This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Anyone who thinks EU virtue signaling heralds the end of Russia as a state is waiting for Godot.
This ends, as practically every war has, in a negotiation after an as yet undetermined period of slaughter and destruction.
It shouldn't. Serving a military is way different than consumer sales. If Verizon knew you were going to walk out into a war zone with your new iPhone, the payments wouldn't be spread over 30 months. That's one consumer product.
Throw in security measures, maintenance and the service they're providing...in an active war zone, and it's an expensive endeavor with real costs, and real value, and a private entity should not be funding it for a government. The fact they donated any of it is pretty remarkable, there should be nothing but gratitude here.
I don't disagree, but like others have suggested, I would like to see a detailed invoice as to who has paid for what to this point.
Young government official from Moscow sent to fight in Ukraine without training and killed
UKRAINSKA PRAVDA - THURSDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2022, 23:07 The head of a department at the office of the Mayor of Moscow was sent to fight in Ukraine without any combat experience. Russian media report that the official has been killed in hostilities in Ukraine.
Yikes, me too. It seems very coordinated and accurate so hopefully that means Ukraine is on the right end of the howitzer, although it was published by someone with a Russian flag...
"First corpses of #Rekruten come back from #Ukraine to #Russland - also after #Moskau . "Even Z disciples get upset." For example, because of the 28-year-old former department head of the Moscow city government, who was drafted on September 23 and killed on October 10."
Young government official from Moscow sent to fight in Ukraine without training and killed
UKRAINSKA PRAVDA - THURSDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2022, 23:07 The head of a department at the office of the Mayor of Moscow was sent to fight in Ukraine without any combat experience. Russian media report that the official has been killed in hostilities in Ukraine.www.yahoo.com
I get hoping for a war crimes trial, but I think it’s preposterous to expect it.
Russia won’t end up conquered and occupied by millions of troops like Germany was.
Fifteen years ago, in a July 2007 Democratic primary debate in Charleston, South Carolina, Senator Barack Obama won applause by saying sure, he’d meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. “The notion that somehow not talking the country is punishment to them” was ridiculous, he said, adding even JFK and Reagan were willing to talk to the Soviets.
“They understood that we may not trust them, and they may pose an extraordinary danger,” Obama said. “But we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.”
Obama’s line won him new admirers and helped dent progressive support for frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The episode is now mostly forgotten, as Talking to Bad People has again been deemed forbidden, even by former liberals, perhaps especially by them, even with the country suddenly at greater risk of nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile crisis.
These dynamics resurfaced in a confusing way this week. To no one’s surprise the Biden administration continued to say it won’t negotiate with Russia, but it suddenly also began leaking a belief that it doesn’t think fighting will work, either. If both strategies are off the table, what exactly are we doing?
Biden was also at that 2007 debate. When New Mexico’s Bill Richardson said he favored sending U.N. troops and showing “diplomatic leadership” in Darfur, the future veep could barely contain his disgust.
“I’m so tired of this. I heard the same arguments after I came back from meeting with Milosevic,” Biden seethed. “We can’t act. We can’t send troops there. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can.” He added. “Those kids will be dead by the time diplomacy is over.”
Conventional wisdom says Obama picked Biden to “reassure older white voters,” as NPR put it, but Biden also had some swag and physicality, which helped offset the high intellectual dweeb quotient plaguing the party. Obama suffered from it himself, and was smart enough to know it. He later wrote approvingly of Biden’s “lack of a filter,” which came out when Joe barked insults and threat-like exclamations at effete word-choosers like Richardson or John Edwards. It was eccentric, but real, an area where Obama needed help. Biden was the closest thing to Gary Busey Democrats had and like Busey in Point Break, Joe played a great loose-cannon counterweight to the sensitive pretty face in the lead.
Years later, Biden is a shell of himself, but still a loose cannon. In a confusing series of episodes, Biden and his government seem to be changing their minds almost daily about negotiation. For instance, he raised eyebrows when he theorized about giving Vladimir Putin an “off-ramp.” When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper if he’d consider meeting with Putin, he said, “it would depend.”
In the same interview, though, as if remembering his sheet of talking points — which at one point fell to the floor, leaving Tapper to lean over and hand them back — Biden fell back to what sounded like a party line. “I have no intention of meeting with him,” he said, before adding the administration bumper sticker, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Then, reverting to his familiar sternum-poking persona, he declared, “I’m not about to, nor is anyone else prepared to negotiate with Russia.”
The United States and Ukraine have effected a strange negotiations switcheroo since war started. In March, it was Volodymyr Zelensky who asked for diplomatic help, commenting, “there will be fighting, but it will only definitively end through diplomacy.” A question was whether or not Zelensky was empowered to negotiate an end to U.S.-imposed sanctions. Ryan Grim of The Intercept was the only reporter to push this question and did a great job pestering then-spokesperson Jen Psaki, but she non-answered who was empowered to do what, saying only Zelensky is “the leader of Ukraine and so he’s empowered to have a negotiation with Russia.”
Perhaps emboldened by military success Zelensky soon after adopted the U.S.-style no-meeting-without-preconditions stance, saying that he would not engage in negotiations that didn’t begin with Russia withdrawing from all disputed territories. The U.S. in turn settled on the posture that’s been more or less official since, i.e. the American role was to empower Ukraine on the battlefield so that if and when Zelensky was ready to negotiate, he’d be in a stronger position. Moreover, it was not America’s role to “push” Zelensky to negotiate. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby offered a typical response in July, saying Zelensky gets to determine “how victory is decided,” although even he “will tell you that the time is not now for those discussions.”
The U.S. continued to insist negotiations about Ukraine were strictly up to Zelensky, but Kirby did tell CNN’s Tapper in September that the U.S. was trying to pursue “government-to-government dialogue,” on the limited issue of trying to secure the releases of Americans Britany Griner and John Whelan. He said this in the context of decrying blast-from-the-past former Governor Richardson traveling to Moscow, ostensibly to try to negotiate Griner and Whelan’s release. “Our message is, ‘Private citizens should not be in Moscow,’” said Kirby.
If Richardson was pitched as merely annoying, Elon Musk earned super-villain status. New reports claim the would-be owner of Twitter spoke with Putin before writing a mania-inducing “Peace Proposal” tweet on October 3, including provisions like “Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision” and “Crimea formally part of Russia.” Pundits brayed for blood, as a super-majority of blue-checks seemed to believe it was literally illegal for Musk to talk to Putin.
The Occupy Democrats account, which has been transformed into an entertainingly demented hybrid of Louise Mensch and the Palmer Report, screeched that “right-wing billionaire Elon Musk… spoke directly to Vladimir Putin,” so RT TO DEMAND THAT ELON BE INVESTIGATED! Others wondered if Musk could be prosecuted via the Logan Act, if his federal contracts now posed a national security risk, and if he should be deported from wherever he is to, well, somewhere worse.
I didn’t pay much attention to any of this, and only looked back after reading a recent Washington Post article, “Biden scrambles to avert cracks in pro-Ukraine coalition.” Much like a New York Times article I wrote about last week called “U.S. Believes Ukrainians Were Behind an Assassination in Russia,” the Post piece is a real head-scratcher, in addition to being more or less unconcealed natsecmessaging.
Like the Times, the Post moved back and forth between reporting information in its own voice and attributing information to anonymous sources. It seemed odd when they noted “recent events have only added to the sense that the war will be a long slog,” and “all of this adds up to a war that looks increasingly open-ended.” However, much of the rest described White House efforts to keep other nations backing Ukraine, which seemed uncontroversial enough. Then the paper dropped a stunner:
Both Putin and Biden invoked the specter of nuclear exchange lately, each using his own inimically frightening syntax. Putin likes to suggest abject horror via ominous, hint-laden phrases and insisted he’d use “all available means” to “protect Russia” from “nuclear blackmail.” Biden is at his terrifying best when he conveys the sense of riding in a car with no hands on the wheel. He mumbled about America not facing “the prospect of Armageddon” since the Kennedy years, repeated the word later, and each time retreated after to catch-phrases suggesting someone else is making decisions.
In sum, the White House is renouncing the concept of entering into negotiations itself, but now also denying that it even has agency in the matter, suggesting that it’s powerless to force either Russia or Ukraine to see the futility of combat. “But with Ukraine and Russia both apparently convinced they can and must win, “ the Post wrote, “negotiations seem a long way off.”
Either the White House is a jumble of contradictory ideas about how to resolve the Ukraine situation, or it’s intentionally confusing the public. If our government is really worried about nuclear war to the point of having the Mummy-in-Chief chant “Armageddon” in public, it’s just not believable that we’re too shy either to start negotiations or to ask Ukraine to try. Something else must be up.
The Russian side of the war never particularly made sense. American aims are also becoming difficult to grasp. If we don’t think a military solution is feasible, why are we continuing to pump the place full of weapons? Inertia? Because we don’t want to be a bummer? No matter what Ukraine policy you favor, you should want our government to clarify its goals, or at least make sure we have some. This is one situation where no plan would be more frightening than a bad one.
The Occupy Democrats account, which has been transformed into an entertainingly demented hybrid of Louise Mensch and the Palmer Report, screeched that “right-wing billionaire Elon Musk… spoke directly to Vladimir Putin,” so RT TO DEMAND THAT ELON BE INVESTIGATED! Others wondered if Musk could be prosecuted via the Logan Act, if his federal contracts now posed a national security risk, and if he should be deported from wherever he is to, well, somewhere worse.
I didn’t pay much attention to any of this, and only looked back after reading a recent Washington Post article, “Biden scrambles to avert cracks in pro-Ukraine coalition.” Much like a New York Times article I wrote about last week called “U.S. Believes Ukrainians Were Behind an Assassination in Russia,” the Post piece is a real head-scratcher, in addition to being more or less unconcealed natsecmessaging.
Like the Times, the Post moved back and forth between reporting information in its own voice and attributing information to anonymous sources. It seemed odd when they noted “recent events have only added to the sense that the war will be a long slog,” and “all of this adds up to a war that looks increasingly open-ended.” However, much of the rest described White House efforts to keep other nations backing Ukraine, which seemed uncontroversial enough. Then the paper dropped a stunner:
What??? If the White House doesn’t think the war can be won, but also refuses to negotiate itself, or “nudge” others to do it for them, what exactly is its end strategy? Waiting for things to get worse and then reassessing?
Both Putin and Biden invoked the specter of nuclear exchange lately, each using his own inimically frightening syntax. Putin likes to suggest abject horror via ominous, hint-laden phrases and insisted he’d use “all available means” to “protect Russia” from “nuclear blackmail.” Biden is at his terrifying best when he conveys the sense of riding in a car with no hands on the wheel. He mumbled about America not facing “the prospect of Armageddon” since the Kennedy years, repeated the word later, and each time retreated after to catch-phrases suggesting someone else is making decisions.
In sum, the White House is renouncing the concept of entering into negotiations itself, but now also denying that it even has agency in the matter, suggesting that it’s powerless to force either Russia or Ukraine to see the futility of combat. “But with Ukraine and Russia both apparently convinced they can and must win, “ the Post wrote, “negotiations seem a long way off.”
Either the White House is a jumble of contradictory ideas about how to resolve the Ukraine situation, or it’s intentionally confusing the public. If our government is really worried about nuclear war to the point of having the Mummy-in-Chief chant “Armageddon” in public, it’s just not believable that we’re too shy either to start negotiations or to ask Ukraine to try. Something else must be up.
The Russian side of the war never particularly made sense. American aims are also becoming difficult to grasp. If we don’t think a military solution is feasible, why are we continuing to pump the place full of weapons? Inertia? Because we don’t want to be a bummer? No matter what Ukraine policy you favor, you should want our government to clarify its goals, or at least make sure we have some. This is one situation where no plan would be more frightening than a bad one.
Almost 30 occupiers lay down their arms and leave their positions near Kreminna
ALONA MAZURENKO - FRIDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2022, 14:48 Serhiy Haidai, Head of the Luhansk Oblast Military Administration, has reported that 27 Russians left their positions near Kreminna. Source: Haidai's Telegram channel Quote: "Advanced units of the 488th Motorised Rifle Division (military unit...
Russian conscripts, mostly convicts, are being deployed in Luhansk Oblast
IRYNA BALACHUK - THURSDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2022, 14:52 PHOTO: CONSCRIPTED RUSSIANS. A SCREENSHOT FROM THE VIDEO OF THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Russian conscripts have started arriving in Luhansk Oblast.
WASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - The Biden administration's next security assistance package for Ukraine is expected to include munitions and vehicles but not significant new capabilities or counter-air defenses, two U.S. officials briefed on the $725 million package told Reuters on Friday.
The package, that could come as soon as Friday, is the first aid package since Russia's barrage of rocket attacks on civilian population centers in Ukraine in recent days.
The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the timing of the announcement of the weapons package as well as its contents and value could change until the last minute.
Mike Stone and Humeyra Pamuk
Fri, October 14, 2022 at 9:37 AM·2 min read
(Adds details on timing and contents of package)
By Mike Stone and Humeyra Pamuk
WASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - The Biden administration's next security assistance package for Ukraine is expected to include munitions and vehicles but not significant new capabilities or counter-air defenses, two U.S. officials briefed on the $725 million package told Reuters on Friday.
The package, that could come as soon as Friday, is the first aid package since Russia's barrage of rocket attacks on civilian population centers in Ukraine in recent days.
The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the timing of the announcement of the weapons package as well as its contents and value could change until the last minute.-
One of the officials said that while the aid package was not expected to include material to defeat missile attacks like the ones seen over the last week, it was designed to bolster Ukraine's ability to beat back Russia in the counter offensive that has yielded large territorial gains in recent weeks.
Separately, Ukraine expects the United States and Germany to deliver sophisticated anti-aircraft systems this month to help it counter attacks by Russian missiles and kamikaze drones, Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said on Friday.
The munitions and vehicles will be sent using Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) allowing them to be shipped to Ukraine in the coming days.
Presidential Drawdown Authority allows the United States to transfer defense articles and services from stocks quickly without congressional approval in response to an emergency.
This is the second PDA package of the U.S. government's 2023 fiscal year which is currently functioning under a stop-gap funding measure and allows President Joe Biden to tap up to $3.7 billion in surplus weapons for transfer to Ukraine through mid-December.
In general, to finance weapons for Ukraine, including the sophisticated anti-aircraft NASAMS systems expected this month, Washington uses funds from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) to procure weapons from industry, rather than pulling them from existing U.S. weapons stocks.
NASAMS are made by Raytheon Technologies Corp and Norway's Kongsberg.
The White House declined to comment on the package.
The package, that could come as soon as Friday, is the first aid package since Russia's barrage of rocket attacks on civilian population centers in Ukraine in recent days.
The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the timing of the announcement of the weapons package as well as its contents and value could change until the last minute.
Mike Stone and Humeyra Pamuk
Fri, October 14, 2022 at 9:37 AM·2 min read
(Adds details on timing and contents of package)
By Mike Stone and Humeyra Pamuk
WASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - The Biden administration's next security assistance package for Ukraine is expected to include munitions and vehicles but not significant new capabilities or counter-air defenses, two U.S. officials briefed on the $725 million package told Reuters on Friday.
The package, that could come as soon as Friday, is the first aid package since Russia's barrage of rocket attacks on civilian population centers in Ukraine in recent days.
The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the timing of the announcement of the weapons package as well as its contents and value could change until the last minute.-
One of the officials said that while the aid package was not expected to include material to defeat missile attacks like the ones seen over the last week, it was designed to bolster Ukraine's ability to beat back Russia in the counter offensive that has yielded large territorial gains in recent weeks.
Separately, Ukraine expects the United States and Germany to deliver sophisticated anti-aircraft systems this month to help it counter attacks by Russian missiles and kamikaze drones, Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said on Friday.
The munitions and vehicles will be sent using Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) allowing them to be shipped to Ukraine in the coming days.
Presidential Drawdown Authority allows the United States to transfer defense articles and services from stocks quickly without congressional approval in response to an emergency.
This is the second PDA package of the U.S. government's 2023 fiscal year which is currently functioning under a stop-gap funding measure and allows President Joe Biden to tap up to $3.7 billion in surplus weapons for transfer to Ukraine through mid-December.
In general, to finance weapons for Ukraine, including the sophisticated anti-aircraft NASAMS systems expected this month, Washington uses funds from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) to procure weapons from industry, rather than pulling them from existing U.S. weapons stocks.
NASAMS are made by Raytheon Technologies Corp and Norway's Kongsberg.
The White House declined to comment on the package.
This appears to be 5,000 more than the first two groups of trainees.
"The report goes on to say that Russian milbloggers have said that some newly mobilized servicemen have deployed without any pre-combat training at the order of Mikhail Zusko, the Commander of the 58th Combined Arms Army of the Southern Military District.
Following this alleged move, Ukrainian outlets have reported that the Kremlin arrested Zusko due to the combat losses that were suffered."
Is there some way of directly sending money to buy ukrainian arms? I'd like to send enough for one howitzer round. I want my name on it!
Is it a safe bet that this is the type of conscript that is sent to Ukraine without training or a weapon, essentially to be used as a human shield? I wouldn't give this dude a gun and expect him to do anything other than shoot a commanding officer
I hope more and more of them feel the same way. Revolution!
Good, all Russians should have a little skin in the ‘game’. Now they will get a taste of what the Ukrainians are experiencing.
Sign My Rocket - Send Your Greetings To Russian Occupiers!
Support Ukraine's army and send a message to Russian soldiers by signing a shell or rocket with Sign My Rocket.
signmyrocket.com
I'm getting 3 shells painted.
Funny how things change:
At the onset of the Vietnam War, US pilots had carte blanche over Vietnamese airspace. During the initial stages of the conflict, poorly equipped Vietnamese air defense forces were unable to shoot down high altitude US aircraft using World War II-vintage guns. When they asked for assistance, their chief ally, the Soviet Union, was initially apprehensive but eventually decided to supply S-75 Dvina (reporting name SA-2 Guideline) SAM systems. About 1000 Soviet specialists arrived Vietnam in April 1965.
Exactly. It would be a logical expectation that Russian casualties will jump considerably as poorly trained soldiers are dispatched.
And prisoners as soldiers...they're fleeing at the first chance.
Reasonable to expect commanding officers are worried about personal safety.
Later the ching chongs also had Mig 21's which, at that time, were plenty formidable against the skyhawks and F-4 phantoms. Guided air to air missiles were still a joke and so actual dogfights took place.
Time for Russians to turn on their terrorist regime and begin a rebellion against Putler.
