Russia/Ukraine conflict

[Bet TSLA]

If McCarthy is removed, the House will probably be paralyzed until January 2025.

Not a chance. The Democrats can make an agreement with a few Republicans (that's all they need for a majority) and agree on a Speaker so that necessary work can get done. And if that's a believable threat, then those Republicans (calling themselves something like the Get Things Done Caucus or something like that) will be able to get the rest of the Republicans to agree on a Speaker more to the liking of all the Republicans that what they'd get from aligning with the Democrats.

They'll find a way to be functional after enough squabbling.

Meanwhile, I think the defense budget is huge and squishy enough that the administration will find money for Ukraine one way or another.

 

[petit_bateau]

Anybody else missing petit_bateau’s contributions to this thread?

I asked for a two-part review of some moderation activities. One part of that review appears to have finished and my post #14,213 on this thread has been reinstated in full (my thanks to the Mod who made the effort). I am still awaiting the other part of that review to take place. Until it is concluded I am afraid there is very little reason for me to resume any significant posting anywhere on TMC.

 

[CatB]

I asked for a two-part review of some moderation activities. One part of that review appears to have finished and my post #14,213 on this thread has been reinstated in full (my thanks to the Mod who made the effort). I am still awaiting the other part of that review to take place. Until it is concluded I am afraid there is very little reason for me to resume any significant posting anywhere on TMC.

+1 thanks to the Mod who helped and know there are many who would vote you flying colors and shiny badges to welcome you back!
(Altho, I know, you don’t need no stinking badges)

On-topic: I am pleasantly surprised that Congress averted a shut down, but disappointed that it puts funding for Ukraine in doubt. General consensus, from what I’ve read is that enough Republicans recognize the need to stop Putler’s aggression that support will continue, but in the meantime, history needs to be taught.

From Heather Cox Richardson:

The issue of funding for Ukraine is not a small one. Former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) noted that it was on September 30, 1938, that British prime minister Neville Chamberlain announced he would not stand in the way of Adolf Hitler’s annexation of the Sudentenland, a key move in Hitler’s rise. “Members of the House and Senate who are voting to deny Ukraine assistance on the 85th anniversary of Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 “peace in our time” speech should read some history,” she wrote. “Appeasement didn’t work then. It won’t work now.”

The votes should be there for Ukraine aid. Just two days ago, members of the House voted 311 to 117 for Ukraine funding, and the Senate, too, strongly favors Ukraine aid. But there is no doubt the removal of this funding signals that Trump and the MAGA Republicans favor a foreign policy that helps Russian president Vladimir Putin.

 

[Fred42]

I asked for a two-part review of some moderation activities. One part of that review appears to have finished and my post #14,213 on this thread has been reinstated in full (my thanks to the Mod who made the effort). I am still awaiting the other part of that review to take place. Until it is concluded I am afraid there is very little reason for me to resume any significant posting anywhere on TMC.

It's normal for a good poster to have disagreements with mods. The quality of the threads is dependent on the good posters, so hopefully you'll continue. I know that I appreciate your posts.

 

[GWord]

I asked for a two-part review of some moderation activities. One part of that review appears to have finished and my post #14,213 on this thread has been reinstated in full (my thanks to the Mod who made the effort). I am still awaiting the other part of that review to take place. Until it is concluded I am afraid there is very little reason for me to resume any significant posting anywhere on TMC.

Sounds like a reasonable position. Your contribution to this thread has been excellent and I hope you continue to consider coming back.

 

[wdolson]

+1 thanks to the Mod who helped and know there are many who would vote you flying colors and shiny badges to welcome you back!
(Altho, I know, you don’t need no stinking badges)

On-topic: I am pleasantly surprised that Congress averted a shut down, but disappointed that it puts funding for Ukraine in doubt. General consensus, from what I’ve read is that enough Republicans recognize the need to stop Putler’s aggression that support will continue, but in the meantime, history needs to be taught.

From Heather Cox Richardson:

The issue of funding for Ukraine is not a small one. Former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) noted that it was on September 30, 1938, that British prime minister Neville Chamberlain announced he would not stand in the way of Adolf Hitler’s annexation of the Sudentenland, a key move in Hitler’s rise. “Members of the House and Senate who are voting to deny Ukraine assistance on the 85th anniversary of Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 “peace in our time” speech should read some history,” she wrote. “Appeasement didn’t work then. It won’t work now.”

The votes should be there for Ukraine aid. Just two days ago, members of the House voted 311 to 117 for Ukraine funding, and the Senate, too, strongly favors Ukraine aid. But there is no doubt the removal of this funding signals that Trump and the MAGA Republicans favor a foreign policy that helps Russian president Vladimir Putin.

In the late 1930s there was an appeasement attitude among the French and British. A lot of it was driven by the realization that neither country was ready to go to war and they needed time to rearm. At the time the US was rearming too, but there was a strong sentiment among the US population that wars in Europe were none of the US's business.

Some of that harks back to the Monroe Doctrine from 1824 that declared the New World as the US's domain and Europe's affairs were their own. A good part of it is also related to the bad feelings left from the peace conference after WW I. President Wilson had an entire peace plan that probably would have worked better than what was settled on, but the British and French were running the show. The Americans, Italians, and Japanese were all pushed to the side, leaving all three bitter about the experience.

The Italians and Japanese moved into Germany's orbit when they started rearming and the US had the attitude that they were going to just stay home. If those three countries had been listened to and participated in the peace efforts, WW II may not have happened. Or if it had, it may have ended much faster than it did. Germany facing the Commonwealth, France, Italy, and the United States in 1939 would have been very difficult, even if none of those three countries were completely prepared. With Italy on the other side, there would have been no war in the Mediterranean.

The modern resistance to the Ukraine war in the United States is more reminiscent of the isolationists in the years between the two world wars. Under the surface a number of the leaders are actually allies of the Russians, but a lot of the expressed sentiments sound very much like the 1930s isolationist Americans. There are some appeasement noises too, so it's a bit of a mixed bag, though most of the noises from Congress are isolationist. The US today is in a similar situation as the UK to Germany in 1938. With the US hiding from the world, the UK was the dominant world power. Today the US is the world's dominant power and the US has to face that. The US can encourage the democracies of Europe to step up and meet their spending commitments which they are realizing is probably a good thing, but at the end of the day the US needs to keep its hand in.

 

[bhzmark]

a two-part review

the other part of that review

I’m guessing what that it is, and if it is what I think it is, I hope it results in a long term solution . . .

 

[MC3OZ]

I've got mixed feelings about this.

I don't think Ukraine should undertake risky attack missions, just to get results which please western backers.

I also think supply logistics in Crimea might be challenging, if the only resupply route is via the sea.

However, I do like the idea of opening a new attack somewhere more lightly defended and where the Russians don't expect it.

If the Russians already expect an attack in Crimea, I don't see the necessary element of surprise with that option. However a few false rumours to encourage the Russians to shift manpower, resources and effort to the wrong areas is a good idea.

But if there is no viable location for a new attack, I hope Ukraine doesn't feel pressured into taking a bad option.

 

[heltok]

From what I am seeing in the last few months it seems like Ukraine is making tiny territorial gains, Ukraine is destroying lots of equipment but the West is slowly starting to have more and more debate about ending military aid to Ukraine which Russia seems to be betting on happening and probably fueling. If Republicans win the election and a few right wing parties in Europe gain influence then maybe Russia will win in the long run but at a very high cost Putin is willing to let the Russian people pay.

 

[CorneliusXX]

48 artillery in one day. A new record. Ukraine must be able to make a breakthrough at some point if they keep destroying artillery this fast. How could the Russians keep up even with the logistics of replacing 50 a day.

 

[Dangerous Fish]

I'd like to think that currently knocking out artillery is more important than gaining territory and it needs to happen in that order in any case.

Army of Drones breaks record for defeating Russian artillery this week

The Army of Drones project attacked a record number of Russian artillery this week.

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[growler23]

The most recent ISW update talked about the ongoing Robotyne/Verbove battle. It appears that is intensifying and not moving now for several days,

Russian forces are conducting tactical counterattacks in the Robotyne area as part of their elastic defense against ongoing Ukrainian offensive operations in western Zaporizhia Oblast. The situation south of Robotyne is fluid as some tactically significant field fortifications have changed hands several times. Geolocated footage posted on September 30 shows Ukrainian forces striking Russian troops trying to enter a trench system about 1km southwest of Robotyne near the T0408 Robotyne—Tokmak road.[1] Footage posted on September 13 shows that Ukrainian forces had previously occupied segments of this trench and thus appear to have lost it to Russian counterattacks between September 13 and 30.[2] ISW has recoded this area from Ukraine's counteroffensive to Russian advances.

ISW also mentions something like a tunnel system connecting the trenches and other firing positions.
It appears to me that both sides realize that if Ukraine expands this salient wide enough to bring up some of their more valuable long range weapons (air and land targeting weapons) - that is, out of artillery range from the sides of the salient, then they gain a big advantage in solidifying this foothold and advancing.
Is that what is going on here? Does anyone have any other good sources of the detail of this fighting? I've given up on Daily Kos - used to love their detailed daily Ukraine Update article, but dodging the multiple and amazingly inaccurate and inflammatory "lock up Elon" posts turned me off to them, sadly.
I must admit I've been watching the Robotyne->Tokmak direction for what feels like weeks now, and very little progress on the field despite Ukr clearly crossing the first major defensive line. I have noted (as have many) the Russians laterally redeploying better units to hold this salient. Do we have insight in to whether those units are getting chewed up, or holding well, or ... ?
I also hope (and assume) that the artillery advantage will be paying (is paying?) big dividends on the battlefield as Ukraine expands it. IIRC they achieved artillery firing parity a few weeks ago, and are likely well beyond it now. Add in their better accuracy and surely their effectiveness is well higher?

Lots of questions above but I enjoy the opinions and data in this thread.

 

[Tiger]

Interesting take on sanctions:

A better approach might be to brain drain the living daylights out of Russia ... give them all free passes, like the "southern border"

 

[MC3OZ]

Good to see Australian innovation playing a role in helping Ukraine.

 

[heltok]

Interesting take on sanctions:

A better approach might be to brain drain the living daylights out of Russia ... give them all free passes, like the "southern border"

I was arguing for this early in the war. Virtue signalling Europe banned Russians from travelling to Europe to show that they are against Russia, instead they should have given Russians a special permanent visas for anyone will skills in military, industrial production, it, police etc. Not saying they should be allowed to work in safety critical jobs and spy, but at least be allowed do work with other jobs.

 

[wdolson]

Interesting take on sanctions:

A better approach might be to brain drain the living daylights out of Russia ... give them all free passes, like the "southern border"

I'm not surprised. The US refused to take Jewish refugees in 1939. Some of those refugees found countries that would take them, but some of those ships went back to Europe and those refugees ended up dying in the Holocaust.

It's stupid, short sighted thinking.

Some of these Russian refugees might be FSB spies. But it's a tiny minority. Allow those who want to get out to get out and get set up in the west and that will help the sanctions on Russia.

I've also always argued that POWs should be treated very well too. POWs eventually go home and if they were treated well, they will take their experiences back home. Even if the war is over, it sows seeds for peace with that country after the war. Not only was the US treatment of POWs in Iraq wrong by international law, it was incredibly stupid and fueled the insurgency.

 

[UncaNed]

From what I am seeing in the last few months it seems like Ukraine is making tiny territorial gains, Ukraine is destroying lots of equipment but the West is slowly starting to have more and more debate about ending military aid to Ukraine which Russia seems to be betting on happening and probably fueling. If Republicans win the election and a few right wing parties in Europe gain influence then maybe Russia will win in the long run but at a very high cost Putin is willing to let the Russian people pay.

I think Ukraine knows what it is doing, and the fight will be bashed out of Russia much sooner than we think from destroying lots of Russian equipment along with many Russians.
We need to do something mroe about Russia's social media takeover that lead to a destabilizing political situation in the West, Hungary, Czech, and wherever else, and that in the US we are likely to see a strong Blue Wave.

 

[madodel]

My former Congresswoman Susan Wild was asked about how funding for support of Ukraine will be handled since it was deliberately left out of the recently passed continuing resolution to fund the US government:

Ukraine funding will be taken up again as a stand-alone bill, as it was last week, and will pass. Likely next week.

 

[CitizenKane]

I was arguing for this early in the war. Virtue signalling Europe banned Russians from travelling to Europe to show that they are against Russia, instead they should have given Russians a special permanent visas for anyone will skills in military, industrial production, it, police etc. Not saying they should be allowed to work in safety critical jobs and spy, but at least be allowed do work with other jobs.

Not sure where you get your information, there is no general ban on Russians to travel to Europe. There are visa requirements but that was in place already before Russia decided to annihilate Ukraine. But many Europeans, myself included, would love to see a total ban. Russians Travelling to Europe - EU Entry Requirements for Russian Citizens - SchengenVisaInfo.com

 

[heltok]

Ok maybe banned was the wrong wording, wanting to ban more accurate:

Closing Doors: How Europe Is Restricting Russians From Traveling

www.rferl.org

On September 9, the Council of the European Union fully suspended the visa-facilitation agreement between the European Union and Russia as part of sanctions imposed due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Travel to the EU thus became more difficult and costly for Russian tourists.

Some Eastern European, Baltic, and Nordic states suggested adopting a total visa ban. Considering the current situation, they maintained, Russian tourists shouldn’t be allowed to visit Europe without any limits. But the EU at that point was too divided to agree on a complete ban.

Several countries, such as Estonia and Lithuania, decided to restrict the entry of Russian citizens at the national level. Others (Latvia and Finland, for example) said they wouldn’t accommodate Russians fleeing the military mobilization that Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on September 21. The EU finally decided to tighten visa regulations further as a response to the increasing number of Russians trying to enter the bloc.