One question from the last few months was why wasn't the EU buying arms off the US to fill the gap for Ukraine. The same should be asked here. Von der Leyen is very quick to voice her support for Israel regardless of their acts. Surely they'd be happy to give her the Patriots for a few shekels.
Notice how that vehicle is intact and is not orbiting the planet
Touching the armor betrays a subconscious admiration for the west
“Things can fall apart very quickly.” In an exclusive interview with The Economist, Emmanuel Macron issues a dark and prophetic warning to Europe
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1785957790130790404
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/02/emmanuel-macrons-urgent-message-for-europe
the Kerch bridge is very ‘close in design ‘to the Irish Bridge . Both bridges are under water but the Irish Bridge - when shown in its entirety - has a solid approach entrance at both ends as one enters the underwater bridge. The Irish. bridge only works where the water level over it is never more than circa 9 inches -re cars- but can be deeper for more higher sprung vehicles eg trucks. they are cheaper to construct than an over the water bridge
They could even pay a Ukrainian Co. for the disposal of surplus US cluster munitions that need to be destroyed. I'm sure any AFU Co. would be more than willing to oblige.
Be great for Ukraine. Anything like that would help.
There's going to be increasing pressure put on every subsequent aid package that the US tries to get through. And the ones that do get through, are inevitably going to keep getting smaller over time. And if Trump gets in, I doubt he'll be happy about sinking more and more money into some endless war. He has always been dead set against this with previous US overseas military engagements.
And where are you getting that from ? there doesn't seem to be a slow down in aid and Europe has stepped up its funding as time goes by. What's more likely to happen is European countries will do like USA, they will dump their current stock into Ukr and update their stocks. As has been pointed out, the vast majority of USA funding has been spent in the USA on the above strategy. Its a boon to their economy.
Most of the world are not sanctioning Russia. They have plenty of viable trading partners throughout the world, and crucially have lots of important resources in abundant quantities that nations desperately need. Particularly developing nations, which Russia and China are strategically aligned with in the BRICS and SCO etc. Russia will have plenty of economic potential going forward.
You're wrong their, no point in having a small number of trading partners that are out to screw you. A developing nation with little or no money thousands of miles away isn't much help. What are they going to do, redirect all the pipelines overnight ? Russia had a great thing going on with its next door neighbour, a neighbour with deep pockets. That's gone and could be gone for good.
I would fully expect Russia to help rebuild Ukrainian infrastructure, once the conflict has concluded. But only if it ends favourably for them and they are satisfied with the security situation.
Are you saying that Russia will bring Ukr up to the standard of rural Russia.. hahahahah… They say Brexit is the gift that keeps giving and now the UKr war is Russia's gift that keeps giving. Eventually Russia will see, to stop the rot they will have to pay for Ukr's rebuild, they won't want to do it, but they will have to.
The swap for Patriots could be a very viable option. Even if isn't like for like. For example Greece could send their S300s to Ukraine in return for the Patriots defence systems.
Yeah it's the thing Ukraine need, just stop the Russian advances and hold them at bay, knock the steam out of Russia and let Ukraine take a much needed breather from Russian attacks. Would those Patriot systems from Israel be allowed into US aid package or could other countries who have some patriot systems could provide their ones and then get these in return?
The U.S. wants a stalemate.
Now the Russians are using chemical weapons, even the Nazis 1.0 who they are copying didn’t go that far
I'd imagine the shrapnel storm was very much like the fate that those aboard MH17 suffered.
Agree that’s 5 million times 90ish bomblets per shell that each can be mounted on drones and delivered with precision to the nearest Russian compost heap
There is also a bunch of patriot batteries and missiles (barely used) soon returning back to US
I honestly don't know why this wasn't given in the military package. This at the moment would be 1 of the best things to be given to Ukraine all of the US cluster ammo. Stop the Russian advances, try and give Ukraine a breather at the moment. This is the perfect thing for Ukraine to do this.
A lesson in bridge design
That seems like a win win
What's also really obvious is the change in tone when one shift ends, and the new guy comes in. Our comrade was all "just asking questions" and then suddenly, in post #109369, gets much more aggressive.
Meh, it's the usual regurgitated reading from the Russian rolodex of spin. Note how he almost never responds to direct questions? If he does respond it's with more of the above. Any actual debate is frowned upon, either because they can't or if they do they know it won't follow the script, so that's verboten.
And this is at the "smarter" end of their spin. Currently that runs the same basic threads: Negotiated peace/BRICS will save us/Sanctions don't matter/There are worse than Putin waiting in the wings/Why is the West™ spending so much on war when your own people are starving?
I'm not aware of any nuclear cruise missiles
@johnnyskeleton I think the B-52 fleet still has a nuclear ALCM.
Well I'm sure the scenarios have been studied and worked out already. The Russians will have their's too, if there is a limited response they may go again and so it goes on. Remember that the first strike will have a distinct advantage as it would destroy the capacity to respond. Cruise missiles can be armed with nuclear warheads too.
I don't really understand. An all out strike would most likely involve them launching ICBMs. The B2s are all based in continental US and I'm not aware of any nuclear cruise missiles. They did have the AGM129, but I think that was a silly thing and it would be a risky system for deploying strategic nuclear weapons.
But in any event, while there is a theory that once the nuclear taboo is broken then it will inevitably lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, in reality this is unlikely. If Russia carried out a limited nuclear strike, they would be watching intently to see the reaction. If they observe that the reaction is to launch ICBMs, they will launch theirs in response. The outcome is mutually assured destruction.
If you assume that the attacker does not intend to cause an all out exchange (which is a reasonable assumption because, if they did want that, they would have launched an all out attack themselves) then it is also reasonable to assume that the defender will tailor their response to ensure that it provides sufficient deterrent for the attacker not to try it again while at the same time not being such an escalation that it does lead to an all out exchange.
So in the event that there is a nuclear attack, it is not a binary that the response will either be nothing (capitulation) or everything (all out launch), but instead there are multiple different options depending on how much escalation/deterrence is judged to be appropriate.
There's a real Brexiteer "They need us more than we need them" energy to this.
What we have seen very clearly is that there just aren't the votes or political capital in withholding aid from Ukraine that the MAGA Republicans once thought there was. Trump has given up on his opposition to same, not out of a moral principle, but because it is not worth it to him. As I argued before, the US population getting tired of Ukraine does not mean it is harder for Congress to pass financial aid bills, but it actually makes it easier. No one cares, therefore it is no longer controversial. So even in a Trump Presidency, it will be a lot easier to pass Ukrainian aid.
The massive Russian influence campaign had one chance at stopping Ukraine aid and they failed. MTG will continue on giving out about it, but no one else cares.
Most of the world may not be sanctioning Russia, but the part of the world that has lots of money and high tech goods that Russia needs are. Russia has a large amount of natural resources so its need for other trading partners with similar resources is minimal. Their need for high tech finished products is high, and right now only China will sell to them, which means that China sets the price.
China isn't strategically aligned with Russia - as every day passes, Russia becomes strategically aligned with China. That is an important distinction.
Russia was trading with BRICS and SCO countries before the war. They are continuing to do so, and perhaps using some of those countries to bypass sanctions, but this just means that they are paying a higher price.
I'm sure that Russia will rebuild occupied Ukraine to the same standard that the other Russian provinces are.
If Russia carries out a nuclear strike any target on a NATO country the only effective response would be to launch an all out nuclear response on all military facilities and missile sites in Russia. Spearheaded by stealth bombers and low altitude cruise missiles. Its nuclear submarine fleet would also be destroyed by NATO submarines.
Dzhokhar Dudayev, Chechan independence leader murdered by the Russian military. His body was killed but his words live on in streets named after him and his insight into Russia and Ukraine.
In the first scenario, where Russia uses a limited nuclear strike on a European civilian target in an attempt to deter NATO from responding, NATO is unlikely to reciprocate in kind, but instead cause significant damage to the Russian nuclear arsenal or other military assets. An attack on Russian SLBM submarines, for example, or conventional strikes on the Russian base at Engels would be the more likely response. Something that causes a substantial loss of capability to the Russians while causing minimal civilian casualties and leaving Putin in the situation of being militarily weakened for no real gain, with the next move up to him. It would also be played as a way of preventing further nuclear strikes rather than escalating matters in the media, although in reality it would be a pretty clear escalation if it results in the USA having greater nuclear strike potential.
In relation to a conventional invasion, the war in Ukraine has taught several important lessons:
The net effect of all of the above is that NATO is now in a position to meaningfully prepare effective defences which can halt any invasion within relative close proximity to the border and from there cut Russian supply lines and use strategic airpower to prevent them from making any significant progress. If NATO really were involved in Ukraine, does anyone seriously think that the Russian army would be still capable of fighting there?
It's definitely a unique angle to invasion and destruction. Russia are only murdering people and destroying cities so that they can help Ukraine rebuild. Could someone ring the propaganda show on Russian TV and suggest they start pushing this angle?
Most of the world are not sanctioning Russia. They have plenty of viable trading partners throughout the world, and crucially have lots of important resources in abundant quantities that nations desperately need.
Really? Might want to have a read of this actual news article.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russian-think-tank-warns-stagnating-industrial-output-investment-2024-04-27/
"Russia's industrial production and investments are stagnating, its exports of goods are continuing to deteriorate and profitability in most industries is declining, a think tank close to the government has said in a report.The Centre for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting issued its downbeat assessment on Saturday, also warning about a shortage of imported components and raw materials."
Is this normal civilised behaviour @[Deleted User] ?
Is Russia now a failed state?
Because it looks from the outside to have fallen off a cliff into the abyss.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
