Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[tac airlifter]

12 hours ago, Banzai said:

 I would commit a lot of the Air Force, including my pink body if they’ll let me.

If you establish real air superiority you won’t need those troops. 

This is a great point, once we established air superiority against the Taliban, the Houthis, & HTS we've dominated.  That's why Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria are solid victories for the US 🇺🇸 Honorable mention to Libya, Somalia, Mali.  And the "all air power no-fly zones" from Iraq in the 90s definitely prevented a decades long ground war.

You seem like someone who spent the last 20 years fighting all over the world gaining a wealth of practical combat experience, not at all a new guy.

[LiquidSky]

Well at least some of the bobs are calling a Russian a Russian now.

"Assume that what you write will be read by malign foreign actors and tailor your response accordingly."

[LiquidSky]

Meanwhile:

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia  Russia has intensified cyber operations against Ukraine and NATO countries, according to previous U.S. intelligence and private sector reports."

Glad we have a washed up POG Major in charge. I'd rather have the ridiculousness of the red scare than this pathetic display.

[LiquidSky]

11 hours ago, Splash95 said:

This whole debate (to use the term generously) boggles my mind. While I'm sympathetic to Ukrainians' plight, and I certainly don't love, like or trust Putin, it is well past time for the killing to stop and a negotiated peace to begin. Trump and Vance are clearly of that mindset. If Zelensky wants to spurn peace dealings and keep fighting the Russians, despite the catastrophic consequences for his own country, that's his prerogative. Same if he wants to convince Europe to get involved via more funding or even ground troops. However, the perspective I find the most sensible (in brief, a combination of "lives matter" and "America first") holds that our involvement focus on trying to end this war, not pouring billions upon billions of dollars into sustaining it. Like a few others on this forum, I have a hard time understanding what actual outcome the Slava Ukraini/Fnck Russia types here envision or find possible considering the war's current state of play and the occupant of the White House.

Because some recalled the history of the past 100 years and have learned from it.

1940s appeasement directly led to the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Post-war iron curtian/Soviet appeasement led to the rise of the USSR. 

Russian Federation appeasement has led to:

1994: Chechen war

1999: Chechen war round 2

2008: Georgian Invasion

2014: Crimean & Donbas Occupation

2022: Full-scale invasion of Ukraine

 

You think Putin is going to be content with what he has attained? You think Russians will forget the humiliation of a 3 day special operation against a weaker nation turning into a 3 year stalemate? 

They'll sue for peace, re-arm over the next few years, and then roll over Ukraine when everyone in the west has stopped caring again. They didn't abide by the Budapest memorandum or any other agreement they've made since conspiring with Germany to split up Poland. Why do you think they will now? 

[tac airlifter]

25 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia  Russia has intensified cyber operations against Ukraine and NATO countries, according to previous U.S. intelligence and private sector reports."

Glad we have a washed up POG Major in charge. 

Is there any chance you’ve been misled by the MSM regarding the precise nature of SECDEF cyber order?  I personally don’t know what going on, but the MSM lies constantly and here we have someone in the know disputing your assertion.  🤷🏽‍♂️

Also curious if you can explain the “POG” characterization since the dude literally deployed as an infantry officer in combat?

Edited Monday at 05:33 PM by tac airlifter

[LiquidSky]

Considering the sheer number of agencies reporting it and that our allies are commenting on it, I'm inclined to believe it over a random rep.

Regarding POG, oops my bad. Actually confused him with our illustrious POG VP. Not to be confused with the newest Navy secretary who has 0 military or defense experience. Funny how everyone is an unqualified white male in this admin. Does that make them DEI hires? 

[dream big]

52 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

Meanwhile:

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia  Russia has intensified cyber operations against Ukraine and NATO countries, according to previous U.S. intelligence and private sector reports."

Glad we have a washed up POG Major in charge. I'd rather have the ridiculousness of the red scare than this pathetic display.

Rather have this dude than DEI Lloyd who fucked away Afghanistan, was in a coma while an active member of the NCA, no strategy on Ukraine, and wore a double Covid mask and face shield while in public. 

[Blue]

1 hour ago, LiquidSky said:

Considering the sheer number of agencies reporting it and that our allies are commenting on it, I'm inclined to believe it over a random rep.

The quoted NBC News article cites their source as "a U.S. official familiar with the matter."

All of the reporting seems to trace back to a story in The Record, which is a site that reports on cybersecurity news.  They state their sources as "three people familiar with the matter."

Maybe it's true.  But it's been very clear that most mainstream media is biased against Trump, and certainly biased against anything that shuts down the flow of money to Ukraine.  In the past, so many news stories like this were ginned up from next-to-nothing, and the benefit of hindsight showed that so many of them were false.

So, I can't summon any personal concern about a "story" from the MSM that cites the bullshit "sources familiar with the matter" and the like.

I suppose it doesn't matter though.  This story is running rampant through social media, with everyone piling on. "OMG, How can he do this!!11!!1  HE's an ElEment of PutiN!  Fuck TruMP!!1!!"

It's all just so fucking exhausting.

Edited Monday at 07:25 PM by Blue

[tac airlifter]

29 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

Considering the sheer number of agencies reporting it and that our allies are commenting on it, I'm inclined to believe it over a random rep.

Regarding POG, oops my bad. Actually confused him with our illustrious POG VP. Not to be confused with the newest Navy secretary who has 0 military or defense experience. Funny how everyone is an unqualified white male in this admin. Does that make them DEI hires? 

So from your perspective coordinated MSM reporting based on anonymous sources is more credible than a sitting member of Congress fully read into the subject matter and speaking on the record?  We disagree.

Given your use of POG as a pejorative can I assume you yourself have a combat infantry background?

your assertion that everyone is an unqualified white male in this administration is false, rendering your DEI question moot.  "Qualified" is subjective but gender/ethnicity is not:

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Rather have this dude than DEI Lloyd who fucked away Afghanistan, was in a coma while an active member of the NCA, no strategy on Ukraine, and wore a double Covid mask and face shield while in public. 

And I'd rather have an experienced active military turned civilian leader that understands leadership, diplomacy, history, and strategy and can thinks 10 steps ahead.  Sadly than man departed the previous Trump admin.

[SurelySerious]

And I'd rather have an experienced active military turned civilian leader that understands leadership, diplomacy, history, and strategy and can thinks 10 steps ahead.  Sadly than man departed the previous Trump admin.

Hopefully enjoying himself in eastern Washington.

[gearhog]

Today.

AM: 

PM: 

How far away is it now?

[BashiChuni]

Talk about overplaying your losing hand zelensky!

 

 

[LiquidSky]

Everything else aside are y'all actually ok with the executive branch taking the power of the purse from congress?

These are fund legally approved and allocated by congress whether you support the cause or not. The action of cutting them off goes against everything in the constitution regarding division of power and seperate but equal branches.

[MCO]

I don’t understand how we lecture Ukraine.

Hey, Russia invaded your land and took a third of your territory. You want to keep fighting? Sorry, we don’t like that you have the will to fight for your land. We have decided it’s not worth your people’s lives so we have also decided that we will give the Russians everything they want.

Imagine France told us in 1778 too bad, we won’t fund your war because the British are killing too many of you. Go ahead and sue for peace and just be British puppets again because we don’t like other people’s war or the idea of you dying. Your people hate it and just want to be British rather than have a war so let them.

There is a valid argument over money spent which I think is separate to supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself. I personally think it’s money well spent. Let a malign foreign actor who wants to bully those around him and affect our internal politics get stuck in a war they made against an enemy willing to fight them with little risk to us. Seems like a win/win to me, way better than other crap we’ve spent way more money on. Obviously the opinions on that are all over the place.

The die hard support of all things Trump amazes me. You can be a fan of his and support him as President without just justifying everything he does. It seems like no one has their own views anymore. Trump was a dick to Zelensky because he correctly pointed out you can’t trust Putin, which could hinder a negotiation. Trump just wants to say he made peace at any cost, repercussions to Ukraine be damned. It’s like Afghanistan, he started that shit show pull out because he “made a deal” with the Taliban that they were never going to uphold, Biden just didn’t change course. Trump doesn’t care if his deals are held up, he just wants to say he made one.
 

There are lots of things happening now in the country I like. I’m not a rabid anti Trumper. This just isn’t one of them.

[Banzai]

It’s not that hard. Many people on this forum have been exposed to literally near constant pro Russia propaganda for the past few years.

This is just the natural result of that reality.

[Splash95]

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

It’s not that hard. Many Essentially all people on this forum [and throughout the West] have been exposed to literally near constant pro Russia Ukraine propaganda for the past few years. [For a few, the propaganda didn't really add up so they were spurred to dig a little deeper.]

This is just the natural result of that reality.

FIFY

[NKAWTG]

I don't understand why there is a reflexive need in the West to fight to the last Ukrainian.  What can we do differently to coerce Russia without starting WWIII?  Ukraine is not gaining back lost territory without more manpower, regardless of how many weapons we give them to test.  You have to negotiate with Russia at some point, and Zelensky seems incapable of doing that.            

[8BC]

5 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

Everything else aside are y'all actually ok with the executive branch taking the power of the purse from congress?

These are fund legally approved and allocated by congress whether you support the cause or not. The action of cutting them off goes against everything in the constitution regarding division of power and seperate but equal branches.

I had an issue with this as well, until a little actual reading of the underlying premise. Every Department in our government falls under the Executive Branch. As the President (CEO), every one of these Departments falls under his direct authority. The Checks & Balances is Congress has the authority to fund them or not. The CEO, E for Executive or President, has the guiding control of which direction they take. Congress (Legislative Branch) only gets to decide if the Executive Branch gets funded. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:24 PM by 8BC
Typo

[VigilanteNav]

17 minutes ago, NKAWTG said:

I don't understand why there is a reflexive need in the West to fight to the last Ukrainian.  What can we do differently to coerce Russia without starting WWIII?  Ukraine is not gaining back lost territory without more manpower, regardless of how many weapons we give them to test.  You have to negotiate with Russia at some point, and Zelensky seems incapable of doing that.            

Solid analysis as always from the ISW that explains some deeper thoughts going on in Putin's nugget.  Coupled with the fact that the Russian economy has transitioned into a wartime one that needs the war (or buildup to a future war) to continue in order to sustain its growth, Putin has just as much incentive to continue the war as to stop it.  Even in a ceasefire deal, Russia will merely stop active fighting but continue to build up and regenerate the forces needed to invade again at a later date. Therefore, Zelensky wants security guarantees as part of the overall deal.  Honestly, I think Zelensky knows they've lost the land that the Russians hold right now and he knows they will lose more and more as time goes on. But, he also knows that without any real security guarantees (UK/EU boots on the ground at least), any ceasefire deal with Putin ain't worth the paper its written on (as has been proven over and over again).      

Putin is Unlikely to Demobilize in the Event of a Ceasefire Because He is Afraid of His Veterans | Institute for the Study of War

The summary:  A near-constant state of military mobilization is therefore one of the least politically risky configurations for Putin.  This dynamic will likely prompt Putin to maintain high levels of military readiness to simultaneously set conditions that would allow him to sustain a protracted or future war against Ukraine and/or prepare for a confrontation with NATO while minimizing the threat that Russian veterans may undermine his regime.  US policymakers must take these Russian incentives into account when assessing Russia’s negotiating position, and when evaluating what propositions the Kremlin is likely to reject.

 

[M2]

OK, here's a few facts to consider. 

(Note, the following numbers are from AI and are not collaborated, but appear to be correct).

First, this war doesn't come without a cost to Russia... 

According to recent estimates, since its start Russia has lost approximately 868,320 soldiers. Additionally, Russia has lost a substantial amount of military equipment, including 10,177 tanks, 21,157 armored fighting vehicles, and 370 aircraft.

As of 2024, the Russian military is one of the largest in the world, with approximately 1.32 million active personnel and another 2 million in reserve.

Do the math.

I know we've all seen Enemy At The Gates and know it's been a historical tactic of the Russians to throw bodies into the fight at any cost; but this will have an impact.

Ukraine has lost approximately 46,000 soldiers and around another 390,000 wounded.  Currently, Ukraine's military consists of approximately 900,000 active and 1.2 million reserve personnel (I suspect the latter are now all "active!").

Again, do the math.

Civilian casualties have also been substantial, with over 12,000 Ukrainian civilians killed.

As of now, Russia still controls parts of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, as well as Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.  

As of early 2025, the U.S. has committed approximately $128 billion in total aid to Ukraine, which includes around $71 billion in military assistance and the remainder being financial and humanitarian aid.

The total aid from Europe since the war started amounts to approximately $198 billion.

More math (and we all know the old saying about math in public!).

Lastly, as of January 2025, the U.S. national debt stands at over $36.2 trillion.

No math needed to know that's a very big number!

So, is the intent of the Trump Administration to put this financial burden on those who will be greater impacted on the outcome (Europe)?   Obviously.

Just to keep things in perspective, over the past five years, the US has provided Israel with approximately $19 billion in military aid, part of a larger ten-year MOU signed in 2016, which pledges $38 billion in military assistance to Israel from 2019 to 2028.

It will be interesting to see if the Trump Administration will cut that as well!

One last, here is the top ten list of the countries that received the most U.S. foreign aid in 2024, from largest to smallest...

1. Ukraine: $16.5 billion
2. Ethiopia: $2 billion
3. Jordan: $1.2 billion
4. Democratic Republic of the Congo: $982 million
5. Somalia: $1.1 billion
6. Yemen: $1.1 billion
7. Nigeria: $886.2 million
8. Afghanistan: $1.2 billion
9. South Sudan: $891.1 million
10. Syria: $894.7 million

These figures include both economic and military assistance. 

All included, it's approximately $68.2 billion in foreign aid for 2024.

Can we afford it?  Can we not?

[Blue]

19 minutes ago, M2 said:

OK, here's a few facts to consider. 

(Note, the following numbers are from AI and are not collaborated, but appear to be correct).

First, this war doesn't come without a cost to Russia... 

According to recent estimates, since its start Russia has lost approximately 868,320 soldiers. Additionally, Russia has lost a substantial amount of military equipment, including 10,177 tanks, 21,157 armored fighting vehicles, and 370 aircraft.

As of 2024, the Russian military is one of the largest in the world, with approximately 1.32 million active personnel and another 2 million in reserve.

Do the math.

I know we've all seen Enemy At The Gates and know it's been a historical tactic of the Russians to throw bodies into the fight at any cost; but this will have an impact.

Ukraine has lost approximately 46,000 soldiers and around another 390,000 wounded.  Currently, Ukraine's military consists of approximately 900,000 active and 1.2 million reserve personnel (I suspect the latter are now all "active!").

Again, do the math.

Civilian casualties have also been substantial, with over 12,000 Ukrainian civilians killed.

As of now, Russia still controls parts of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, as well as Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.  

As of early 2025, the U.S. has committed approximately $128 billion in total aid to Ukraine, which includes around $71 billion in military assistance and the remainder being financial and humanitarian aid.

The total aid from Europe since the war started amounts to approximately $198 billion.

More math (and we all know the old saying about math in public!).

Lastly, as of January 2025, the U.S. national debt stands at over $36.2 trillion.

No math needed to know that's a very big number!

So, is the intent of the Trump Administration to put this financial burden on those who will be greater impacted on the outcome (Europe)?   Obviously.

Just to keep things in perspective, over the past five years, the US has provided Israel with approximately $19 billion in military aid, part of a larger ten-year MOU signed in 2016, which pledges $38 billion in military assistance to Israel from 2019 to 2028.

It will be interesting to see if the Trump Administration will cut that as well!

One last, here is the top ten list of the countries that received the most U.S. foreign aid in 2024, from largest to smallest...

1. Ukraine: $16.5 billion
2. Ethiopia: $2 billion
3. Jordan: $1.2 billion
4. Democratic Republic of the Congo: $982 million
5. Somalia: $1.1 billion
6. Yemen: $1.1 billion
7. Nigeria: $886.2 million
8. Afghanistan: $1.2 billion
9. South Sudan: $891.1 million
10. Syria: $894.7 million

These figures include both economic and military assistance. 

All included, it's approximately $68.2 billion in foreign aid for 2024.

Can we afford it?  Can we not?

Not being snarky, but what exactly is your point?

[M2]

8 minutes ago, Blue said:

Not being snarky, but what exactly is your point?

Simply that there are many angles to this situation, yet a lot of people are emotionally polarized by it.

Life isn't simple, and things change.  What made sense three years ago may not make sense now.

And dollars and lives are how we usually determine success or failure in war.

[Blue]

All of the west has been awash in pro-Ukraine propaganda for years now.  And it worked really well.  Tons of money and supplies were sent to Ukraine over the past 3+ years, as a direct result of that propaganda campaign.

Propaganda only goes so far though.  Eventually, reality catches up.  Most know this.  Trump being elected is a direct product of this.  Zelensky doesn't seem to get it, but maybe he's starting to learn his lesson.

[DirkDiggler]

Interesting article.

 

The Russia-Ukraine War: It Takes a Land Force to Defeat a Land Force