Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Rajma]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Simbo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Might just be me, but you seem to have a habit of posting controversial articles that always name "officials" as sources, paywalled so we can't see if there's any actual substance to the story.

 

[VorZakone]

Might just be me, but you seem to have a habit of posting controversial articles that always name "officials" as sources, paywalled so we can't see if there's any actual substance to the story.

What's controversial about a WaPo article? Besides, the key point is usually in the tweet anyway.

 

[Simbo]

What's controversial about a WaPo article? Besides, the key point is usually in the tweet anyway.

Well WaPo or NYT love publishing controversial articles about whatever, most msm even. Just annoys me when they all too often quote "officials" as sources. We know all too well the problem with only reading headlines/tweets.

 

[the hea]

Profit. Always profit. No country who’s supplying Ukraine with arms or help is doing it for the goodness of it. It will have to be repaid back at some point and with interest. There’s always a buck to be made when war breaks out.

Do you have a source for this claim? To the best of my understanding almost all the equipment coming from the US and Europe are being donated.

 

[Simbo]

Do you have a source for this claim? To the best of my understanding almost all the equipment coming from the US and Europe are being donated.

It may cost the countries through donations, or depletion of existing stocks, depending on how those have been accounted for. However, arms manufacturers will always profit. In a twisted way that's a good thing as they lobby the Republicans, which protects us from the maga loons.

 

[the hea]

It may cost the countries through donations, or depletion of existing stocks, depending on how those have been accounted for. However, arms manufacturers will always profit. In a twisted way that's a good thing as they lobby the Republicans, which protects us from the maga loons.

Of course the arms manufacturers are getting paid, they are private enterprises that work for for a profit thats just how the world works. The poster as I understand it asked if Ukraine are paying the donor countries for the weapons.

 

[the hea]

Talking about weapon donations the US just announced their latest package for Ukraine that includes:

• One Patriot air defense battery and munitions;
• Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
• 500 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds;
• 10 120mm mortar systems and 10,000 120mm mortar rounds;
• 10 82mm mortar systems;
• 10 60mm mortar systems;
• 37 Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles;
• 120 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
• Six armored utility trucks;
• High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs);
• Precision aerial munitions;
• Over 2,700 grenade launchers and small arms;
• Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
• Demolition munitions and equipment;
• Night vision devices and optics;
• Tactical secure communications systems;
• Body armor and other field equipment.

Under USAI, the DoD will also provide Ukraine with:

• 45,000 152mm artillery rounds;
• 20,000 122mm artillery rounds;
• 50,000 122mm GRAD rockets;
• 100,000 rounds of 125mm tank ammunition;
• SATCOM terminals and services;
• Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releas...n-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

There appears to be a Russian troll campaign hitting Twitter right now to criticize the Zelenskyy visit to DC

 

[Stookie]

Of course the arms manufacturers are getting paid, they are private enterprises that work for for a profit thats just how the world works. The poster as I understand it asked if Ukraine are paying the donor countries for the weapons.

I should imagine that it will be a similar situation to that where Britain paid the USA for help during the Second World War. It took 50 years to pay that debt. Why would the Ukraine be treated any differently? Surely billions of dollars/ pounds worth of weapons wouldn’t be given for free just to poke the eye of those pesky Russians? But whether it’s governments or arms manufacturers, as I said in my first post, someone somewhere will surely be making a buck out it on the back of Ukraine. And just for the record I’m all for donating arms for nothing to Ukraine but my cynical side of Governments thinks otherwise.

 

[frostbite]

I should imagine that it will be a similar situation to that where Britain paid the USA for help during the Second World War. It took 50 years to pay that debt. Why would the Ukraine be treated any differently? Surely not just to poke the eye of those pesky Russians? But whether it’s governments or arms manufacturers, as I said in my first post, someone somewhere will surely be making a buck out it on the back of Ukraine. And just for the record I’m all for donating arms for nothing to Ukraine but my cynical side of Governments thinks otherwise.

Do you know how much money Britain paid in 50 years? Can you compare it to Britain's GDP? Can you also compare the money USA gave to Britain in 1940, and compare it to Britain's GDP back then? It will surprise you! The final payment in 2006 was just $83m, can you calculate what percentage of Britain's GDP that was? Can you calculate what percentage it was in 1940?

I wish I could borrow a billion dollars today, and pay back a billion dollars in 50 years, with no interest or even with 2% interest. There are loans and then there are "loans".

 

[Frosty]

Do you know how much money Britain paid in 50 years? Can you compare it to Britain's GPD? Can you also compare the money USA gave to Britain in 1940, and compare it to Britain's GPD back then? It will surprise you! The final payment in 2006 was just $83m, can you calculate what percentage of Britain's GPD that was? Can you calculate what percentage it was in 1940?

I wish I could borrow a billion dollars today, and pay back a billion dollars in 50 years, with no interest or even with 2% interest. There are loans and then there are "loans".

Don't forget the aid through the Marshall Plan given to the UK (and other countries), separate from the debt. Done to stop the spread of communism. I would suggest that billions in aid to secure a pro-Western Ukraine is worth much more to US/NATO than getting Ukraine to pay the cost of the weapons.

 

[Stookie]

Do you know how much money Britain paid in 50 years? Can you compare it to Britain's GPD? Can you also compare the money USA gave to Britain in 1940, and compare it to Britain's GPD back then? It will surprise you! The final payment in 2006 was just $83m, can you calculate what percentage of Britain's GPD that was? Can you calculate what percentage it was in 1940?

I wish I could borrow a billion dollars today, and pay back a billion dollars in 50 years, with no interest or even with 2% interest. There are loans and then there are "loans".

Agreed but it was still to be repaid. It wasn’t free. That’s my point.

 

[Pexbo]

There appears to be a Russian troll campaign hitting Twitter right now to criticize the Zelenskyy visit to DC

Don’t think so, Elon has done away with all the bots and would never let Russia get away with something like that.

 

[frostbite]

Agreed but it was still to be repaid. It wasn’t free. That’s my point.

Yes, but the VALUE of what was repaid was almost nothing. It was the same as free money.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Biden looked incredibly doddery meeting Zelensky, blimey.

 

[Raoul]

Biden looked incredibly doddery meeting Zelensky, blimey.

Wait til you see him in year 4 of his second term.

 

[Rajma]

There appears to be a Russian troll campaign hitting Twitter right now to criticize the Zelenskyy visit to DC

To be honest as Zelensky is trending and looking at the top posts suggested by Twitter you can tell algorithms have been amended to promote Kremlin’s propaganda. Musk is a real danger to democracy.

 

[Rajma]

To me it’s still incomprehensible how timid France and Germany are in their military aid for Ukraine given the war is happening in our own backyard. European countries should be the ones with most interest in total and swift defeat of Russian army.

 

[Raoul]

Vlad will fume

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rajma]

To be honest as Zelensky is trending and looking at the top posts suggested by Twitter you can tell algorithms have been amended to promote Kremlin’s propaganda. Musk is a real danger to democracy.

If you had any doubts that he’s now actively pushing Russian state propaganda:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[711]

I should imagine that it will be a similar situation to that where Britain paid the USA for help during the Second World War. It took 50 years to pay that debt. Why would the Ukraine be treated any differently? Surely billions of dollars/ pounds worth of weapons wouldn’t be given for free just to poke the eye of those pesky Russians? But whether it’s governments or arms manufacturers, as I said in my first post, someone somewhere will surely be making a buck out it on the back of Ukraine. And just for the record I’m all for donating arms for nothing to Ukraine but my cynical side of Governments thinks otherwise.

Do you think the USA will make Israel pay for all the weapons they have been given over the years too? I should imagine not personally.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[The United]

There are two possible interpretations of Zelensky's visit. One is that it will improve relations between the two nations and serve as a means for him to express his gratitude for the assistance.

The alternative, less encouraging explanation is that Zelensky is here to persuade and promote because Biden felt that the GOP Congress was likely to restrict, if not outright stop, the assistance in the coming years.

I hope it is closer to the first one. In reality, it might be a bit of both.

 

[calodo2003]

There are two possible interpretations of Zelensky's visit. One is that it will improve relations between the two nations and serve as a means for him to express his gratitude for the assistance.

The alternative, less encouraging explanation is that Zelensky is here to persuade and promote because Biden felt that the GOP Congress was likely to restrict, if not outright stop, the assistance in the coming years.

I hope it is closer to the first one. In reality, it might be a bit of both.

Definitely some of both.

 

[Stookie]

Do you think the USA will make Israel pay for all the weapons they have been given over the years too? I should imagine not personally.

Absolutely. USA aren’t in the business of providing free weapons for the world. Isreal will be paying for them in some way, shape or form. As will any country they provide weapons for.

 

[Raoul]

Do you think the USA will make Israel pay for all the weapons they have been given over the years too? I should imagine not personally.

The US gives Israel billions in support each year that never gets paid back. The same will be true for Ukraine. That’s why it’s called “assistance”. The payback comes through strategic gains the weapons are used for. In the case of Ukraine, it allows the US to weaken or defeat Russia without any loss of blood or treasure to the American side, and in the process also advances democracy in a key country, thereby further advancing western norms in the former Soviet sphere.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[frostbite]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[frostbite]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sir Matt]

There are two possible interpretations of Zelensky's visit. One is that it will improve relations between the two nations and serve as a means for him to express his gratitude for the assistance.

The alternative, less encouraging explanation is that Zelensky is here to persuade and promote because Biden felt that the GOP Congress was likely to restrict, if not outright stop, the assistance in the coming years.

I hope it is closer to the first one. In reality, it might be a bit of both.

There were likely direct briefings that the US wouldn't make remotely for security reasons as well. It's certainly an attempt to further build support in the US to maintain its support as well.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sir Matt]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

After listening to several experts on podcasts, it seems like Sweden's Saab Gripen would be the ideal candidate for Ukraine. It's a more rugged aircraft that is meant to operate from highways and short, makeshift runways and rely on less specialized mechanics. Most NATO aircraft are more high maintenance and intended to operate in better conditions than the Gripen. Ukraine could certainly use the F-16s, but, if possible, it seems that a better option would be the Gripen or F-18.

Most American combat aircraft are great, but they are also designed (along with tanks and other vehicles) to operate within parameters that the US and NATO would expect to fight within. Countries like Ukraine or Taiwan can't expect to establish air dominance so they need equipment that is created with those conditions in mind. I think it would be beneficial in the long-term for NATO for countries like Sweden to continue to develop weapons with that in mind.

 

[Sir Matt]

I caught the latter part of Zelensky's speech and was very impressed. It was forcefully pro-American and tried to intertwine the fates of Ukraine with America's. At one point, Republicans would love that he was so positive about America, but now...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[frostbite]

After listening to several experts on podcasts, it seems like Sweden's Saab Gripen would be the ideal candidate for Ukraine. It's a more rugged aircraft that is meant to operate from highways and short, makeshift runways and rely on less specialized mechanics. Most NATO aircraft are more high maintenance and intended to operate in better conditions than the Gripen. Ukraine could certainly use the F-16s, but, if possible, it seems that a better option would be the Gripen or F-18.

Most American combat aircraft are great, but they are also designed (along with tanks and other vehicles) to operate within parameters that the US and NATO would expect to fight within. Countries like Ukraine or Taiwan can't expect to establish air dominance so they need equipment that is created with those conditions in mind. I think it would be beneficial in the long-term for NATO for countries like Sweden to continue to develop weapons with that in mind.

I don't know, I am not an expert on this.

However, I know that the war is going on for almost a year, and we are supporting Ukraine. I don't understand why we are letting them fight without any air force. Russia is much bigger, has more soldiers, has more planes, has more of everything, and is constantly bombing Ukraine's infrastructure while Ukraine has no response and can only defend itself. If we really want Ukraine to win, and I believe we do want them to win, we have to provide them with some modern aircraft. And with some modern tanks.

 

[Stookie]

I don't know, I am not an expert on this.

However, I know that the war is going on for almost a year, and we are supporting Ukraine. I don't understand why we are letting them fight without any air force. Russia is much bigger, has more soldiers, has more planes, has more of everything, and is constantly bombing Ukraine's infrastructure while Ukraine has no response and can only defend itself. If we really want Ukraine to win, and I believe we do want them to win, we have to provide them with some modern aircraft. And with some modern tanks.

I’ve wondered this too and the only thing I can think of is that, maybe, some countries are worried about it escalating into a world war and a possible nuclear war. I know the threats haven’t amounted to anything yet but is it possible it’s in the backs of the West minds? It’s all finely balanced at the moment. But the West is already supplying lots of weapons already, is there a cut off point with them ‘you can have plenty of that but none of those’. The whole thing stresses me out to be honest, the fact it could tip at any moment. And it’s all being caused by one man. It’s insane.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

In other news, a Norwegian supreme Court judge had publicly accused his ukrainean wife of poisoning him over several months in an attempt on his life and that she is now on the run.

The next day she confirmed with several papers she is not on the run, had no motive for killing her husband as she's financially dependent on him and shared these txts from him:

«I think Putin is on track. Earlier his goal was to denazifise Ukraine. Now he tells that the goal is to desatanifise (desatanifisere) Ukraine. On this point he is spot on, but has a big job to do.»

«People from Ukraine are from hell!»

«I hope that the war with Russia ends with that Ukraine is deleted from map!!!»

He confirmed the txts but explained those were the writings of a man deranged by longterm poisoning and that it is only in the past week he has regained his sanity and was able to identify his wife as the only possible cause of the poisoning.

I know that family. I didn't know he had that in him to write those texts. Hardly relevant though, he barely has any influence at all anymore (if he had any in the first place). Nor is it the view of the average Norwegian.