Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[the hea]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Honestly, with the latest policy changes towards Ukrainians living abroad, the UKR government is no better than Russia's.
What on earth is this shit.

 

[ShoePolish]

I want to say I'd bet that Sholz's hand will be twisted before the end of the year on Taurus, but then if Ukrainians follow up with their threats that Crimean bridge will be destroyed before then, there might be no need.

Anyhow, seems we're still few few months away from Ukraine being able to stop russian advances, still fair bit of pain incoming over spring/summer.

 

[utdalltheway]

Surely it’s only a matter of weeks before they blow that bridge to Crimea.

 

[the hea]

Good summary on the current situation in Ukraine.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Germany fears that seizing, rather than freezing, the funds could create a precedent and inspire new claims against them for WWII-era crimes.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[4bars]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Wont happen. It will create a precedent for rich people to be taken their assets in any future conflict. And many shady rich people maje money in conflicts. And the people that decides about this are, or those rich people or they donors are or they are simply friends with them

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Attack on Odesa today. Quite a bit if carnage circulating on Twitter.

 

[maniak]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

What's the argument here? Is there any money still frozen from the ww2 era?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Can the UA just not finish off Kerch bridge with a major missile/drone attack already? They need to give their people something to cheer about, especially when the strikes on Russian oil refineries looked like they happened a long time ago.

 

[4bars]

What's the argument here? Is there any money still frozen from the ww2 era?

No. The author is writing crap. Is more about asking reparations that is not the same than having current assets frozen. Which doesn't make sense.

The only problem that german politicians have is that it breaks a lot of laws (I imagine) and that Rich people don't want to screw over other rich people. Specially because probably they know well these rich people. Specially, again, in the case of German-Russia politicians relationships

 

[VorZakone]

What's the argument here? Is there any money still frozen from the ww2 era?

Berlin argues international law prohibits individuals from making claims against states in foreign courts and that state assets are immune from seizure. Violating this principle in Russia’s case would undermine Germany’s longstanding legal position, Berlin officials said.

 

[Raoul]

Can the UA just not finish off Kerch bridge with a major missile/drone attack already? They need to give their people something to cheer about, especially when the strikes on Russian oil refineries looked like they happened a long time ago.

I'm sure the Russians have taken appropriate countermeasures to protect it after all the recent news of ATACMS. The Ukrainians will start picking apart Russian military sites soon enough when they suspect the Russians aren't waiting for it.

 

[VorZakone]

Attack on Odesa today. Quite a bit if carnage circulating on Twitter.

Yup. Any thoughts on what Russia hopes to achieve with this? Demoralize Ukrainians, deplete Ukraine air defenses, or a mix of various reasons?

 

[Raoul]

Yup. Any thoughts on what Russia hopes to achieve with this? Demoralize Ukrainians, deplete Ukraine air defenses, or a mix of various reasons?

I think Odesa is an easier target because of where its located. Sad to see what's going on there as its a beautiful city.

 

[Red in STL]

What's the argument here? Is there any money still frozen from the ww2 era?

Ask the Swiss banks

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DT12]

The whole thing is worth a watch - it's about Ukraine's frankly illegal attempts to get its male citizens sent back from Europe - but I'm posting it because "military analyst" Frank Ledwidge has spent 2 years being the British version of Ben Hodges, i.e., a completely delusional sociopath (at 4:10 in this interview he says he spent last week walking around Kiev counting potential cannon fodder and somehow establishing by mere sight that the guys he was counting weren't married or had children) who has been saying Ukraine will win the war and take back Crimea and Donbass. And now? "Candidly, none of that is going to happen. That's an unfortunate fact, it's very difficult to say, but it's just the way it is".

He also suggests the West needs to come up with some kind of realistic strategy for helping Ukraine get out of this. In other words: even he recognises that there currently isn't one and never has been.

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Suedesi]

'

Which was my original point. Those wanting the US to not support Ukraine are on common ground with Putin and all the Russian propagandists, whose views largely overlap with Tucker, Marge, and the rest of the crazies on US right.

I remain blissfully indifferent to the circus of U.S. politics, which is frankly too dull to merit attention. I'm bored by the so-called liberals who mimic the fascists they allegedly loathe, or the vacuous Christian zealots dominating the GOP— who have more in common with the Mullahs than they would care to admit. Both parties can get fcked.

Having said that, I'll address your point as respectfully as possible, acknowledging that we may not agree on fundamental principles. My perspective isn’t based on moral judgments but on realpolitik and the typical behaviors of major powers.

Russia will win in Ukraine, regardless of U.S. support. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, and based on last year's counteroffensive, there seems no feasible way for Ukraine to reclaim that land. Moving forward, it's likely that Ukraine will lose even more territory, and more lives will be lost. I'll posit to you that this is a war of attrition where the balance of manpower, artillery, and air-power is crucial. When considering these aspects—they decisively favor Russia, which boasts: i) a larger arsenal of conventional weapons; ii) more manpower; iii) air supremacy; iv) a bonus point - Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is ever going to be to U.S., France, the UK, etc.

These are the simple facts.

If you disagree with any of these points, I’m open to discussing how U.S. aid might change the war's trajectory and what success could realistically look like for Ukraine.

 

[Stanley Road]

If you disagree with any of these points, I’m open to discussing how U.S. aid might change the war's trajectory and what success could realistically look like for Ukraine.

Foreign aid could have helped if it had been coming regularly but I now feel its too late. Russia will probably get their land and noone in the world will be better for it.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I remain blissfully indifferent to the circus of U.S. politics, which is frankly too dull to merit attention. I'm bored by the so-called liberals who mimic the fascists they allegedly loathe, or the vacuous Christian zealots dominating the GOP— who have more in common with the Mullahs than they would care to admit. Both parties can get fcked.

Having said that, I'll address your point as respectfully as possible, acknowledging that we may not agree on fundamental principles. My perspective isn’t based on moral judgments but on realpolitik and the typical behaviors of major powers.

Russia will win in Ukraine, regardless of U.S. support. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, and based on last year's counteroffensive, there seems no feasible way for Ukraine to reclaim that land. Moving forward, it's likely that Ukraine will lose even more territory, and more lives will be lost. I'll posit to you that this is a war of attrition where the balance of manpower, artillery, and air-power is crucial. When considering these aspects—they decisively favor Russia, which boasts: i) a larger arsenal of conventional weapons; ii) more manpower; iii) air supremacy; iv) a bonus point - Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is ever going to be to U.S., France, the UK, etc.

These are the simple facts.

If you disagree with any of these points, I’m open to discussing how U.S. aid might change the war's trajectory and what success could realistically look like for Ukraine.

I think you have no idea what Air Supremacy actually means.

Very rarely, in any war, has one side achieved air supremacy. The Allies achieved it, by the skin of its teeth, in 1945 and the Coalition achieved it in 1991. Beyond that, no real conflict high intensity conflict has achieved that ( unless you count NATO supremacy of Yugoslavia, bombing of Libya/ISIS, in which case it was not anywhere close to high intensity.)

Air Supremacy is when one side achieves complete, almost unhindered control of the sky, to a point where enemy anti-air defenses, enemy aerial assets have been degraded to such an extent that they are no longer considered in any planning of operational aerial missions.

Air supremacy is when the Allies can launch 500 Strategic bombers over Dresden without having to take into the account any superficial damage a few bands of remaining FW-190/Bf-109's which have fuel to take to the sky, or Flak 88's, can do to them. It is when the enemy aerial assets or aerial defense is no longer capable of any meaningful change in the operational, strategic and tactical landscape.

Are you trying to argue that this is the case in Ukraine?

Might I remind you that Tupolev's still have to launch from the Caspian sea because it cannot afford to go near Ukrainian airspace

Or that Frogfoots are still doing surface-hogging low altitude missions because high altitude means they get picked off by air defenses.

Or that rotorwing's are suffering from such attrition that Ka-52's have all but disappeared from the battlefield entirely.

Or that Russian squadrons are still not able to undergo Interdiction and Patrol missions over Ukraine itself due to heavy attrition and losses.

Russia is relying on very long range standoff munitions and low-altitude glide bombs right now.

It's arguable that Russia doesn't even have Air Superiority right now (though I believe at this point it does), but Air Supremacy? Jesus christ what a ridiculous claim.

 

[Raoul]

Russia will win in Ukraine, regardless of U.S. support.

These are the simple facts.

Not exactly the ingredients for a rational debate.

Further, there's nothing new in what you've said that hasn't previously been mentioned ad nauseum by pro-Russia advocates in this thread and across the web.

The fact remains, Putin has already lost by way of having been rebuffed from taking all of Ukraine and is holding on to what he has for dear life, because if he loses or relinquishes any of it, he will be perceived as weak domestically and as such, will be vulnerable to internal moves against him.

Western money has already been successful in thwarting Putin's actions, so its disingenuous to suggest giving the Ukrainians more money and weapons wouldn't be effective given that we've already seen them make incredible use of what limited weapons they have whilst outgunned against a vastly better armed adversary.

Your half thought out concept of "peace" is also rather flimsy and disingenuous because its predicated on giving Putin what he wants while stealing large swaths of land from an established, democratically elected nation state. You are therefore privileging the interests of a dictator over those of a free society backed by a vast majority of other free societies in the world. What makes your position doubly farcical, is you are typing it up from the comfort and infrastructure of a free society.

You also continue to ignore the likelihood that Putin, who is a highly accomplished liar, would use Ukraine to push further west. Perhaps not immediately, but given that he has interfered in elections in over two dozen countries, he will eventually use Ukrainian territory as a staging point from which to foment war in Europe, resulting in actual NATO troops getting involved in fighting Russia and all the nuclear implications inclusive of a NATO-Russia confrontation.

So if you're frustrated that your posts are getting mocked by many, then maybe do a rethink of what you're suggesting and we may get somewhere more productive.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Even if Russia get's a favorable outcome in Ukraine, is that even "winning?"

This is akin to the French "victory" at Borodino. Yes, but at what cost?

How many decades will it take to rebuild Russian military strength? How many years will it take to get back to a functional civilian economy once they move back down from their Wartime economy? What will the post-war reality be for Russia when they are even more of a resource export heavy nation, undoing most of the progress they've made in the past decades to diversity away from that?

 

[4bars]

Even if Russia get's a favorable outcome in Ukraine, is that even "winning?"

This is akin to the French "victory" at Borodino. Yes, but at what cost?

How many decades will it take to rebuild Russian military strength? How many years will it take to get back to a functional civilian economy once they move back down from their Wartime economy? What will the post-war reality be for Russia when they are even more of a resource export heavy nation, undoing most of the progress they've made in the past decades to diversity away from that?

All the questions are fair and reasonable but the only question that matters is

Does Putin care about what you laid out?

Is not about Russia winning. Is about Putin winning

 

[Raoul]

Even if Russia get's a favorable outcome in Ukraine, is that even "winning?"

This is akin to the French "victory" at Borodino. Yes, but at what cost?

How many decades will it take to rebuild Russian military strength? How many years will it take to get back to a functional civilian economy once they move back down from their Wartime economy? What will the post-war reality be for Russia when they are even more of a resource export heavy nation, undoing most of the progress they've made in the past decades to diversity away from that?

The idea that Russia is winning is also undercut by the fact that Putin hasn't taken and held any substantial land. The areas that he controls in the south in Kherson (the Oblast) and southern Zap are generally agrarian. The only somewhat meaningful city he's taken is Mariupol, which has created a land bridge to Crimea. Other than that, he has feck all to show for himself other than small gains in Donbas.

 

[VorZakone]

The idea that Russia is winning is also undercut by the fact that Putin hasn't taken and held any substantial land. The areas that he controls in the south in Kherson (the Oblast) and southern Zap are generally agrarian. The only somewhat meaningful city he's taken is Mariupol, which has created a land bridge to Crimea. Other than that, he has feck all to show for himself other than small gains in Donbas.

But he may be happy if he can keep Ukraine unstable and ensure it doesn't grow strong. Doesn't matter if his troops aren't parading around in Kyiv like he wished.

The current stalemate is still a big problem for Ukraine and the situation can still turn for the worse.

 

[nimic]

The idea that Russia is winning is also undercut by the fact that Putin hasn't taken and held any substantial land. The areas that he controls in the south in Kherson (the Oblast) and southern Zap are generally agrarian. The only somewhat meaningful city he's taken is Mariupol, which has created a land bridge to Crimea. Other than that, he has feck all to show for himself other than small gains in Donbas.

At the current rate it will take 10-15 years... to conquer Donbas. Never mind the rest of Ukraine.

 

[Suedesi]

Not exactly the ingredients for a rational debate.

Further, there's nothing new in what you've said that hasn't previously been mentioned ad nauseum by pro-Russia advocates in this thread and across the web.

The fact remains, Putin has already lost by way of having been rebuffed from taking all of Ukraine and is holding on to what he has for dear life, because if he loses or relinquishes any of it, he will be perceived as weak domestically and as such, will be vulnerable to internal moves against him.

Western money has already been successful in thwarting Putin's actions, so its disingenuous to suggest giving the Ukrainians more money and weapons wouldn't be effective given that we've already seen them make incredible use of what limited weapons they have whilst outgunned by a vastly better armed adversary.

Your half thought out concept of "peace" is also rather flimsy and disingenuous because its predicated on giving Putin what he wants while stealing large swaths of land from an established, democratically elected nation state. You are therefore privileging the interests of a dictator over those of a free society backed by a vast majority of other free societies in the world. What makes your position doubly farcical, is you are typing it up from the comfort and infrastructure of a free society.

You also continue to ignore the likelihood that Putin, who is a highly accomplished liar, would use Ukraine to push further east. Perhaps not immediately, but given that he has interfered in elections in over two dozen countries, he will eventually use Ukrainian territory as a staging point from which to foment war in Europe, resulting in actual NATO troops getting involved in fighting Russia and all the nuclear implications inclusive of a NATO-Russia confrontation.

So if you're frustrated that your posts are getting mocked by many, then maybe do a rethink of what you're suggesting and we may get somewhere more productive.

You haven’t disputed any of my points; instead, you've engaged in a weird ramble, which I won't address.

The fact of the matter is that Russia is prevailing on the battlefield, and logic suggests that this trend will continue as the balance of power continues to shift further in its favor with the passage of time.

The US will not engage in direct military conflict in Ukraine, a non-NATO member, because that could escalate into a nuclear war. Biden, a hawk, has been pretty clear on not sending troops, and it's a sensible decision. No US president in their right mid would risk losing New York, Chicago, or LA to protect "freedom" and "democracy" in Ukraine—this isn’t a serious argument.

Furthermore, the collective West currently cannot match Russia's production and procurement of conventional weapons. Without providing either manpower or conventional weapons at a faster rate than Russia, I would argue that all the aid does is prolong the inevitable.

Finally, there is no indication that Russia will attack a NATO country because such an action would compel NATO to respond, and neither Russia nor the US desires a direct conflict that could escalate into a nuclear war. There is no evidence to suggest that Putin will push further east. He is likely to agree to retain Crimea and the conquered territories, and insist that Ukraine does not join NATO.

I'll let you chew on it and hopefully you can come up with a decent response.

 

[Suedesi]

I think you have no idea what Air Supremacy actually means.

Very rarely, in any war, has one side achieved air supremacy. The Allies achieved it, by the skin of its teeth, in 1945 and the Coalition achieved it in 1991. Beyond that, no real conflict high intensity conflict has achieved that ( unless you count NATO supremacy of Yugoslavia, bombing of Libya/ISIS, in which case it was not anywhere close to high intensity.)

Air Supremacy is when one side achieves complete, almost unhindered control of the sky, to a point where enemy anti-air defenses, enemy aerial assets have been degraded to such an extent that they are no longer considered in any planning of operational aerial missions.

Air supremacy is when the Allies can launch 500 Strategic bombers over Dresden without having to take into the account any superficial damage a few bands of remaining FW-190/Bf-109's which have fuel to take to the sky, or Flak 88's, can do to them. It is when the enemy aerial assets or aerial defense is no longer capable of any meaningful change in the operational, strategic and tactical landscape.

Are you trying to argue that this is the case in Ukraine?

Might I remind you that Tupolev's still have to launch from the Caspian sea because it cannot afford to go near Ukrainian airspace

Or that Frogfoots are still doing surface-hogging low altitude missions because high altitude means they get picked off by air defenses.

Or that rotorwing's are suffering from such attrition that Ka-52's have all but disappeared from the battlefield entirely.

Or that Russian squadrons are still not able to undergo Interdiction and Patrol missions over Ukraine itself due to heavy attrition and losses.

Russia is relying on very long range standoff munitions and low-altitude glide bombs right now.

It's arguable that Russia doesn't even have Air Superiority right now (though I believe at this point it does), but Air Supremacy? Jesus christ what a ridiculous claim.

You, sir, are a towering genius, a remarkable example of someone who misses the point and veers off on a strange tangent. Military intelligence, eh?

 

[Raoul]

You haven’t disputed any of my points; instead, you've engaged in a weird ramble, which I won't address.

The fact of the matter is that Russia is prevailing on the battlefield, and logic suggests that this trend will continue as the balance of power continues to shift further in its favor with the passage of time.

The US will not engage in direct military conflict in Ukraine, a non-NATO member, because that could escalate into a nuclear war. Biden, a hawk, has been pretty clear on not sending troops, and it's a sensible decision. No US president in their right mid would risk losing New York, Chicago, or LA to protect "freedom" and "democracy" in Ukraine—this isn’t a serious argument.

Furthermore, the collective West currently cannot match Russia's production and procurement of conventional weapons. Without providing either manpower or conventional weapons at a faster rate than Russia, I would argue that all the aid does is prolong the inevitable.

Finally, there is no indication that Russia will attack a NATO country because such an action would compel NATO to respond, and neither Russia nor the US desires a direct conflict that could escalate into a nuclear war. There is no evidence to suggest that Putin will push further east. He is likely to agree to retain Crimea and the conquered territories, and insist that Ukraine does not join NATO.

I'll let you chew on it and hopefully you can come up with a decent response.

I addressed them as I saw fit which is to expose their lack of legitimacy. Feel free to tell me where I’m going wrong on any of them.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

You, sir, are a towering genius, a remarkable example of someone who misses the point and veers off on a strange tangent. Military intelligence, eh?

How is it a tangent when you’re the one making that claim that Russia has air supremacy? If you don’t want to be challenged on technical meanings of words you don’t understand, don’t use them

 

[4bars]

At the current rate it will take 10-15 years... to conquer Donbas. Never mind the rest of Ukraine.

Unfortunately it might not be the case. Will see this summer campaign. Hopefully part of the US package can help Ukraine

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nimic]

How is it a tangent when you’re the one making that claim that Russia has air supremacy? If you don’t want to be challenged on technical meanings of words you don’t understand, don’t use them

You're wasting your time with him. He's not worth the metal capacity to engage.