that Ukrainian forces are familiar with in storage as well as a defense industry focused on upgrades and trade in such weapons. It has been among the most active EU nations in backing Ukraine.
Defense sources confirmed a shipment of five T-72 tanks and five BVP-1, or BMP-1, infantry fighting vehicles seen on rail cars in photographs on Twitter and video footage this week, but those were not the first shipments of heavy equipment.
“For several weeks, we have been supplying heavy ground equipment – I am saying it generally but by definition it is clear that this includes tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers, and multiple rocket launchers,” a senior defense official said.
The sources declined to discuss numbers of weapons supplied.
The senior defense official said the Czechs were also supplying a range of anti-aircraft weaponry.
Independent defense analyst Lukas Visingr said short-range air-defense systems Strela-10, or SA-13 Gopher in NATO terminology, have been spotted on a train apparently bound for Ukraine, in line with a report in Czech weekly respekt.cz.
The Czech program to ship weapons includes money raised by public fundraising by the Ukrainian embassy, which has raised $37.45 million, according to the embassy website.
There is some speculation that this could have some ulterior motives. If they give away all of their upgraded Soviet equipment to Ukraine that will give them room to ask for more modern equipment from the US, France, Britain and Germany.
Think they can rule out getting extra weapons from Germany. They're beefing up their own military at a scale not seen since.... well you get the idea.
It's a good day to be a weapons manufacturer that's for sure.
lol @ people giving Blowjob Johnson credit for something that he's doing to distract from his political woes. Be it being under investigation for breaking the rules he implemented, be it him being exposed (multiple times) as a serial liar, etc.
The war couldn't have happened at a better time for Johnson, and i bet you money that he's not too sad that Russia invaded. In fact, you can see the "we shouldn't talk about this when Ukraine is being invaded" bullshit everywhere.
He's not the first to visit (far from it, as was pointed out), and the UKs response isn't great either. Yes, in regards to weapon deliveries, that was somewhat decent - in terms of sanctions? Laughable. From giving Oligarchs a head start before sanctions were implemented (making sure they can pull shit out of the UK) to flat out ignoring the really interesting bits (real estate for example), the overall response is mediocre at best.
Johnson is a clown but he's done well with Ukraine. He's been advocating for heavier sanctions and delivering more and heavier weapons all the time. If European leaders on the mainland were the same we'd have already cut off energy imports.
What a load of bollocks this is.
Your suggestion is economical suicide for many european countries. Nothing that the UK has done hurts their bottom line (at least not as much as collapsing entire industries). In fact, not even the UK has phased out any russian imports. What they did was say that they will. They also said £350m something something on a bus, they also said that there were no parties, they also said Brexit was a bottomless success, the list goes on.
The very fact that even the UK (which incidentally has a "leader like Boris Johnson" last time i checked) hasn't cut off energy supplies should tell you how nonsense that is.
And, even assuming they did, you do realise that there's a difference between cutting 8% of oil (which incidentally gets paid by me at the petrol pump) and ensuring that people can't heat in winter/tank entire industries?
As much as this war sucks, and i very much am pro-Ukraine and pro-sanctions, both the stupid dicksucking for people who talk big game but don't back it up as well as the "fuck our shit, livelyhood of tens of thousands of people, heating etc - gotta show russia" have to stop. It only shows that you don't understand reality. Reality is, for now there's no way to substitute energy imports from russia. Factually.
Our energy bill went from £1100 to £2700 annually this month (and set to rise by another fucking 43% in october), as much as it sucks and as much as i feel for Ukraine, i have a disabled wife to care for, and i need to be able to afford energy - be it gas or petrol. Did you go on a hunger strike when the US invaded Iraq? If not, why'd you expect my wife to freeze for your "ideas"? It's easy to talk shit sitting in a country that got shielded for the most part from rises in energy prices. We have to start making decisions whether we'd rather cook, or heat.
And what's that nonsense about "heavier weapons"? The UK hasn't delivered nor even promised a single heavy weapon system. The starstreak isn't a heavy weapon, it's a manpad.
The countries delivering (or at least promising) heavier weapons are all in the east. Be it Slovakia sending S300 systems, Poland trying to get their jets to the Ukraine, multiple eastern countries sent BMPs etc, Bayraktars from Turkey etc.
In actual fact, Johnson in an interview made clear that "heavier equipment" will not/can't be sent.
Asked if Britain would send its own tanks and armored vehicles to Kyiv, Johnson replied: “I’m in principle willing to consider anything by way of defensive weaponry to help the Ukrainians protect themselves and their people.
“I think it’s important that we should be giving equipment that is genuinely useful and is operable by Ukrainians, that’s our consideration,” he said. “It may be more useful to support the Ukrainians by backfilling and allowing some of the former Warsaw Pact countries to supply some of their own armor in the way that you’ve been seeing.”
That was friday, btw.
Think they can rule out getting extra weapons from Germany. They're beefing up their own military at a scale not seen since.... well you get the idea.
Germany ruled it out themselves on friday. There were talks of sending 100 SPz Marder from storage, but they're not combat ready and will take months to get ready. Germanies military isn't big enough to send units from active service to Ukraine, because then it would fail their NATO as well as their constitutional obligations.
The only real way there would be to send Marders that got replaced by Pumas, but that'll take even longer. There's nothing heavy in short term that germany can send, even if the Ukraine would buy it.
And of course, sending proper modern stuff is somewhat asinine too, since it requires months of training to become somewhat effective. Sending untrained troops in a Leopard 2 or Abrams into combat in Ukraine is pointless, potentially even counterproductive.
And the beefing up of their military, as a former german soldier (incidentally a gunner on the SPz Marder, so i'm pretty clear on how long it takes to make it effective), i believe it when i see it. I certainly hope so, but if i learned one thing in the Bundeswehr, it's "don't expect anything to work, ever". In fact, when i had my Richtschuetzenpruefung (gunners exam), i had to take it on a Marder with no oil pressure. No oil pressure means i had to hand crank the turret.
Not really combat ready for a war in the Ukraine, i'd argue.
The UK has done an awful lot to prepare the Ukrainian military for this war. In 2014 the Ukrainian military collapsed overnight. Following that the US, UK and Canada, three of the most experienced militaries in the world due to ill advised American adventurism, deployed to Ukraine to train their military. They brought the practical application of modern combined arms warfare, training on western systems, and billions on military aid, specifically the systems Ukraine was being trained on.
The accusation that the British didn’t do enough is simply counter factual. The British goal was to build up the Ukrainian military so they it could stand toe to toe with Russia. The evidence of that mission’s success is visible daily.
BoJo is a bellend and the Tories are corrupt but someone in the MoD had a good idea and managed to trick the Tories into funding it.
My sister teaches English online and she said the majority of her students in Japan, Korea and Brazil see the US as to blame for this war. Is this really the prevailing sentiment outside of Europe? I know that the US has a terrible history of interventionism but this instance seems like quite misplaced blame to me.
On April 10 2022 00:52 Manit0u wrote: A historian of the area gives a nice account on what has to happen for the war to end and how those events are shaping Ukraine into a legitimate country.
Honestly the most realistic way the war ends is is probably still through Russian victory. The question is still whether or not Ukraine can beat back Russia if Russia commits all they can afford to in an organized way. And if not then the best way to act in this war would still be to get the current gov and everyone famous enough to be a target out of the country and capitulate.
But yes naturally with each attack the Ukrainians push back Putins position gets worse and eventually he's going to run out of troops to equip unless the Ukrainians run out of troops fist. Which is why I assume the next Russian attack will come with a different level of organization and amount of soldiers.
On April 10 2022 10:55 Starlightsun wrote: My sister teaches English online and she said the majority of her students in Japan, Korea and Brazil see the US as to blame for this war. Is this really the prevailing sentiment outside of Europe? I know that the US has a terrible history of interventionism but this instance seems like quite misplaced blame to me.
I'd disagree that blaming the US is prevailing, but no matter where the fault lies, wanting to remain neutral does seem to prevail, at least for now (to my dismay).
Here in Brazil, you might find 1) Some on the left blaming this all on NATO expansion, but to these people it's the old adage: when all you have is a hammer, every problem is the fault of US imperialism. This argument, for example, was tweeted out right after the invasion by the worker's party then promptly deleted. 2) Some "both sides have a point/both sides are responsible" arguments like with Lula's recent talk saying that this whole war could be worked out by talking it out at the bar table. 3) Some on the right not quite assigning blame to the US but accepting Putin's justifications, especially the whole "Ukraine is a made up construct" by pointing to the history of Russia.
All these arguments are, at least within my bubble (middle class, urban, SE Brazil), relatively rare. I don't know how much this represents in the overall population, and I haven't really found a straight poll in reguards to "fault" (well, I found a small poll asking "who is right" with Ukraine winning against Russia 62% to 6%, but that's not quite the same question).
The best I could find were polls related to picking a side, with, generally speaking, a majority (around 65%, depending on the poll) picking neutrality, a large minority (around 30%) wanting support for Ukraine and a small minority (around 5%) wanting support for Russia. These polls were conducted when the war started, so chances things have changed, but I haven't found more recent polls.
The backdrop is Bolsonaro's call for neutrality, which in turn is his attempt to justify his visit to Putin on the eve of the war, which I posted about many pages ago (copy pasted in spoilers) + Show Spoiler +
On March 11 2022 13:57 Acrofales wrote: And now for the post I actually wanted to make before getting derailed by a disinformation campaign.
I stumbled on two rather interesting pieces in the Guardian about the world's view on the war.
Firstly, an aggregate about how the rest of the world views the conflict. Not particularly surprising for the most part, but in particular Africa and Latin America's tempered response is interesting:
But criticism of western double standards has not been limited to state media outlets in Russian allies.
An opinion article in the South African daily the Mail & Guardian called the conflict “soaked in contradictions”, criticising western media coverage and government responses that appeared to frame the war in Ukraine as worse than other conflicts outside Europe.
“Even as we deplore the violence and the loss of life in Ukraine resulting from the Russian intervention … it is valuable to step back and look at how the rest of the world may perceive this conflict,” it said.
“Fear of domination, potential enemies spur Russia’s invasion,” read a headline in the Guardian in Nigeria, reflecting widely held beliefs about perceived Nato expansionist aims in Europe being partially to blame.
Yan Boechat, a Brazilian journalist who is reporting on the humanitarian crisis from Kyiv, scoffed at the “cynical, hypocritical” tears being shed by the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, over victims of the Ukraine conflict, given the carnage his country’s military had caused in Iraq.
“Under Obama, the US was just as cruel in Mosul as Putin. Nobody was left to mourn the dead. US planes killed them all,” Boechat tweeted, recalling how he had stumbled over body parts while reporting from the devastated Iraqi city six months after the war there.
“Unfortunately, cruelty, barbarity and injustice aren’t unique to Putin and the Russians,” the Brazilian journalist concluded. “Victims are mourned depending on the aggressor. [But] they are all victims: civilians who are Ukrainian, Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan.”
But the map of sanctions suggests that the true rift is not between left and right, nor even between east and west. On the contrary, the map reveals a rift between north and south, between the nations that we call developed and those we call developing. And by revealing this tectonic shift, the map can tell us something important about geopolitics in the coming age of multipolarity. ... In the age of unipolarity – in the long 30-year holiday that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union – the nations of the world were given a rather simple choice: side with the United States, or stand alone. Some nations sought to band together in collective acts of resistance to this hegemonic power. But the consequences were all but inevitable: invasions, coups and extensive sanctions to isolate their economies from the world at large.
As new powers generate new poles, however, the options available to US neighbor nations are no longer restricted to compliance and resistance. A third option emerges: neutrality. “Neutrality does not mean indifference,” says Pierre Sané. “Neutrality means continuously calling for the respect of international laws; neutrality means that our hearts still go to the victims of military invasions and arbitrary sanctions never imposed on Nato countries.”
Back in the first cold war, neutrality had a name: non-alignment. As the United States clashed with China and the Soviet Union in the skies above Korea, Jawaharlal Nehru and Josip Broz Tito refused to take a side. “The people of Yugoslavia cannot accept the postulate that humanity today has only one choice – a choice between a domination of one or the other bloc,” Yugoslavia’s minister of foreign affairs, Edvard Kardelj, told the UN in 1950. “We believe that there exists another road.” The Non-Aligned Movement was born five years later, uniting more than 100 nations around the world around principles of non-interference and peaceful coexistence.
These pieces tie into a general feeling I have gotten about how, regardless of the outcome of this war, the world has fundamentally shifted to one where it's likely a new cold war will once again cause global instability as Great Powers vie to draw nations into their sphere of influence by whatever means they can.
At least here in Brazil, I don't think the half-assed neutrality is a herald of a return of the non-aligned-movement, but more-so a consequence of Brazil (well, Bolsonaro) not having a long-term foreign policy. Foreign policy under Bolsonaro has been subservant to one thing only: playing to the home crowd. Recently, his trip to Russia right before the war was not meant to be part of some well-thought-out realignment towards Russia but was meant to be a 1) photo-opp in response to Lula's euro trip a few months earlier (Putin is the only major leader he hasn't truly pissed off) and 2) getting a deal on fertilizers for his agro supporters 3) getting a defence deal for his military supporters. Now, of course, he won't accept that he made a terrible decision, so now we'll have him, his government and the diplomatic corps each doing their thing, ocasionally in contradiction one of the other and we'll stumble through the crisis.
If we had someone internationally charismatic like Lula was, then maybe some coherent neutrality could be executed and a non-alignment movement might find a grip.
On April 10 2022 10:55 Starlightsun wrote: My sister teaches English online and she said the majority of her students in Japan, Korea and Brazil see the US as to blame for this war. Is this really the prevailing sentiment outside of Europe? I know that the US has a terrible history of interventionism but this instance seems like quite misplaced blame to me.
I'd disagree that blaming the US is prevailing, but no matter where the fault lies, wanting to remain neutral does seem to prevail, at least for now (to my dismay).
Here in Brazil, you might find 1) Some on the left blaming this all on NATO expansion, but to these people it's the old adage: when all you have is a hammer, every problem is the fault of US imperialism. This argument, for example, was tweeted out right after the invasion by the worker's party then promptly deleted. 2) Some "both sides have a point/both sides are responsible" arguments like with Lula's recent talk saying that this whole war could be worked out by talking it out at the bar table. 3) Some on the right not quite assigning blame to the US but accepting Putin's justifications, especially the whole "Ukraine is a made up construct" by pointing to the history of Russia.
All these arguments are, at least within my bubble (middle class, urban, SE Brazil), relatively rare. I don't know how much this represents in the overall population, and I haven't really found a straight poll in reguards to "fault" (well, I found a small poll asking "who is right" with Ukraine winning against Russia 62% to 6%, but that's not quite the same question).
The best I could find were polls related to picking a side, with, generally speaking, a majority (around 65%, depending on the poll) picking neutrality, a large minority (around 30%) wanting support for Ukraine and a small minority (around 5%) wanting support for Russia. These polls were conducted when the war started, so chances things have changed, but I haven't found more recent polls.
The backdrop is Bolsonaro's call for neutrality, which in turn is his attempt to justify his visit to Putin on the eve of the war, which I posted about many pages ago (copy pasted in spoilers) + Show Spoiler +
On March 11 2022 13:57 Acrofales wrote: And now for the post I actually wanted to make before getting derailed by a disinformation campaign.
I stumbled on two rather interesting pieces in the Guardian about the world's view on the war.
Firstly, an aggregate about how the rest of the world views the conflict. Not particularly surprising for the most part, but in particular Africa and Latin America's tempered response is interesting:
But criticism of western double standards has not been limited to state media outlets in Russian allies.
An opinion article in the South African daily the Mail & Guardian called the conflict “soaked in contradictions”, criticising western media coverage and government responses that appeared to frame the war in Ukraine as worse than other conflicts outside Europe.
“Even as we deplore the violence and the loss of life in Ukraine resulting from the Russian intervention … it is valuable to step back and look at how the rest of the world may perceive this conflict,” it said.
“Fear of domination, potential enemies spur Russia’s invasion,” read a headline in the Guardian in Nigeria, reflecting widely held beliefs about perceived Nato expansionist aims in Europe being partially to blame.
Yan Boechat, a Brazilian journalist who is reporting on the humanitarian crisis from Kyiv, scoffed at the “cynical, hypocritical” tears being shed by the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, over victims of the Ukraine conflict, given the carnage his country’s military had caused in Iraq.
“Under Obama, the US was just as cruel in Mosul as Putin. Nobody was left to mourn the dead. US planes killed them all,” Boechat tweeted, recalling how he had stumbled over body parts while reporting from the devastated Iraqi city six months after the war there.
“Unfortunately, cruelty, barbarity and injustice aren’t unique to Putin and the Russians,” the Brazilian journalist concluded. “Victims are mourned depending on the aggressor. [But] they are all victims: civilians who are Ukrainian, Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan.”
But the map of sanctions suggests that the true rift is not between left and right, nor even between east and west. On the contrary, the map reveals a rift between north and south, between the nations that we call developed and those we call developing. And by revealing this tectonic shift, the map can tell us something important about geopolitics in the coming age of multipolarity. ... In the age of unipolarity – in the long 30-year holiday that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union – the nations of the world were given a rather simple choice: side with the United States, or stand alone. Some nations sought to band together in collective acts of resistance to this hegemonic power. But the consequences were all but inevitable: invasions, coups and extensive sanctions to isolate their economies from the world at large.
As new powers generate new poles, however, the options available to US neighbor nations are no longer restricted to compliance and resistance. A third option emerges: neutrality. “Neutrality does not mean indifference,” says Pierre Sané. “Neutrality means continuously calling for the respect of international laws; neutrality means that our hearts still go to the victims of military invasions and arbitrary sanctions never imposed on Nato countries.”
Back in the first cold war, neutrality had a name: non-alignment. As the United States clashed with China and the Soviet Union in the skies above Korea, Jawaharlal Nehru and Josip Broz Tito refused to take a side. “The people of Yugoslavia cannot accept the postulate that humanity today has only one choice – a choice between a domination of one or the other bloc,” Yugoslavia’s minister of foreign affairs, Edvard Kardelj, told the UN in 1950. “We believe that there exists another road.” The Non-Aligned Movement was born five years later, uniting more than 100 nations around the world around principles of non-interference and peaceful coexistence.
These pieces tie into a general feeling I have gotten about how, regardless of the outcome of this war, the world has fundamentally shifted to one where it's likely a new cold war will once again cause global instability as Great Powers vie to draw nations into their sphere of influence by whatever means they can.
At least here in Brazil, I don't think the half-assed neutrality is a herald of a return of the non-aligned-movement, but more-so a consequence of Brazil (well, Bolsonaro) not having a long-term foreign policy. Foreign policy under Bolsonaro has been subservant to one thing only: playing to the home crowd. Recently, his trip to Russia right before the war was not meant to be part of some well-thought-out realignment towards Russia but was meant to be a 1) photo-opp in response to Lula's euro trip a few months earlier (Putin is the only major leader he hasn't truly pissed off) and 2) getting a deal on fertilizers for his agro supporters 3) getting a defence deal for his military supporters. Now, of course, he won't accept that he made a terrible decision, so now we'll have him, his government and the diplomatic corps each doing their thing, ocasionally in contradiction one of the other and we'll stumble through the crisis.
If we had someone internationally charismatic like Lula was, then maybe some coherent neutrality could be executed and a non-alignment movement might find a grip.
Thanks... man this is complicated to try to grasp all the internal politics around the world.
The arguments that "cutting Russian energy imports" will a) cause industries to collapse, and b) make people freeze, is unproven at best, but probably worse.
Even in Germany, every study on the effects of going cold turkey shows a small recession in the worst-case scenario. Politicians are hiding behind words like "uncertainty" and "volatility" but I haven't seen a single study that shows a mechanism by which the effects are catastrophic enough to be called a "collapse". Considering that Germany was asking EU nations to take up to 6% recessions so that German pensioners wouldn't lose a part of their savings in the aftermath of 2008, it's perverse at best to say that the "never again" country can't make any concessions to stop Russia from repeating its own history. Especially as it's one of the world's largest economies, with a very low debt to GDP ratio. It could easily subsidize the worst-affected individuals and companies.
And just as a cherry on the cake, wealthy Germany has been undermining EU common energy policy for years, securing much lower gas prices from Russia than other countries in the region. Now, it's unwilling to even come up to parity on those, while much poorer countries are cutting Russian gas entirely (Lithuania, Estonia, etc).
You cannot even say it wouldn't be political suicide as a majority of Germans have been saying that the government isn't doing enough. It's the government and lobbyists who are dragging their feet.
This ^. I think many people in EUs ruling class would be actually much happier with a swift Russian victory and going back to "Business as usual". Too bad that those pesky Ukrainians refused to surrender at the first shot.
On April 10 2022 09:59 KwarK wrote: The UK has done an awful lot to prepare the Ukrainian military for this war. In 2014 the Ukrainian military collapsed overnight. Following that the US, UK and Canada, three of the most experienced militaries in the world due to ill advised American adventurism, deployed to Ukraine to train their military. They brought the practical application of modern combined arms warfare, training on western systems, and billions on military aid, specifically the systems Ukraine was being trained on.
The accusation that the British didn’t do enough is simply counter factual. The British goal was to build up the Ukrainian military so they it could stand toe to toe with Russia. The evidence of that mission’s success is visible daily.
BoJo is a bellend and the Tories are corrupt but someone in the MoD had a good idea and managed to trick the Tories into funding it.
Yep, US & UK military training in Ukraine looks like success to me as well. Kyiv didn't fall in a matter of days as expected initially. Moreover, Ukrainians are willing to fight for their country unlike what has happened after US left Afghanistan just recently.
On April 10 2022 17:50 Ghanburighan wrote: The arguments that "cutting Russian energy imports" will a) cause industries to collapse, and b) make people freeze, is unproven at best, but probably worse.
Even in Germany, every study on the effects of going cold turkey shows a small recession in the worst-case scenario. Politicians are hiding behind words like "uncertainty" and "volatility" but I haven't seen a single study that shows a mechanism by which the effects are catastrophic enough to be called a "collapse". Considering that Germany was asking EU nations to take up to 6% recessions so that German pensioners wouldn't lose a part of their savings in the aftermath of 2008, it's perverse at best to say that the "never again" country can't make any concessions to stop Russia from repeating its own history. Especially as it's one of the world's largest economies, with a very low debt to GDP ratio. It could easily subsidize the worst-affected individuals and companies.
And just as a cherry on the cake, wealthy Germany has been undermining EU common energy policy for years, securing much lower gas prices from Russia than other countries in the region. Now, it's unwilling to even come up to parity on those, while much poorer countries are cutting Russian gas entirely (Lithuania, Estonia, etc).
You cannot even say it wouldn't be political suicide as a majority of Germans have been saying that the government isn't doing enough. It's the government and lobbyists who are dragging their feet.
I haven't looked into this in detail and just trusted the think tanks and politicians saying it's impossible. The numbers and my (limited) knowledge of how fast replacing infrastructure could be put in place make total collapse sound plausible. If studies point out the opposite, could you please link them? I just assumed oil was relatively easy, but lacked political will because the real issue is gas, which heats and powers over half of northern Europe.
On April 10 2022 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Czech Republic is Ukraine everything but the kitchen sink it seems.
Ukraine has repeatedly called on the West to urgently supply more weapons, especially heavy equipment, as Russian forces regroup in the country’s east for new offensive after withdrawing from the capital Kyiv and other regions.
NATO members are providing a wide range of weapon systems to the country, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday.
The Czech Republic has spare equipment that Ukrainian forces are familiar with in storage as well as a defense industry focused on upgrades and trade in such weapons. It has been among the most active EU nations in backing Ukraine.
Defense sources confirmed a shipment of five T-72 tanks and five BVP-1, or BMP-1, infantry fighting vehicles seen on rail cars in photographs on Twitter and video footage this week, but those were not the first shipments of heavy equipment.
“For several weeks, we have been supplying heavy ground equipment – I am saying it generally but by definition it is clear that this includes tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers, and multiple rocket launchers,” a senior defense official said.
The sources declined to discuss numbers of weapons supplied.
The senior defense official said the Czechs were also supplying a range of anti-aircraft weaponry.
Independent defense analyst Lukas Visingr said short-range air-defense systems Strela-10, or SA-13 Gopher in NATO terminology, have been spotted on a train apparently bound for Ukraine, in line with a report in Czech weekly respekt.cz.
The Czech program to ship weapons includes money raised by public fundraising by the Ukrainian embassy, which has raised $37.45 million, according to the embassy website.
There is some speculation that this could have some ulterior motives. If they give away all of their upgraded Soviet equipment to Ukraine that will give them room to ask for more modern equipment from the US, France, Britain and Germany.
Think they can rule out getting extra weapons from Germany. They're beefing up their own military at a scale not seen since.... well you get the idea.
It's a good day to be a weapons manufacturer that's for sure.
Czech Republic doesn't have any problems buying more modern equipment from US, France, Britain and Germany, apart from budgetary constraints. It's not like any of these countries will look at Czech Republic, judge that their military has enough equipment and refuse to sell their technology and eqiupment to them on the basis that otherwise Czech Republic will have too much equipment. No country cares how much equipment another country already have if that country is a prospective customer of their systems. That's not how arms procurement between nations work.
On April 10 2022 10:55 Starlightsun wrote: My sister teaches English online and she said the majority of her students in Japan, Korea and Brazil see the US as to blame for this war. Is this really the prevailing sentiment outside of Europe? I know that the US has a terrible history of interventionism but this instance seems like quite misplaced blame to me.
From some Japanese and Korean contacts I have, they are either uncaring or support only in platitudes rather than supporting their govenments to take economic or military support. Some Japanese said that they should take back the Kurils, a region I am unfamiliar with, but I believe they were joking. To them, it is a conflict on the other side of the world, unlike in Europe where the war is located. As the war is so obviously a circumstance of Russia invading Ukraine, they do not think what your sister has told you. Brasil might be another matter.
________________________________
My gas price has risen to 50% more than what it was last year and I shopped around and saw this was true for every available provider. However this rise in price was warned even well before Russia started their fake military excercise and may not be related to anything to do with the war in particular. Boris Johnson is just acting to distract from voter anger at his multiple disregard for good governance including partying when everyone else was at covid lockdown. The invasion of Ukraine and its headline grabbing power couldn't have possible come at a better time for him. If he truly desires to help Ukrainians, there is so much more he could be doing.
On April 10 2022 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Czech Republic is Ukraine everything but the kitchen sink it seems.
Ukraine has repeatedly called on the West to urgently supply more weapons, especially heavy equipment, as Russian forces regroup in the country’s east for new offensive after withdrawing from the capital Kyiv and other regions.
NATO members are providing a wide range of weapon systems to the country, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday.
The Czech Republic has spare equipment that Ukrainian forces are familiar with in storage as well as a defense industry focused on upgrades and trade in such weapons. It has been among the most active EU nations in backing Ukraine.
Defense sources confirmed a shipment of five T-72 tanks and five BVP-1, or BMP-1, infantry fighting vehicles seen on rail cars in photographs on Twitter and video footage this week, but those were not the first shipments of heavy equipment.
“For several weeks, we have been supplying heavy ground equipment – I am saying it generally but by definition it is clear that this includes tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers, and multiple rocket launchers,” a senior defense official said.
The sources declined to discuss numbers of weapons supplied.
The senior defense official said the Czechs were also supplying a range of anti-aircraft weaponry.
Independent defense analyst Lukas Visingr said short-range air-defense systems Strela-10, or SA-13 Gopher in NATO terminology, have been spotted on a train apparently bound for Ukraine, in line with a report in Czech weekly respekt.cz.
The Czech program to ship weapons includes money raised by public fundraising by the Ukrainian embassy, which has raised $37.45 million, according to the embassy website.
There is some speculation that this could have some ulterior motives. If they give away all of their upgraded Soviet equipment to Ukraine that will give them room to ask for more modern equipment from the US, France, Britain and Germany.
Think they can rule out getting extra weapons from Germany. They're beefing up their own military at a scale not seen since.... well you get the idea.
It's a good day to be a weapons manufacturer that's for sure.
Czech Republic doesn't have any problems buying more modern equipment from US, France, Britain and Germany, apart from budgetary constraints. It's not like any of these countries will look at Czech Republic, judge that their military has enough equipment and refuse to sell their technology and eqiupment to them on the basis that otherwise Czech Republic will have too much equipment. No country cares how much equipment another country already have if that country is a prospective customer of their systems. That's not how arms procurement between nations work.
Pretty sure he wasn't implying people wouldn't sell them weapons, but rather that the cost of buying new stuff is prohibitively expensive if the old stuff you have works well enough. If you strike a deal where you give your old stuff to someone else, in exchange for a discount on new stuff, then suddenly you can afford it! Especially as you don't have to pay for the maintenance or decommissioning of the old stuff anymore either!
Japan will ban imports of Russian coal, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said, in a bold policy shift that adds pressure on Moscow after the European Union announced its own embargo on the fuel.
“Russia’s cruel and inhumane actions are coming to light one after another all over Ukraine,” Kishida told reporters in Tokyo on Friday, adding Moscow must be made to take responsibility. “We will ban imports of Russian coal.”
Japan will secure alternative sources quickly and cut imports in stages, reducing reliance on Russia for energy, he added, declining to give a time frame for the move.
The coal plan signals a policy reversal for Japan, which had previously drawn a line at cutting energy ties to Russia because of its heavy dependence on fuel imports. Russian coal imports make up about 13% of Japan’s power-generating supply and are also used in steel production and the cement industry.
On April 10 2022 17:50 Ghanburighan wrote: The arguments that "cutting Russian energy imports" will a) cause industries to collapse, and b) make people freeze, is unproven at best, but probably worse.
Even in Germany, every study on the effects of going cold turkey shows a small recession in the worst-case scenario. Politicians are hiding behind words like "uncertainty" and "volatility" but I haven't seen a single study that shows a mechanism by which the effects are catastrophic enough to be called a "collapse". Considering that Germany was asking EU nations to take up to 6% recessions so that German pensioners wouldn't lose a part of their savings in the aftermath of 2008, it's perverse at best to say that the "never again" country can't make any concessions to stop Russia from repeating its own history. Especially as it's one of the world's largest economies, with a very low debt to GDP ratio. It could easily subsidize the worst-affected individuals and companies.
And just as a cherry on the cake, wealthy Germany has been undermining EU common energy policy for years, securing much lower gas prices from Russia than other countries in the region. Now, it's unwilling to even come up to parity on those, while much poorer countries are cutting Russian gas entirely (Lithuania, Estonia, etc).
You cannot even say it wouldn't be political suicide as a majority of Germans have been saying that the government isn't doing enough. It's the government and lobbyists who are dragging their feet.
I haven't looked into this in detail and just trusted the think tanks and politicians saying it's impossible. The numbers and my (limited) knowledge of how fast replacing infrastructure could be put in place make total collapse sound plausible. If studies point out the opposite, could you please link them? I just assumed oil was relatively easy, but lacked political will because the real issue is gas, which heats and powers over half of northern Europe.
Hey, sorry for the delay. Was out hiking. Here's the paper everyone's citing.
I saw other studies earlier which came to the same conclusion, but these guys were more thorough.
On April 10 2022 10:55 Starlightsun wrote: My sister teaches English online and she said the majority of her students in Japan, Korea and Brazil see the US as to blame for this war. Is this really the prevailing sentiment outside of Europe? I know that the US has a terrible history of interventionism but this instance seems like quite misplaced blame to me.
From some Japanese and Korean contacts I have, they are either uncaring or support only in platitudes rather than supporting their govenments to take economic or military support. Some Japanese said that they should take back the Kurils, a region I am unfamiliar with, but I believe they were joking. To them, it is a conflict on the other side of the world, unlike in Europe where the war is located. As the war is so obviously a circumstance of Russia invading Ukraine, they do not think what your sister has told you. Brasil might be another matter.
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense than what she said.
On April 10 2022 00:52 Manit0u wrote: A historian of the area gives a nice account on what has to happen for the war to end and how those events are shaping Ukraine into a legitimate country.
Honestly the most realistic way the war ends is is probably still through Russian victory. The question is still whether or not Ukraine can beat back Russia if Russia commits all they can afford to in an organized way. And if not then the best way to act in this war would still be to get the current gov and everyone famous enough to be a target out of the country and capitulate.
But yes naturally with each attack the Ukrainians push back Putins position gets worse and eventually he's going to run out of troops to equip unless the Ukrainians run out of troops fist. Which is why I assume the next Russian attack will come with a different level of organization and amount of soldiers.
It's easy to speak about capitulation to someone who will not suffer the consequences. Capitulation means counting on a good will of the victor, and we all know Russians are not to be trusted here. "Saving innocent lives" sounds pretty good from far away, when we assume the humanity of opposing forcess, but it sounds much worse when you see Russians supporting scum like Kadyrov to rule their puppets. We are not in position to suggest the best ways for Ukrainians.
If Russians were smart they would already kill this war, but it looks like they are persistent to ruin both sides further for literaly no gains. This suggest that after few years Putin might be dumb enouth to start a new "adventure" when he finish off the Ukraine, despite heavy loses, wich according to Russian officials are mere 2k (we know it's a bull ofc).
On April 10 2022 17:50 Ghanburighan wrote: The arguments that "cutting Russian energy imports" will a) cause industries to collapse, and b) make people freeze, is unproven at best, but probably worse.
Even in Germany, every study on the effects of going cold turkey shows a small recession in the worst-case scenario. Politicians are hiding behind words like "uncertainty" and "volatility" but I haven't seen a single study that shows a mechanism by which the effects are catastrophic enough to be called a "collapse". Considering that Germany was asking EU nations to take up to 6% recessions so that German pensioners wouldn't lose a part of their savings in the aftermath of 2008, it's perverse at best to say that the "never again" country can't make any concessions to stop Russia from repeating its own history. Especially as it's one of the world's largest economies, with a very low debt to GDP ratio. It could easily subsidize the worst-affected individuals and companies.
And just as a cherry on the cake, wealthy Germany has been undermining EU common energy policy for years, securing much lower gas prices from Russia than other countries in the region. Now, it's unwilling to even come up to parity on those, while much poorer countries are cutting Russian gas entirely (Lithuania, Estonia, etc).
You cannot even say it wouldn't be political suicide as a majority of Germans have been saying that the government isn't doing enough. It's the government and lobbyists who are dragging their feet.
I haven't looked into this in detail and just trusted the think tanks and politicians saying it's impossible. The numbers and my (limited) knowledge of how fast replacing infrastructure could be put in place make total collapse sound plausible. If studies point out the opposite, could you please link them? I just assumed oil was relatively easy, but lacked political will because the real issue is gas, which heats and powers over half of northern Europe.
Hey, sorry for the delay. Was out hiking. Here's the paper everyone's citing.
I saw other studies earlier which came to the same conclusion, but these guys were more thorough.
That's a nice paper! Haven't read it fully yet but will do so.
Major concern in Germany is not that people will freeze to death but how it will affect the industry. Mainly glas, steel and concrete industries and everything that comes after that are gonna take a huge hit if gas import is cut. Coal (already decided and will take place end of July) and oil seems doable though
On April 10 2022 10:55 Starlightsun wrote: My sister teaches English online and she said the majority of her students in Japan, Korea and Brazil see the US as to blame for this war. Is this really the prevailing sentiment outside of Europe? I know that the US has a terrible history of interventionism but this instance seems like quite misplaced blame to me.
i dont see that sentiment amongst koreans and the korean media. koreans can generally relate to a country fighting for its freedom; korean history is full of its own battles against oppressors. the trouble is the issue isnt deeply discussed here because as with the japanese case already mentioned, its not a 'local' matter. some people only have a shallow understanding of why the war is taking place (the possibility of ukraine joining nato and russias discontent with such an alliance), however those with slightly better understandings generally denounce putin's actions and support korea sending aid to ukraine.
EPT
