ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

IIRC some western nations have said they would support Moldova if the Russians proved this stupid.

GGX11ipWIAASCY_
 
"Proximities of Avdivka..... Another of those exploration groups sent to death....Another Suicide Squad Mission"



"RUSSIANIn Belgorod the Russians launch S-300 towards Kharkiv and one of their missiles falls on their own city.For now 4 dead and 7 injured."

 
Last edited:
This is the key takeaway.

This is why the Tucker interview.

This is why the mass influence operation to stop the Ukraine Aid spending bill.

This is why China is chirping at the UN.

Russia cannot sustain this war. They are losing. Badly. And they know it.

They already raided the prisons. They already raided the poors in the countryside.

Now it is taking a toll on the commoners & middle-upper class. Fewer doctors, fewer police. Less security. More volatile inside Russia. It will get to the point of becoming a powder keg.

They desperately need a cease fire. Do not give it to them.
There are other assessments out there too:

A top Norwegian official warned that Ukraine was facing multiple challenges and Russia was getting stronger. The bleak assessment was made as the US and Europe look to commit over $100 billion to the Ukrainian war effort. On the battlefield, Kiev is facing a shortage of soldiers and arms.

The head of Norway’s military intelligence unit, Nils Andreas Stensones, said, "In this war, Russia is currently in a stronger position than it was a year ago and is in the process of gaining the advantage." He added that Russia "could mobilize around three times more troops than Ukraine."

Nearly two years ago, Washington and its NATO partners agreed to back Ukraine in a proxy war to weaken Russia. However, it is Ukraine that is now on the brink of defeat. Kiev has depleted its weapon stockpiles, including 155 mm artillery rounds and air defense interceptors.

Future arms delivered to Ukraine are in question as a $61 billion war funding package for Kiev remains stalled in Congres. Even if the House passed the bill finding the war in Ukraine, Kiev faces other challenges.

In addition to the $61 billion the White House is pushing Congress to allocate to the war in Ukraine, the European Union recently agreed to a $50 billion economic aid package for Kiev. Still, Stensones warned, Ukraine will need a significant influx of aid to regain the upper hand on the battlefield:

"Extensive Western weapons aid would be needed for Ukrainian forces to be able to defend themselves and regain the initiative in the conflict."
Weapons production delays continue in the West. Currently, orders placed for 155 mm shells take one to two years to be delivered. Adding to Kiev’s problems is a severe troops shortage. President Zelensky appears unable to address the manpower shortage as Ukrainians are beginning to protest future conscription programs.

Stensones explained that Russia does not face the same challenges, even in the face of a Western economic war. "Moscow is tackling sanctions better than expected," he said. Moscow’s industry can now produce enough munitions, combat vehicles, drones, and missiles to enable its troops to "maintain their war effort all year."

Denmark’s Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen made a similar statement last week. "Russia’s capacity to produce military equipment has increased tremendously," he explained.
 
He hadn't been seen alive since last September and an Ukrainian attack on a Crimean base.



And/or the attack hitting its targets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD and Torg
Hope they are finally moving it along!



Beat me to it, Canada made a strong move here. They've done good work in assisting with the training of Ukrainian pilots, and it isn't simply the jets, it's the long tail of maintenance and support that keeps those jets in the air that's going to matter.
 




No excuse for Biden not to do this.

As Russia’s wider war on Ukraine grinds into its third year and Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress continue to withhold U.S. funding for Ukraine, Ukrainian artillery batteries are desperately low on ammunition.

Six months ago, Ukrainian batteries were firing as many as 6,000 shells a day and, in some sectors of the 600-mile front line, even matching Russians batteries’ own shellfire.

Today, four months after Republicans began blocking aid, the Ukrainians are firing just 2,000 shells a day. At the same time, the Russians—flush with shells from North Korea and Iran—are firing up as many as 10,000 shells a day.

That firepower disparity is the main reason why Russian forces are—admittedly at great cost—slowly advancing in and around the eastern city of Avdiivka, currently the locus of Russia’s winter offensive.

There’s no legal reason Biden couldn’t cut out the middleman and use his EDA authority directly to support Ukraine. And there’s no practical reason this aid couldn’t include artillery ammunition.

Generally speaking, most artillery ammunition in U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps stockpiles clearly isn’t excess. Indeed, the Army and Marines need all the modern shells they can get as they prepare for Ukraine-style wars.

But there’s an important exception. There are potentially four million 155-millimeter dual-purpose improved cluster munitions in storage in the United States. M483A1 and M864 DPICM rounds respectively scatter 88 or 72 grenade-size submunitions, each of which can kill or maim a soldier.


All of these shells are obvious candidates for the “excess” label. The U.S. Army years ago determined that these DPICMs—produced in large quantities between the 1970s and 1990s—are unreliable and unsafe, as any particular submunition has up to a 14-percent chance of being a dud.


The Army around 2017 declared a requirement for a new cluster shell with a one-percent dud rate. “Rounds now in the U.S. stockpile do not meet the Office of the Secretary of Defense's goal,” wrote Peter Burke, then the service’s top ammunition manager.


That orphaned, according to a 2004 report, 402 million DPICM submunitions. Do the math. That’s as many as 4.6 million 155-millimeter shells.
 
He was a brave guy. Sad to hear that he is gone…
He was 'not Putin', but I'm not sure he was a 'good guy'.

link

As one might expect, we questioned them about the remarks Navalny made on Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March 2014. In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been seized through “outrageous violations of all international norms”, and yet asserted that it would “remain part of Russia” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.

His statement was not simply an assessment of the developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia’s president, Navalny wrapped his “No” in an odd rhetorical question: “What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take and give back?” It was clear that his political position on Crimea was that it should “remain part of Russia”.

...

Hence, it was not unreasonable to imagine at that time that any regime change in Russia, if it were to happen, would be led by Navalny. That is why we wanted to know what Ukraine should expect from “the wonderful Russia of the future”, as Navalny likes to call post-Putin Russia.

The Navalnists responded that under a democratically elected government, Moscow would keep Crimea despite the fact that the annexation was illegal. That is because their policies would have to reflect the will of the Russian people and the overwhelming majority of Russians wanted Crimea to be within Russian borders.


...

Navalny, as Ukrainians and liberal Russians remember well, vehemently supported the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and even used derogatory, dehumanising terms to refer to the Georgian people. Several years later, he would apologise for the terms he used, but never for his support of the Russian war on Georgia.

Navalny was nominally against the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but his “anti-war” position was underpinned by economic, rather than moral, considerations: “Russia can ill afford waging the war”. That position expectedly did not entail any empathy towards the Ukrainian people – something that was also reflected in his use of ethnic slurs against them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: noleclone2
He was 'not Putin', but I'm not sure he was a 'good guy'.

link

As one might expect, we questioned them about the remarks Navalny made on Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March 2014. In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been seized through “outrageous violations of all international norms”, and yet asserted that it would “remain part of Russia” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.

His statement was not simply an assessment of the developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia’s president, Navalny wrapped his “No” in an odd rhetorical question: “What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take and give back?” It was clear that his political position on Crimea was that it should “remain part of Russia”.

...

Hence, it was not unreasonable to imagine at that time that any regime change in Russia, if it were to happen, would be led by Navalny. That is why we wanted to know what Ukraine should expect from “the wonderful Russia of the future”, as Navalny likes to call post-Putin Russia.

The Navalnists responded that under a democratically elected government, Moscow would keep Crimea despite the fact that the annexation was illegal. That is because their policies would have to reflect the will of the Russian people and the overwhelming majority of Russians wanted Crimea to be within Russian borders.


...

Navalny, as Ukrainians and liberal Russians remember well, vehemently supported the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and even used derogatory, dehumanising terms to refer to the Georgian people. Several years later, he would apologise for the terms he used, but never for his support of the Russian war on Georgia.

Navalny was nominally against the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but his “anti-war” position was underpinned by economic, rather than moral, considerations: “Russia can ill afford waging the war”. That position expectedly did not entail any empathy towards the Ukrainian people – something that was also reflected in his use of ethnic slurs against them.
Natty Light never takes a day off!
 


The announced tranche of €1.1 billion should include:

  • 36 self-propelled tracked and wheeled howitzers (probably PzH 2000 and RCH 155)
  • 120 thousand rounds of artillery ammunition
  • 2 Skynex air defense systems
  • Missile for IRIS-T SLS air defense systems
Scholz noted that the above-mentioned artillery systems will be transferred from the production stocks of the manufacturing companies.



 
Last edited:
He was 'not Putin', but I'm not sure he was a 'good guy'.

link

As one might expect, we questioned them about the remarks Navalny made on Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March 2014. In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been seized through “outrageous violations of all international norms”, and yet asserted that it would “remain part of Russia” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.

His statement was not simply an assessment of the developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia’s president, Navalny wrapped his “No” in an odd rhetorical question: “What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take and give back?” It was clear that his political position on Crimea was that it should “remain part of Russia”.

...

Hence, it was not unreasonable to imagine at that time that any regime change in Russia, if it were to happen, would be led by Navalny. That is why we wanted to know what Ukraine should expect from “the wonderful Russia of the future”, as Navalny likes to call post-Putin Russia.

The Navalnists responded that under a democratically elected government, Moscow would keep Crimea despite the fact that the annexation was illegal. That is because their policies would have to reflect the will of the Russian people and the overwhelming majority of Russians wanted Crimea to be within Russian borders.


...

Navalny, as Ukrainians and liberal Russians remember well, vehemently supported the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and even used derogatory, dehumanising terms to refer to the Georgian people. Several years later, he would apologise for the terms he used, but never for his support of the Russian war on Georgia.

Navalny was nominally against the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but his “anti-war” position was underpinned by economic, rather than moral, considerations: “Russia can ill afford waging the war”. That position expectedly did not entail any empathy towards the Ukrainian people – something that was also reflected in his use of ethnic slurs against them.
I didn’t post that he was a “good guy”. He was brave as heck for returning to Russia after being poisoned.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT