History in the Making: Russian Invasion

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

I cannot find an online version of the story, but it seems to be an indication that the corruption that the Ukrainian government was so known for, even in Zelenkyy's party, is still well alive. This is obviously a story that the Ukrainian and Western media is no terribly motivated to print.

Is that relevant to the question of supporting Ukraine?  Sure, stealing money that was earmarked for schools is bad, but it pales in comparison to rolling tanks across the border of a sovereign nation and massacring the civilian population.

It's relevant information as to the future of the current regime and outside support of it. It does not affect the support of a sovereign nation and it's people defending their borders. People tend to get blinders on and ignore anything critical. 

bobzilla said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

I cannot find an online version of the story, but it seems to be an indication that the corruption that the Ukrainian government was so known for, even in Zelenkyy's party, is still well alive. This is obviously a story that the Ukrainian and Western media is no terribly motivated to print.

Is that relevant to the question of supporting Ukraine?  Sure, stealing money that was earmarked for schools is bad, but it pales in comparison to rolling tanks across the border of a sovereign nation and massacring the civilian population.

It's relevant information as to the future of the current regime and outside support of it. It does not affect the support of a sovereign nation and it's people defending their borders. People tend to get blinders on and ignore anything critical. 

Please show me ANY regime that isn't corrupt?

bobzilla said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

I cannot find an online version of the story, but it seems to be an indication that the corruption that the Ukrainian government was so known for, even in Zelenkyy's party, is still well alive. This is obviously a story that the Ukrainian and Western media is no terribly motivated to print.

Is that relevant to the question of supporting Ukraine?  Sure, stealing money that was earmarked for schools is bad, but it pales in comparison to rolling tanks across the border of a sovereign nation and massacring the civilian population.

It's relevant information as to the future of the current regime and outside support of it. It does not affect the support of a sovereign nation and it's people defending their borders. People tend to get blinders on and ignore anything critical. 

In theory, we (the West) should be able to use the support as leverage to lower the corruption to more Western government level.....  Especially the one where citizens have no input on who can own the land they live on.

Apparently, there was an arrest in Paris of a very corrupt Ukrainian MP just after the one posted was brought up.

 For sure, we all recognize they are far, far from perfect, but none of it has risen to the level of your neighbor invading just because.

Yes, corruption is relative, and Ukraine certainly has a bad reputation in this area. Two items of note are A - the statistics most commonly cited are the "perception" of corruption index, which is, necessarily somewhat vague. And B - there are other measures that show that Ukraine has made notable progress since 2013. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Yes, corruption is relative, and Ukraine certainly has a bad reputation in this area. Two items of note are A - the statistics most commonly cited are the "perception" of corruption index, which is, necessarily somewhat vague. And B - there are other measures that show that Ukraine has made notable progress since 2013. 

I can't remember if it was in this thread, or on another forum I used to follow that someone from Ukraine commented that low level corruption in Ukraine had dropped considerably, at least partially due to more systems being automated and computerized.  Harder to skim something off the top when you can renew a license or pay a ticket on an official website, versus dealing directly with a person.

An interesting update (in the not entirely confirmed realm) on the attack on Engles airbase.  There was some air defense activity there the other day, so another attack was assumed...  then there was a report of an SU27 being shot down near there by Russian air defense, ouch.

It does show the potential far reaching affects of such an attack though.  The Russians are now far more paranoid and accidentally shoot down their own plane.  There are also reports of Russia pulling back some of their air defense from the front line to defend their airbases, which reduces air defense on the front line, which makes it easier for the Ukrainians, who may someday get some F16's...

eastsideTim said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Yes, corruption is relative, and Ukraine certainly has a bad reputation in this area. Two items of note are A - the statistics most commonly cited are the "perception" of corruption index, which is, necessarily somewhat vague. And B - there are other measures that show that Ukraine has made notable progress since 2013. 

I can't remember if it was in this thread, or on another forum I used to follow that someone from Ukraine commented that low level corruption in Ukraine had dropped considerably, at least partially due to more systems being automated and computerized.  Harder to skim something off the top when you can renew a license or pay a ticket on an official website, versus dealing directly with a person.

I know I'd read that too, and it is one of the ways in which they are stamping out the legacy USSR faults.

Relevant updates.  Sounds like the Ukrainians, in the second topic, maybe doing a bit of miss-direction?:

Repeated Ukrainian strikes on legitimate military targets far in the Russian rear demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Russian air defenses against drones. Ukrainian forces attacked Engels Airbase with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on December 29, within three days of reports that air defense shot down a Ukrainian UAV over Engels and killed three Russian servicemen.[22] The United Kingdom Ministry of Defense (MoD) stated on December 29 that it is “increasingly clear” that Russia “is struggling to counter air threats deep inside [its territory].”[23] The United Kingdom MoD assessed that Russian air defenses probably are struggling to meet the high demand for air defense for field headquarters near the front line in Ukraine while also protecting strategic sites, such as Engels Airbase.[24] The repeated strikes on Engels Airbase will likely exacerbate milblogger critiques that Russia cannot defend its own territory from Ukrainian strikes. A prominent Russian milblogger questioned how Ukrainian UAVs and missiles cross such distances and enter Russian territory with “such impunity” and questioned the honesty of the Russian Ministry of Defense’s response.[25] The milblogger joked that an undetected pilot landing in Red Square (referencing Matias Rust’s 1987 flight from Helsinki to Moscow) would certainly generate a response longer than a single sentence from the Russian government.[26] ISW reported on similar dissatisfaction among Russian milbloggers on December 26.[27]

Ukraine's Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Chief Kyrylo Budanov stated that fighting in Ukraine is in a deadlock on December 29.[14] In an interview with BBC, Budanov stated that “the situation is just stuck” and that both Russian and Ukrainian troops lack the resources or ability to move forward.[15] Budanov stressed that Ukraine cannot defeat Russian troops "in all directions comprehensively” and reiterated that Ukraine is awaiting the supply of new and more advanced weapons systems.[16] Budanov’s statement is consistent with certain elements of ISW’s December 28 assessment, which suggested that the Russian offensive around Bakhmut may be culminating and that Russian forces in this area will likely be unable to make operationally significant gains.[17] However, ISW also noted indicators that Russian forces may be preparing for a decisive effort (likely of a defensive nature) in Luhansk Oblast, which suggests that fighting writ large in Ukraine has not necessarily reached a stalemate.[18]

How does one side make a "decisive defensive effort" unless the other side attacks first? 

In reply to bobzilla :

I think it is relevant in deciding to support Ukraine in the war effort, or at least what extent to support them. 

Yeah, you DON'T want to be caught putting those up!

BTW, the coordinates are for the GRU (military intelligence) HQ in Moscow (not exactly unknown to wester intelligence of course):

Opti said:

In reply to bobzilla :

I think it is relevant in deciding to support Ukraine in the war effort, or at least what extent to support them. 

 

America gets way more than it gives.

1. We confirm the superiority of our weapons in actual combat conditions.  

2. It intimidates countries such as North Korea and China  from attacking, knowing that they bought and learned from Russia. 
3.    Finally it isn't Americans dying and shedding blood against the Russians.  

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/an-armed-group-of-criminals-from-the-wagner-pmc-escapes-in-luhansk-region/

An armed group of criminals from the Wagner PMC escapes in Luhansk region

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/russia-significantly-reduces-the-presence-of-strategic-aviation-on-the-engels-airbase/

The December 29 image shows a significant reduction in Russian aviation activity at an airbase hundreds of kilometers from the border with Ukraine.

The published image shows 11 Russian strategic bombers, and on November 29 there were 26 of them.

From the image of the airbase we can conclude that some of these aircraft are inoperational. Observers base such conclusions on the fact that some bombers are not even cleared of snow, and there is uncleared snow around them.

frenchyd said:

Opti said:

In reply to bobzilla :

I think it is relevant in deciding to support Ukraine in the war effort, or at least what extent to support them. 

 

America gets way more than it gives.

1. We confirm the superiority of our weapons in actual combat conditions.  

2. It intimidates countries such as North Korea and China  from attacking, knowing that they bought and learned from Russia. 
3.    Finally it isn't Americans dying and shedding blood against the Russians.  

1. I cant think of a less cost effective way to test weapons. You also take some of the mystery away for our enemies.

2. The opposite could be said, it emboldens China when it comes to Taiwan. They know that if they do make a move, even thought the US will do a bunch of saber rattling, they wont actually come to defend Taiwan, just send them some aid.

3. Americans soldiers are dying and shedding blood. I went to school with one of them. I also dont see how this is a benefit because we are sending them aid. In the way you mean Americans arent dying because we send aid would also be mainly true if we didnt send aid.

So i still dont really see how the US "gets" much.

I also didnt say we had to get something, you bought that up, I only mentioned that the corruption/state of a government and its people are a valid thing to consider when talking about giving aid, or atleast the amount.

Here is a reasonable explanation as to why (at least Europe) should be supporting Ukraine:
 

In reply to aircooled :

His argument essentially boils down to its morally wrong that Russia invaded, it sets a precedent, and it makes the rest of Europe more vulnerable. I dont completely disagree with what hes saying. In fact Ive made similar arguments about Russia's growing power in Europe and its bad news for us when you look at who they are allied with, but everyone keeps telling me Russia isnt a threat, Russia has already lost the war, and Russia doesnt really have any power  even though it supplies 40% of the EUs gas (its Russian propaganda).

I think his points are pretty valid especially for someone like Poland, who may all the sudden share a border with Russia or Germany, who might just have Poland between them and Russia, but they dont apply the same to the United States. 

I also think it fair to bring up the fact that although the stakes are much higher for our western European allies, the US has paid over half of all aide to Ukraine, more than the other 39 countries combined.

And I still think the corruption/state of the government and its people are still a valid thing to consider when you are thinking about supporting a country.

In reply to Opti

One of the things you learn in a war is that all plans and procedures go out the window during the first engagement. 
  It's not like playing monopoly where rules are clearly spelled out.  
   The M16 when it was first introduced  jammed and froze up in actual combat because it was too finely made. 
  Complex weapon systems need combat time to fully develop their requirements.   Just like new cars need development.  
      China knows that the US will engage in Taiwan because we have our Navy  ships patrolling  the China sea regularly to ensure freedom of the seas.  In addition we provide weapon systems and train their people effective ways to combat
      Plus our commitment to Ukraine is further proof of our commitment. They are not part of NATO. Yet there we are.  
    As far as US solders in Ukraine?   I don't know the exact details except they are there to protect our high tech weapon systems.  But so far 100,000 US solders haven't died like  the 100,000 Ukrainians.  
 Having done two tours in combat during Vietnam I understand what is involved.  

Opti said:

In reply to aircooled :

His argument essentially boils down to its morally wrong that Russia invaded, it sets a precedent, and it makes the rest of Europe more vulnerable. I dont completely disagree with what hes saying. In fact Ive made similar arguments about Russia's growing power in Europe and its bad news for us when you look at who they are allied with, but everyone keeps telling me Russia isnt a threat, Russia has already lost the war, and Russia doesnt really have any power  even though it supplies 40% of the EUs gas (its Russian propaganda).

I think his points are pretty valid especially for someone like Poland, who may all the sudden share a border with Russia or Germany, who might just have Poland between them and Russia, but they dont apply the same to the United States. 

I also think it fair to bring up the fact that although the stakes are much higher for our western European allies, the US has paid over half of all aide to Ukraine, more than the other 39 countries combined.

And I still think the corruption/state of the government and its people are still a valid thing to consider when you are thinking about supporting a country.

 

Two brief points.

    Look at the wealth of American military compared to Eastern Europe. ( and the potential threat Russia presents them with). 
   As far as corruption, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Yes, America is corrupt too.
  

frenchyd said:

In reply to Opti

One of the things you learn in a war is that all plans and procedures go out the window during the first engagement. 
  It's not like playing monopoly where rules are clearly spelled out.  
   The M16 when it was first introduced  jammed and froze up in actual combat because it was too finely made. 
  Complex weapon systems need combat time to fully develop their requirements.   Just like new cars need development.  
      China knows that the US will engage in Taiwan because we have our Navy  ships patrolling  the China sea regularly to ensure freedom of the seas.  In addition we provide weapon systems and train their people effective ways to combat
      Plus our commitment to Ukraine is further proof of our commitment. They are not part of NATO. Yet there we are.  
    As far as US solders in Ukraine?   I don't know the exact details except they are there to protect our high tech weapon systems.  But so far 100,000 US solders haven't died like  the 100,000 Ukrainians.  
 Having done two tours in combat during Vietnam I understand what is involved.  

I understand about weapons needing combat development. I also understand pretty much everytime we go into a new combat zone the previous data we have ends up being inadequate. The weapons and systems have to be adapted to the environment and the opponent. So although I do think its useful data and testing, unless we plan on fighting Russia in Ukraine, I dont think the data is valuable enough to to justify even a fraction of the amount spent.

I think its telling China the opposite. Taiwan is also not a member of NATO. The US will talk big about support but at the end of the day its just sanctions and aid. Chinas not worried about us sending money to Taiwan to help, they are worried about having to fight our military when they invade. What we are telling them is we will do absolutely everything to avoid that.

You are correct there are officially no "combat forces" in Ukraine. There are US soldiers going over as volunteers to fight. Unfortunately it has lead to American deaths. The trade isnt 100k Ukranians or 100K US soldiers. Ukranians are fighting a war, there are going to be deaths, its war, its terrible but its the way it is. The question is why are ANY Americans being placed in harms way for a war that isnt ours, im not just talking about the volunteers, im also talking about the non combat forces over there in a support role.

Two brief points.

    Look at the wealth of American military compared to Eastern Europe. ( and the potential threat Russia presents them with). 
   As far as corruption, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Yes, America is corrupt too.
  

Let me explain my position a little better first. 

Im not a complete isolationist. I agree that Russia is our enemy geopolitical, I think they are more dangerous to America than the current consensus, and I believe there is value to the United States for Russia to minimized geopolitically.

Now onto you points. The EU has a similar sized GDP to the USA (I think the US is about a quarter bigger, which is no small difference but when compared to military spending it is) but the US spends like 6 or 7 times more on its military. Our allies get away with spending so little ( most NATO members are under the 2% spending target) because we fund and back EVERYTHING. If we keep doing this is means we are constantly going to be funding everyones defense, and its not sustainable. This is first and foremost an EU problem (im not saying its not also a US problem), why are we forced to fund such an outsized amount? You say its because our military funding, I say we already overspend on military, because our allies wont spend what they should. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. "we dont have to spend much on defense because the US will defend us, also we dont have to send as much aid to Ukraine becuase the US military spending is higher, they should do it." 

I also disagree about the America wealth, because its deficit spending. If i go buy a nice luxury car on credit with no way to pay it back, is it an indicator of wealth?

Yes the US Government is corrupt i agree 1000 percent. There is a difference in pointing it out and wanting to correct it, and just saying well we are all corrupt so lets just ignore it and enable it. Prior to the war Ukraine was largely considered one of the most corrupt governments. I think last I heard is we are potentially approaching 100 billion in aide, much of which is financial aide with little to no oversight. This isnt having some grace and admitting no ones perfect, this is enabling corruption.

Something else to consider, while we continue to send massive amounts of aid to Ukraine, has anyone mentioned a plan on how this ends? A wounded and embarassed nuclear power in the midst of a war is bad for everyone. So the war needs to end quickly, but how it ends is also very important to everyone. Stability in Russia is of the utmost concern, if the country falls into disarray and a power struggle happens, the last thing anyone wants is ambiguous ownership of 2500 nukes.

Im not completely against aid to Ukraine. I dont think we should foot the brunt of the expense, I dont think any Americans should be in Ukraine, I think financial aide should absolutely come with oversight, I think a long time ago a plan for the end of this war should have been formulated, I think Zelensky needs to be reigned in, and I think diplomatic negotiations need to be focused on.

TL:DR there should be nuance to this discussion and currently there is very little

Opti said:

I think last I heard is we are potentially approaching 100 billion in aide...

One hundred billion from a population of over 333 million. Subtract the kids who don't work and the adults who are too wealthy to pay taxes, and I'm guessing we have maybe 200 million taxpayers. 100 billion divided by 200 million is an average of $500 per person.

I got a nice raise of $3/hr beginning with my next paycheck. At an average of ~173 hrs/mo, that's $520. My raise alone for one month (two, if you want to think in terms of take-home pay) covers my entire contribution to the effort.

I'm good with that. I'm not rich, but I can cover it. And I can cover yours if it takes your financial objections out of the discussion. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Yes, corruption is relative, and Ukraine certainly has a bad reputation in this area. Two items of note are A - the statistics most commonly cited are the "perception" of corruption index, which is, necessarily somewhat vague. And B - there are other measures that show that Ukraine has made notable progress since 2013. 

Yes, they have. And also, you know, Russia is a hostile foreign power that has made it their mission to undermine if not destroy democracies for some time. Whatever corruption there is going on in Ukraine, it's still in our interest to prevent Russia from gaining power, especially in that region. 

In reply to DarkMonohue :

This may be a compelling argument if it werent for a few things.

1st. 57% of US households pay no federal income tax. If you are making under 75K there is a decent chance you pay no federal income tax. So your math may be skewed.

2nd. Its always just a couple dollars here or there. no big deal right? It eventually turns into on average 25% of your income goes to taxes. There is only so much. Eventually just a little more is too much.

3rd. If it was only 100 billion, you may have a sound argument, but we are within a year, with no plan on how it will end or an end in sight and its already 100 billion. Keep this rate up and the acceleration of the amounts and it becomes considerably more than just your raise for a month.

Again. There is some nuance to this and its not being discussed. Its just yay Ukraine. Same thing happened in the Middle East. Massive blind support, couple years later it turned into "We have spend way too much money, with no end in sight"

In reply to Zingah :

completely agree with you