Ukraine: Are ya winning yet.

[Toth]

Meanwhile the German defense ministry doesn't know how many working tanks we have.

[Jace, Extat]

14 minutes ago, Toth said:

Meanwhile the German defense ministry doesn't know how many working tanks we have.

Why should they? 

Work, I mean? 

I agree wholeheartedly with the giving of all superfluous arms to Ukraine as rapidly as possible. 

Tanks are not superfluous 

They are commercial-sized coffins created at industrial scale with a comical (as in "ha ha, like, why?... Oh... HEY DON'T PUT PEOPLE IN THAT THING!!!!") amount of gun+armor=scrap for MiC to turn into new "tank" 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 1/20/2023 at 10:20 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow.  Look at the numbers of Russian dead in two or three days:

 

I’d be careful touting numbers about Russia losses from expressly pro Ukrainian sources.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’d be careful touting numbers about Russia losses from expressly pro Ukrainian sources.

Throughout the conflict the Ukrainians have been basing their estimates of Russian losses from Russian sources. For a large chunk of the conflict, Russian radio transmissions were very easy intercepted and the Ukrainians built up their estimates from there. In fact, I get the impression they got rather annoyed at doing the numbers, Western sources going, "well, that's just nonsensical wishful thinking," and then a few weeks later the same sources basically reaching the exact same numbers the Ukrainians had given in the first place.

If anything, the figures may now even be underestimates because the Russians have been attacking along the Donbas front with an insane recklessness we were not seeing before the last 2-3 months, and Russian sources do not seem to be counting the penal battalion casualties very well (or at all) and counting the conscript casualties doesn't seem to be much better.

[Maithanet]

Russian casualties have noticably increased since mobilisation.  Russia is embracing a strategy of quantity over quality that is highly questionable on a modern battlefield.

[Jace, Extat]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Russian casualties have noticably increased since mobilisation.  Russia is embracing a strategy of quantity over quality that is highly questionable on a modern battlefield.

Ain't no question about it. 

Ukraine got all the answers 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Today’s count:

 

[The Anti-Targ]

120k dead or wounded. Damn that's a lot of lives sacrificed and permanently scarred with no end to the war in sight.

UN declaring Wagner group a criminal organisation. At this point is such a declaration anything other than symbolic? Unless it gives cover to international forces to militarily engage with Wagner without leading to Russian escalation it seems pretty meaningless.

[mcbigski]

On 1/20/2023 at 7:16 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You really are drinking that Trumpanista “we love the Russian dictator” kool aid… aren’t you?

LOL.  If you think Trump was a Russian stooge, then there's literally no position you might hold we would have to wonder about because everything you 'think' is spoon fed from the Pulitzer winning NYT and Adam Schiff.  And fully vetted by the FBI.  Stop beclowning yourself.  

Putin took Crimea while Obama was POTUS, didn't do shit but get a bunch of his mercs vaporized in Syria while Trump was POTUS, and invaded the rest of Ukraine while the most popular President ever, especially on the Wednesday vote in swing states, holds the office.  Apparently either Putin is way tougher than Corn Pop, or Biden is a delusional fabulist.  Actually both, most likely.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 1/19/2023 at 9:27 PM, mcbigski said:

But the military industrial complex needs to get fed

 

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Apparently either Putin is way tougher than Corn Pop, or Biden is a delusional fabulist.  Actually both, most likely.

So is Biden too much of a war hawk in regards to the conflict or is he too timid to deter Putin?

Do you think Trump would give a more forceful response to the Russian aggression to Ukraine and think that’d be good or do you think Trump would stay out of the conflict?

The only consistency I’m seeing here from you is sleepy man bad.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

while the most popular President ever,

God I wish the deep state/Illuminati/ cabal of satan worshippers/mole people/ could actually rig elections as well as you people say they do.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, mcbigski said:

If you think Trump was a Russian stooge

Did I say that?  Did I suggest that?  No.  I think the Russians prefered Trump because he caused chaos and he is an isolationist who dislikes NATO.  I think they promoted Trump for that reason.  Whether Trump was aware or involved directly with that Russian effort has not been conclusively established.

I’m well aware of Obama’s failings regarding Russia and his failings in doing little or nothing during the first Russian invasion of Ukraine.  You still sound like you are drinking the Trumpanista Kool Aid about Russia and Ukraine.  

If you recognize that stepping back and playing Isolationist will only embolden and encourage the Russians to act as they have against Ukraine with their other neighbors why are you antagonistic toward supplying Ukraine with the arms and materiale it needs to retake the territory overrun by the Russian military?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, mcbigski said:

while the most popular President ever, especially on the Wednesday vote in swing states, holds the office.

The words you are putting in my mouth are kinda crunchy.  I have never ever claimed President Biden is “the most popular President ever.  And your belief in the horseshit “big lie” from the Trumpanistas is beneath you.

[SeanF]

My counterfactual is that President Trump would have tried to stay out of the fight, and despite brave resistance, much of Ukraine would have been conquered. 

With Russian forces approaching their frontiers, Eastern European countries would have sent troops into Ukraine, and we’d now be very close to WWIII.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

My counterfactual is that President Trump would have tried to stay out of the fight, and despite brave resistance, much of Ukraine would have been conquered. 

With Russian forces approaching their frontiers, Eastern European countries would have sent troops into Ukraine, and we’d now be very close to WWIII.  

Certainly, also he wouldve not only stayed out, he wouldve actively schemed for ways to line his pocket over the conflict.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Certainly, also he wouldve not only stayed out, he wouldve actively schemed for ways to line his pocket over the conflict.

 

Trump Hotel Crimea

Trump Kiev* International

 

*intentional as his favored outcome would'Ve seen his puppeteer come out on top.

[Makk]

13 hours ago, mcbigski said:

LOL.  If you think Trump was a Russian stooge, then there's literally no position you might hold we would have to wonder about because everything you 'think' is spoon fed from the Pulitzer winning NYT and Adam Schiff.  And fully vetted by the FBI.  Stop beclowning yourself.  

Putin took Crimea while Obama was POTUS, didn't do shit but get a bunch of his mercs vaporized in Syria while Trump was POTUS, and invaded the rest of Ukraine while the most popular President ever, especially on the Wednesday vote in swing states, holds the office.  Apparently either Putin is way tougher than Corn Pop, or Biden is a delusional fabulist.  Actually both, most likely.

Putin wasn't doing nothing while Trump was POTUS, he was waiting and preparing while western geopolitical positions were degrading. He had obviously been preparing for his full scale invasion and he may have waited a little longer if he thought Trump would continue to alienate the rest of the world, but he would still have attacked. And when he did if Trump dithered for even a few days Ukraine may not have gained the self belief that they could defend themselves. There is a reason the Kremlin strongly wanted Trump in power and it is purely for their own benefit. I think describing him as a Russia stooge is fair enough even if he isn't on the payroll. 

[Werthead]

18 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

120k dead or wounded. Damn that's a lot of lives sacrificed and permanently scarred with no end to the war in sight.

UN declaring Wagner group a criminal organisation. At this point is such a declaration anything other than symbolic? Unless it gives cover to international forces to militarily engage with Wagner without leading to Russian escalation it seems pretty meaningless.

120,000 dead. Wounded is another question altogether, since Russia doesn't seem to be prioritising care for the wounded and, unless they've been permanently maimed or crippled, the wounded are being recycled back onto the battlefield ASAP. The wounded/kill ratios we've generally come to accept as normal for the past 30-50 years in combat are completely and totally skewed to hell in this war on the Russian side (the Ukrainian side seems somewhat hewing closer to sanity). 

3 hours ago, Makk said:

Putin wasn't doing nothing while Trump was POTUS, he was waiting and preparing while western geopolitical positions were degrading. He had obviously been preparing for his full scale invasion and he may have waited a little longer if he thought Trump would continue to alienate the rest of the world, but he would still have attacked. And when he did if Trump dithered for even a few days Ukraine may not have gained the self belief that they could defend themselves. There is a reason the Kremlin strongly wanted Trump in power and it is purely for their own benefit. I think describing him as a Russia stooge is fair enough even if he isn't on the payroll. 

It looks like Putin's original plan was to invade in 2021, when he had the massive buildup along Ukraine's borders, but because COVID was still causing huge problems internally in Russia he called off the operation and delayed it a year, and used that to appear as a stratagem to get Biden to the negotiating table (and Biden's "worthy adversary" comments).

So my guess is that Putin may have held off if Trump won in 2020 to further fracture the western alliance, but when that was clearly not the case he moved to execute the invasion, perhaps banking on Biden to be timid (and he has been somewhat, just not as timid as Putin expected, and he certainly did not expect European powers, especially eastern European nations, to react with the absolute ferocity that they did).

As we've discussed previously, Putin also seemed to think he had a ticking clock as he passed 70, and was running out of time to secure his legacy, so may have invaded now whatever the cost, with the hope of getting victory photos of himself in Kyiv or whatever to show his awesomeness for future generations (and if the west proved really weak and fractured, may have pressed on to other countries). Ironically, he's instead shat that legacy up the wall.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Going back to the Leopard tanks.

Apparently this is why Scholz is dragging his feet (summary of a spiegel article).

He is afraid to be singled out as a war party by Putin/Russia. So he wants other NATO countries to commit to distribute tanks, too (France has not said it would deliver its LeClercs to Ukraine). So he wants to spread out the risk. And he also wants to show unity among the alliance, thus he is not willing to go beyond the commitments of the other states. Cue the US not delivering its Abrams Tanks.

The UK delivering old tankss is not viewed as equivalent. 

The delivery of Leopard tanks would apparently tilt the balance significantly into Ukraine's favor, as the Leo is apparently superior to Russian models (weapon range of several KM to 1.5 KM). And like I said, he is afraid of the Russians viewing it as German tanks being deployed. (check previous paragraph)

In addition the behind the scenes pressure on Germany to deliver the tanks was not as high as anticipated at the Rammstein meeting. And there are apparently a few backers, who are also not fond of tank deliveries. 

In a closed door meeting with his own party he claimed that his position is widely supported by the (German) public. As a majority is against the delivery of tanks... (which is not entirely accurate, last thing I could find was 46% in favour 43% opposed, so the public opinion is shifting towards the delivery). Anyway, that meeting must have been lively, as his critics pointed out, what's the point of red lines, if he abandons those later anyway. 

Baerbock on her part upped the pressure a bit by going a bit off script on French TV. She said, that the Ministry of the Economy (Minister Habeck (also Green party)) would be willing to sign export permissions, as to not stand in the way of other countries. However currently no country has requested a permission. Including Poland. (yes, the guys who are publicly banging on about delivering the tanks without permission if need be, have not asked for a permission). 

Poland has rumoredly taken the bait and is preparing the paper work. Remains to be seen, if they actually ask for a permission, or whether it was merely grandstanding in a run up to the election (what it now kinda looks like to me). Either way, Baerbock has played them quite well there.

This is gonna be interesting, as in Habeck can't sign off on those without consent from the SPD. Will Scholz stand in the way or not? I honestly don't know. 

In short Nothing New on the Eastern Front. (Erich Maria Remarque would probably forgive me that quip)

[Zorral]

By a US scholar of Russian literature. Half her parentage is Turkish. This may be of interest to some of the attendees on this thread.

Rereading Russian Classics in the Shadow of the Ukraine War
How to reckon with the ideology of “Anna Karenina,” “Eugene Onegin,” and other beloved books.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/30/rereading-russian-classics-in-the-shadow-of-the-ukraine-war

Quote

 

... As a student, I had often been asked whether I had Russian relatives and, if not, why I was so interested in “the Russians.” Was I perhaps studying the similarities between Peter the Great, who had Westernized Russia, and Atatürk, who had Westernized Turkey, where my relatives were from? Such questions struck me as narrow-minded. Why should I be studying whatever literature happened to have been produced by my ancestors? I was reading Russian literature from a human perspective, not a national one. I had chosen these books precisely for the universal quality expressed in titles like “Fathers and Sons,” “Crime and Punishment,” and “Dead Souls.”

Of course—I saw, in Kyiv—you couldn’t expect people in a war not to read from a national perspective. I thought back to what I knew of Dostoyevsky’s life. As a young man, he had been subjected to a mock execution for holding utopian-socialist views before being exiled to Siberia. In the eighteen-sixties, after his return, he wrote “Crime and Punishment” and “The Idiot,” contributing to the development of the psychological novel. I remembered that a later work, “A Writer’s Diary,” included some dire tirades about how Orthodox Russia was destined to unite the Slavic peoples and re-create Christ’s kingdom on earth. Looking back, I could definitely see a connection to some parts of Russian state propaganda.

But wasn’t that why we didn’t admire Dostoyevsky for his political commentary? The thing he was good at was novels. Anyone in a Dostoyevsky novel who went on an unreadable rant was bound to be contradicted, in a matter of pages, by another ranting character holding the opposite view: a technique known as dialogism, which features prominently both in Russian novels and in my own thinking. In the months following my trip, I often heard the Ukrainian critique of Dostoyevsky replaying in my mind, getting in arguments with past me, and resonating with other reservations I’d had, in recent years, about the role of Russian novels in my life.

These questions took on a sickening salience late last February, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Once I was on the lookout, it wasn’t hard to spot Russian literature in the discourse surrounding the war—particularly in Vladimir Putin’s repeated invocations of the “Russian World” (“Russkiy Mir”), a concept popularized by Kremlin-linked “philosophers” since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russian World imagines a transnational Russian civilization, one extending even beyond the “triune Russian nation” of “Great Russia” (Russia), “Little Russia” (Ukraine), and “White Russia” (Belarus); it is united by Eastern Orthodoxy, by the Russian language, by the “culture” of Alexander Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky—and, when necessary, by air strikes.

In early March, I wasn’t altogether surprised to learn that a number of Ukrainian literary groups, including pen Ukraine, had signed a petition calling for “a total boycott of books from Russia in the world!”—one that entailed not just cutting financial ties with publishers but ceasing to distribute or promote any books by Russian writers. Their rationale was similar to the one I’d encountered in 2019: “Russian propaganda is woven into many books which indeed turns them into weapons and pretexts for the war.” The boycott wasn’t totally consonant with the pen charter (“In time of war, works of art, the patrimony of humanity at large, should be left untouched by national or political passion”). pen Germany quickly put out a press release to the effect that deranged twenty-first-century politicians shouldn’t be conflated with great writers who happened to be from the same country. The header read “The enemy is Putin, not Pushkin.” ....