https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ne-funding-tempers-flare-classified-briefing/
If Ukraine aid can't even pass the senate, there is zero chance they will get anything through the house.
Ukraine will get next to nothing from the US in the coming year, thats my prediction.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-ukrainian-lawmaker-russia-source-2023-12-06/KYIV, Dec 6 (Reuters) - A former Ukrainian lawmaker regarded by Kyiv as a traitor was shot dead near Moscow on Wednesday and a Ukrainian source said he was killed by the country's security service.
Illia Kyva was a pro-Russian member of Ukraine's parliament before Moscow invaded in February 2022, but had been in Russia throughout the war and frequently criticised Ukrainian authorities online.
Russian investigators said Kyva died on the spot after being shot in a park in Odintsovo region, southwest of Moscow, and they had opened a murder hunt.
Anyone hear where we are with new ammo production by European countries?
Obviously the US supplies are the main topic but I haven’t heard much about progress with attempts to expand European military production.
Yeah that's the one I'm most interested in.Terrible as far as i read. For example europe pledge 1 million artillery shells in 1 year and they will not get close
Yeah that's the one I'm most interested in.
Very graphic, but shows the reality on the ground. An apparent HIMARS attack with over 180K tungsten balls...
Hopefully, Europe can keep Ukraine afloat for the coming year, and then we hope dems get a trifecta again in next years election.
Sounds like the best case scenario, going forward.
From what I've read they're using it to negotiate for their own anti-immigration bill? I've seen opinions that it's not as bad as it sounds as the Ukrainian aid is going to pass eventually (after Republicans get what they need internally). Although any delay isn't welcome, of course.Republicans doing what they are paid to do, Ukraine aid was never going to pass.
From what I've read they're using it to negotiate for their own anti-immigration bill? I've seen opinions that it's not as bad as it sounds as the Ukrainian aid is going to pass eventually (after Republicans get what they need internally). Although any delay isn't welcome, of course.
Surely there'll be further talks on Ukraine aid won't there?
From what I've read they're using it to negotiate for their own anti-immigration bill? I've seen opinions that it's not as bad as it sounds as the Ukrainian aid is going to pass eventually (after Republicans get what they need internally). Although any delay isn't welcome, of course.
Yes, that’s precisely what is happening. Ukraine aid is being deliberately combined with Israel aid, so barring something extraordinary, it is likely to eventually pass. Biden has intentionally included a very large sum for Ukraine.
Ukraine has disappeared off the UK TV media in favour of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Putin, who has been charged with War Crimes, is in the UAE where he's been given the red carpet treatment. That will piss off the Yanks and may help the Bill on Ukraine Aid to pass. Issue is the money. Their national debt is approaching $34 trillion. That's money owed to Bond holders and other types of securities. They could just issue more bonds to raise the money but that isn't the issue. More and more governments at looking inward to support their own people(except the UK who support anyone that tips up on the Kent coast) and it's a political argument rather than a fiscal one I believe. If the USA stop supporting Ukraine, well they are in deep trouble. Puitin must be laughing his socks off.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-oligarchs-rich-ukraine-war-9b167bb98ed050c5fbfadf0b069a0b8cAnalyst Nikolai Petrov of Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs wrote that Russia is engaged in deprivatization “intended to redistribute wealth to a new generation of less-powerful individuals and shore up the president’s own position.”
“A new group of quasi-owner state oligarchs is being created, with wealth and control redistributed from the ‘old nobles’ to the new,” he said.
Wagner was only there for that city, as I have been pointing out since months ago, and even the baldie confirmed it and did withdraw from the city.I don't have a particular answer for that. Ukrainians have said that Wagner was a tougher opponent than Russian regular forces. And now Wagner has been pretty much disbanded by Putin.
That does not say anything though. I mean UKR did lose the city and still can not retake it. The main point of debate is that if it was worth for UKR to lose some of its best troop against Wagner prisoners who always had plan to leave the city once taken it and the time that it probably gave the RU to prepare their Southern front.On the Bakhmut debate...
To be replaced by the Russian regular army?That does not say anything though. I mean UKR did lose the city and still can not retake it. The main point of debate is that if it was worth for UKR to lose some of its best troop against Wagner prisoners who always had plan to leave the city once taken it vs the time that it probably gave the RU to prepare their Southern front.
The result probably says no, it did not seem to worth it for UKR. There is nothing much to argue. It is not like UKR held the city. They did NOT.
Yes. So basically, RU's normal/special troops did not have to exhaust themselves to get the city while the opposite happened to UKR. UKR didn't even get to destroy much of RU regular troops there. Wagner losing their prisoners did not have much effect on RU's regular force capacity and UKR would not meet them again, meaning killing them as many as they did made little difference for the war as Wagner was just like a different entity.To be replaced by the Russian regular army?
I'm not sure to what extent it matters. Whether they had to face Wagner convicts or Russian regulars, the Ukrainian explanation is that Bakhmut was important for them to defend for territorial reasons according to that WaPo article. They failed to hold Bakhmut but that was their rationale.Yes. So basically, RU's normal/special troops did not have to exhaust themselves to get the city while the opposite happened to UKR. UKR didn't even get to destroy much of RU regular troops there. Wagner losing their prisoners did not have much effect on RU's regular force capacity and UKR would not meet them again, meaning killing them as many as they did made little difference for the war as Wagner was just like a different entity.
That does not say anything though. I mean UKR did lose the city and still can not retake it. The main point of debate is that if it was worth for UKR to lose some of its best troop against Wagner prisoners who always had plan to leave the city once taken it and the time that it probably gave the RU to prepare their Southern front.
The result probably says no, it did not seem to worth it for UKR. There is nothing much to argue. It is not like UKR held the city. They did NOT.
There are no guarantees in war. That's why I said my argument was based on hindsight, even though many military experts were raising concerns during the battle of the city. But it is a fact that Wagner was going to leave the city. The UKR explaining is fine for themselves. But the price they may have paid for it may not have been worth it, and whatever is happening now is probably the consequence of it.I'm not sure to what extent it matters. Whether they had to face Wagner convicts or Russian regulars, the Ukrainian explanation is that Bakhmut was important for them to defend for territorial reasons according to that WaPo article. They failed to hold Bakhmut but that was their rationale.
Also, if not at Bakhmut, what guarantees are there that Ukraine wouldn't have had to face these prisoners somewhere else? The Ukrainians themselves know that the trade-off was horrible and that they were losing good men in a fight against convicts that Russia couldn't care less about. But is that an argument to avoid all areas where Russia deploys the prisoners?
See the above post. What you said about the city not important for strategically is true, it made even less sense that they spent so much time and resources to defend it. The poster that I am replying to said UKR thought it was.Bakhmut isn't even strategically important, so there is no reason to panic over not taking it back.
What is important, however, is Russia paying of US politicians, so no further aid will come, Europe is on its own now, and they don't care enough to increase production to even match Russia.
2024 is going to be a really depressing year, by the looks of thing.
And if Russia deploys those prisoners in the south as the first line of defense for Ukraine to waste its men & equipment on them?There are no guarantees in war. That's why I said my argument was based on hindsight, even though many military experts were raising concerns during the battle of the city. But it is a fact that Wagner was going to leave the city. The UKR explaining is fine for themselves. But the price they may have paid for it may not have been worth it, and whatever is happening now is probably the consequence of it.
The argument was that UKR should have left the city early while diverting some of its resources to push on the southern front early to unsettle the RU defense there. Now, I know you would ask what about the RU march from Bakhmut. Well, what are they doing now? How did UKR contain them around the city before and now? That's what they should have done early to avoid losing many men against prisoners who will have little impact on the war overall.
And if Russia deploys those prisoners in the south as the first line of defense for Ukraine to waste its men & equipment on them?
I know these are counter-factuals and I don't have the expertise to judge Ukraine's rationale for Bakhmut. I just find your "the prisoners have little impact" argument not convincing. It seems to me those prisoners were going to be used anyway whether at Bakhmut or somewhere else.
Wagner was already present in Ukraine before Bakhmut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_PopasnaLet me clarify it again. The "prisoners" that were attacking the city were under the Wagner group. They were only there to take the city to enhance their 'brand' to show off against RU DOD, then they would leave. And it exactly happened.
If RU's military deployed their prisoners somewhere, killing them is good because they are under RU's military, which means they wasted their manpower.
Wagner may not have faced UKR anywhere else after that city. So killing them did not help UKR much. Instead, it helps the RU regular army in the sense that they did not have to lose many to take the city while giving them enough time to dig in more on the south. All that happened while UKR was losing some of its best troops and equipment for that city.
Wagner may have helped the RU military if the RU military got beaten badly and the UKR was becoming a threat to the RU homeland even when the baldie was still alive. But we know that would not happen for now. Even when RU Military was having a difficult time in the summer last year, did we see Wagner show up to help them?
No, because Wagner at that time, or even right now, is a different entity. UKR's main focus is to inflict as much as damage to the RU military because that is what they are facing before, now and in the future.
