The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by The Don

There are also reports that 1.4m Ukrainians from the occupied territories have been forcibly sent to Russia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

Best case, they'll have a short life as undermenshen in Putin's Russian Empire. Worst case, they'll be sent off to death camps in Russia's East.

That's horrifying! A lot of children have been deported as well...

The sanctions can never be lifted until at least Putin is gone and Russian has made an official apology...

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

The sanctions can never be lifted until at least Putin is gone and Russian has made an official apology...

I agree, but Western leaders may start to come under more pressure as winter approaches and the need for Russian oil and gas grows as the temperature drops and stockpiles diminish.

Faced with the prospect of even higher prices and public unrest at home and a comparatively stable position in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, they may be tempted to start rolling back the sanctions - we'll see.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

again how much are you comfortable sitting back and accepting here?


https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germ...in-war/2588110



not seen that one

I wasn't telling you my opinion of what ought to be done. I was assessing what it takes for Britain or anyone to actually guard shipping convoys, and that it is highly unlikely it will be done. Sad as it is.

(And no, I am not aware such a video has been made yet)

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by The Don

Or at pretty much any time in the past.

Very worrying news coming out of Luhansk. It seems that the Russian meat grinder is doing its worst and it's merely a matter of time before the whole of Luhansk is under Russian control.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

My fear is that, if Russia were to stop there (and retain its gains in Southern Ukraine) then in time the EU and US may see that as an acceptable stalemate and start to reduce support for Ukraine and unwind sanctions (or more accurately continue to import energy from Russia).

There are also reports that 1.4m Ukrainians from the occupied territories have been forcibly sent to Russia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

Best case, they'll have a short life as undermenshen in Putin's Russian Empire. Worst case, they'll be sent off to death camps in Russia's East.

Stalemate may not be a bad thing if we use the time it buys to help build Ukraine maneuver forces with modern armor, mechanized infantry, and air defense.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I am wondering: All that wheat, before it goes on a cargo ship in Odesa harbor, got to the harbor via land transportation. (Some by river ship. perhaps). Is it impossible to transport by land to, say, Romania? Does Romania have a harbor that can deal with loads of wheat? (I know there is Transnistria in the way, so the land rout would have to take very significant detours)

Perhaps someone (Wendover Productions...) has already made a video about this.

I'd think that the volume of wheat would be considerable and the available transport infrastructure is subject to Russian attack and it's already very busy shipping military and humanitarian supplies.

Looking at a map of the Ukrainian rail network, there appears to be a line from Odessa North-North-West to Ternopil but it runs very close to Transnistria. The alternative running North-North-East is very close to Russian occupied areas.

That's not to say that it's impossible to ship to Romania, but it may be effectively impossible once the logistical challenges have been considered - not least the difference in gauges. From Wiki:

Quote:

Due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, many of the country's Black Sea ports were blocked, prompting a crisis in the export of agricultural products that were normally shipped. Railway freight has become the most viable alternative, but the Ukrainian railway network has not been able to cope with the demand, particularly because the railway gauge differences between Ukraine's Soviet-era 1520 mm gauge railways and the standard-gauge railway (1435 mm) of states west of its borders have created bottlenecks at break-of-gauge transloading stations.

Quote:

dditional challenges included the need to increase the amount of wagons, appropriate permits to let Ukrainian wagons ride in EU territory, and to increase the capacity of EU ports (such as Gdańsk, Hamburg and Rotterdam) that would have to take over the shipping role of the blocked Black Sea ports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_t...freight_crisis

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Stalemate may not be a bad thing if we use the time it buys to help build Ukraine maneuver forces with modern armor, mechanized infantry, and air defense.

I disagree.

During the stalemate millions of Ukrainians are likely to be whisked away to who-knows-where and replaced with Russians; Russian forces are able to dig in whilst at the same time laying waste to anything in range of their artillery and carrying out periodic missile strikes in the rest of Ukraine.

IMO a stalemate will quickly become a fait-accompli due to the difficulty in dislodging the Russian forces.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

what do you propose then? get an armchair and plan a charity bake sale for the up coming starving?

i don't think they would attack nato on this

Of course they would. A NATO force trying to break a blockade on a Ukraine port.
Do you think they are going to let it sail right in and run them off the sea?

What do you think will happen when a ship get sunk?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Seems to me like they're talking about a reactive tripwire, not a proactive "no fly zone". Presumably the idea is that Russian air forces would not be molested as long as they stuck to waging war on Ukraine, and left the humanitarian convoy alone.

At least, that's what I'd be talking about, if I were using those words in that context. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the Lithuanian minister must be talking about proactively shooting down any Russian plane they see, and that he must be so stupid that he doesn't understand that's what he's talking about.

Me? If he says he's not talking about a no-fly zone, then I a priori assume I'm meant to interpret his words as meaning something other than a no-fly zone.

And certainly it's possible to implement a humanitarian convoy through a war zone that doesn't automatically mean a proactive attack on any plane it sees.

Do you think they will let a NATO fleet escort a convoy of ships in to a Ukraine port?

Of course not, they would shoot at it, or just blockade it, then what? does the convoy turn round and go home or do the NATO ships force the issue?

[Captain_Swoop]

delete

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

That's horrifying! A lot of children have been deported as well...

The sanctions can never be lifted until at least Putin is gone and Russian has made an official apology...

Honestly I'd settle for the return of the transported Ukrainians. No need to stand firm on principle, when there's something concrete like human lives to bargain for. Give me back those human lives, and you can even keep Crimea, is my view.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Honestly I'd settle for the return of the transported Ukrainians. No need to stand firm on principle, when there's something concrete like human lives to bargain for. Give me back those human lives, and you can even keep Crimea, is my view.

It created a dangerous precedent for the next time Russia wants a slice of another country. Grab some land, seize a bunch of people, use them as bargaining chips, get the land, rinse and repeat.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Don

It created a dangerous precedent for the next time Russia wants a slice of another country. Grab some land, seize a bunch of people, use them as bargaining chips, get the land, rinse and repeat.

Jesus ******* Christ. No. You're weaving a bizarre fantasy. A bizarre, perverse fantasy.

First:

Just four months ago, the conventional wisdom was that Crimea was a done deal. There was no serious talk of Ukraine ever getting it back. 2014 happened, and that was pretty much that. That was that, and 1.4 million Ukrainians were still alive and well in Ukraine.

I think that a return to the status quo of February of this year - Russia has Crimea, and 1.4 million Ukrainians are back in Ukraine - would be a good thing. A far better thing than the status right now. Don't you agree? What does it profit you to gain Crimea, if you lose 1.4 million innocent souls?

Second:

There isn't going to be a next time. Russia no longer has the army for it. Its neighbors are forewarned, and increasingly forearmed. NATO* is finally doing what it should have done in 2014, to forestall this kind of behavior.

Third:

And honestly, where were your precious principles in 2014? Where were you, crying out for war, and bloody constraint, when Obama and others repudiated the Budapest memorandum? Where were you then, saying we needed to deny Putin an easy win to prevent exactly the kind of escalation by degrees he perpetrated this year?

2014 was the time to save Crimea. You wrote it off then. You've lived with that choice for seven years. But now that another 1.4 million lives are in question, suddenly Crimea is special to you, and for you 1.4 million lives is a small price to pay to get it back.

But seriously: With what army do you imagine Russia is going to carve itself its next slice of territory? What unsuspecting and unprepared victim will it choose for this act of aggression? What unresolved and flat-footed western governments will stand idly by with their mouths full of platitudes while it happens?

[Tero]

Mitch and pals have been supporting the money spent on Ukraine. But we will have the actual Nov election and the noisier part of the GOP is going to start demanding less money spent. Maybe with baby formula excuses thrown in. But that runs the risk of accusing "Democrats" rather than Biden alone, a more effective target.

Quote:

Mr Watling says continuing Western economic, as well as military, support could prove crucial. Will the public's interest in the war wane the longer it goes on - just as it did after 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and Russian-backed separatists first seized parts of the Donbas?

Western governments now also have to worry about their own domestic challenges, including rising inflation, gas and oil prices and a cost of living crisis - caused in part by the war.

When winter approaches it will be harder for armies to fight. It may also prove more difficult for the world to weather an economic storm.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61524175

[The Don]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Jesus ******* Christ. No. You're weaving a bizarre fantasy. A bizarre, perverse fantasy.

First:

Just four months ago, the conventional wisdom was that Crimea was a done deal. There was no serious talk of Ukraine ever getting it back. 2014 happened, and that was pretty much that. That was that, and 1.4 million Ukrainians were still alive and well in Ukraine.

I think that a return to the status quo of February of this year - Russia has Crimea, and 1.4 million Ukrainians are back in Ukraine - would be a good thing. A far better thing than the status right now. Don't you agree? What does it profit you to gain Crimea, if you lose 1.4 million innocent souls?

Second:

There isn't going to be a next time. Russia no longer has the army for it. Its neighbors are forewarned, and increasingly forearmed. NATO* is finally doing what it should have done in 2014, to forestall this kind of behavior.

Third:

And honestly, where were your precious principles in 2014? Where were you, crying out for war, and bloody constraint, when Obama and others repudiated the Budapest memorandum? Where were you then, saying we needed to deny Putin an easy win to prevent exactly the kind of escalation by degrees he perpetrated this year?

2014 was the time to save Crimea. You wrote it off then. You've lived with that choice for seven years. But now that another 1.4 million lives are in question, suddenly Crimea is special to you, and for you 1.4 million lives is a small price to pay to get it back.

But seriously: With what army do you imagine Russia is going to carve itself its next slice of territory? What unsuspecting and unprepared victim will it choose for this act of aggression? What unresolved and flat-footed western governments will stand idly by with their mouths full of platitudes while it happens?

Why do you think I am obsessed by Crimea ?

The "Status Quo" I was referring to was Russian occupation of Southern Ukraine (not just Crimea but the corridor from Crimea to Donbas) all of Luhansk and the bits of Donesk they currently have.

I was suggesting that Russia would use the 1.4 million Ukrainians to secure that territory in addition to Crimea and then there would be pressure on the West to removed or at least relax sanctions - because that's the sort of thing we seem to do.

[eerok]

The difference between 2014 and now is that now Ukraine is able to fight back after the intervening years of preparation. This is their call and their right to decide what's worth what. If they're willing to fight for their territory, then no one else has the right to question that IMO.

If in February Ukrainians had simply looked at their shoes and capitulated, none of this would be happening. The West would've grumbled, but Ukraine would've become a Russian vassal state.

So when discussing compromises and stalemates, all this is worth considering. The Ukrainians know that to cede territory to Russia is suicide, and that includes Crimea and the Donbas. because whether they die fighting or by compromises that merely delay the inevitable, they're still dead.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No. How long do you think a few warships are going to last in the Black Sea?
Before it is safe to run convoys of cargo ships the Russian navy and air force would have to be taken out if you don't want to see a lot of ships sunk.

What you are proposing is a full scale air and naval war with Russia.

Depends on if they let the ships go by for humanitarian reasons. Nothing forces the Russians to attack

[eerok]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Depends on if they let the ships go by for humanitarian reasons. Nothing forces the Russians to attack

Nothing forced Russia to attack Ukraine in the first place, but now that they have, they're not going to make it easier for the West by sitting back and letting them ship grain out through their blockades. That's not a rational thought.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by eerok

Nothing forced Russia to attack Ukraine in the first place, but now that they have, they're not going to make it easier for the West by sitting back and letting them ship grain out through their blockades. That's not a rational thought.

Depends on how much they are willing to expand the war. They could have just as easily not respected the blockade of Cuba in the cuban missile crisis and kicked off WWIII.

I don't think it is a given which way Putin would jump.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I disagree strongly with this argument.

At the time that Austria and the Sudetenland were conceded, Nazi Germany was at the beginning of a substantial military buildup. Their army was not yet ready to engage in open warfare. Those early concessions gave Hitler some easy wins early on, helped to validate his imperialist vision in the eyes of his generals, and bought time for him to substantially advance his rearmament program before properly going to war.

Conversely, Russia's militarization is in a downward spiral. There is no short-term economic surge to fund a rapid expansion and modernization. There is no morale boost from easy wins early on. There is no validation of Putin's imperialist vision, in the Ukrainian quagmire. He's not buying time to expand and modernize his army. He's just grinding down the rotten nub of the badly decayed Soviet war machine.

I think that, pragmatically, ceding territory to gain a cease fire only buys time for Russia's neighbors to complete their military modernization and expansion programs. Ten years, or even five, of peace will only widen the numerical, technological, and competency gap in Ukraine's favor. Making concessions to Hitler was a bad idea, because the German economy could actually take advantage the time gained. Buying time in this conflict confers no similar advantage on Russia. Quite the opposite!

To add to what Captain_Swoop wrote, this is true in the long term, but in the medium term there is a serious complication, and that is the huge amount of equipment and ammunition the Russians have in storage. They have thousands of tanks, APCs, and artillery pieces. It is true that some of it is probably in bad shape and will require extensive reconditioning, but the fact is that given a couple of years, the Russians could likely rebuild an army comparable to what they had at the start of the Ukraine war (albeit with generally older equipment), or even larger, should Putin or his successor elect to drop the maskirovka of a "special military operation" and officially declare war on Ukraine, or whatever his next target is.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Depends on how much they are willing to expand the war. They could have just as easily not respected the blockade of Cuba in the cuban missile crisis and kicked off WWIII.

I don't think it is a given which way Putin would jump.

So far, Western leaders have only had to gamble with Ukrainian lives, or at least with the lives of people living in Ukraine or those willing to go to Ukraine. Providing naval support for a Ukrainian convoy would be putting sailors in harm's way and an attack on, much less the sinking of, a Western escort ship would require an immediate response.

It's a similar conundrum that NATO faced when considering whether to attempt to implement a no-fly zone though, as Captain Swoop pointed out upthread, a no fly zone may be required in order to keep the convoy and their escorts safe.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by eerok

The difference between 2014 and now is that now Ukraine is able to fight back after the intervening years of preparation. This is their call and their right to decide what's worth what. If they're willing to fight for their territory, then no one else has the right to question that IMO.

If in February Ukrainians had simply looked at their shoes and capitulated, none of this would be happening. The West would've grumbled, but Ukraine would've become a Russian vassal state.

So when discussing compromises and stalemates, all this is worth considering. The Ukrainians know that to cede territory to Russia is suicide, and that includes Crimea and the Donbas. because whether they die fighting or by compromises that merely delay the inevitable, they're still dead.

And it looks like the Ukrainian people have come to a similar conclusion


https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/st...LF2eEY2zyMnFzQ

Quote:

Amid foreign chatter about Ukraine making a peace deal or concessions to end Russia’s war against it, this new survey by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology: 82% of Ukrainians say NO territorial concessions should be made; just 10% back some. https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=re...xpK38gaRhBsAcs

[eerok]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I don't think it is a given which way Putin would jump.

IMO it's very much a given, since holding the grain hostage antagonizes the West, "humanitarian reasons" mean nothing to him, any deal he'd be willing to make in exchange for grain would be ridiculous, and he couldn't be trusted to honor it.

So involving Putin in any way shape or form in an effort to get grain from Ukraine is not a viable plan, and just barreling ahead with NATO any forces would be raw escalation.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Don

So far, Western leaders have only had to gamble with Ukrainian lives, or at least with the lives of people living in Ukraine or those willing to go to Ukraine. Providing naval support for a Ukrainian convoy would be putting sailors in harm's way and an attack on, much less the sinking of, a Western escort ship would require an immediate response.

It's a similar conundrum that NATO faced when considering whether to attempt to implement a no-fly zone though, as Captain Swoop pointed out upthread, a no fly zone may be required in order to keep the convoy and their escorts safe.

It wouldn't be a Ukrainian convoy but a convoy to ukraine to get food for starving people. That is different in perception than unilaterally declaring air power out of use in a war zone.

Does shipping grain out of Ukraine seriously improve their ability to fight the Russians?

[eerok]

Originally Posted by jimbob

And it looks like the Ukrainian people have come to a similar conclusion

https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/st...LF2eEY2zyMnFzQ

Yes, there's no question that the country, people, and culture of Ukraine are on the line here. Russia would gleefully destroy it all, and any foothold given to Putin is one more step toward the death of Ukraine. There's no reasonable bargain to be made with Russia.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It wouldn't be a Ukrainian convoy but a convoy to ukraine to get food for starving people. That is different in perception than unilaterally declaring air power out of use in a war zone.

I suppose it depends on which gallery you're playing to.

China, India and a handful of pariah states have declared for Russia. They will consider any convoy, under any circumstances, to be an attack on Russia.

Reports seem to indicate that many countries in the developing world feel badly for Ukrainians but have a deal of residual support for Russia as a counterweight to "the Great Satan". If they need the grain, I'm not sure they care about the circumstances.

The West are already implacably opposed to Russia.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

IDoes shipping grain out of Ukraine seriously improve their ability to fight the Russians?

If they're being paid for the grain then, yes, it does.

Any non-aligned country providing convoy support for the grain convoy would add themselves to Russia/China/India's list of enemies so there might not be too many takers.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Don

I suppose it depends on which gallery you're playing to.

China, India and a handful of pariah states have declared for Russia. They will consider any convoy, under any circumstances, to be an attack on Russia.

I think that is overstating it, and if the people starving are in India would they really see getting them food to be an attack on their interests?

Quote:

Reports seem to indicate that many countries in the developing world feel badly for Ukrainians but have a deal of residual support for Russia as a counterweight to "the Great Satan". If they need the grain, I'm not sure they care about the circumstances.

And that might play well in the third world and get fewer fence sitting.

Quote:

If they're being paid for the grain then, yes, it does.

Is the extent it could buy weapons meaningful to the extent they are being given weapons for free?

Quote:

Any non-aligned country providing convoy support for the grain convoy would add themselves to Russia/China/India's list of enemies so there might not be too many takers.

Show me the aid China and India are sending to the Russians. I see China and India as being entirely self serving in this and I don't see why they are for starvation.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by The Don

I disagree.

During the stalemate millions of Ukrainians are likely to be whisked away to who-knows-where and replaced with Russians; Russian forces are able to dig in whilst at the same time laying waste to anything in range of their artillery and carrying out periodic missile strikes in the rest of Ukraine.

IMO a stalemate will quickly become a fait-accompli due to the difficulty in dislodging the Russian forces.

Don't forget: Russia will give all of those Ukrainians Russian passports. Most of the people "evacuated" from Mariupol through to Russia have already been stripped of Ukrainian passports and given Russian passports whether they wanted that or not.

Now Russia and its willing idiots will proclaim a need to protect those "Russians" now and forever. Even if they don't consider themselves to be Russian, even if they return to Ukraine, toss the Russian documents and replace the stolen Ukrainian documents. Russia will still proclaim them to be forever Russian and will forever press the need to protect them.

And they've got plenty of willing idiots (including some on the forum) who will blindly parrot that line in the false name of objectivity or in rejection of mainstream news or whatnot.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Is the extent it could buy weapons meaningful to the extent they are being given weapons for free?

Absolutely, though if the money isn't required to buy weapons, it can be used to pay, clothe and feed soldiers and their families, repair infrastructure and ensure that the agricultural sector has capital for next year.

Those latter two are very important IMO because Russia's approach seems to be to destroy the Ukrainian infrastructure and economy and then to stroll into and occupy the destroyed country.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Depends on if they let the ships go by for humanitarian reasons. Nothing forces the Russians to attack

Would you let a fleet in to a port you were blockading?
What would be the point of the blockade?

If they aren't going to stop humanitarian ships why bother with the warships?

[jimbob]

Meanwhile it looks like Russia is getting mothballed T62s ready for service

https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/sta...4MFUYlFud5v8HA

Which must come with logistical problems as the main gun is a smaller calibre.

Quote:

John Ridge
@John_A_Ridge
3/19) This report leads to a damning implication. RU has potentially nearly exhausted its immediately operable reserves of T-64s, T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s. Frankly, there is absolutely no reason to deploy a T-62 if you have access to a more modern T-64, T-72, T-80, or T-90.
2:16 AM · May 24, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Meanwhile it looks like Russia is getting mothballed T62s ready for service

https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/sta...4MFUYlFud5v8HA

Which must come with logistical problems as the main gun is a smaller calibre.

You've got it all wrong jimbob, it's simply an indication of how fantastically well the Russian Army is doing.

They're simply making things more sporting by using a tank with a smaller gun - the military equivalent of bow-hunting or attempting to catch as big a fish as possible on as light a line

[The Great Zaganza]

The logic is that a Javelin is more expensive than a T-64s

[shemp]

Old war criminal who has lived far too long says that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia.

Henry Kissinger: Ukraine must give Russia territory

Go die in a dumpster fire, you decrepit old ghoul!

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Would you let a fleet in to a port you were blockading?
What would be the point of the blockade?

Some nations might for humanitarian reasons I get that you never would though.

Quote:

If they aren't going to stop humanitarian ships why bother with the warships?

Because it is easy to stop the humanitarian ships with a warship and then still not be at war with the west. But if they open fire on warships it is a different statement. Kind of like all those pointless tripwire forces that Nato puts in countries bordering Russia. Clearly they serve no purpose either right?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by shemp

Old war criminal who has lived far too long says that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia.

Henry Kissinger: Ukraine must give Russia territory

Go die in a dumpster fire, you decrepit old ghoul!

While Ukraine is at it, could it please convict this War Criminal, too?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Some nations might for humanitarian reasons I get that you never would though.


Because it is easy to stop the humanitarian ships with a warship and then still not be at war with the west. But if they open fire on warships it is a different statement. Kind of like all those pointless tripwire forces that Nato puts in countries bordering Russia. Clearly they serve no purpose either right?

I think that tripwire is already in place and it's Russian. Are you imagining Western navies can just sail up to Sevastopol and blockade the Russian Black Sea fleet unmolested?

I gather the countries who really rely on Ukrainian (and Russian) grain exports are Middle Eastern. So I can just about imagine a country like Egypt, who have historic friendly relations with Russia, might persuade the Russians to allow safe passage for grain carriers for humanitarian reasons. Presumably the Russians would leverage as much benefit as possible for permitting it.

[shemp]

I guess gas prices are high enough now that a majority of Americans are ready to cut Ukraine loose.

Majority Of Americans Think Protecting Economy—Not Sanctioning Russia—Should Be Country’s Top Priority, Poll Finds

Quote:

More than half of Americans now believe the country’s top priority should be staving off damage to the economy rather than punishing Russia for invading Ukraine, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, as soaring costs and inflation amid the ongoing war prompt a reassessment of priorities.

A marginal majority of Americans—51%—believe the country’s top priority should be limiting damage to the U.S. economy rather than sanctioning Russia, according to the poll of 1,172 adults conducted between May 12 to May 16.

A significant minority—45%—of the adults polled think the nation’s biggest priority should be sanctioning Russia as effectively as possible for its invasion of Ukraine, even if it comes at the expense of the U.S. economy.

The figures—the reverse of April, when 51% supported the most effective sanctions and 45% supported limiting damage to the U.S. economy—underscore changing public sentiment towards sanctions as the war drags on and inflation soars.

"The price of tea has doubled!? Ah, let's just call off this revolution."

[crescent]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The logic is that a Javelin is more expensive than a T-64s

T-62s (based on T-55), not T-64s. The newest ones (production ceased in 1975) are not just older than the crews that will be operating them - they're older than most of the parents of the crews that will be operating them.

Quantity has quality all its own, Russia will just keep grinding down Ukrainian defenses. Easy for Russia to do when it takes pride it the tradition of taking casualties that would depopulate lesser nations. Those antique tanks will still take effort for the Ukrainians to destroy and will still manage to take a few Ukrainians with them.

Sadly, it works. Over the past few days Russia has stepped up its advances in Luhansk and might actually have a shot at finally encircling the Ukrainian forces there or forcing them to withdraw a large number of forces pretty far from where they are currently entrenched. This is something Russia has been claiming to have already accomplished since the first week of the war, something they have been churning out of their fiction writing workshops/news releases - but now they are actually making progress towards that goal.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Some nations might for humanitarian reasons I get that you never would though.

I'm not aware that Russia under Putin is renowned for its adherence to humanitarian causes.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oscow-diplomat

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. This might as well be Russia's official motto.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The UK has Nadine Dorries* as Culture Secretary** and Russia has this woman as its Foreign Press Secretary, who seems to know little to nothing about what she speaks of.

Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova viz a Animal Varm horror akadamivva, to make an anagram of her name.

*Widely known as an airhead
**An oxymoron