Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If the funds are already appropriated not a major impact. Also, the economic aid we provide Ukraine is minimal right now in what they are getting/need from us. We do not have any major rebuild projects going on. There are some USAID WASH teams in place and stuff like that, but not a huge mission, fewer contractors.

One area of impact though, is any funds we give other groups that then use it for Ukraine. UN for instance.

I did not post it here since it is not straight Ukraine focused and there is enough political discussion going on other threads.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

If the funds are already appropriated not a major impact. Also, the economic aid we provide Ukraine is minimal right now in what they are getting/need from us. We do not have any major rebuild projects going on. There are some USAID WASH teams in place and stuff like that, but not a huge mission, fewer contractors.

One area of impact though, is any funds we give other groups that then use it for Ukraine. UN for instance.

I did not post it here since it is not straight Ukraine focused and there is enough political discussion going on other threads.

No figure is given for 2024, but the article says we gave them $17B in economic aid in 2023. I don't know how much we were scheduled to give them, but I do know they're not getting any more for now. The article I posted is Ukraine-focused and isn't really a discussion of any sort.

Simply a news announcement and a guess by the author at its impact on Ukraine. In my estimation, it's relevant to the thread topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

If the funds are already appropriated not a major impact. Also, the economic aid we provide Ukraine is minimal right now in what they are getting/need from us. We do not have any major rebuild projects going on. There are some USAID WASH teams in place and stuff like that, but not a huge mission, fewer contractors.

One area of impact though, is any funds we give other groups that then use it for Ukraine. UN for instance.

I did not post it here since it is not straight Ukraine focused and there is enough political discussion going on other threads.

No figure is given for 2024, but the article says we gave them $17B in economic aid in 2023. I don't know how much we were scheduled to give them, but I do know they're not getting any more for now. The article I posted is Ukraine-focused and isn't really a discussion of any sort.

Simply a news announcement and a guess by the author at its impact on Ukraine. In my estimation, it's relevant to the thread topic.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bolverk said:

No figure is given for 2024, but the article says we gave them $17B in economic aid in 2023. I don't know how much we were scheduled to give them, but I do know they're not getting any more for now. The article I posted is Ukraine-focused and isn't really a discussion of any sort.

Simply a news announcement and a guess by the author at its impact on Ukraine. In my estimation, it's relevant to the thread topic.

OK mom. Jeez, always a stickler.

$17B, that ain't direct checks kicked over to their ministries. I would love to see a break down in USG Allocation of that. That also ain't shit in what they will need to rebuild, or especially to make sure they don't collapse.

Damn trying hard to not make a CR level joke here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

If the funds are already appropriated not a major impact. Also, the economic aid we provide Ukraine is minimal right now in what they are getting/need from us. We do not have any major rebuild projects going on. There are some USAID WASH teams in place and stuff like that, but not a huge mission, fewer contractors.

One area of impact though, is any funds we give other groups that then use it for Ukraine. UN for instance.

I did not post it here since it is not straight Ukraine focused and there is enough political discussion going on other threads.

I hope you're right, but it's been a called shot by the president that he wants to take the power of the purse away from congress, which would allow him to de-appropriate funds at will.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-impoundment-appropriations-congress-budget

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I hope you're right, but it's been a called shot by the president that he wants to take the power of the purse away from congress, which would allow him to de-appropriate funds at will.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-impoundment-appropriations-congress-budget

Of course he does.  Like his boy Putin, he wants all the power.  Economic, political, everything.  This is clear for the world to see. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

If the funds are already appropriated not a major impact. Also, the economic aid we provide Ukraine is minimal right now in what they are getting/need from us. We do not have any major rebuild projects going on. There are some USAID WASH teams in place and stuff like that, but not a huge mission, fewer contractors.

One area of impact though, is any funds we give other groups that then use it for Ukraine. UN for instance.

I did not post it here since it is not straight Ukraine focused and there is enough political discussion going on other threads.

Until they figure out that the money is staying in the US with US companies then they start taking a taste.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like Trump has begun the stick part of the carrot and the stick public negotiations to end the war. Interestingly, what many of us alluded to was true; the US never went all out economically and politically against Russia. This is one of those aspects that a change in regime means it is acceptable to wholesale change approaches.

Now look for the carrot...

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

It looks like Trump has begun the stick part of the carrot and the stick public negotiations to end the war. Interestingly, what many of us alluded to was true; the US never went all out economically and politically against Russia. This is one of those aspects that a change in regime means it is acceptable to wholesale change approaches.

Now look for the carrot...

 

 

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2025 at 3:49 PM, bolverk said:

 

18 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

It looks like Trump has begun the stick part of the carrot and the stick public negotiations to end the war. Interestingly, what many of us alluded to was true; the US never went all out economically and politically against Russia. This is one of those aspects that a change in regime means it is acceptable to wholesale change approaches.

Now look for the carrot...

 

 

 It does not include Ukraine and Israel aid 

 https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-foreign-aid-freeze-war-in-ukraine-weapons/

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

It looks like Trump has begun the stick part of the carrot and the stick public negotiations to end the war. Interestingly, what many of us alluded to was true; the US never went all out economically and politically against Russia. This is one of those aspects that a change in regime means it is acceptable to wholesale change approaches.

Now look for the carrot...

yes I think so

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1882100043395776884

I think the best case scenario here might be that Trump honestly wants to stop the war on his terms, not Putin's. So he'll use sanctions, tariffs, and increasing aid to Ukraine to get Putin to the negotiating table. Best case for Ukraine might be that Putin proves so intractable that Trump just goes all in on Ukraine winning, worse case might be that Putin agrees to negotiate and Trump doesn't really care about the terms with regards to Ukraine and a weak peace is made with Russia looking to re-arm and re-invade in 4 years or so. Reality will probably be somewhere in the middle.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Viper said:

yes I think so

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1882100043395776884

I think the best case scenario here might be that Trump honestly wants to stop the war on his terms, not Putin's. So he'll use sanctions, tariffs, and increasing aid to Ukraine to get Putin to the negotiating table. Best case for Ukraine might be that Putin proves so intractable that Trump just goes all in on Ukraine winning, worse case might be that Putin agrees to negotiate and Trump doesn't really care about the terms with regards to Ukraine and a weak peace is made with Russia looking to re-arm and re-invade in 4 years or so. Reality will probably be somewhere in the middle.

It is obvious Trump wants the war over and by tapping Kellog to be his envoy it implies that the direction they are going to go is similar to what Kellog and Fleitz proposed in June. That was a full stop everywhere and an eventual rollback to 2022 borders and delaying Ukrainian NATO membership for 10 years or so to allow Russia time to plan for these new eventualities and then some type of carrot for both Russia and the Ukraine as far as rebuilding goes. If Russia doesn't agree, the idea was full-on crippling sanctions of Russia and anyone doing any form of trade with Russia (so no oil caps for the sale of Russia oil to India, straight embargo, no 3rd party sales of anything to Russia, no electronic access to anything from the rest of the world) and the gloves come off militarily in how we provide aid. The problem now is since June when the plan was developed Ukraine is in a worse position and much of that can be attributed to a failure by the prior administration to let them fight the war the way it needed to be fought.

Looking back in retrospect, I think it is fairly obvious that the prior administration (and to some extent the EU) was more interested in winning the PR war than the Ukraine war. The assumption was winning the PR war would mean the real war would follow in line.

I will use the delivery of the F15s as an example. We spent a huge amount of time and money dedicated to training, equipping, and maintaining these systems, but all they are being used for is drone and cruise missile interdiction. No hardcore attacks with air-ground systems to wipe out the Kerch bridge. No systematic destruction over Crimea via the Black Sea. We provided Ukraine with a super expensive toy that should be an extreme force multiplier. Still, due to a variety of reasons, it is a net waste of capital and time if compared with more conventional weapons systems of the same value.

How many decisions mirror this? I applaud the initial idea of sending Abrams, but it is painfully obvious the Bradley is much better suited for this war and yet we still have approximately 1500 still in storage. From a MRO standpoint, why not admit the Abrams are not what is needed and swap them out 2 for 1 with Bradleys? Simplify the MRO side and provide Ukraine what they can use more effectively.  The red lines with the ATCAMS, the limiting of weapon systems uses and variants.

It is sad to say that I have much greater hope that there will be a "positive" result with Trump than I am with Biden. It won't be what I want, but I don't think the 2 or 4 more years of a slow grinding war is something I can stomach either.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Have I ever mentioned how much I fucking HATE the current "here, look at this fucking long-form video" to get information?  I'm a fast reader.  What you say in 10 minutes, I can read in 30-60 seconds.  Shut the fuck up, people.  If you have something to say, write it down.

 

ADD acknowledged. You know you can speed up the video 2x right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

ADD acknowledged. You know you can speed up the video 2x right?

I don't care.  Give it to me in text form.  Videos are narcissist bullshit and a terrible means of communication aimed at people who can't digest information that's not spoon-fed to them with a soothing voice or somesuch.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Before we fully rewrite history, let's remember that it was the GOP who loudly, and repeatedly criticized military aid to Ukraine.

Your future savior also publicly proclaimed that "Russia can do what they want" in the region.

Before we fully re-write history, remember what the current president's first predecessor repeatedly said about Russia and what was done 11 years ago that got the current ball rolling.  Not really a firm leg to stand on.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Have I ever mentioned how much I fucking HATE the current "here, look at this fucking long-form video" to get information?  I'm a fast reader.  What you say in 10 minutes, I can read in 30-60 seconds.  Shut the fuck up, people.  If you have something to say, write it down.

But advertisements for new diets and shit. How are you going to know how to eat this week if they don't tell you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't care.  Give it to me in text form.  Videos are narcissist bullshit and a terrible means of communication aimed at people who can't digest information that's not spoon-fed to them with a soothing voice or somesuch.

 

So all current events presented via text only? Do you have anything to add, or a point to discuss, about the content of the video? Or just yelling at clouds to get off your lawn?

 

44 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Before we fully rewrite history, let's remember that it was the GOP who loudly, and repeatedly criticized military aid to Ukraine.

Your future savior also publicly proclaimed that "Russia can do what they want" in the region.

 

39 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Wow

 

Go back to CR or Reddit, and stop shitting in this thread.

 

Edited by MagicSoccerSpray
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

So all current events presented via text only? Do you have anything to add, or a point to discuss, about the content of the video? Or just yelling at clouds to get off your lawn?

Need to show me video of a drone blowing up a target?  Show me the video.  Some things are best conveyed visually.  Still, edit the fucker.  I don't need to watch 10 minutes of the drone in flight before it hits the target.

Need to tell me how many drones were launched, the total damage done, the response by the other party, the strategic implications of same?  Write it down.

I didn't watch the video, I don't watch long-form explanation videos.  FFS, y'all bitch about how lengthy my posts can be at times, imagine if instead of that, I subjected you to a video of me prattling on saying the same amount of shit, taking 10X as long to watch as it would to read, while sporting my appropriately scholarly scraggly beard as I hiked my local greenbelt.  You'd mock and hate me, and rightfully so.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

So all current events presented via text only? Do you have anything to add, or a point to discuss, about the content of the video? Or just yelling at clouds to get off your lawn?

 

 

 

Go back to CR or Reddit, and stop shitting in this thread.

 

I did. But since you've reengaged, I'll respond.

This thread has seen a constant stream of criticism of the Biden admin. A few posts up, people are posting that Trump will be better for Ukraine than Biden. That seems to be fine with you. Only when someone pushes back on that do we hear "GO BACK TO THE CR." 

If the mods want to make this Ukraine thread the place to criticize the Dems and the CR thread the place to attack the GOP, so be it. But I've not heard that yet.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Have I ever mentioned how much I fucking HATE the current "here, look at this fucking long-form video" to get information?  I'm a fast reader.  What you say in 10 minutes, I can read in 30-60 seconds.  Shut the fuck up, people.  If you have something to say, write it down.

TLDR. Can you summarize in a gif or something’?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Fuck Russia, and fuck that evil bitch Putin.

There is no rational argument that the Russia of today is better off than it was in 2021. There is no functional argument that allows anyone to believe that the 50-year timeline is more positive for Russia in the post-2021 version of events in comparison to a plausible per-invasion timeline. 

The problem is that Putin made a move, that if was successful ie the 3 day planned rollup of Kiev, that would have placed Russia in a much better place than they were in 2021 geopolitically. But that move failed and now we are all living Putin's sunk cost fallacy as he hopes to now win his Phrryic victory for his own legacy of expansion at the cost of Russia's well-being as a whole.

This is a case of a leader being unwilling to recognize and disengage from a mistake. In many cases, he does not have a ton of positive viable off-ramps that would allow him to save face now. He caught the tiger by the tail and doesn't have a way to let go without getting mauled. All he can hope for is that the tiger starves to death before he does.

I am starting to be of the belief that Putin really has some sort of slow terminal illness and all of these ideas and agreements are looking to blunt his steady slide into madness knowing full well that after the fact they will be overridden in the chaos. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Have I ever mentioned how much I fucking HATE the current "here, look at this fucking long-form video" to get information?  I'm a fast reader.  What you say in 10 minutes, I can read in 30-60 seconds.  Shut the fuck up, people.  If you have something to say, write it down.

from gemini

The YouTube video from the channel Zeihan on Geopolitics, titled "Russia Is Failing Not Failed || Peter Zeihan," explores the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the potential outcomes, despite Russia's underwhelming military performance. The speaker, Peter Zeihan, emphasizes that the war's outcome is far from certain and outlines three primary reasons for this uncertainty.

Firstly, Russia has not exhausted its full military potential. While Russia's military performance has been surprisingly poor, they haven't yet resorted to full mobilization of their resources or transitioned to a complete war economy. This means they still have the capacity to escalate the conflict significantly. Moreover, external factors, such as increased Chinese support, could further bolster Russia's capabilities. While China currently provides some assistance, they haven't fully committed their resources, leaving room for a potential shift in the balance of power.

Secondly, the looming threat of nuclear weapons remains a critical factor. Zeihan argues that if Russia manages to advance and reach the borders of NATO countries, they might resort to nuclear threats as a bargaining chip. He paints a scenario where Russia could threaten to launch nuclear strikes on European capitals, forcing NATO members to withdraw their support for Ukraine or face devastating consequences. This highlights the potential for the conflict to escalate beyond conventional warfare and involve the existential threat of nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, Russia's declining demographic and geopolitical situation makes it potentially more dangerous. As a declining power with a shrinking population, Russia might feel it has less to lose and therefore be more willing to take drastic measures. Zeihan suggests that Russia's desperation could lead them to employ unconventional tactics or weapons, including cyber warfare, chemical weapons, or other destabilizing actions. This "nothing to lose" mentality poses a significant risk to global security and stability.

Despite these concerns, Zeihan emphasizes that every day Ukraine resists is a victory. A Russian defeat in Ukraine would severely weaken their strategic position and make them vulnerable on multiple fronts. The West's support for Ukraine is crucial in preventing a Russian victory and the potential consequences that would follow.

In conclusion, the video provides a nuanced perspective on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, highlighting the uncertainties and potential risks that lie ahead. While Russia's military performance has been underwhelming, it is crucial to recognize their remaining potential and the possibility of escalation. The video serves as a reminder of the complex geopolitical factors at play and the importance of continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

The US, UK, Russia, China and France all gave security commitments in 1994 when Ukraine gave up their Nukes but that didn't work out so well. 

If we get some sort of brokered end of the war that includes a 10-year hold on NATO membership, I would put money on Ukraine having a working nuke within 3 years. The have the technical know-how already. 

The Ukraines understand:  https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/nato-or-nukes-why-ukraines-nuclear-revival-refuses-to-die/


 

Assuming Taiwan can read the room, they've probably already fast-tracked a nuclear weapons program. You can NOT count on the US backing long term.

 

 

This is the area that actually might force Trump to be more hardlined with Russia over the negotiations to end the war. He is very concerned with nuclear war and sounds like he seems the expansion of the global nuclear arsenal as a whole negatively.

So the real question is what is the leverage of a reduced NATO timeline vs Ukrainian nuclear development? 

I have to admit this is an avenue I haven’t really thought about and probably requires more in-depth thought. I might reach out to some of the old school Eastern Europe nuclear proliferation scholars I know and see their view point on this. Funny how their area of expertise went to the way side and now is coming screaming back to the  forefront.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Viper said:

from gemini

The YouTube video from the channel Zeihan on Geopolitics, titled "Russia Is Failing Not Failed || Peter Zeihan," explores the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the potential outcomes, despite Russia's underwhelming military performance. The speaker, Peter Zeihan, emphasizes that the war's outcome is far from certain and outlines three primary reasons for this uncertainty.

Firstly, Russia has not exhausted its full military potential. While Russia's military performance has been surprisingly poor, they haven't yet resorted to full mobilization of their resources or transitioned to a complete war economy. This means they still have the capacity to escalate the conflict significantly. Moreover, external factors, such as increased Chinese support, could further bolster Russia's capabilities. While China currently provides some assistance, they haven't fully committed their resources, leaving room for a potential shift in the balance of power.

Secondly, the looming threat of nuclear weapons remains a critical factor. Zeihan argues that if Russia manages to advance and reach the borders of NATO countries, they might resort to nuclear threats as a bargaining chip. He paints a scenario where Russia could threaten to launch nuclear strikes on European capitals, forcing NATO members to withdraw their support for Ukraine or face devastating consequences. This highlights the potential for the conflict to escalate beyond conventional warfare and involve the existential threat of nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, Russia's declining demographic and geopolitical situation makes it potentially more dangerous. As a declining power with a shrinking population, Russia might feel it has less to lose and therefore be more willing to take drastic measures. Zeihan suggests that Russia's desperation could lead them to employ unconventional tactics or weapons, including cyber warfare, chemical weapons, or other destabilizing actions. This "nothing to lose" mentality poses a significant risk to global security and stability.

Despite these concerns, Zeihan emphasizes that every day Ukraine resists is a victory. A Russian defeat in Ukraine would severely weaken their strategic position and make them vulnerable on multiple fronts. The West's support for Ukraine is crucial in preventing a Russian victory and the potential consequences that would follow.

In conclusion, the video provides a nuanced perspective on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, highlighting the uncertainties and potential risks that lie ahead. While Russia's military performance has been underwhelming, it is crucial to recognize their remaining potential and the possibility of escalation. The video serves as a reminder of the complex geopolitical factors at play and the importance of continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

 

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

This is the area that actually might force Trump to be more hardlined with Russia over the negotiations to end the war. He is very concerned with nuclear war and sounds like he seems the expansion of the global nuclear arsenal as a whole negatively.

So the real question is what is the leverage of a reduced NATO timeline vs Ukrainian nuclear development? 

I have to admit this is an avenue I haven’t really thought about and probably requires more in-depth thought. I might reach out to some of the old school Eastern Europe nuclear proliferation scholars I know and see their view point on this. Funny how their area of expertise went to the way side and now is coming screaming back to the  forefront.

Man, same as with Trey#s upthread, I just don't know what evidence you have that would support tfg being more hard-lined with Russia.  Not what he's said, but what he's done.  Because the whole first term was rife with examples of him bending over to Russia.  Usually I agree with your takes, but I'm baffled by this one.  Sure, he's afraid of nuclear war, but he's a coward so all Putin has to say is "boo, nuclear war!" and this guy is going to run the other direction.  I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

This is the area that actually might force Trump to be more hardlined with Russia over the negotiations to end the war. He is very concerned with nuclear war and sounds like he seems the expansion of the global nuclear arsenal as a whole negatively.

So the real question is what is the leverage of a reduced NATO timeline vs Ukrainian nuclear development? 

I have to admit this is an avenue I haven’t really thought about and probably requires more in-depth thought. I might reach out to some of the old school Eastern Europe nuclear proliferation scholars I know and see their view point on this. Funny how their area of expertise went to the way side and now is coming screaming back to the  forefront.

🙄 

Yeah, the same guy that withdrew us from the INF treaty and then bragged about and pushed us to build more nuclear missiles is really concerned about the negative consequences of expanding the nuclear arsenal (and, to be clear, I'm not sure he was even wrong about those decisions). Can we stop making shit up please? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...