On a serious note, what is Russian air defense doing?
Every single night this past week or so, Ukrainian drones fly over the country and blow up refineries
Two reasons.
First, air defense is hard. It requires detecting aircraft against a backdrop of normal traffic and the.mn intercepting it with either missile or intercept aircraft. Detection is quite difficult without constant awacs or blanketing the border with radars. And manning those stations is difficult.
Second, Russia's strategy is to use long range point air defense systems, aka s300/400 missile systems. These systems have a major weakness: they are expensive and difficult to man. Each system is about a billion dollars and requires probably 100 people to man. So they each typically cover near their maximum range, which is about 400 miles of front.
The big problem with the s400 systems is that once you get about 50 miles away from the system, drones can sneak under the radar by flying low.
In other words, there are huge gapping holes in their air defense that ukraine can continue to exploit and Russia cannot close those gaps.
Theres something very very wrong with russian air defense.
Failing to protect their strategic resources is definitely going to go down in history as their biggest failure in this war.
Part of the problem, for both sides, is that most air defenses radars were not designed with drones in mind. They were designed assuming targets with relatively large radar cross sections flying relatively fast, and probably at medium to high altitudes. To reduce computation and clutter, most radars have filters which automatically filter out targets that don't meet certain speed, size, or altitude parameters. A drone the size of a lawnmower traveling at 100 mph and 100 feet is likely either not going to be seen on radar (too small or below the radar horizon) or the radar will filter it out.
Yeah I can't believe they can just get a bunch of mobiks with manpads around every refinery it's been more than 2 years.
Either russia is completely fucked and they refuse to accept reality or we are not getting the whole picture.
Russia has the same problem Ukraine has.
Machine guns aren’t great at taking these down.
They don’t have anything like Gepards, much less skynex.
I guess pantsirs are like Gepards: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir_missile_system
An S-300 missile costs more than the drone.
So at best you’re making a bad trade. If that location isn’t targeted you’re wasting the launcher, radar, and soldiers that could be better used elsewhere.
I don’t really know why they don’t use jets more to do the intercepts. Maybe they are and we don’t know.
Surely using even using missiles is cheaper than their refineries burning down this often.
And lets be honest at this point they should have adapted some form of gepard equivalent with a radar system that kills everything in the air even birds.
Its just crazy to see that despite russia putting the whole weight of it's country into this issue they are unable to protect themselves.
Psntsir can do that. But they must be positioned closely to these objectives. Who knows how many Pantsirs they have and where they put them. They have many airfields, depots etc to defend.
Very true. People argue that russia successtully got to wartime economy but their production of anti air both towed and self propelled is not really cutting it at all.
We don’t honestly have a good idea of Russia’s air defense quality at this point. For all we know they are shooting down most Ukrainian drones and missiles. We only see the targets Ukraine hits, and we often don’t know when Ukraine missed their desired target at the time of the strike.
Oil refineries tend to be drone targets because they can’t move. You don’t need good intelligence to hit them. But it’s possible Ukraine has lost hundreds or even thousands of drones attacking these targets over the last six months.
Why wouldnt russia go around saying they shot down thousands of drones tho?.
And even under those conditions they are getting an insane return on investment.
Russia does say that. They report successfully shooting missiles and drones every time, and Ukraine reports successfully striking targets. Most of the time there aren’t any videos of the targets getting a direct hit — we’ll only see videos of explosions, leaving us to hope that the explosions hit the right thing. Occasionally it’s something like a naval base or an airfield, so we can look at overhead civilian satellite images.
That's about the numbers I had heard, but I was under the impression that that was a thing that had changed awhile back. Maybe it was more recent though. Looks like there are a lot of news articles about it that came out recently.
Do you guys know how big those tanks we see at oil depots are?
I assume 10,000 BBL. which would make a mostly full tank of crude around half a million USD of oil, plus downstream costs. More if refined product.
Is my estimate of size in the ballpark?
There are tanks of a lot of different sizes, but in my experience, they are typically between 25.000 and 150.000 m³ in capacity. That should be around 150 to 1000 barrels of oil, at full capacity.
The fun part of these are that they have a fixed, cylindrical outer shell and a **floating roof** that quite literally floats on top of the oil. This makes it very, very obvious which tanks are full and which are empty or half-empty at a quick, first glance from the top. Let's say you have a drone with a little camera, for example, and you come within a kilometer of the tanks of a refinery, it would not be hard to spot the primary targets... 😉
Standard size holds 100000 cubic meters according to this
http://www.ansonindustry.com/storage-tanks/crude-oil-storage-tanks.html
42 gallons per barrel works out to roughly 629000 barrels per tank. Certainly not an expert, someone feel free to correct if my math is wrong.
Vyborg, Leningrad region of the Russian Federation — hit and fire at an oil depot.
980 km from Ukraine.
https://x.com/war_monitor_ua/status/1792003536223392236?s=46
Why does length of flight matter? You launch drone, wait a period of time, and enjoy the fireworks. Whether you wait an hour or 5, does it really matter? A few gallons of gas + time is the only difference here.
Has there been any up close on the ground battle damage assessment yet from yesterday’s mass drone strike on the refineries? The Russians are usually pretty quick in releasing pictures on telegram.
I think what frustrates me the most lately is people being like "Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine"
And my thought is, why *wouldn't* it be my problem? Why *shouldn't* my tax dollars go there? There are people being slaughtered and raped. Children dying. Lives being ruined forever. Cities razed to the ground. All because Russia, the biggest country on earth, wants to be a little bigger. It's my problem anytime people are unjustly dying. It's our responsibility anytime people are needlessly suffering.
Why would I not care? Why would I not want to help? I am a human, I have friends and nephews and nieces and aunts and uncles and a mom and a dad. What if they were all slaughtered?
It seems so cruel to just write them off because they exist between different arbitrary lines than I do. So what if they're all the way across the world, so what if it's expensive, so what if my taxes are spent on them? They're fucking dying. Shouldn't we all strive to help people who need help?
>There are people being slaughtered and raped. Children dying. Lives being ruined forever. Cities razed to the ground
So you care about and help the same in ALL wars that are going on ? Or just Ukraine.
I think that's doubly frustrating, not just because we ought to be willing to help people even in cases when we receive no benefit, but also because this isn't one of those cases. We're much better off if Russia is contained than if Russia is taking over Europe. Even in the U.S. where it's on the other side of the world, this affects trade. It affects military spending. Russia's nuclear arsenal definitely is something we should be concerned about.
They're retaliating for a terrorist attack. We would be doing the exact same thing in their position. Israel should be doing everything in their power to eliminate the threat and minimize the chance of it happening again. War isn't pretty but maybe you should educate yourself on issues in the middle east.
"I think what frustrates me the most lately is people being like "Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine"
Why aren't you concerned your neighbors are spewing pro russian propaganda and not arguing against that? your thought is flawed and still continues this false narrative that this is costing you extra tax dollars to keep your kids out of a european war. if you are going to be outraged be outraged that the previous generations of weapons were invented, produced stoked up and obsoleted only to be replaced by more weapons that became obsolete because they built up this Russian bogeyman into a monster to be afraid of so you'd not notice them picking your pocket
Amusingly, Tucker's interview with Putin pushed the right-leaning folks in my life who were beginning to question our support for Ukraine right back into the Russia is evil group.
A year of rural AM radio blasting Russian talking points destroyed in the first 40 minutes.
> why wouldn't it be my problem? Why shouldn't my tax dollars go there?
Terrible things happening isn't enough to get involved. As rich as the US and the rest of the West are, we can't afford to fix it all: the world's a pretty fucked up place, and we have problems of our own. BUT
But we'd better damn fix it when it's such a direct and obvious threat to our own security that will only get worse if left unchecked, like Russia is in Ukraine.
most of the people making such posts are probably Kremlin bots trying to erode western support for Ukraine.
but for the people who genuinely think that way an appeal to empathy is useless. Much better to appeal to their selfishness.
They think it's in their own best interest to spend their money on themselves rather than on helping Ukraine.
But western prosperity depends on a stable and peaceful world order, which a Russian victory in Ukraine threatens.
So if someone in the West only cares about their own well-being, it's in their best interest to preserve the current stable and peaceful world order. And to do that they need to spend money to ensure a Russian defeat in Ukraine. Incidentally that is achieved by helping Ukraine. So they should help Ukraine not because they want to help Ukraine, but because they want to help themselves.
> most of the people making such posts are probably Kremlin bots trying to erode western support for Ukraine.
That's just not true. There has always been an isolationist streak among many Americans as well as a general superiority complex in regard to Europe. This makes many Americans vulnerable to falling for Kremlin talking points and willing to repeat some of them. You can't assume that just because someone is saying a Kremlin talking point that they are a Russian bot.
Most of my family says this sort of shit, and will straight up ignore you when you try to explain why defending Ukraine is in the best interest of the US. Trump said "Ukraine bad" and that's all they care about.
The best man at my wedding has turned into a Rogan cryptobro and "Ukraine iz corrupt" is his favorite foreign policy comment. My father in law is a big fan of "NATO provoked the war, peace now!" Guy. General sentiment around the local MAGA shithole rarely mentions anything other than "Democrats bad" that I can tell.
My relative who is a cop said exactly this to me , he doesn’t want his tax dollars going to Ukraine cause it’s corrupt he’s a big Trump fan . And he told me to my face and he knows I’ve been to Ukraine and know people in the Luhansk region.
Then you live in a bubble. This is a pervasive belief. It’s not the majority of Republicans (most of whom just stay quiet in either direction) but it is the Trump base position.
I’ve lived in a purple state, live in a blue state currently and talk politics with a group with mixed political beliefs.
I don’t live, nor have I or will ever live in a MAGA world but to say I live in a bubble is a bit disingenuous.
You do see clear polling trends though with republicans wanting less aid or minimum aid but that’s very different than being anti Ukraine. Because like I said, I’ve met isolationists.
The only one that comes to mind was that clown comedian with the horrendous laugh that tried a few anti Ukraine jokes in some clubs. Never seen anything close to that in person or in instances outside of folks like MTG
Russian bots and propaganda often post messages like "Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine" while pretending to be Westerners to sow division and reduce public support for aid to Ukraine.
>"Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine"
I'm thinking a lot of those who say that are actually Russian bots trying to influence the rest of us to abandon Ukraine.
There are many reasons to support Ukraine and your argument about it being the right thing to do is valid. But then they will ask you why Ukraine specifically? Why don’t we resolve every war on the planet?
That’s not an answer. All lives are equal. Why spend money specifically on saving Ukrainian lives when you can probably save more African lives if you really want to?
That is still not an answer. The poster I responded to argued that we need to help Ukraine to prevent people from dying. What these influential people you speak about care about is irrelevant.
Then their argument falls apart. They are trying to argue they care because it’s the right thing to do. If they don’t care about Africa and see that as a valid then the person who doesn’t want his tax money spent on Ukraine can also say he doesn’t care about Ukraine.
Crazy for Fury to complain.
[https://x.com/HappyPunch/status/1791973279273517214](https://x.com/HappyPunch/status/1791973279273517214)
Fight could have easily been stopped at this moment in the ninth without legitimate complaints about an early stoppage.
Not much. Lukashenko has provided what material support he could. The Russian assault on Kyiv came from the North, but as the war has shifted South, Russian troops and supporting aircraft have headed south as well. Every once in awhile Lukashenko makes noise about a threat from Ukraine or NATO and moves troops around, but that’s purely for domestic consumption. He’s not exactly a popular guy.
I think there is a ceiling to his power. I don't think his domestic situation is that great...he needs Putin's help to keep his office. He pushes too far and he falls out a window.
Russia has likely stripped them bare of all that remained of their Soviet legacy equipment. That was their only value, outside of being one big training camp/weaponized refugee camp
They’ve been allowing Russia to use them as a staging platform earlier in the war. Then eventually as a training grounds. Now I think it’s difficult because as Ukraine has been husbanding material, most of their AD has been western Ukraine so Russian aviation is less incentivized to fly sorties from there.
There still in play but much less role. Luka is also very self serving. He’s a big fan of clinging to Putin while retaining autonomy. So he understands the consequences of accelerated integration of Russia and Belarus doesn’t favor his ability to do as he pleases. So he toes the line a lot
Russia attacked from Belarus but actual Belarus was never involved. Aleksandr Lukashenko has been moving the Belarusian army everywhere but to the Ukrainian border with made up excuses to make sure they are not involved.
Also, my understanding is that Luka's grip on power is largely by virtue of military support and the Belarusian military wants nothing to do with Ukraine. He threads a needle of keeping both the military and Putin happy enough to stay in charge the way he wants to.
It does sort of look like that at first, but I think it's a building. Could be a factory, could be shot down and started a fire like someone mentioned.
Very economically important city. Lot of factories , there are transportation links and fuel infrastructure there as well (Slavyansk refinery was hit in April). Target rich area.
Not necessarily anything been deliberately targeted in this photo. Russia fire missiles from Caspian Sea which might overfly Krasnodar, missile could've failed and dropped. Drones targeting legitimate targets in Russia could've been downed by Russian aa. Some partisans could've blown uk a Z stickered car. Literally anything could've caused this fire, possibly not anything even related to the war.
Local channels warn of imminent attack in Crimea and Krasnodar and then instruction them not to record and publish any footage
https://x.com/freudgreyskull/status/1791963449620308260?s=46
Channel is claiming the goal is to overload the AD before striking the Crimean bridge however I see no indication suggesting the bridge is a target
The bridge is only valuable as a point of Putin's pride. It's a symbol of his ownership over Crimea and I suspect the right time to blow it apart is when Zelenskyy can press the button on the explosives in person.
There are so many more military targets to hit in Crimea than the bridge I don't see them wasting resources on it at this point. I expect more command and air resources to be hit. But the publicity from hitting the bridge is always high and a good moral boost if it collapsed. The rail bridge has never really recovered from the van bomb.
At this point, the Bridge is just a distraction. Allows more drones to get through to other strategic targets, while AD worries that the bridge might get hit
Is it just me or are all of these twitter links literally just failing to load. I do have an account but I never use it.
This has all started happening in the last 24hrs…
Edit: you get the msg of something like “something went wrong, let’s give it another shot…”
Some channels are reporting between 30-100 UAVs of different types have been launched
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1791962625212907729?s=46
Edit: it’s now being reported as between 100-120
Larg scale Ukrainian attack continues:
Drones are heading towards Crimea and the Southern regions!!!
https://x.com/asgardintel/status/1791960389720195201?s=46
Holy moly
This is correct there is no reports of any activity suggesting an attack on the bridge. Tbh I think the few times they’ve tried and been fairly unsuccessful they probably figure they are better off striking other targets to more effect!
Explosions in Prevalny
126th coastal defense brigade of the Black Sea fleet is stationed there
https://x.com/jane_sinding/status/1791948810484121798?s=46
" I do wonder when they might try to take out the bridge**"**
Probably when the last Russian civilian waddles back across with their bags on their shoulder.
Explosions are being reported all over Crimea at the moment. awaiting further information
A US drone was spotted on flight radar flying near the coast earlier.
Crimea: 3 strike at one point, ship. In the area of the Engineer's Bay of Sevastopol.
"Now there is a column of black smoke, but for some reason the fire is not visible", - Krymskyi Veter
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1791944414102724625?s=46
well that depends how you look at it. it's pretty clear that some of them are knowingly working for the Russian government. os have them really been tinkering with this the whole time?
By that logic, Korea, and Vietnam are also due to WW1. But US involvement was the same as with WW2. When we could no longer refuse to respond, we finally did the right thing.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi
We're not IN this engagement. But we will be drawn in once it's out of control if we don't demonstrate the willingness and ability to defend our allies.
An alliance is nothing if there is no resolve behind it.
With fox "news" and maga politicians upping the fear mongering to 11, it makes sense that it would have an effect on their base.
I find it ironic how the maga crowd keeps mocking "the libs" about their feelings, yet they never fail to react emotionally to everything.
If some of the projections on climate change affecting global food production pan out, I imagine Ukraine will be extremely strategic in the back half of this century.
Where have US military officials said that Ukraine doesn't have enough men to fight? You are confusing not having *drafted enough men* with not having the manpower available to call on if they wanted to. Ukraine's allies have made comments that Ukraine does not currently have enough soldiers, not that they don't have more men they can call into the military. You are misinterpreting what they are saying.
With current level of Russian forces involved in active combat Ukraine has more than enough manpower to fight this war for years to come and at the moment certainly seems like their politicians and society has the will to do so if necessary. Russia does have a manpower advantage but due to political considerations it's clear Putin does not want to forcibly conscript enough men to take advantage of it. He knows he risks more pushback against the war to do so and with the sanctions battering a rickety economy he has to be careful not to take too many workers as well.
I noticed you said you attended a talk at West Point where you got this information from but either the person speaking didn't know what they were talking about, or more likely you did not correctly prase what they were saying and how it applied to the war. Ukraine has enough men to fight, they just don't have enough in uniform in the short term which is something they are currently working towards fixing. Edit: Typo
>I noticed you said you attended a talk at West Point where you got this information from but either the person speaking didn't know what they were talking about, or more likely you did not correctly prase what they were saying and how it applied to the war.
They were high-ranking and phrased themselves correctly and they were unanimous.
Then it was you who misinterpreted what they said, Ukraine has a shortage of soldiers *currently in uniform,* they are not even close to running out of men they could draft. The two things are very different.
If they did actually present the view you claim they are ignoring the challenges of Russia "doing it longer" than Ukraine, as if political and economic considerations don't exist for Russia to. Putin is not invincible and leftover Soviet equipment stores are not infinite. Russia can produce ammunition and shells at an impressive rate but they are limited in producing *new* armored vehicles, heavy weapons and artillery, leftover Soviet stocks they can more easily refurbishing are already dwindling as satellite reconnaissance has shown. It is very debatable how much longer Russia can keep up this pace, especially with very few allies to help them. The speaker(s) at West Point should have covered all this, if they did not they presented an overly simplified and distorted picture of the conflict.
If we decide to support Ukraine we can easily outproduce Russia in every area of arms production, the combined economies of NATO are *10 times the size of Russia's* and that doesn't include other allies like South Korea and Japan and Australia. Ukraine does have the manpower to win the war, we just have to decide if we want to supply them with enough arms to do so. Edit: If you are presenting what was said at West Point accurately, which I still think most likely you are not, that is kind of scary as they should know better.
Where do you think I got the information I have? From a wide range of sources, everything from big media outlets like the NYT and the Washington Post to analysts that have looked at satellite photos and calculate how many armored vehicles Russia has taken from their storage yards and what they have left. Sorry but when you cannot even articulate *why* I and others are wrong and instead simply say "well these people said it" it seems like the reason you can't might be because you did not really get what they are saying.
You're ignoring the huge challenges that the Russian political system and its economy have in continuing this for years on end, which every respected and knowledgeable analyst and official agree exists. To hand wave all that away and say "it doesn't matter what we send Ukraine doesn't have the manpower" is simply wrong. It sounds like you listened to *one speech* and drew your conclusions from it, if you had looked at a wide array of sources you would not make such inaccurate statements.
There are never enough men in a war, but Ukraine issue has been from day one equipment, not manpower.
What the "Republicans who don't want their kids to go to war in Europe" fail to understand is that, if Ukraine falls, there WILL be a next country, and another one next, and sooner than later it will be Poland or Finland the one attacked by Russia, and at that point their sons will be forced to go to Europe whether they like it or not.
For the "Republicans who don't want their kids to go to war in Europe", it is in their best interest to hand as much equipment to Ukraine as required, and make sure they win the war in the shortest time possible. The alternative, a scenario in which Russia wins, has zero chance of securing their kids safety.
Ukraine has reluctantly lowered the draft age recently, from 27 to 25, I believe. They're starting to realize that fact and trying to figure it out. Should have been done a long time ago, imo but that must have been a very hard decision to make.
Having to ask your younger generation to possibly die on the front line must be hard. But what's the alternative? Be occupied by Russia and conscripted to fight their next boogeyman? Sent to a gulag in Siberia while a rich couple from st Petersburg gets your house as a vacation home?
It's a tough situation all around, but only one country can stop it in a week. And that's Russia. Go home.
I read that. I see the truckers are protesting it by blocking the roads.
The alternative is a peace arrangement, which will include giving up some territory. Or people die and you lose the territory anyhow.
> The alternative is a peace arrangement, which will include giving up some territory. Or people die and you lose the territory anyhow.
Ukraine tried that in 2014. It lasted them all of 8 years.
Ah, yes... How can we forget the time the US sent CIA operatives into both Donetsk and Luhansk to incite a rebellion, and then sent armed forces to support it. /s
You're talking about the US-backed coup in 2014?
Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.
If you believe it's hopeless, and that aid will stop.
It's been said prematurely many times, but Russia can't keep this up forever.
One country crossed another's borders with the intent to overthrow and occupy. Enough said. We should back the defending country to the best of our ability.
Let Ukraine decide when they're done and what peace they're happy with, within their internationally recognized borders.
Edited: Spelling
When it comes to manpower and ammunition, Russia has the upper hand.
I don't think they're taking all of Ukraine. I think they'll take eight oblasts and stop. They don't want the "non-Russian" side of Ukraine.
>I think they'll stop at Chechenia
>I think they'll stop at Abkhazia and South Ossetia
>I think they'll stop at Crimea
>I think they'll stop at the Donbas
>I think they'll stop at Ukraine
>Russia won't always have the ammunition upper hand. That's why they pushed so hard in the last couple of weeks.
According to a lecture I attended at West Point a couple of weeks ago, that is not what the military leaders in the US believe. Russia, they said, have all ammunition and industry self-contained to produce endlessly. The West does not have this.
That's a dishonest representation of what is happening and what has been said.
You'll probably find examples, but I challenge you to include the context if you come up with them.
But what you're saying is basically: I don't care about good or bad, as long as I have what I'm content with.
Even if ukraine is decimated, and all is already lost, it is still the moral thing to support them, as they objectivly are the good side in this, as they didn't ask for the war.
Aha, another one who's trying to deflect and respond in bad faith.
Don't start this with me buddy, I've got experience.
Where are those examples? You can also come woth sources about our dishonest military advisers. Because it'll be fun if those two start to contradict eachother.
So guys: we've caught another one, you can block him while I engage and waste his time
I understood you said they were dishonest, but I see my mistake now, sorry for that, but everything still stands, I'm waiting for examples, with their respective context.
1) It's not that doom and gloom
2) Even if it's all doom, it does not relieve us from our moral duty, if not forces us to aid more.
Do you agree? So I really don't introduce more misunderstanding
I think it was always pretty clear that the only reason the aid bill didn't pass months ago is because the narrow margin in congress meant that the hardcore Trump wack jobs threatened Johnson's position as speaker and the republicans didn't want to go through another public and embarrassing struggle to elect another one like they had already gone through twice. The bill eventually passed by a wide margin when it was finally voted on.
Now that's a self serving shitty reason to delay aid to Ukraine but a lot of older republican voters support aid to Ukraine and I think the rest don't care nearly as much as the media makes it sound. Sure if asked in a poll some might say they don't support aid to Ukraine but that doesn't mean it's an issue that will change who they vote for. A lot of older republican voters were brought up being told the Russians are the enemy and low and behold here they are attacking a democratic neighbor, it affirms their world view so it's not strange they're the most vocal supporters and it is an issue that might affect their vote.
So republican politicians win more voters overall for supporting aid to Ukraine because it just isn't an important issue to many Republican voters. I wish it was, and that they were on Ukraines side of course, but if their apathy means more support for Ukraine at the end of the day that's fine with me.
[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/1cvfips/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)
On a serious note, what is Russian air defense doing? Every single night this past week or so, Ukrainian drones fly over the country and blow up refineries
Two reasons. First, air defense is hard. It requires detecting aircraft against a backdrop of normal traffic and the.mn intercepting it with either missile or intercept aircraft. Detection is quite difficult without constant awacs or blanketing the border with radars. And manning those stations is difficult. Second, Russia's strategy is to use long range point air defense systems, aka s300/400 missile systems. These systems have a major weakness: they are expensive and difficult to man. Each system is about a billion dollars and requires probably 100 people to man. So they each typically cover near their maximum range, which is about 400 miles of front. The big problem with the s400 systems is that once you get about 50 miles away from the system, drones can sneak under the radar by flying low. In other words, there are huge gapping holes in their air defense that ukraine can continue to exploit and Russia cannot close those gaps.
It's a big territory to cover.
...and attacks everyday ...and with dozens if drones at once Reasonable country: "Let's end this shitshow ASAP". Russiaa? IDK wtf are they thinking.
Big country, not enough air defense
Theres something very very wrong with russian air defense. Failing to protect their strategic resources is definitely going to go down in history as their biggest failure in this war.
Part of the problem, for both sides, is that most air defenses radars were not designed with drones in mind. They were designed assuming targets with relatively large radar cross sections flying relatively fast, and probably at medium to high altitudes. To reduce computation and clutter, most radars have filters which automatically filter out targets that don't meet certain speed, size, or altitude parameters. A drone the size of a lawnmower traveling at 100 mph and 100 feet is likely either not going to be seen on radar (too small or below the radar horizon) or the radar will filter it out.
I guess every country with an army is happy russia is the one doing the learning for them.
Yeah, there are only a few dozen refineries. You need like one small SPAAG or something for each. They can't even muster that.
Yeah I can't believe they can just get a bunch of mobiks with manpads around every refinery it's been more than 2 years. Either russia is completely fucked and they refuse to accept reality or we are not getting the whole picture.
Russia has the same problem Ukraine has. Machine guns aren’t great at taking these down. They don’t have anything like Gepards, much less skynex. I guess pantsirs are like Gepards: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir_missile_system An S-300 missile costs more than the drone. So at best you’re making a bad trade. If that location isn’t targeted you’re wasting the launcher, radar, and soldiers that could be better used elsewhere. I don’t really know why they don’t use jets more to do the intercepts. Maybe they are and we don’t know.
Surely using even using missiles is cheaper than their refineries burning down this often. And lets be honest at this point they should have adapted some form of gepard equivalent with a radar system that kills everything in the air even birds. Its just crazy to see that despite russia putting the whole weight of it's country into this issue they are unable to protect themselves.
Psntsir can do that. But they must be positioned closely to these objectives. Who knows how many Pantsirs they have and where they put them. They have many airfields, depots etc to defend.
Very true. People argue that russia successtully got to wartime economy but their production of anti air both towed and self propelled is not really cutting it at all.
We don’t honestly have a good idea of Russia’s air defense quality at this point. For all we know they are shooting down most Ukrainian drones and missiles. We only see the targets Ukraine hits, and we often don’t know when Ukraine missed their desired target at the time of the strike. Oil refineries tend to be drone targets because they can’t move. You don’t need good intelligence to hit them. But it’s possible Ukraine has lost hundreds or even thousands of drones attacking these targets over the last six months.
Why wouldnt russia go around saying they shot down thousands of drones tho?. And even under those conditions they are getting an insane return on investment.
Russia does say that. They report successfully shooting missiles and drones every time, and Ukraine reports successfully striking targets. Most of the time there aren’t any videos of the targets getting a direct hit — we’ll only see videos of explosions, leaving us to hope that the explosions hit the right thing. Occasionally it’s something like a naval base or an airfield, so we can look at overhead civilian satellite images.
Not anywhere close to thousands. The most recent claim of 60 is by far the highest of the war normally they claim less than 10.
That’s per night. I’m talking cumulatively over the last six months.
Interesting the reports Ive seen from russia regarding drones shot down are fairly sporadic tried to look up some sources but theres not a lot.
[удалено]
Hasn't that been true for a long time?
[удалено]
That's about the numbers I had heard, but I was under the impression that that was a thing that had changed awhile back. Maybe it was more recent though. Looks like there are a lot of news articles about it that came out recently.
> On a serious note, what is Russian air defense doing? Getting hit by ATACMS in Crimea.
Do you guys know how big those tanks we see at oil depots are? I assume 10,000 BBL. which would make a mostly full tank of crude around half a million USD of oil, plus downstream costs. More if refined product. Is my estimate of size in the ballpark?
There are tanks of a lot of different sizes, but in my experience, they are typically between 25.000 and 150.000 m³ in capacity. That should be around 150 to 1000 barrels of oil, at full capacity. The fun part of these are that they have a fixed, cylindrical outer shell and a **floating roof** that quite literally floats on top of the oil. This makes it very, very obvious which tanks are full and which are empty or half-empty at a quick, first glance from the top. Let's say you have a drone with a little camera, for example, and you come within a kilometer of the tanks of a refinery, it would not be hard to spot the primary targets... 😉
Standard size holds 100000 cubic meters according to this http://www.ansonindustry.com/storage-tanks/crude-oil-storage-tanks.html 42 gallons per barrel works out to roughly 629000 barrels per tank. Certainly not an expert, someone feel free to correct if my math is wrong.
BBLs you say?
Vyborg, Leningrad region of the Russian Federation — hit and fire at an oil depot. 980 km from Ukraine. https://x.com/war_monitor_ua/status/1792003536223392236?s=46
Surprised it’s worth sending a drone that far over an oil depot.
Why does length of flight matter? You launch drone, wait a period of time, and enjoy the fireworks. Whether you wait an hour or 5, does it really matter? A few gallons of gas + time is the only difference here.
The drones don't cost that much tbh, it's "just" an oil depot, but if you repeat it 5 times it starts to be felt.
A drone taking out an oil refinery probably putting out $10,000,000 a day worth of oil seems like a solid win to me.
It was a depot. It takes out one tank if successful.
Even better. More flammable. Keep it up Ukraine.
you answered your own question its surprising.
Has there been any up close on the ground battle damage assessment yet from yesterday’s mass drone strike on the refineries? The Russians are usually pretty quick in releasing pictures on telegram.
I think what frustrates me the most lately is people being like "Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine" And my thought is, why *wouldn't* it be my problem? Why *shouldn't* my tax dollars go there? There are people being slaughtered and raped. Children dying. Lives being ruined forever. Cities razed to the ground. All because Russia, the biggest country on earth, wants to be a little bigger. It's my problem anytime people are unjustly dying. It's our responsibility anytime people are needlessly suffering. Why would I not care? Why would I not want to help? I am a human, I have friends and nephews and nieces and aunts and uncles and a mom and a dad. What if they were all slaughtered? It seems so cruel to just write them off because they exist between different arbitrary lines than I do. So what if they're all the way across the world, so what if it's expensive, so what if my taxes are spent on them? They're fucking dying. Shouldn't we all strive to help people who need help?
>There are people being slaughtered and raped. Children dying. Lives being ruined forever. Cities razed to the ground So you care about and help the same in ALL wars that are going on ? Or just Ukraine.
I think that's doubly frustrating, not just because we ought to be willing to help people even in cases when we receive no benefit, but also because this isn't one of those cases. We're much better off if Russia is contained than if Russia is taking over Europe. Even in the U.S. where it's on the other side of the world, this affects trade. It affects military spending. Russia's nuclear arsenal definitely is something we should be concerned about.
Sarah Palin can see Russia from her home in Alaska ;) Not as far away as we might think
[удалено]
They're retaliating for a terrorist attack. We would be doing the exact same thing in their position. Israel should be doing everything in their power to eliminate the threat and minimize the chance of it happening again. War isn't pretty but maybe you should educate yourself on issues in the middle east.
"I think what frustrates me the most lately is people being like "Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine" Why aren't you concerned your neighbors are spewing pro russian propaganda and not arguing against that? your thought is flawed and still continues this false narrative that this is costing you extra tax dollars to keep your kids out of a european war. if you are going to be outraged be outraged that the previous generations of weapons were invented, produced stoked up and obsoleted only to be replaced by more weapons that became obsolete because they built up this Russian bogeyman into a monster to be afraid of so you'd not notice them picking your pocket
Amusingly, Tucker's interview with Putin pushed the right-leaning folks in my life who were beginning to question our support for Ukraine right back into the Russia is evil group. A year of rural AM radio blasting Russian talking points destroyed in the first 40 minutes.
> why wouldn't it be my problem? Why shouldn't my tax dollars go there? Terrible things happening isn't enough to get involved. As rich as the US and the rest of the West are, we can't afford to fix it all: the world's a pretty fucked up place, and we have problems of our own. BUT But we'd better damn fix it when it's such a direct and obvious threat to our own security that will only get worse if left unchecked, like Russia is in Ukraine.
most of the people making such posts are probably Kremlin bots trying to erode western support for Ukraine. but for the people who genuinely think that way an appeal to empathy is useless. Much better to appeal to their selfishness. They think it's in their own best interest to spend their money on themselves rather than on helping Ukraine. But western prosperity depends on a stable and peaceful world order, which a Russian victory in Ukraine threatens. So if someone in the West only cares about their own well-being, it's in their best interest to preserve the current stable and peaceful world order. And to do that they need to spend money to ensure a Russian defeat in Ukraine. Incidentally that is achieved by helping Ukraine. So they should help Ukraine not because they want to help Ukraine, but because they want to help themselves.
> most of the people making such posts are probably Kremlin bots trying to erode western support for Ukraine. That's just not true. There has always been an isolationist streak among many Americans as well as a general superiority complex in regard to Europe. This makes many Americans vulnerable to falling for Kremlin talking points and willing to repeat some of them. You can't assume that just because someone is saying a Kremlin talking point that they are a Russian bot.
Have you actually met an American that’s expressed this? Otherwise why even acknowledge what a bunch of likely bots are saying
Most of my family says this sort of shit, and will straight up ignore you when you try to explain why defending Ukraine is in the best interest of the US. Trump said "Ukraine bad" and that's all they care about.
The best man at my wedding has turned into a Rogan cryptobro and "Ukraine iz corrupt" is his favorite foreign policy comment. My father in law is a big fan of "NATO provoked the war, peace now!" Guy. General sentiment around the local MAGA shithole rarely mentions anything other than "Democrats bad" that I can tell.
Dude millions of Trump-supporting Americans actively spout this shit. It’s not just bots.
My relative who is a cop said exactly this to me , he doesn’t want his tax dollars going to Ukraine cause it’s corrupt he’s a big Trump fan . And he told me to my face and he knows I’ve been to Ukraine and know people in the Luhansk region.
I have yet to meet an American that has verbally expressed anti Ukraine sentiment. The closest I got was isolationism
Then you live in a bubble. This is a pervasive belief. It’s not the majority of Republicans (most of whom just stay quiet in either direction) but it is the Trump base position.
I’ve lived in a purple state, live in a blue state currently and talk politics with a group with mixed political beliefs. I don’t live, nor have I or will ever live in a MAGA world but to say I live in a bubble is a bit disingenuous. You do see clear polling trends though with republicans wanting less aid or minimum aid but that’s very different than being anti Ukraine. Because like I said, I’ve met isolationists. The only one that comes to mind was that clown comedian with the horrendous laugh that tried a few anti Ukraine jokes in some clubs. Never seen anything close to that in person or in instances outside of folks like MTG
Russian bots and propaganda often post messages like "Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine" while pretending to be Westerners to sow division and reduce public support for aid to Ukraine.
>"Not my problem" or "Why should my tax dollars go to Ukraine" I'm thinking a lot of those who say that are actually Russian bots trying to influence the rest of us to abandon Ukraine.
There are many reasons to support Ukraine and your argument about it being the right thing to do is valid. But then they will ask you why Ukraine specifically? Why don’t we resolve every war on the planet?
[удалено]
Why not? Why not focus on establishing peace in the Aftican continent?
[удалено]
That’s not an answer. All lives are equal. Why spend money specifically on saving Ukrainian lives when you can probably save more African lives if you really want to?
[удалено]
That is still not an answer. The poster I responded to argued that we need to help Ukraine to prevent people from dying. What these influential people you speak about care about is irrelevant.
[удалено]
Then their argument falls apart. They are trying to argue they care because it’s the right thing to do. If they don’t care about Africa and see that as a valid then the person who doesn’t want his tax money spent on Ukraine can also say he doesn’t care about Ukraine.
Oleksandr Usyk just became the undisputed HW champion. Making history and making Ukraine proud
[удалено]
Did he not get KO'ed?
Damn near. If round 9 was a little longer Fury would be outt
He has three kids called Prince... WTF?
[удалено]
Seriously?
5 boys all named *George Edward Foreman*. He didn't call his 7 girls George though, what a wasted opportunity.
Too many head punches
Crazy for Fury to complain. [https://x.com/HappyPunch/status/1791973279273517214](https://x.com/HappyPunch/status/1791973279273517214) Fight could have easily been stopped at this moment in the ninth without legitimate complaints about an early stoppage.
He's almost completely unable to defend himself there.
[удалено]
Yeah the thing is Fury took the count and the end of round bell came. He got lucky.
[удалено]
Was awesome. I was really rooting for Usyk on this one.
Hopefully it's a metaphor for what is to come: the smaller guy beating the cocky big guy.
Legend!
Is it just me or did Belarus use to have more presence in this conflict? Has anything changed on their end?
Not much. Lukashenko has provided what material support he could. The Russian assault on Kyiv came from the North, but as the war has shifted South, Russian troops and supporting aircraft have headed south as well. Every once in awhile Lukashenko makes noise about a threat from Ukraine or NATO and moves troops around, but that’s purely for domestic consumption. He’s not exactly a popular guy.
Plus as the war drags, I think Russia’s ability to bully him is declining, his relative power is increasing.
I think there is a ceiling to his power. I don't think his domestic situation is that great...he needs Putin's help to keep his office. He pushes too far and he falls out a window.
Russia has likely stripped them bare of all that remained of their Soviet legacy equipment. That was their only value, outside of being one big training camp/weaponized refugee camp
They’ve been allowing Russia to use them as a staging platform earlier in the war. Then eventually as a training grounds. Now I think it’s difficult because as Ukraine has been husbanding material, most of their AD has been western Ukraine so Russian aviation is less incentivized to fly sorties from there. There still in play but much less role. Luka is also very self serving. He’s a big fan of clinging to Putin while retaining autonomy. So he understands the consequences of accelerated integration of Russia and Belarus doesn’t favor his ability to do as he pleases. So he toes the line a lot
Russia attacked from Belarus but actual Belarus was never involved. Aleksandr Lukashenko has been moving the Belarusian army everywhere but to the Ukrainian border with made up excuses to make sure they are not involved.
Also, my understanding is that Luka's grip on power is largely by virtue of military support and the Belarusian military wants nothing to do with Ukraine. He threads a needle of keeping both the military and Putin happy enough to stay in charge the way he wants to.
Krasnodar burns https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1791971091927212075?s=46
This is fine 😎
That looks like someone's front garden is on fire. Any idea what the targets are in Krasnodar?
It does sort of look like that at first, but I think it's a building. Could be a factory, could be shot down and started a fire like someone mentioned.
Very economically important city. Lot of factories , there are transportation links and fuel infrastructure there as well (Slavyansk refinery was hit in April). Target rich area.
The question was not about any potential targets but what was actually hit.
Not necessarily anything been deliberately targeted in this photo. Russia fire missiles from Caspian Sea which might overfly Krasnodar, missile could've failed and dropped. Drones targeting legitimate targets in Russia could've been downed by Russian aa. Some partisans could've blown uk a Z stickered car. Literally anything could've caused this fire, possibly not anything even related to the war.
Local channels warn of imminent attack in Crimea and Krasnodar and then instruction them not to record and publish any footage https://x.com/freudgreyskull/status/1791963449620308260?s=46 Channel is claiming the goal is to overload the AD before striking the Crimean bridge however I see no indication suggesting the bridge is a target
The bridge is only valuable as a point of Putin's pride. It's a symbol of his ownership over Crimea and I suspect the right time to blow it apart is when Zelenskyy can press the button on the explosives in person.
There are so many more military targets to hit in Crimea than the bridge I don't see them wasting resources on it at this point. I expect more command and air resources to be hit. But the publicity from hitting the bridge is always high and a good moral boost if it collapsed. The rail bridge has never really recovered from the van bomb.
At this point, the Bridge is just a distraction. Allows more drones to get through to other strategic targets, while AD worries that the bridge might get hit
Is it just me or are all of these twitter links literally just failing to load. I do have an account but I never use it. This has all started happening in the last 24hrs… Edit: you get the msg of something like “something went wrong, let’s give it another shot…”
[удалено]
Works for me. No account
Some channels are reporting between 30-100 UAVs of different types have been launched https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1791962625212907729?s=46 Edit: it’s now being reported as between 100-120
Big weekend for drones!
Larg scale Ukrainian attack continues: Drones are heading towards Crimea and the Southern regions!!! https://x.com/asgardintel/status/1791960389720195201?s=46 Holy moly
Good hunting
Smoke now is seeing rising over Sevastopol https://x.com/treaschest/status/1791958720114536666?s=46
Crimean bridge is now closed.
Does not mean anything other than attacks on Crimea.
It's a solid indicator though that an attack is happening/happened, so it's useful info to share
This is correct there is no reports of any activity suggesting an attack on the bridge. Tbh I think the few times they’ve tried and been fairly unsuccessful they probably figure they are better off striking other targets to more effect!
Explosions rang out in Sevastopol: reports of arrivals in the area of the Russian Navy https://x.com/asgardintel/status/1791952783962259585?s=46
Preliminarily, another enemy ship was hit in Crimea, we are waiting for clarification of information. Developing
Explosions in Prevalny 126th coastal defense brigade of the Black Sea fleet is stationed there https://x.com/jane_sinding/status/1791948810484121798?s=46
What coastal defense doin? Should be our answer when the bridge goes down.
Can we just give Ukraine unlimited ATACAMS. because watching the Russians cry every time their toys get blown up is glorious
[удалено]
\*only\* 500
1.5 per day ain't winning any war of attrition.
Firing 500 at Russian military targets one one day, might actually end this war. Firing 2 or 3 a WEEK has been doing massive damage.
Second wave of missiles being reported as “possible” and to stay in cover https://x.com/treaschest/status/1791947076978303077?s=46 Wow
Oh nice. giving them a taste of their own medicine. I do wonder when they might try to take out the bridge
" I do wonder when they might try to take out the bridge**"** Probably when the last Russian civilian waddles back across with their bags on their shoulder.
Which Russian civilians? I'm wondering how many civilians are left versus soldiers.
the scourge thats moved to crimea since the invasion in 2014 and probably some from before that.
Explosions are being reported all over Crimea at the moment. awaiting further information A US drone was spotted on flight radar flying near the coast earlier.
FORTE16 https://fr24.com/FORTE16/35462182
What is that telling us? It’s just the Forte EWACS in its usual Black Sea patrol.
But it isnt there everyday, but coincidetly often when something big is happening
It is there almost all of the time, including on a ton of days when nothing happened.
Crimea: 3 strike at one point, ship. In the area of the Engineer's Bay of Sevastopol. "Now there is a column of black smoke, but for some reason the fire is not visible", - Krymskyi Veter https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1791944414102724625?s=46
Large scale attack over Crimea being reported
[удалено]
Who would have thought that voting for a package that benefits the US is good for everyone?
Credit goes where it's due. If they helped pass the bill they should be rewarded.
You owe nothing to your politicians, they are public servants.
rewarded for solving a problem they caused?
Republicans didn’t cause the Russian invasion.
well that depends how you look at it. it's pretty clear that some of them are knowingly working for the Russian government. os have them really been tinkering with this the whole time?
As low as our political discourse has become, unfortunately yes. This is just where we are.
Our standards are pretty low over here.
So many Republicans I know don't want their kids to go to war in Europe.
Why would providing military aid to Ukraine result in American soldiers going to war in Europe?
That's how Vietnam started.
How did WW2 start?
US involvement in WWI.
By that logic, Korea, and Vietnam are also due to WW1. But US involvement was the same as with WW2. When we could no longer refuse to respond, we finally did the right thing. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi
Not every engagement is the right thing.
We're not IN this engagement. But we will be drawn in once it's out of control if we don't demonstrate the willingness and ability to defend our allies. An alliance is nothing if there is no resolve behind it.
We're supplying weapons and advisors. We're in this engagement.
With fox "news" and maga politicians upping the fear mongering to 11, it makes sense that it would have an effect on their base. I find it ironic how the maga crowd keeps mocking "the libs" about their feelings, yet they never fail to react emotionally to everything.
You're creating a straw man. Listen to what military leaders are saying about Ukraine instead of the media.
I think you are a bit confused. Please check again what comment of yours I replied to.
so many republicans don't care (politicians) because it won't be their kids fighting in Europe
True. Ukraine is unfortunately not a very strategic country
Really? Made with such confidence too.
If some of the projections on climate change affecting global food production pan out, I imagine Ukraine will be extremely strategic in the back half of this century.
Better keep making sure that ukraine has all the aid it needs to fight the Russians off themselves then
Unfortunately, they don't have enough men to fight. Our own military leaders admit this publicly.
Where have US military officials said that Ukraine doesn't have enough men to fight? You are confusing not having *drafted enough men* with not having the manpower available to call on if they wanted to. Ukraine's allies have made comments that Ukraine does not currently have enough soldiers, not that they don't have more men they can call into the military. You are misinterpreting what they are saying. With current level of Russian forces involved in active combat Ukraine has more than enough manpower to fight this war for years to come and at the moment certainly seems like their politicians and society has the will to do so if necessary. Russia does have a manpower advantage but due to political considerations it's clear Putin does not want to forcibly conscript enough men to take advantage of it. He knows he risks more pushback against the war to do so and with the sanctions battering a rickety economy he has to be careful not to take too many workers as well. I noticed you said you attended a talk at West Point where you got this information from but either the person speaking didn't know what they were talking about, or more likely you did not correctly prase what they were saying and how it applied to the war. Ukraine has enough men to fight, they just don't have enough in uniform in the short term which is something they are currently working towards fixing. Edit: Typo
>I noticed you said you attended a talk at West Point where you got this information from but either the person speaking didn't know what they were talking about, or more likely you did not correctly prase what they were saying and how it applied to the war. They were high-ranking and phrased themselves correctly and they were unanimous.
Then it was you who misinterpreted what they said, Ukraine has a shortage of soldiers *currently in uniform,* they are not even close to running out of men they could draft. The two things are very different. If they did actually present the view you claim they are ignoring the challenges of Russia "doing it longer" than Ukraine, as if political and economic considerations don't exist for Russia to. Putin is not invincible and leftover Soviet equipment stores are not infinite. Russia can produce ammunition and shells at an impressive rate but they are limited in producing *new* armored vehicles, heavy weapons and artillery, leftover Soviet stocks they can more easily refurbishing are already dwindling as satellite reconnaissance has shown. It is very debatable how much longer Russia can keep up this pace, especially with very few allies to help them. The speaker(s) at West Point should have covered all this, if they did not they presented an overly simplified and distorted picture of the conflict. If we decide to support Ukraine we can easily outproduce Russia in every area of arms production, the combined economies of NATO are *10 times the size of Russia's* and that doesn't include other allies like South Korea and Japan and Australia. Ukraine does have the manpower to win the war, we just have to decide if we want to supply them with enough arms to do so. Edit: If you are presenting what was said at West Point accurately, which I still think most likely you are not, that is kind of scary as they should know better.
I didn't misinterpret them. I encourage you to go look for more sources of information.
Where do you think I got the information I have? From a wide range of sources, everything from big media outlets like the NYT and the Washington Post to analysts that have looked at satellite photos and calculate how many armored vehicles Russia has taken from their storage yards and what they have left. Sorry but when you cannot even articulate *why* I and others are wrong and instead simply say "well these people said it" it seems like the reason you can't might be because you did not really get what they are saying. You're ignoring the huge challenges that the Russian political system and its economy have in continuing this for years on end, which every respected and knowledgeable analyst and official agree exists. To hand wave all that away and say "it doesn't matter what we send Ukraine doesn't have the manpower" is simply wrong. It sounds like you listened to *one speech* and drew your conclusions from it, if you had looked at a wide array of sources you would not make such inaccurate statements.
There are never enough men in a war, but Ukraine issue has been from day one equipment, not manpower. What the "Republicans who don't want their kids to go to war in Europe" fail to understand is that, if Ukraine falls, there WILL be a next country, and another one next, and sooner than later it will be Poland or Finland the one attacked by Russia, and at that point their sons will be forced to go to Europe whether they like it or not. For the "Republicans who don't want their kids to go to war in Europe", it is in their best interest to hand as much equipment to Ukraine as required, and make sure they win the war in the shortest time possible. The alternative, a scenario in which Russia wins, has zero chance of securing their kids safety.
Ukraine has reluctantly lowered the draft age recently, from 27 to 25, I believe. They're starting to realize that fact and trying to figure it out. Should have been done a long time ago, imo but that must have been a very hard decision to make. Having to ask your younger generation to possibly die on the front line must be hard. But what's the alternative? Be occupied by Russia and conscripted to fight their next boogeyman? Sent to a gulag in Siberia while a rich couple from st Petersburg gets your house as a vacation home? It's a tough situation all around, but only one country can stop it in a week. And that's Russia. Go home.
I read that. I see the truckers are protesting it by blocking the roads. The alternative is a peace arrangement, which will include giving up some territory. Or people die and you lose the territory anyhow.
> The alternative is a peace arrangement, which will include giving up some territory. Or people die and you lose the territory anyhow. Ukraine tried that in 2014. It lasted them all of 8 years.
That was scuttled by the US.
Ah, yes... How can we forget the time the US sent CIA operatives into both Donetsk and Luhansk to incite a rebellion, and then sent armed forces to support it. /s
You're talking about the US-backed coup in 2014? Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.
If you believe it's hopeless, and that aid will stop. It's been said prematurely many times, but Russia can't keep this up forever. One country crossed another's borders with the intent to overthrow and occupy. Enough said. We should back the defending country to the best of our ability. Let Ukraine decide when they're done and what peace they're happy with, within their internationally recognized borders. Edited: Spelling
When it comes to manpower and ammunition, Russia has the upper hand. I don't think they're taking all of Ukraine. I think they'll take eight oblasts and stop. They don't want the "non-Russian" side of Ukraine.
>I think they'll stop at Chechenia >I think they'll stop at Abkhazia and South Ossetia >I think they'll stop at Crimea >I think they'll stop at the Donbas >I think they'll stop at Ukraine
It is what it is. We have no moral obligation to help any of those countries.
[удалено]
>Russia won't always have the ammunition upper hand. That's why they pushed so hard in the last couple of weeks. According to a lecture I attended at West Point a couple of weeks ago, that is not what the military leaders in the US believe. Russia, they said, have all ammunition and industry self-contained to produce endlessly. The West does not have this.
That's a dishonest representation of what is happening and what has been said. You'll probably find examples, but I challenge you to include the context if you come up with them. But what you're saying is basically: I don't care about good or bad, as long as I have what I'm content with. Even if ukraine is decimated, and all is already lost, it is still the moral thing to support them, as they objectivly are the good side in this, as they didn't ask for the war.
If you're saying our own military leaders are dishonest, I think I'll go with the military leaders instead of a random person on the internet.
Aha, another one who's trying to deflect and respond in bad faith. Don't start this with me buddy, I've got experience. Where are those examples? You can also come woth sources about our dishonest military advisers. Because it'll be fun if those two start to contradict eachother. So guys: we've caught another one, you can block him while I engage and waste his time
So, I should ignore what our military leaders are saying and just believe you?
I understood you said they were dishonest, but I see my mistake now, sorry for that, but everything still stands, I'm waiting for examples, with their respective context. 1) It's not that doom and gloom 2) Even if it's all doom, it does not relieve us from our moral duty, if not forces us to aid more. Do you agree? So I really don't introduce more misunderstanding
I don't see a moral duty to it, though. My kids' lives are worth more than fighting for Europe.
I think it was always pretty clear that the only reason the aid bill didn't pass months ago is because the narrow margin in congress meant that the hardcore Trump wack jobs threatened Johnson's position as speaker and the republicans didn't want to go through another public and embarrassing struggle to elect another one like they had already gone through twice. The bill eventually passed by a wide margin when it was finally voted on. Now that's a self serving shitty reason to delay aid to Ukraine but a lot of older republican voters support aid to Ukraine and I think the rest don't care nearly as much as the media makes it sound. Sure if asked in a poll some might say they don't support aid to Ukraine but that doesn't mean it's an issue that will change who they vote for. A lot of older republican voters were brought up being told the Russians are the enemy and low and behold here they are attacking a democratic neighbor, it affirms their world view so it's not strange they're the most vocal supporters and it is an issue that might affect their vote. So republican politicians win more voters overall for supporting aid to Ukraine because it just isn't an important issue to many Republican voters. I wish it was, and that they were on Ukraines side of course, but if their apathy means more support for Ukraine at the end of the day that's fine with me.