Damn what don't y'all understand about politics? I swear it's like you guys have the self control of a 3 year old. It's pretty simple. Here's how to avoid politics in 3 steps.
1) Don't mention a politician by name.
2) If you need to refer to a governmental power that is controlled by elected official then ask yourself how you would feel if someone posted the same about your preferred elected official.
3) berkeleying be nice to others.
I generally use the term "the current admin" for that reason.
Some of these aspect may certainly be very relevant to the situation, but those aspects have been SOOOOOO politicized, it can be very difficult to distinguish reasonable assessments from pure political hackery / bias.
Also, as mentioned previously, talk more about the policies and actions rather than the person if possible.
I was going to suggest this for Ukraine, but it seems like Zelensky came up with it on his own:
Zelenksky rejects Putin's ceasefire proposal for Victory Day (May 9).
Zelenksy tells Putin to accept Trump's full 30 day ceasefire. "We value lives, not parades. A real ceasefire must start immediately and last for at least 30 days - not just pause killing for a few days"
I mean, it is pretty absurd. Lets stop so we can have a party about how great we are at killing Nazi's while justifying the current war as "killing Nazi's".
Heck, Ukraine should propose a ceasefire to celebrate them running Russia out of the Kyiv area during the initial invasion!
I will be curious to see if Ukraine makes May 9th: Drone Parade to Moscow Day.
Stampie said:Damn what don't y'all understand about politics? I swear it's like you guys have the self control of a 3 year old. It's pretty simple. Here's how to avoid politics in 3 steps.
1) Don't mention a politician by name.
2) If you need to refer to a governmental power that is controlled by elected official then ask yourself how you would feel if someone posted the same about your preferred elected official.
3) berkeleying be nice to others.
Calling people 3-year olds and then telling people to be nice to each other is pretty funny.
I wanted to answer you 3 points, but I don't want to derail the discussion more than I already have.
aircooled said:I generally use the term "the current admin" for that reason.
Some of these aspect may certainly be very relevant to the situation, but those aspects have been SOOOOOO politicized, it can be very difficult to distinguish reasonable assessments from pure political hackery / bias.
Also, as mentioned previously, talk more about the policies and actions rather than the person if possible.
The reason I shared what I did, is because I think it's important to understand the motivation behind "some person who we won't name" actions. I think it's germane to the discussion.
I could be wrong, have been plenty of times before.
In reply to z31maniac :
Yeah, no, I get it. It's potentially very relevant. Unfortunately it's also a huge political trope, that most are very aware of (in general not necessarily the specifics that might be in the articles). In such cases it can be difficult to distinguish whether to post is done for info or for purposes of a "jab".
Let's just say we will all keep that in mind (as I suspect most do already). I certainly don't discourage people from reading the articles, the "seem" reasonable, but I don't know if that author has any agenda or not. Probably best not to discuss the general topic in more specifics though. Looks like they are behind a paywall anyway, so we just left with the headlines... which makes them almost impossible to evaluate.
VolvoHeretic said:And, just to change the subject, what are the arm shipments balance in Ukraine these days?
I think that's a good question. This article from CSIS* does a really nice job of breaking down the total amount of aid that has been set aside, the amount that contacts have been signed for, the amount that has been spent, etc. Bottom line is that the aid that has already been set aside will result in weapons deliveries and other types of aid for many years yet. It also discusses the question of "Can the President halt all aid from US to Ukraine."
I think it's interesting that 2024 represented a likely low point for the amount of aid delivered. Also important to keep in mind that Ukraine has to be able to make use of the aid that gets delivered...
From the article:
*According to Wikipedia, CSIS is bipartisan and rated as "centrist" by US News & World Report
aircooled said:Yeah, I don't really know numbers [snip] The below is CUMULATIVE amount...
43% looks like a big number, but the truth is that the US is only spending about 1% of it's annual budget on Ukraine. The final cost is likely to be far lower-some will be repaid via lend-lease, some portion is for equipment that would be otherwise thrown away. It's also worth noting that a large portion of that 1% acts like a stimulus on the US economy via defense contracts...maybe not a bad thing right now. And all of this ignores any possible mineral deal.
In comparison to the money we threw away in Iraq (there were no weapons of mass destruction) and Afghanistan (surprise, it's still a pretty evil theocracy), 1% to defend a young democracy and substantially weaken a geopolitical rival seems like a bargain.
In reply to z31maniac :
My spidey sense starts to tingle when I see two articles on the same topic, by the same author, six years apart, without additional supporting materials. Foreign Policy is a sound publication generally speaking, so I'm sure the articles have been reviewed, but that's not quite enough to establish credibility, just a lack of overt falsehoods (hopefully). Not saying there's nothing there, but I would want to establish that this is not a personal crusade, but rather an objective investigation.
Russia appears to be in a spasm of "we will not stop fighting" rhetoric.... which kind of makes me think they want to (opposite world):
And... this might be a motivation for the above:
Putin is Unlikely to Demobilize in the Event of a Ceasefire Because He is Afraid of His Veterans
Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a coordinated campaign in late 2022 and early 2023 to prevent the emergence of an independent veterans-based civil society in Russia, likely out of fear that veteran groups could threaten the stability of his regime upon their return from Ukraine....
...The Kremlin’s decision to launch this campaign indicates that Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating over 700,000 veterans into Russian society and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly...
The Kremlin is intensifying a campaign launched in late 2022 and early 2023 to prevent the emergence of an independent veterans-based civil society and an influx of alienated veterans in Russia likely because it perceives the demobilization of Russian veterans as a potential threat to regime stability.
The Kremlin likely fears that it will face even worse political instability than what the Soviet Union experienced after its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988-1989 because of Russia’s failure to militarize and mobilize Russian society for a protracted war.
The Kremlin is likely particularly concerned that veterans’ return could trigger a new wave of "Afghan syndrome" and the rise of new veterans groups critical of the Russian war effort or military.
The Kremlin likely observed warning signs of the emergence of new political cleavages among Russian veterans after declaring partial mobilization in September 2022.
The Kremlin faced the threat of an emerging veteran opposition movement against the Putin regime between late 2022 and mid-2023 when patrons tried to weaponize Russian servicemen and veterans to advance personal political objectives.
The Kremlin launched various immediate force centralization, censorship, and repression efforts in late 2022 through mid-2023 to eliminate the immediate threat of an emerging anti-Putin veteran civil society.
Full Article: https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/putin-unlikely-demobilize-event-ceasefire-because-he-afraid-his-veterans
In reply to aircooled :
Wow, that's a hell of a thought. "We're going to send you out and get you killed or maimed (I'm sure that with drones, those numbers are soaring) because we're afraid of you." It just amplifies what an inhuman bastard that guy is. It's got to be chilling for Ukraine also, because enemy leadership with little incentive to ceasefire.......
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to aircooled :
Wow, that's a hell of a thought. [snip]It's got to be chilling for Ukraine also, because enemy leadership with little incentive to ceasefire.......
Could it be the other way around?
Would signs of civil unrest in Russia be welcome for Ukraine, and perhaps they are doing all they can to fan the flames?
Mineral deal has been signed. Per the BBC:
First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, who signed the deal on behalf of Ukraine, has listed its provisions on social media.
Posting on X in Ukrainian, she said the deal establishes a reconstruction investment fund to help attract Western investment in Ukrainian projects in minerals, oil and gas.
She says the resources will remain the property of Ukraine, and Kyiv will choose where to do the extracting.
The partnership will be equal, on a 50/50 basis, she says, adding that the agreement includes no debt obligation to the US.
The US will play a role in helping to attract investment and technology to the projects in Ukraine.
In exchange, the US will contribute new assistance to Kyiv, including, for example, air defence systems for Ukraine.
She says the fund's income and contributions will not be taxed by either country.
Svyrydenko says the deal must still be ratified by Ukrainian lawmakers.
The agreement recognises the contributions that Ukraine has made to global security, she writes, thanking everyone who worked to broker the agreement.
In reply to 02Pilot :
At first glance it appears to be an equitable deal, hopefully it actually turns out that way. I did read a news story that quoted Medvedev, of course he spun it as being to Russia's advantage.
In reply to stuart in mn :
The key aspect is that the US becomes invested in Ukraine's continued existence and success. That alone provides inherent security, as the US now has specific reasons to ensure access to those resources, regardless of who is sitting in the White House.
Looks like that mineral deal (?) has already prompted some additional action from the US. Sometimes, when you need to drive a nail, you can't just talk it into it. You need a hammer...
Trump OKs First Cash Weapons Sale to Kyiv, Partly Lifts Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid
As peace talks slow, the Trump White House approved its first $50M arms exports to Ukraine through direct commercial sales to Kyiv.
WASHINGTON DC – On Wednesday, the Trump administration informed Congress of its intention to green-light the export of defense-related products to Ukraine through direct commercial sales (DCS) of $50 million or more, Kyiv Post has learned from diplomatic sources.
The permission – the first of its kind since Trump returned to the White House over 100 days ago – comes just weeks after the administration paused all Ukraine-related military aid for review, emphasizing a new priority: leveraging US influence to end the conflict through diplomacy rather than prolonged military support....
aircooled said:Looks like that mineral deal (?) has already prompted some additional action from the US. Sometimes, when you need to drive a nail, you can't just talk it into it. You need a hammer...
I am glad to see this. I realize it's very transactional but if it helps to curtail Puti's aggression - it's a net win.
I wonder what Erik Prince is doing...? Seems to me now that the source of income is "guaranteed" he'd be just the guy to guide the Ukrainians in what they need to buy from the US.
Interesting analysis here from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Telegraph.
The tables have turned, and Putin’s Russia is now in dire trouble
Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron have together pulled off a remarkable feat of high statecraft. They may have averted a strategic debacle of the first order in Ukraine, and with it irreparable damage to the credibility of the West.
The long-fraught US-Ukraine minerals deal signed in Washington – actually a shale gas deal – is a radically different document from Donald Trump’s original demand for $350bn (£262bn) of war debt “reparations” and the US colonial takeover of the country’s infrastructure.
The full story behind Trump’s Damascene conversion will emerge over time, but Ukrainian officials say the British and French leaders played a critical role in steering the US president away from his pro-Kremlin infatuation, as did Boris Johnson. It was this patient whispering that paved the way for the Trump-Zelensky tête-à-tête on the marble floors of St Peter’s in Rome.
More at the link....
In reply to Xceler8x :
I think the idea European foreign leaders of NATO countries convinced the current administration of greater support for Ukraine is interesting, but I have a hard time believing it. It's also possible that the current administration is paying particularly close attention to poll numbers right now, and has discovered that supporting Ukraine is pretty popular among Americans, and specifically his base:
-Here is an article in the WSJ going over recent polling of 2024 citizens who voted for the current administration, 69% say Russia is the aggressor and 60% would support continued weapons assistance under certain circumstances.
-Gallup conducted a poll of Americans on March 18th that found -53% want the US to help Ukraine reclaim territory, even if it prolongs the conflict
-Economist/YouGov poll shows 60% sympathize with Ukraine, only 3% with Russia
Or perhaps the administration has learned that when Putin sees weakness he attacks more, and when he is met with strength he backs off?
Zelenskyy has a bit of response to the Russian suggestion for a ceasefire during their military holiday. As I think I hinted, I thought this might be a good idea. It realistically is a HUGE military target, so not unreasonable to pay attention to it. I suspect Putin will be a bit nervous during his little death toy parade...
...it will be interesting to see what sad collection of vehicles they end up with. The Russia are REALLY running out of fighting vehicles. I suspect there will be a lot of WWII era hardware shown.. you know.. for historical purposes...
BLOOD RED SQUARE
Zelensky threatens Ukraine will strike Putin’s beloved May 9 Victory Day parade… despite Vlad declaring 3 day ceasefire
Threats of a Ukrainian attack on the grand military pageant could create a security nightmare for Putin
https://www.the-sun.com/news/14137954/zelensky-putin-ukraine-strike-parade/
This could also be an interesting opportunity for Ukraine to feint an attack on Moscow (which will be super extra extreme level heavily defended, likely to the detriment of other areas) and really hammer something else! Curious to see what they come up with. Ukraine seems to be very good at coming up with some rather creative things in situations like this!
Some other notes:
- Ukraine is reportably now creating fully Ukrainian produced drones (as in, they don't need any components from anywhere else). They are also now manufacturing their own fiber optic cable. This could possibly be relevant to the previous post(!)
- Ukraine just hit a bunch of air defense targets (radars and such) in Crimea.
- and, might be related to above (!). Once striped, they might also be useful as decoys.
The US is finally giving Ukraine F-16s, but they don't fly and are just for spare parts
The US is taking retired, non-operational F-16s and sending them to Ukraine so they can be used for spare parts, an Air Force spokesperson confirmed on Thursday.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-finally-giving-ukraine-f-200609628.html
Ukraine striking the Victory Day parade in Moscow would be incredibly stupid. Not only would it sacrifice any moral high ground they occupy at the moment (this is a fleeting thing), but it would play into Putin's narrative and, if anything, increase support in Russia for Putin's causes. There's zero chance of any decisive result from such a strike. Far better to strike targets away from Moscow during the parade, or better still, wait until the minute the three day cease-fire Putin declared is over, then blast a bunch of infrastructure targets.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Of course, the critical point here is not that Ukraine will attack the parade, but that the Russians think there is even a slight chance they might.
I am pretty certain, any attacks Ukraine does during the proposed cease fire time will be used by the Russians as evidence of Ukraine's treachery, regardless of the fact they never agreed to it or if the Russians even bother to follow it.
You'll need to log in to post.
