Russia-Ukraine War

[Alan Phipps]

@ Chips: That could well be true, but relinquishing it in exchange for regaining some of their own territory currently occupied by an invader would be a practical and valuable solution.

[fiksal]

indeed, the question is of military strategy


don't think territory is the real issue here
it's not really for Russians and not for Ukrainians

[felter]

SO what do you get if you put a convicted rapist, and two murderers in a room?

Spoiler

Show

A potential peace treaty (apparently)

[fiksal]

ba-dams

Europe is not capable of defending Ukraine on their own. Sending troops to fight in Ukraine, would be a losing proposition. That is if European nations could even agree to it, which seems unlikely.

It tickles me to hear from you that Russia has the largest, the strongest, undefeatable and most capable army in the world. That's just with donkeys too.

I cant see how US can ever defend Alaska.

[Observe]

Vice President JD Vance warned on Thursday that the United States could send troops to Ukraine and hit Russia with further sanctions if Vladimir Putin doesn’t negotiate a peace deal in good faith.

[mr.WHO]

if Vladimir Putin doesn’t negotiate a peace deal in good faith.

Nice delulu, expecting that someone who violated Ukraine territorial integrity TWICE and violated MULTIPLE Minsk agreement is capable of negotiating in good faith.

[clakclak]

Speaking of escalating the war. Russia just attacked the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. There are pictures showing that a drone punched a hole into the outer shell that is meant to stop radiation from leaking.

Now while I do trust Russia to do something like this deliberately, I do wonder if this was actually an accident. It seems the plant was struck by a single drone. The damage, while obviously problematic, is relatively minor. Playing devils advocate here, but if one really wanted to do some damage, I assume Russia would use something more potent for such an attack.



Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjvkggdnqo.amp

[Chips]

Can't help but think Trump is going full weird because he's thinking "i'll say whatever to scare Europe, and then I can say in return for US being strong in Europe still, they have to stop with their tarrifs on US cars. They need to open up their medical, their food/farming and other markets. Quid pro quo, you want US you need to give us something, lots of things, in return to make it balance".

Otherwise, for all his bluster of being amazing at deals, it has so far sounded like his idea of a good deal is to drop his pants, bend over and hand the lube to Russia. "There's nothing I could say..." uh huh.

The war isn't costing the US anything really; their defence industries are enjoying it, the US is loading Ukraine with a century of debt to the US. The "aid" isn't free, it's on a tab...
Additionally, who's benefitting from Russia gas being turned off to Europe?

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 0necessary.

Oh look. US LNG exports benefitted greatly (though all offset by the massive price hike and then decrease in gas prices).

He knows he can bully, he knows if he's unpredictable or appears to suddenly change mind on random idea x that people can't call a bluff because he's literally likely to go "i'm petty, so have it".

[fiksal]

Vice President JD Vance warned on Thursday that the United States could send troops to Ukraine and hit Russia with further sanctions if Vladimir Putin doesn’t negotiate a peace deal in good faith.

troops? Is this Vance' direct quote?

I could check Russian TV, but I very doubt he was taken seriously after White House already saying that Ukraine doesn't get to keep its territory.

Russia is okay with that one!

Also I told them they have the undefeatable army already

[mr.WHO]

War Archive release new video:

Battle of Sumy - Animated Analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GPq_5fHXc

[Observe]

The war isn't costing the US anything really; their defence industries are enjoying it, the US is loading Ukraine with a century of debt to the US. The "aid" isn't free, it's on a tab.

The U.S. has committed over $50 billion in security assistance, alongside humanitarian and economic aid. This funding comes from U.S. taxpayers and impacts federal budget allocations.

It's true that U.S. defense contractors benefit from increased demand for weapons and equipment. In the same way that drug companies benefit from pandemics, or construction companies benefit from hurricanes. War is always good news for the military industrial complex. However, these expenses divert precious resources from domestic priorities such as healthcare, infrastructure and education.

Most U.S. aid to Ukraine has been provided as grants or direct assistance, not loans. For example, the majority of military aid is not expected to be repaid.

Bottom-line, is that US taxpayers are left holding the bag for much of the cost of this war. Overall, it is not unreasonable for the US to insist that the war ends. I'm not sure that there is a united European voice, but individual European countries need to speak up, if they want to be part of the peace process. Otherwise, America will make peace with Russia on its own and turn its attention elsewhere.

[EDIT] I just noticed this: MUNICH, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Europe won't have a seat at the table for Ukraine peace talks, Donald Trump's lead Ukraine envoy said on Saturday, after Washington sent a questionnaire to European capitals to ask what they could contribute to security guarantees for Kyiv.

[mr.WHO]

Despite all the dramatic commentary, I think this is a good news - it's a slap in face, to push Europe out of comfort zone back to action, but it's not kick between the legs.

Seems like there will be EU meeting in Paris on Monday and there is a will to not abandon Ukraine.
I guess for now, US will focus on trying to make peace, while EU will focus on Plan B in case peace will not be possible.
Not the best, but not the worst scenario.

[burger1]

Neither EU or Ukraine are in the peace talks it's just the US directly talking to Russia. Their talks aren't about making peace in Ukraine or else where. At best might get a temporary false peace. Likely a more devious alternate goal.

Nato's doing training exercises without the US. US talking about removing troops from Europe.

US nuclear staff fired then rehired. US is currently and will be further weakened and isolated.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/ ... index.html

US has given Ukraine about 74 B in aid. About 5% of the US gdp is dependant on the war in Ukraine. US unemployment rate should be notably increasing while support for social assistance programs might be be cut or decreased. People have no idea how the US economy works. It's dependant on waste. CIA ad Fbi have also been cut and all the cia staff have been offered buyouts.

US trying to get Russia back into the G7/G8.

Vance, Musk trying to get German far right elected. US is directly interfering with EU/Uk politics to favour Russia and weaken EU and other Nato allies.

US won't focus on peace they will try to screw everyone over except Russia.

US might sell advanced/sensitive weapons to India.

[clakclak]

Despite all the dramatic commentary, I think this is a good news - it's a slap in face, to push Europe out of comfort zone back to action, but it's not kick between the legs.

Seems like there will be EU meeting in Paris on Monday and there is a will to not abandon Ukraine.
I guess for now, US will focus on trying to make peace, while EU will focus on Plan B in case peace will not be possible.
Not the best, but not the worst scenario.

That might just do it. While eastern Euros are often motivated by fear of the looming russian threat and fail to understand why western Euros ignore it, there is one thing that motivates westerners more than anything else: doing things out of spite against something America did.

[Chips]

The war isn't costing the US anything really; their defence industries are enjoying it, the US is loading Ukraine with a century of debt to the US. The "aid" isn't free, it's on a tab.

The U.S. has committed over $50 billion in security assistance, alongside humanitarian and economic aid. This funding comes from U.S. taxpayers and impacts federal budget allocations.

It's true that U.S. defense contractors benefit from increased demand for weapons and equipment. In the same way that drug companies benefit from pandemics, or construction companies benefit from hurricanes. War is always good news for the military industrial complex. However, these expenses divert precious resources from domestic priorities such as healthcare, infrastructure and education.

Most U.S. aid to Ukraine has been provided as grants or direct assistance, not loans. For example, the majority of military aid is not expected to be repaid.

Bottom-line, is that US taxpayers are left holding the bag for much of the cost of this war. Overall, it is not unreasonable for the US to insist that the war ends. I'm not sure that there is a united European voice, but individual European countries need to speak up, if they want to be part of the peace process. Otherwise, America will make peace with Russia on its own and turn its attention elsewhere.

[EDIT] I just noticed this: MUNICH, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Europe won't have a seat at the table for Ukraine peace talks, Donald Trump's lead Ukraine envoy said on Saturday, after Washington sent a questionnaire to European capitals to ask what they could contribute to security guarantees for Kyiv.

That seems to contradict what Trump's said about Ukraine giving 50% of its rare earth minerals to the US to pay off the debt...

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-d ... r-support/

So which is it? It's been gifted zero debt, or they need to pay half a trillion...

The way the US is going, I imagine Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are all getting seriously worried - while China and others get empowered.

It remains, as ever, amusing in that car crash rubber necking way.

[EGO_Aut]

Did you see Klitschko's face when this US vice clown spoke in Munich? If the US annoys the UKR and EU, as a European I hope that the truth about the lousy nature of the last few years will finally come to light. Nuland, NATO, North Steam 2,...get some popcorn.

[mr.WHO]

Best moment in Munich was when US representative said Europe must spend more on defense, reduce dependency on Russian fossil fuels and be engaged in supporting Ukraine.
Then european journalist just asked how EU should do it, when both Vance and Musk give support to european parties who are openly against all above.

First, he made a face like he knew he f*cked up - then he said, that's none of US business and EU must sort it out.

When I heard it, I just screamed internally "Tell it to f*cking Musk, not to us".

[EGO_Aut]

I am absolute with Vance when he says that EU defence is not US buiseness. We have our own mil. Tech., but i am afraid "Der Leyen" has no big balls and will spend US some billions, like she did with pharmas. But is this realy important? We are currently experiencing a change in the art of war. Why invest in old technology when new technology is much cheaper? Oh btw Germany will deliver 6000 HX-2 AI drones to UKR

[mr.WHO]

Why invest in old technology when new technology is much cheaper? Oh btw Germany will deliver 6000 HX-2 AI drones to UKR

Drones do not take or hold territory and nobody knows how long drones will have advantage - pretty much everyone is now working on anti-drone solutions.

All the drone hype is from success bias - they always show successful drone strike, but they don't show how many failed attacks preceeded.

A lot of soldiers on the field say that it takes at least 5-6 drones to knock out the tank and a few more to finish it off - that ratio makes drones to be actually a bit more expensive than ATGM.


Last, but not least - you do not put all your eggs in one basket or all your effords on one tech - have you watched Battlestar Galactica (newer one)?
All the fancy tech becomes a danger, if enemy figure out the weakness - sometimes it's just good to have old trusty brick that will do the job.

[Chips]

Drones do not take or hold territory and nobody knows how long drones will have advantage - pretty much everyone is now working on anti-drone solutions.

All the drone hype is from success bias - they always show successful drone strike, but they don't show how many failed attacks preceeded.

A lot of soldiers on the field say that it takes at least 5-6 drones to knock out the tank and a few more to finish it off - that ratio makes drones to be actually a bit more expensive than ATGM.

That ATGM needs to be moved/transported, weighing in at 25kgs, and then got within 2km of the tank. That'll require reconnaissance to find the tank in the first place, before putting people within striking distance - evading opponent countermeasures, mines, snipers, soldiers and so on and so forth.

You make it sound trivially easy - but if we were in a warzone I'd imagine you'd much rather fly drones 10km searching (with another drone providing the spotting) for vehicles to hit, than either patrolling around as soldiers on foot doing recon and then engagement (or waiting in ambush).

If the soldiers are found and killed, then you've many issues (staffing, training etc). Drone, so much cheaper, easier, quicker and with less risk.

True, if they can counter them reliably and effectively, then... back to square one. But until then... you keep pushing the tech and trying to improve beyond the currently available countermeasures. Even if it takes 5-6 drones, the chances of their own soldiers *dying* in that engagement are very slim, compared to foot soldiers doing the same job.

There's going to be a blooming good reason drones are prevalent and being used - and I don't believe it's just to post videos on youtube. They're highly effective with minimal risk.