Russia has invaded Ukraine

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of that is included in the 80 billion in my previous link.

Which, although impressive, is not definitive.

How much of it is being underwritten with a nudge and a wink from Langley.

If America can’t commit to replacing this equipment in a timely fashion, the speed at which it’s being donated will naturally decline.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

It may well be, but you’re asking for evidence of motivation, and that is absolutely evidence of motivation. IIRC the arrangement was agreed last month and carried out this week.

I think the commitment and direction is evident.

I would like to assert now on record, for avoidance of any doubt, I am not a Russian apologist. I know how these things go. I am just giving my view on this as an interested spectator.

I’m not asking for evidence of anything. I just don’t think that the EU & US will be willing to pump in a 160 Billion per annum to finance it, indefinitely.

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

How much of it is being underwritten with a nudge and a wink from Langley.

If America can’t commit to replacing this equipment in a timely fashion, the speed at which it’s being donated will naturally decline.

Well at least 50% is US.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I would like to assert now on record, for avoidance of any doubt, I am not a Russian apologist. I know how these things go. I am just giving my view on this as an interested spectator.

I’m not asking for evidence of anything. I just don’t think that the EU & US will be willing to pump in a 160 Billion per annum to finance it, indefinitely.

Unfortunately unless you believe that Ukraine can win, and must win, in a way that can be interpreted as nothing other than a win, plus regime change in Moscow that makes you a card-carrying apologist.

I don’t make the rules.

Originally Posted by jfman

Unfortunately unless you believe that Ukraine can win, and must win, in a way that can be interpreted as nothing other than a win, plus regime change in Moscow that makes you a card-carrying apologist.

I don’t make the rules.

No, but you just made that up…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, but you just made that up…

Depends who you ask I suppose. Although I do have doubts over the existence of membership cards.

It's just quite bizarre that the discourse is such that Pierre feels the need to point it out for merely acknowledging victory could - merely could - be beyond Ukraine and somewhat dependant upon continuing support from the third parties, including the United States. Something that the good people of Afghanistan and Iraq might have a view over the usefulness of in the long run.

It's even more bizarre that here I am sticking up for Pierre.

I did laugh at an earlier post telling us that Russia portrays the West as the perpetual bogey man. It was just the other day I was listening to a Conservative MP (upon the coronation of Rishi Sunak as PM) on Sky News telling us we are paying more for energy due to "Putin's War" (as opposed to our nation outsourcing it's energy security) and how we are living under a nuclear threat!

It’s as valid a point as insinuating that anyone who thinks that supporting Ukraine in its battle not to be subsumed as one of the first steps in reinstating the Soviet/Russian hegemony must be a shill for the CIA.

But, as you say, depends who you ask…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s as valid a point as insinuating that anyone who thinks that supporting Ukraine in its battle not to be subsumed as one of the first steps in reinstating the Soviet/Russian hegemony must be a shill for the CIA.

But, as you say, depends who you ask…

On the contrary Hugh. Some of them never saw that hegemony end.

Who?

(Besides Putin)

Originally Posted by Pierre

I would like to assert now on record, for avoidance of any doubt, I am not a Russian apologist. I know how these things go. I am just giving my view on this as an interested spectator.

I’m not asking for evidence of anything. I just don’t think that the EU & US will be willing to pump in a 160 Billion per annum to finance it, indefinitely.

Fair enough, and I never took you for one. There is however a widespread assumption that Russia is a great power, fed by decades of Russian propaganda and (it now turns out) incorrect assumptions on the part of Western experts. These are the ones who had no concept of Ukraine lasting more than a week or so, last February.

The idea of the mighty Russian bear is so ingrained in the Western psyche that at every stage of this conflict there has been a tendency to assume Ukraine has done well to get as far as it has, but it’s not going to get much further. I believe your line of thinking doesn’t arise from a desire to be a Putin cheerleader, but simply because your starting point is an internalised set of assumptions about what Russia is, a starting point that all of us have shared for many years and most still do.

It’s only by reading and following this conflict very closely since February that I have become so optimistic of a complete Ukrainian triumph. Some might think I’m obviously just being selective in my reading but I really do believe it’s possible to pull back the curtain on the Russian wizard and discover their narrative is a scam of epic proportions. They are riven with corruption, tactical ineptitude and all the disadvantages of a dictatorial government that is paranoid and highly centralised.

In Ukraine right now they have a barely functional army that is resisting total collapse only by sheer weight of numbers. The mobilised men are untrained, unequipped and in many cases unarmed. They are there to give the Ukrainians something more to shoot at, thereby slowing them down. They are buying primitive drones from Iran because they’ve used most of their own high tech missiles and can’t build more because they rely on imported Western electronics, which they can’t now get hold of. The reality Russia faces right now is that in conventional terms its homeland is effectively defenceless against a suitably motivated adversary. It just doesn’t have the manpower or the equipment to stop it. It is a weakly armed, poorly led terrorist state.

Russia does have a big pile of nuclear weapons and has attempted to leverage fear of those to dissuade Nato from supporting Ukraine, but in the last week has rowed back on those threats, almost certainly due to ever-more-assertive warnings from China and India. This is where the true long term strategic damage to Russia’s interests will be felt. Russia has been a senior ally to India and saw itself as an equal partner with China. India clearly no longer worries about giving Russia a stern talking to and what of China? Russia is going to find itself a (very) junior partner in that relationship.

Originally Posted by Chris

Fair enough, and I never took you for one. There is however a widespread assumption that Russia is a great power, fed by decades of Russian propaganda and (it now turns out) incorrect assumptions on the part of Western experts. These are the ones who had no concept of Ukraine lasting more than a week or so, last February.

The idea of the mighty Russian bear is so ingrained in the Western psyche that at every stage of this conflict there has been a tendency to assume Ukraine has done well to get as far as it has, but it’s not going to get much further. I believe your line of thinking doesn’t arise from a desire to be a Putin cheerleader, but simply because your starting point is an internalised set of assumptions about what Russia is, a starting point that all of us have shared for many years and most still do.

It’s only by reading and following this conflict very closely since February that I have become so optimistic of a complete Ukrainian triumph. Some might think I’m obviously just being selective in my reading but I really do believe it’s possible to pull back the curtain on the Russian wizard and discover their narrative is a scam of epic proportions. They are riven with corruption, tactical ineptitude and all the disadvantages of a dictatorial government that is paranoid and highly centralised.

In Ukraine right now they have a barely functional army that is resisting total collapse only by sheer weight of numbers. The mobilised men are untrained, unequipped and in many cases unarmed. They are there to give the Ukrainians something more to shoot at, thereby slowing them down. They are buying primitive drones from Iran because they’ve used most of their own high tech missiles and can’t build more because they rely on imported Western electronics, which they can’t now get hold of. The reality Russia faces right now is that in conventional terms its homeland is effectively defenceless against a suitably motivated adversary. It just doesn’t have the manpower or the equipment to stop it. It is a weakly armed, poorly led terrorist state.

Russia does have a big pile of nuclear weapons and has attempted to leverage fear of those to dissuade Nato from supporting Ukraine, but in the last week has rowed back on those threats, almost certainly due to ever-more-assertive warnings from China and India. This is where the true long term strategic damage to Russia’s interests will be felt. Russia has been a senior ally to India and saw itself as an equal partner with China. India clearly no longer worries about giving Russia a stern talking to and what of China? Russia is going to find itself a (very) junior partner in that relationship.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Fair enough, and I never took you for one. There is however a widespread assumption that Russia is a great power, fed by decades of Russian propaganda and (it now turns out) incorrect assumptions on the part of Western experts. These are the ones who had no concept of Ukraine lasting more than a week or so, last February.

The idea of the mighty Russian bear is so ingrained in the Western psyche that at every stage of this conflict there has been a tendency to assume Ukraine has done well to get as far as it has, but it’s not going to get much further. I believe your line of thinking doesn’t arise from a desire to be a Putin cheerleader, but simply because your starting point is an internalised set of assumptions about what Russia is, a starting point that all of us have shared for many years and most still do.

It’s only by reading and following this conflict very closely since February that I have become so optimistic of a complete Ukrainian triumph. Some might think I’m obviously just being selective in my reading but I really do believe it’s possible to pull back the curtain on the Russian wizard and discover their narrative is a scam of epic proportions. They are riven with corruption, tactical ineptitude and all the disadvantages of a dictatorial government that is paranoid and highly centralised.

In Ukraine right now they have a barely functional army that is resisting total collapse only by sheer weight of numbers. The mobilised men are untrained, unequipped and in many cases unarmed. They are there to give the Ukrainians something more to shoot at, thereby slowing them down. They are buying primitive drones from Iran because they’ve used most of their own high tech missiles and can’t build more because they rely on imported Western electronics, which they can’t now get hold of. The reality Russia faces right now is that in conventional terms its homeland is effectively defenceless against a suitably motivated adversary. It just doesn’t have the manpower or the equipment to stop it. It is a weakly armed, poorly led terrorist state.

Russia does have a big pile of nuclear weapons and has attempted to leverage fear of those to dissuade Nato from supporting Ukraine, but in the last week has rowed back on those threats, almost certainly due to ever-more-assertive warnings from China and India. This is where the true long term strategic damage to Russia’s interests will be felt. Russia has been a senior ally to India and saw itself as an equal partner with China. India clearly no longer worries about giving Russia a stern talking to and what of China? Russia is going to find itself a (very) junior partner in that relationship.

Shroedinger’s Russia.

Simultaneously on its knees but ready to reap genocide throughout all of the Baltic states if even an inch of Ukrainian territory is conceded.

Pretty sure Crimea is more than inch* of Ukrainian territory…

(*actually 277,000 square km).

Your hyperbole does your argument very little favour - Putin has said he wants Russia to reclaim all its old territories, Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine as we speak, and the ex-Sov counties would not like that to happen to them, please…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure Crimea is more than inch* of Ukrainian territory…

(*actually 277,000 square km).

Your hyperbole does your argument very little favour - Putin has said he wants Russia to reclaim all its old territories, Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine as we speak, and the ex-Sov counties would not like that to happen to them, please…

I’m only rehashing the emotive terminology of others.

What Putin says and what Putin has the ability to do are two (or potentially three?) wildly different things depending on what is being proposed.

Russia is indeed committing war crimes that’s why an endless war is entirely undesirable - which was Pierre’s original point.

Originally Posted by jfman

Shroedinger’s Russia.

Simultaneously on its knees but ready to reap genocide throughout all of the Baltic states if even an inch of Ukrainian territory is conceded.

Not sure who’s suggesting Russia actually has any offensive capability against NATO at the moment. They clearly don’t, and have actually been moving units away from their western frontier to shore up operations inside Ukraine.

NATO military manoeuvres in the Baltics are about speaking the language Putin understands. His invasion was predicated on the belief that Nato is weak, indecisive and internally divided. It’s good politics to ensure he understands that even low-level mischief making would be unwise.