Russia/Ukraine conflict

[kabin]

My first principles thinking on this. Let's say another country, for example China, gets a higher GDP than USA and directs a larger share of its GDP towards its military and get's more value for their money, at some point their military will be superior. I am thinking not in soldiers but in drones, think Tesla Optimus holding an assault rifle, think hornet drones with microexplosives, think submarine drones from Ukraine, think baloons that cost more to shoot down than they cost to build. Some combination of these that makes economic sense. Once drones have established control over the country, I would say the country is invaded.

Imo this is probably not too far from China is planning. They hate not being masters of their own fate, of being #2, of being humiliated in the past. And they are taking active steps to secure their future. I recommend this book to understand what China is doing:

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

For now USA may be immune, but give it a decade or two and this might have changed...

I'm not sure China can survive their ongoing poor decision making, upcoming social unrest, imploding demographics, endless need for food, imported goods, and materials.

 

[wdolson]

My first principles thinking on this. Let's say another country, for example China, gets a higher GDP than USA and directs a larger share of its GDP towards its military and get's more value for their money, at some point their military will be superior. I am thinking not in soldiers but in drones, think Tesla Optimus holding an assault rifle, think hornet drones with microexplosives, think submarine drones from Ukraine, think baloons that cost more to shoot down than they cost to build. Some combination of these that makes economic sense. Once drones have established control over the country, I would say the country is invaded.

Imo this is probably not too far from China is planning. They hate not being masters of their own fate, of being #2, of being humiliated in the past. And they are taking active steps to secure their future. I recommend this book to understand what China is doing:

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

For now USA may be immune, but give it a decade or two and this might have changed...

China may be a very different place in a decade too. The recent protests are the tip of the iceberg. They are facing a demographic cliff which will be vastly worse by 2030. The communist government may fall apart as their troubles get worse.

History has shown that there is only one thing that can actually conquer a country: boots on the ground. One country can manage to install a puppet who does their bidding, but that's always an arm's length control. The US has a lot of resources to throw at drones before it gets overwhelmed by them. Additionally the US also has offensive capability to throw back at an enemy deploying drones against it.

Every major power is working right now on ways to counteract drones. There are already a number of systems employed. Right now everything is in flux. Cheap drones are useful now even against a major power like Russia, but soon they will only be usable against poorer countries that can't afford new tech solutions.

In a few years drone wars between industrialized powers will only work with expensive drones that are capable of avoiding the countermeasures. Or with swarms of drones in which most will be taken out by the countermeasures before they get anywhere.

Nobody in the world has the ability to land any sizeable force of troops on a US coastline. Even the US, which has the largest amphibious navy in the world by a huge margin doesn't have that capability. Amphibious invasions are made exponentially more difficult by a number of factors.

First the distance from the nearest friendly land base to the invasion point is one factor. A long distance makes the job of supporting an expeditionary force much more difficult. The second factor is the size of the land mass being invaded. A small island can only have so much supply on hand and has little means to make its own. A continental land mass is going to have large supply caches and lots af ability to make more. A force defending a large land mass can also trade land for time to build up a stronger defense if necessary.

Related to the land mass size is also the size of the potential force that land mass can generate to repel an invasion. China has 4X the population of the United States and could raise a larger army than the US, but there is no possible way to transport that army the 7000 miles to overwhelm the local US forces defending their homes.

And even if they used robot soldiers there is still the problem of transporting them to the battlefield as well as keeping them powered. Robot soldiers are going to consume a lot of electricity and China would have to bring the means to supply it because the US would ensure there is none available to recharge the robots.

Small scale drone warfare consumes little electricity, but scale up to trying to conquer a country of over 300 million people and a large resource base and you're looking at a problem that could only be done by a power with resources only contemplated in science fiction.

If China does make it through the problems they are facing in the next decade, they may emerge to become the world's dominant economic power. The US military might start to decay in the next 10-20 years too in which China may be able to take Taiwan and flex its muscles across the western Pacific. But the US is physically fairly safe unless the nuclear weapons fly.

North America is a natural fortress with a largish population to ensure nobody is ever going to conquer it again. The Europeans were able to take it over because the population that was here when they arrived had very primitive technology and were a small population spread out across the continent. The continent is well populated now with advanced technology that at worse is only going to be one generation behind any adversary.

 

[RobStark]

7 years ago the CCP would kidnap women in the middle of the night that were in the process of breaking the 1 child policy and force them to get an abortion.

Today the CCP has a 3 child policy and offers free fertility treatments.

 

[wdolson]

7 years ago the CCP would kidnap women in the middle of the night that were in the process of breaking the 1 child policy and force them to get an abortion.

Today the CCP has a 3 child policy and offers free fertility treatments.

After being in force for a few years the birthrate has barely changed. Even if it does, they will go through a period where they have a large population of retirees, a large population of small children, and a small working population. That's going to make the economic drag on the system worse before it gets better.

 

[growler23]

Since we're into history here in this thread, maybe my perspective will add some depth to this particular conversation. It may also bring some depth to discussion around how best to respond in Ukraine.

TL;DR - some types of pacifism aren't the same as passive-ism - creating peaceful relationships requires hard work. War is a failure to love our fellow humans, to deal with conflict before it gets out of control, and from turning a blind eye to injustice. By the time war breaks out it is inevitable, we have failed to take advantage of the myriad opportunities we had along the way to work for peace...


I am a pacifist, but not a passivist (this isn't a mainstream distinction, but one made in my circles). I'm a Mennonite, but not the old-colony kind with horses and buggies - I drive a Tesla and don't have religious rules around clothing. There are a diversity of beliefs within this theological stream - some are more passive and avoidant, others are more active and work for reconciliation. Just being anti-war is meaningless - to just be against something; you need to be "for" something to do anything meaningful.

I try to actively work for peace (not the absence of conflict, but a life characterized by healthy relationships between others - starting with family and neighbours, and then as I can with acquaintances and politically - similar to the Jewish shalom concept). That means starting with learning how to communicate non-violently (hard to do); not viewing differing viewpoints as scary/evil, but as learning from others and helping others learn. Conflict is inevitable, but the goal is to not break relationships because of it - though it takes wisdom to recognize when people need to be cut off to avoid enabling their destructive behaviours. But if we fail, we have to leave behind idealism and figure out what to do with the mess, and there are no easy answers - suffering is inevitable, no matter one's choices at that point. Bonhoeffer's autobiography was enlightening for me personally - diplomacy didn't fail because Germans were all evil, but the failure of nations to pursue reconciliation created a victim mentality and disenfranchisement that led to populist fascism. But back to my history (to do Bonhoeffer justice, I'd have to write 10 paragraphs to scratch the surface).

My ancestors came from the Netherlands, and were burned at the stake and tortured by both Protestants and Catholics post-Reformation because our beliefs were an existential threat to Christendom and theocratic politics: by rebaptizing adults instead of recognizing infant baptism, they stated that one's life should reflect Jesus' teachings (like loving even your enemies - which incidentally doesn't mean enabling them or letting them do whatever they want, but refusing to dehumanize people - but I'll try to avoid a theological rabbit hole...). You're not at automatic Christian - Christianity should be trying to imitate the way Jesus treated others; most politicians and priests didn't bother... The concept of loving enemies, living simply and sustainably, being free to choose one's religious beliefs, not blindly following political on religious leaders (but allowing churches to split off rather than forcing uniformity by killing those you disagree with) were all scary concepts to those in power back then.

Due to the persecution, we first fled to Prussia, then were invited by Catherine the Great to develop an area near the Black Sea in the early 1800's - my particular ancestors lived in the Molotschna colony. In the 1870's my ancestors were among the first to notice changes in the government's attitude, and so we left peacefully and settled in Canada where we were promised peace.

Some have heard of the Mennonite Central Committee - an international organization that started during the early 1900's to help those Mennonites who had stayed in Russia/Ukraine to escape the rising violence and government takeovers. The rise of Communism was particularly hard on those who stayed, and the Mennonites were essentially wiped out (they suffered under the artificial famine - the gov't took their harvest, leaving nothing for the farmers, and WW2 took care of the rest). The MCC helped Mennonites move to Canada & the USA - it was even worse when the Communists took over; constant looting and many were imprisoned in Siberia. The last ones fled with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

MCC has grown to help other culture groups suffering across the world - sending grain and clothing to those who have nothing, and training locals to produce food or goods in more sustainable ways. An arm of MCC is the Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS) - they send out tradesmen to help the poor rebuild their homes after disasters, like Hurricanes down South. Another local cause I personally support a lot is an organization that mentors kids in the downtown area of Winnipeg, mostly First Nations but also the poorest of the poor. It's a drop-in centre that includes teaching trades and giving kids a safe place to eat and hang out and avoid gangs and violence. This is an amazing example of pacifism - replacing weapons with tools.

The idea is that by helping the poor and the downtrodden, easing suffering, treating humans from different cultures with love and generosity, we build bridges and friendship. Training helps people become self-sufficient and avoids a victim or refugee mentality.

Sometimes this is taken advantage of, and it's a hard line to walk. We left many places because staying would enable the abusive relationship: when the government is corrupt and gets to the point of removing rights and killing peaceful citizens, if you choose to fight their way you will lose, so leaving means they lose productivity, valuable citizens and people to bully. Like today, the Russian gov't only knows how to take, not produce. If peaceful, productive people leave, there is nothing left to steal. But in the short term, it seems as though that gives the powerful dictators a win. Mennonites used to avoid politics, and that was a mistake - being Quiet in the Land helped them have peace with their neighbours, but not with corrupt governments. So we're learning to become better at speaking out. Treating political opponents as humans goes a long way - the second we start killing enemies, they now feel justified that they are correct, and will feel no remorse at killing us back. But to kill a human who has been kind to you, who treats others well, who actively helps you - that creates a cognitive dissonance. It starts with language, but actions are also key. It starts at the individual level, and extends outwards from there.

As far as military goes, I don't blame anyone for fighting. It's the most direct solution, though it's not sustainable in the long run, and causes trauma and harm to both sides. I think there's an issue if anyone glorifies it or enjoys killing, but most people don't; both sides do it because they believe they have no choice and are justified (or at least they believe it benefits them or they have an obligation). And I think there comes a point where war is inevitable, if we have failed again and again to deal with injustices and poverty, and have created victims by our peacetime actions.

Right now, Ukraine Russia is obviously past the point of peace, and the world's failures to deal with Putin (turning a blind eye because it profited our politicians, and actually enabling his government's corruption by accepting bribes and influence-peddling) means democratic governments are forced to support a war now.

Thank you so much for posting this and sharing your (hi)story.
The information content on this thread was already pretty good, and posts like your blow the roof off - that's meant as a good thing.
Other folks, if you get nothing else out of this than finding the curiosity to look up Dietrich Bonhoeffer (sp?), you will still come out ahead.

Nuff said, back on the main topic, which is also quite active these days. I note that my usual sources, while updating much about Vuhledar, said nothing (for once) about Bakhmut yesterday. Is this meaningful?

 

[petit_bateau]

Thank you so much for posting this and sharing your (hi)story.
The information content on this thread was already pretty good, and posts like your blow the roof off - that's meant as a good thing.
Other folks, if you get nothing else out of this than finding the curiosity to look up Dietrich Bonhoeffer (sp?), you will still come out ahead.

Nuff said, back on the main topic, which is also quite active these days. I note that my usual sources, while updating much about Vuhledar, said nothing (for once) about Bakhmut yesterday. Is this meaningful?

There are mixed signals coming out of Bakmut. There is the "giving ground slowly" signal that we have been hearing for many months. There is also rumours that volunteer civilian assistance charities are no longer allowed to access, which is a new development if true. If so that may presage other developments.

 

[unk45]

And who is the judge of "true evil" ?

If you leave it up to religion, god help you.
Muslim theology, e.g., views lampooning their prophet, or leaving Islam for another religion as justifiable reason for homicidal violence.

Don't confuse any religion with its extreme adherents, even if those extremists are wealthy and powerful. Salafi and Wahhabi are exactly comparable to Protestant evangelical fundamentalists (too many sects to list-nearly atomistic, in the US Hillsdale College a center) and the Roman Catholic Church Militant groups, plus the Russian Orthodox Church, an arm of Putin's rule. Every major religion has those extremists, but it seems that many people ignore all of them except Salafi and Wahhabi, although most do not even know those or their significance.

In this thread, at least, we do need to realize that religious extremism is a major contributor to the hostilities. From Russian Orthodox, to Shia Iranian mullah rule to the Church Militant bent towards Putin's rule nearly every major force in this conflict has a politico-religious base.

NOTE: I was born into a fundamentalist radical group, and have studied these groups in some detail, both from places I've lived and from a rejection of religious radicalism, from wherever it comes. That makes me loath and fear all aggressive religious forms. Right now that is the base of the Turkey Erdogan rule, the US Trumpists, Brazilian Bolsonarist and the Russian Putin. The precise facts demonstrate that the present Israeli crisis is the result to the analogous Jewish extremists. All of this makes me abhor extremists and makes me angry when people chose any one of these as the one to demonize when they ALL threaten world peace and prosperity.

This post is not about religion, it is about extremist jingoism under cover of pseudo religion.

 

[nativewolf]

Since we're into history here in this thread, maybe my perspective will add some depth to this particular conversation. It may also bring some depth to discussion around how best to respond in Ukraine.

TL;DR - some types of pacifism aren't the same as passive-ism - creating peaceful relationships requires hard work. War is a failure to love our fellow humans, to deal with conflict before it gets out of control, and from turning a blind eye to injustice. By the time war breaks out it is inevitable, we have failed to take advantage of the myriad opportunities we had along the way to work for peace...


I am a pacifist, but not a passivist (this isn't a mainstream distinction, but one made in my circles). I'm a Mennonite, but not the old-colony kind with horses and buggies - I drive a Tesla and don't have religious rules around clothing. There are a diversity of beliefs within this theological stream - some are more passive and avoidant, others are more active and work for reconciliation. Just being anti-war is meaningless - to just be against something; you need to be "for" something to do anything meaningful.

I try to actively work for peace (not the absence of conflict, but a life characterized by healthy relationships between others - starting with family and neighbours, and then as I can with acquaintances and politically - similar to the Jewish shalom concept). That means starting with learning how to communicate non-violently (hard to do); not viewing differing viewpoints as scary/evil, but as learning from others and helping others learn. Conflict is inevitable, but the goal is to not break relationships because of it - though it takes wisdom to recognize when people need to be cut off to avoid enabling their destructive behaviours. But if we fail, we have to leave behind idealism and figure out what to do with the mess, and there are no easy answers - suffering is inevitable, no matter one's choices at that point. Bonhoeffer's autobiography was enlightening for me personally - diplomacy didn't fail because Germans were all evil, but the failure of nations to pursue reconciliation created a victim mentality and disenfranchisement that led to populist fascism. But back to my history (to do Bonhoeffer justice, I'd have to write 10 paragraphs to scratch the surface).

My ancestors came from the Netherlands, and were burned at the stake and tortured by both Protestants and Catholics post-Reformation because our beliefs were an existential threat to Christendom and theocratic politics: by rebaptizing adults instead of recognizing infant baptism, they stated that one's life should reflect Jesus' teachings (like loving even your enemies - which incidentally doesn't mean enabling them or letting them do whatever they want, but refusing to dehumanize people - but I'll try to avoid a theological rabbit hole...). You're not at automatic Christian - Christianity should be trying to imitate the way Jesus treated others; most politicians and priests didn't bother... The concept of loving enemies, living simply and sustainably, being free to choose one's religious beliefs, not blindly following political on religious leaders (but allowing churches to split off rather than forcing uniformity by killing those you disagree with) were all scary concepts to those in power back then.

Due to the persecution, we first fled to Prussia, then were invited by Catherine the Great to develop an area near the Black Sea in the early 1800's - my particular ancestors lived in the Molotschna colony. In the 1870's my ancestors were among the first to notice changes in the government's attitude, and so we left peacefully and settled in Canada where we were promised peace.

Some have heard of the Mennonite Central Committee - an international organization that started during the early 1900's to help those Mennonites who had stayed in Russia/Ukraine to escape the rising violence and government takeovers. The rise of Communism was particularly hard on those who stayed, and the Mennonites were essentially wiped out (they suffered under the artificial famine - the gov't took their harvest, leaving nothing for the farmers, and WW2 took care of the rest). The MCC helped Mennonites move to Canada & the USA - it was even worse when the Communists took over; constant looting and many were imprisoned in Siberia. The last ones fled with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

MCC has grown to help other culture groups suffering across the world - sending grain and clothing to those who have nothing, and training locals to produce food or goods in more sustainable ways. An arm of MCC is the Mennonite Disaster Service (MDS) - they send out tradesmen to help the poor rebuild their homes after disasters, like Hurricanes down South. Another local cause I personally support a lot is an organization that mentors kids in the downtown area of Winnipeg, mostly First Nations but also the poorest of the poor. It's a drop-in centre that includes teaching trades and giving kids a safe place to eat and hang out and avoid gangs and violence. This is an amazing example of pacifism - replacing weapons with tools.

The idea is that by helping the poor and the downtrodden, easing suffering, treating humans from different cultures with love and generosity, we build bridges and friendship. Training helps people become self-sufficient and avoids a victim or refugee mentality.

Sometimes this is taken advantage of, and it's a hard line to walk. We left many places because staying would enable the abusive relationship: when the government is corrupt and gets to the point of removing rights and killing peaceful citizens, if you choose to fight their way you will lose, so leaving means they lose productivity, valuable citizens and people to bully. Like today, the Russian gov't only knows how to take, not produce. If peaceful, productive people leave, there is nothing left to steal. But in the short term, it seems as though that gives the powerful dictators a win. Mennonites used to avoid politics, and that was a mistake - being Quiet in the Land helped them have peace with their neighbours, but not with corrupt governments. So we're learning to become better at speaking out. Treating political opponents as humans goes a long way - the second we start killing enemies, they now feel justified that they are correct, and will feel no remorse at killing us back. But to kill a human who has been kind to you, who treats others well, who actively helps you - that creates a cognitive dissonance. It starts with language, but actions are also key. It starts at the individual level, and extends outwards from there.

As far as military goes, I don't blame anyone for fighting. It's the most direct solution, though it's not sustainable in the long run, and causes trauma and harm to both sides. I think there's an issue if anyone glorifies it or enjoys killing, but most people don't; both sides do it because they believe they have no choice and are justified (or at least they believe it benefits them or they have an obligation). And I think there comes a point where war is inevitable, if we have failed again and again to deal with injustices and poverty, and have created victims by our peacetime actions.

Right now, Ukraine Russia is obviously past the point of peace, and the world's failures to deal with Putin (turning a blind eye because it profited our politicians, and actually enabling his government's corruption by accepting bribes and influence-peddling) means democratic governments are forced to support a war now.

I worked along side the Mennonites in Cambodia - amazing teams going where no one else would go. It was the most sincere expression of Christianity I have witnessed .

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

....] the Russian Orthodox Church, an arm of Putin's rule. [...

I'm an Atheist. But having said that, I still wonder if there's anything at all of Christianity left within todays Russian Orthodox Church... I don't think your post is sufficiently clear about this: The top hierarchy of the current Russian Ortodox Church was literally created by Stalin during WWII as a part of the KGB. And the Russian Ortodox Church to this day is in fact just another branch of the continuation of the KGB – the FSB...

I wrote about this some 42 pages back in this thread. Here:

Russia/Ukraine conflict

Still needs German approval, but I hope it happens. Less talking, more action required now. There is definitely something going on re tank provision. Ironically the Bakhmut / Soledar difficulties may be providing the extra impetus. And I do wonder if the UK's shift to send Challengers may be...

teslamotorsclub.com

And maybe there are equivalent 'infiltrations' within other 'religious expressions', but I just don't know about it...

 

[Tiger]

Is this real?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625469364647641088

 

[X Fan]

Is this real?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625469364647641088

Perhaps but how long before those region’s leaders start falling out of windows

 

[unk45]

I'm an Atheist. But having said that, I still wonder if there's anything at all of Christianity left within todays Russian Orthodox Church... I don't think your post is sufficiently clear about this: The top hierarchy of the current Russian Ortodox Church was literally created by Stalin during WWII as a part of the KGB. And the Russian Ortodox Church to this day is in fact just another branch of the continuation of the KGB – the FSB...

I wrote about this some 42 pages back in this thread. Here:

Russia/Ukraine conflict

Still needs German approval, but I hope it happens. Less talking, more action required now. There is definitely something going on re tank provision. Ironically the Bakhmut / Soledar difficulties may be providing the extra impetus. And I do wonder if the UK's shift to send Challengers may be...

teslamotorsclub.com

And maybe there are equivalent 'infiltrations' within other 'religious expressions', but I just don't know about it...

There are, and that is my point. Since I am myself an atheist also, I do have a bias towards a, hopefully, rationalist view. Without ethnic, usually religious, intolerance most wars would never happen. As long as there are human beings the world will not be devoid fo all conflict. The current Russian aggression could not have happened without a devout belief in the superiority of 'pure' Russians and the lack of 'humanity' in Ukranians. Such views can only be fomented with some sort of religious fervor.

 

[iPlug]

If past is precedent, this means Ukraine has likely been promised jets.

The last time Ukrainian Defense Minister Reznikov reacted with such confidence was during the discussion of Leopard tanks which were then officially announced within days.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625566040150405120

 

[trayloader]

Perfect analogy however what you describe here is no exception to the rule but the blueprint for almost every war up to date.

Here is a pretty interesting article about Putin, the real reason behind the war and the time after him:

Nawalny-Freund Leonid Wolkow: 'Auch Putin ist sterblich'

Der Oppositionelle Leonid Wolkow über die Zukunft Russlands, seinen Freund Alexej Nawalny und den Krieg in der Ukraine.

www-abendzeitung--muenchen-de.translate.goog

 

[lolachampcar]

Can try again but will be even worse with a second go. Also don’t completely count out things not exploding there this close to Ukraine this time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625193310640914432

be a real shame if something happened to those troops while they were camping out.....

 

[wdolson]

Is this real?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625469364647641088

First I've heard of this, but if true I'm not surprised. The more remote provinces have been bearing the burden of this war. Moscow promised large payments for those killed in action. Initially they were paying, but have stopped in recent months. The stopping payments is an indication of how cash strapped Moscow has become.

I've seen translations from family members of people upset at losing their family members, but others are upset at not getting paid too. It's very transactional, but it appears there is an element of that there too.

In any case, there is a growing discontent with Moscow in the provinces.

On the battlefield there are also stories of units who have refused to fight WW I style.

Outside of Russia we see how the oligarchs have robbed Russia blind, but Putin has been a successful dictator because he ensured that enough trickled down to the people to make people feel things got better than before he was in power. A trick of many successful dictators.

But since the war began, what people were getting has dried up. Putin was able to delay the discontent with his war by pumping billions of rubles into the economy and appealing to patriotism, but as the war has ground on and the purpose of the war is getting less and less clear by the day, people are beginning to get unhappy with dear leader.

The Russian standard of living is declining throughout the country and while the rhetoric on TV hasn't changed, people are wondering why Russia is in Ukraine. If Ukraine had collapsed in the first few days of the war and Russia had annexed the country quickly, Putin would be hailed as a great leader who is helping make Russia great again. But the Russian army failed in its mission and the war has ground on costing massive amounts of treasure, burning up their Soviet stockpile, and ruining a lot of lives.

A recent poll found that something like 73% of Russians have someone close to them who have gone off to this war. I would not be surprised if the portion of the population that hasn't been impacted this way are in the Moscow or St Petersburg area. The impact on the other provinces is probably approaching 100%.

Historically Russians are much more tolerant of high losses in war as long as Russia is winning. Russians get very intolerant of their leaders when Russia loses a war, especially a fairly large one. Russia was still a feudal society with serfs until they lost the Crimean War in the 1860s and the serfs rebelled. They had to end serfdom and reform the agricultural sector to end the rebellion.

Just after the turn of the 20th century Russia lost a humiliating defeat to Japan in which pretty much the entire Russian navy was lost. The rebellion after that loss almost kicked off the Russian Revolution more than a decade early. The Czar was able to put it down because while the navy had been lost, the army was still intact.

In 1917 the army was in a condition similar to it is now. It had been ravaged by three years of war and while they still had good troop strength, losses had been incredibly high and the army got to a point where it refused to fight which then triggered riots at home. Then a Russian civil war kicked off leaving the country a communist state.

In the 1980s they had a failed venture in Afghanistan which contributed to the fall of the USSR.

Because of the humiliating loss in Afghanistan, Putin figured the US was in a similar fragile state after it's loss in Afghanistan, but was surprised at how together the US response to this war has been. The US is a different culture with a different response to losing a war.

I think Putin is desperately looking for an offramp where he can get out of this war without the government being overthrown or the country breaking up, but I don't think there is any good option for him.

 

[Rarity]

From investor thread:

@avoigt was being uncharacteristically hot-headed on this and he may have walked it back in a subsequent tweet. It may be that his background is not in the aerospace industry, so he jumped to conclusions.

In any event, we need to read between the lines and accept that we may never know the whole story.

Shotwell made a carefully worded legal statement. Fact is, if Starlink is integrated into something that is a close cousin to a cruise missile without the cover of doing the Pentagon's direct bidding, that sets off all sorts of legal alarm bells in the United States and internationally. SpaceX is a US company, so has to abide by US laws and treaties. At times, these laws and treaties can be draconian and nonsensical. Starlink kit is good and plentiful and can readily be integrated into all sorts of weapons. So SpaceX needs to be careful with its actions.

Musk made a moral statement, in that integrating Starlink into unspecified offensive weaponry could lead to escalation. For instance, if Starlink kit is found on a drone that hit an airfield deep within Russia that is part of its nuclear forces, things could get ugly really fast. The Pentagon would be even more cautious in the weapons it gives to Ukraine because of these considerations. Altogether, Musk has been extraordinarily permissive.

Neither made a practical argument, such as we have to turn off certain cells in order that Russia can't use the system, even though some Ukrainian troops may find themselves in a dead cell from time to time. But those are background issues.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Musk made a moral statement, in that integrating Starlink into unspecified offensive weaponry could lead to escalation. For instance, if Starlink kit is found on a drone that hit an airfield deep within Russia that is part of its nuclear forces, things could get ugly really fast.

Starlink doesn’t work in Russia so that’s not the issue. I think the issue is that Ukraine is building drone ships, maybe with goal of taking out the Kerch Strait Bridge. I wouldn’t characterize destroying infrastructure in your own country as offense though.

Note starlink antenna on the back.

 

[BitJam]

Nuff said, back on the main topic, which is also quite active these days. I note that my usual sources, while updating much about Vuhledar, said nothing (for once) about Bakhmut yesterday. Is this meaningful?

Denys says Ukraine gained ground near Bakhmut today (or yesterday) pushing Russians back both north and south of the city.

 

[petit_bateau]

For those who are unaware, the Dutch F16 fleet is now fully operational, but is being retired over the next 18-months as their F35s reach operational status. The first Dutch F35 are now declared operational. It really doesn't get to be a better switch-out than this. Ditto for Belgium and Denmark. There are enough in these three countries to do Ukraine for a few years.

The Netherlands has received Ukraine's request for the supply of F-16 fighter jets, [Dutch] Minister of Defense Kasja Ollongren said during the Ramstein-format meeting in Brussels. "We take this seriously. The issue will be discussed with the US behind closed doors," Ollongren added.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625479036309762048