Russia and Ukraine

[Fireball]

How has anyone ever benefitted by stopping a murderous dictator from invading europe, amiright?

Why does this clown even try? There isn't anyone here who believes more than .01% of what he says. That's because sometimes a thing is correct. A lot of chaff, and then a kernel of ergot.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sometimes people have principled objections. Sometimes people are misinformed. Sometimes people just want to know what their take is going to be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He's the same sort who argues that war is big business in other forums, no doubt. But now the party line is a 90b euro program will not do anything good for anyone. I think he really means it won't do the Russians any good. But Rheinmetall, BAe, Dassault, Vickers, and god knows how many others will be doing fine, pumping out weapons for Ukraine. Killing Russian invaders. Europe will be more secure, too, at least from conventional attack. (the Russians will certainly ramp up their terrorist attacks against Poland, the Baltic states, Germany, and others.) I am fine with Russian invaders dying. If they wish to stop dying, they can go back to Russia. I want Europe to be secure. If that takes more dead Russian invaders, I'm fine with that, too.

Of course, I don't have Putin's hand up my ass so far he can pick my nose on the sly -- unlike Bel.

Also, I want to see sources for the claim that the weapons are useless due to the lack of ammunition. Link to those sources so I can read them myself directly. Yes, that means that I don't trust you as far as I could throw a T-72. Those sources had better not be Russian, or I'll be leading you to the woodshed.

[Paleophyte]

So you agree that we shouldn't believe what US intelligence agencies say. That's good.

Don't listen to the intelligence agencies, listen to my ill-informed and obviously biased opinion. Because if we know anything from history, it's that appeasement works!

[Ivan Denisovich]

After 15 hours of talks in Brussels, the EU summit broke up with a deal on a €90 billion loan to Ukraine.

The cash will be raised through joint borrowing between 24 of the EU’s 27 countries, but it needed all of them to agree to the plan because it’s guaranteed by the central EU long-term budget.

It's worse option than original plan of using frozen russian assets I think but that still is a positive outcome.

I'm curious as to how you predict this playing out. In the long run, it seems as though a positive outcome is far from guaranteed. 

History indicates that a large portion of the 90 billion will be skimmed off by corruption. But let's assume that this time a significant portion of the money will go to the war effort. How much time does this buy? 

War is expensive, so what is the predicted timeline? Does this money keep Ukraine fighting until the end of 2026? During that time, will there be a possibility of reversing the losses that have happened so far? Surely they're not fantasizing about pushing the Russians back to the pre-war borders. 

Then there's also a question of whether this is enough. Trump is now expecting the European countries to pay for Ukraine's military equipment. Does this money come on top of the 90 billion? Zelensky said in a speech recently that some of the weapons systems he was given are now useless due to a lack of ammunition, and he wants more. So that's expensive too.

And of course there's the issue of whether Europe can really afford this. (Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic declined to participate in the plan, so their economies are less vulnerable.) Remember that the US has told European countries that they're no longer allowed to buy cheap energy from Russia, and this is having a significant effect on their economies. Industry is hurting, and the cost of living for citizens is going up. As living standards decline, and voters see their tax money being sent to a war that can't be won, the current leaders become less popular and there's an increased threat of right-wing parties gaining popularity. 

Remember that US sanctions on Russia are designed in part to benefit US oil suppliers. Europe has to buy more expensive oil from America. But America has exempted itself from this -- it does not sanction Russian exports of uranium to the US. Every year America buys millions and millions of dollars worth of uranium from Russia -- about 20 to 25% of what it needs to keep its reactors running. This money of course benefits the Russian government. So it looks pretty hypocritical that America gets its energy supplies from Russia while saying that Europe can't do the same. 

So seriously, realistically -- what benefit do we get from funding another year of war, paid for by European taxpayers in a "loan" which will certainly never be repaid?

What benefit? With each day of Ukraine continuing to bleed Upper Volta with rockets we're closer to russia collapse. It already ain't doing too well and if putler propaganda apparatus won't convince Europe leaders of abandoning Ukraine then maybe this anus mundi will implode like in 1917 or at least it will be too weak to continue both war and being nuisance to its neighbours. There however is no hope of russia ever becoming normal country. Unless Mongols will take over again I guess.

[Belacqua]

[The Valkyrie]

[Belacqua]

Tulsi Gabbard tweeted this just now:

Deep State warmongers and their Propaganda Media are again trying to undermine President Trump’s efforts to bring peace to Ukraine—and indeed Europe—by falsely claiming that the ‘U.S. intelligence community’ agrees to and supports EU/NATO viewpoint that Russia’s aim is to invade/conquer Europe (in order to gin up support for their pro-war policies). The truth is that ‘US intelligence’ assesses that Russia does not even have the capability to conquer and occupy Ukraine, what to speak of ‘invading and occupying’ Europe.

She's the Director of National Intelligence.

This points to a contradiction that we hear a lot:

1) Russia is incompetent, all of its good soldiers have been killed and they're sending unmotivated office staff to the front, their weapons are all gone and were inferior anyway, it can't do military strategy, and

2) Russia is an imminent threat to Europe.

But again, any statement from "the intelligence community" should be taken with extreme skepticism.

[Ivan Denisovich]

[Ivan Denisovich]

Tulsi Gabbard tweeted this just now:

Deep State warmongers and their Propaganda Media are again trying to undermine President Trump’s efforts to bring peace to Ukraine—and indeed Europe—by falsely claiming that the ‘U.S. intelligence community’ agrees to and supports EU/NATO viewpoint that Russia’s aim is to invade/conquer Europe (in order to gin up support for their pro-war policies). The truth is that ‘US intelligence’ assesses that Russia does not even have the capability to conquer and occupy Ukraine, what to speak of ‘invading and occupying’ Europe.

She's the Director of National Intelligence.

This points to a contradiction that we hear a lot:

1) Russia is incompetent, all of its good soldiers have been killed and they're sending unmotivated office staff to the front, their weapons are all gone and were inferior anyway, it can't do military strategy, and

2) Russia is an imminent threat to Europe.

But again, any statement from "the intelligence community" should be taken with extreme skepticism.

No matter how incompetent (and as war shows answer is really, really incompetent) putler jackboots are they still can kill civilians and damage infrastructure. There is also propaganda to consider so russia while inept in general still might be threat.