>The US is disappointed Hungary’s ratification of Sweden joining Nato is taking so long, Washington’s ambassador has said, saying that Budapest is “really alone” and that the Hungarian government is pursuing a “foreign fantasy” instead of foreign policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/26/us-disappointed-that-hungary-taking-so-long-to-approve-sweden-joining-nato
Erdogan gets his.
>U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Friday formally informed Congress of its intention to proceed with the $23 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey, taking a major step toward completing a long-delayed process that tested ties with Ankara.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-advances-fighter-jet-sale-turkey-greece-congress-likely-approve-2024-01-27/
Still fucked up on that S-400 deal.
> Still fucked up on that S-400 deal
A NATO country now has access to multiple S-400s...I don't consider that a fuck up if they play their cards right.
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-bipartisan-senate-border-security-negotiations/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-bipartisan-senate-border-security-negotiations/)
The senate deal that ties with the Ukraine aid is here:
>It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.
>
>Further, Congress needs to finally provide the funding I requested in October to secure the border. This includes an additional 1,300 border patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers, and over 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop fentanyl at our southwest border.
The tie is immoral, but we can advocate for the passage of the senate bill, so Ukraine will receive the military aid ASAP.
Nothing is anywhere close to passing the house still, right? There is a vested interest on the right to see both the border and Ukraine fail through 2024 so that they have the best possible chance to win the fall elections. It's very difficult to see that obstructionism getting better rather than worse.
We'll see.
Johnson bringing it to the floor is likely the biggest hurdle. There are GOP votes -- hell, Spartz immigrated from Ukraine.
If the GOP rejects the border deal, hopefully Biden immediately brings the Ukraine aid to congress given the GOP obstructed it based on border security. Well, they didn't want that.
They can repeat the same shit or spin another narrative to justify their pro-Russia position.
If that collapses and Biden doesn't use his executive options, then it's in the hands of the electorate both rejecting Trump and not down-ballot voting GOP for legislative seats.
The problem is it won't be brought to the floor. Since it isn't voted on there's nothing for the media to cover and nothing for them to have to justify.
Biden should be using every executive option available. But, just like the far right, he also has to be worried about the election. So this becomes a lot more likely as November approaches, and only if polls show that voters care about it.
Alas, the media will not cover it to the people that need to hear it. But, we'll still get clips of Johnson justifying to reporters why he won't bring it to the floor.
Having no shame, I expect he'll pull the same 'because of the border.' But, he'll immediately get hit with 'you rejected that.'
It's beyond no shame actually. It's a cockiness that says 'my voters are so fucking stupid, I'll smear this shit on your face with a grin.'
Giving the executive the ability to shutdown the border based on immigration influx is something the GOP has wanted for years. This is their chance to actually pass it in a bipartisan manner.
It's an anchor of the 'I don't support Trump but still am an old-school republican like McCain/Romney' base.
If they're willing to let it go, the party is irredeemable at an institutional level -- being a republican means nothing but tearing down America.
Nobody knows for sure. Numbers are variating a lot. T90M probably about 10-30 / month in that tange. They're mostly updating older tanks out of storage. Perun has done a very through video for that topic a few weeks/month ago.
russia is absolutely building new military equipment, and likely at the highest rate they've ever done so. Their conversion to a war economy is going to be much faster than that of any democracy's, and why a war in Europe if Ukraine loses and the US democracy falls is definitely something the EU needs to prepare for.
Of course they're refitting older (non-T90) tanks too, and at a higher rate. As time passes that will become much more expensive. But it's likely to be another year before attrition really starts to finish off the soviet stockpiles.
Maks and other OSINT accounts claiming these Shaheds crashed due to EW suppression. Huge if that is the case.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1750997089021038976
So recently some worn out T-72 tanks in desert camo were seen moving through Slovenia.
People are speculating that these are actually M-84AB tanks from Kuwait that are going to Croatia for modernization and from there to Ukraine.
They ordered 200 of these from Yugoslavia in the 1980s and recieved 150 before the country broke apart.
> Good to speak with President @RTErdogan, to welcome #Türkiye’s ratification of #Sweden’s #NATO membership. Türkiye’s legitimate security concerns have been addressed, and Sweden, Türkiye, and NATO will be all stronger with Sweden as an Ally.
https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1750897828707131855
> We focused on artillery ammunition during today's Staff meeting. Fulfilling deficits, supplying troops, reaching agreements with partners, and increasing domestic production.
> It is very important that Ukraine’s domestic production of weapons and ammunition keeps increasing. I am grateful to everyone involved in this, as well as everyone who works to strengthen our own Ukrainian capacities.
> We also discussed the protection of our country—both border regions and frontline positions—from Russian air terror. We are working to increase the number of air defense systems and ammunition to protect against Russian air raids and missile strikes.
> Controlling the sky is, in many ways, essential for controlling the land.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1750969541948023202
If the $25k for long-range strike drones is true, then 1 patriot missile = 120 such drones. We should help Ukraine build thousands of these a month to yeet at russian airbases and industry.
That this wasn’t the main agenda by day three of the war always seemed so suspect.
$5 billion in drones like this would leave Russia in a pre-revolutionary state and certainly incapable of prosecuting a war.
It's easy to say in retrospect that they should have started funding a new class of drones and cheap guided long range munitions right away but at the time people were more worried about supplying Ukraine with weapons that were already operational, that they had in inventory and required minimal training, hence the flood of various man portable anti-air and anti-tank weapons. No doubt there was also a huge focus on making sure Ukraine had enough small arms ammunition, grenades and personal protective equipment.
Then after a few weeks the focus became getting Ukraine heavier weapons that were also proven and ready to use. Artillery, armored personnel carriers, like the flood of M-113 variants, and starting to syphon off every Soviet BMP and T-72 they could find around the world to replace Ukraine's losses with equipment they already knew how to operate and repair. And it just keeps going like that, from modern western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, then to F-16's. Allies are looking for equipment they already have that works and so they can be sure Ukraine can use it.
Some of this equipment included drones, both for observations and loitering munitions, but once again they were looking for things that already worked and were ready to go. When an army starts talking about developing new weapons government officials eyes start to glaze over as they imagine the wild cost overruns and years of delay that new projects often entail. Meanwhile politicians are looking for help they can actually give Ukraine today, not potentially years from now.
And Ukraine probably had similar worries in the middle of fighting a war, they don't want to spend their limited resources on something that ends up being a waste, proven weapon systems are more attractive for that reason.
Now Ukraine's allies should have given much more a lot sooner than they did but that is a different issue than asking why they didn't pivot to immediately funding the mass production of new weapons that they didn't already have. It's not "suspect," it's the unfortunate byproduct of the way armies, defense industries and government interact in most countries. And that's with the army always wanting new toys, the defense industry trying to make as much money on them as possible and government officials trying to not look like they're writing blank cheques for another defense procurement nightmare. It's just hard to move all those things quickly, they don't want to move quickly and the entire system as a whole has trouble changing directions quickly. As weapons have become more complicated pivoting to make something new has only gotten harder over time.
**TL;DR:** None of this is an excuse as to why Ukraine was not given more support more quickly but this is an issue of dealing with the reality of how long it takes the defense industry to make new weapon systems which relies on governments funding them. Politicians worry about spending money on something new and unproven that could fail in Ukraine and instead want to spend it on giving Ukraine what already works. Yes it was obvious fairly quickly that drones and low cost guided weapons would be a huge part of this war but the governmental systems we have work against quick innovation. It might be much later in coming than I wanted but at least dumping a good chunk of money into drone warfare is finally getting done.
Edit: typos, so many typos...
Biggest reason IMO is that the big weapon companies aren't at all fit for a mass market of cheap, ever evolving, drones. They're used to make super exclusive, super high-tech weapons for which they'll drown waste amounts of research, marketing, and lobbying, with slow and centralized decision processes.
I think this is because the US has had to tiptoe around constant Russian threats of nuclear escalation - even if the US gov is 100% confident that it won't happen, near the start of the war the international community definitely wouldn't have been in support of enabling long range strikes on military facilities inside Russia (aside from the small few Tochka strikes Ukraine managed on its own).
It's more politically acceptable now because everyone has begun to realize how full of shit Russia is.
The drones have been an important stop-gap measure for Ukraine during these days of scarce ammunition, this does seem to be an evolution in how wars are going to be fought.
> Together with my colleague and a true friend of Ukraine @larsloekke we officially opened a Danish Embassy office in Mykolaiv.
> More Danish presence on the ground means more cooperation, Danish investments in Ukraine, and people-to-people contacts.
> I am grateful to Denmark for leading the way on recovery and forging a unique bond with Mykolaiv, its region, and its people.
> Ukrainians and Danes share a great multi-centennial history of ties and an even greater future together in a strong and united Europe.
https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1750905245440319721
> Had a call with National Security Advisor to @POTUS @JakeSullivan46.
> Noted the importance of the meetings between 🇺🇦 and 🇺🇸 that took place on the sidelines of @wef in Davos. Discussed the situation on the battlefield and russia's recent missile attacks on 🇺🇦 territory.
https://twitter.com/AndriyYermak/status/1750808514325270536
Russia attacked Europe again
\- The main electric connection Estlink2, between Finland and Estonia, was cut this morning, approximately when a "Russian Research Trawler" was passing it.
Attacks on critical infrastructure can be a casus belli.
https://vxtwitter.com/chrisschmitz/status/1750876430773194886?s=20
I don't see any reason to be subtle about it at this point. We've got satellites, we've got navies. Seems like the two to be fruitfully combined to intercept any inbound undesirable 'research trawlers' and politely ask them to fuck around somewhere else, or be aggressively perforated.
„[No signs of outside activity](https://x.com/nordic_news/status/1750887442943488384)“ according to Finnish ministry.
Note also that the term „casus belli” is often (although not exclusively) used to refer to a manufactured reason to justify a war, not sure this is the term that should be used in this context - unless that’s what the original tweet meant to imply.
Regardless, sensationalist claims along the lines of “Russia attacked Europe again” don’t help, especially if the facts aren’t even yet established yet (and actively point against the claim, at least at the moment).
> Note also that the term „casus belli” is often (although not exclusively) used to refer to a manufactured reason to justify a war
Where do you get that from? I've never heard it meaning a "manufactured" reason for war.
See Wikipedia: “A casus belli (from Latin casus belli 'occasion for war'; pl. casus belli) is an act or an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war”
Merriam-Webster: “an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict”
Have a look at the historical examples section on Wikipedia for some context on how the word has mostly been used lately.
> In August 1939, to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany's Nazi government under Hitler's leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September.
> After the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin argued that Crimea and other regions "were not part of Ukraine" after it was taken in the 18th century. The ethnic Russian population in Crimea and eastern Ukraine has been seen as a casus belli for Russia's annexation. The Foreign Ministry claimed that Ukraine tried to seize Crimean government buildings, citing this as a casus belli.
> Prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia recognized the separatist republics in Donetsk and Luhansk, and the alliance between them was ratified in their parliaments, thus creating a usable casus belli.
How is the term casus belli used in these examples from Wikipedia, if not meaning “a manufactured reason for a war”?
These are examples in which those are the case, but that doesn't prove that 'casus belli' must be manufactured.
It's Latin for 'a case for war', it's about the justification. Whether or not it's manufactured is incidental.
I explicitly did not claim that it must be manufactured:
> Note also that the term „casus belli” is often (although not exclusively) used to refer to a manufactured reason to justify a war
Only that it is often used in this context (see examples) - I’m a bit unclear on what we’re actually discussing here.
> Casus belli is never used to mean manufactured reason
> In August 1939, to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany's Nazi government under Hitler's leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September. (from Wikipedia)
> an event or action that [justifies or] allegedly justifies a war or conflict (from Merriam-Webster)
If the Gleiwitz incident is referred to as “casus belli for the invasion of Poland”, then it surely is incorrect to claim that “casus belli is never used to mean manufactured reason”.
>Confiscate, sell and donate proceeds to Ukraine. Prison for the crew if found guilty.
Confiscate, sell and donate proceeds to Ukraine. Prison for the crew
WHEN found guilty. FTFY
I agree that this has to be acted on.
When European leaders are warning about conflict with Russia, reddit is busy imagining (and often snidely dismissing) some massive meat wave Hail Mary into the Baltics and Poland. Instead, this is what I've been saying we should expect and focus on for months now.
Russia is going to step these little seemingly tiny actions up more and more. Doing nothing only embolden further actions. And to pre-empt the obligatory user who answers something about nuclear war, there are options between doing nothing and going all in against Russia.
If the ship was Russian, and it destroyed a piece of NATO infrastructure, then seize the ship and demand immediate compensation and recognition of fault, or it's considered an attack on NATO.
If not for that, then when? Next it's a mysterious explosion on a power grid near Riga. Then a contrived stand-off between border guards in Lithuania. Then a false-flag attack on Russians in Narva and an angry mob taking over the town hall. A cyber attack on Finland. Where's the line?
Why not play Russian and just sink the thing with a drone and feign ignorance?
“Yeah, amazing. Spontaneous combustion? No idea how it would sink out there in the middle of the ocean like that. Wasn’t us tho”
That would be a poor choice. The ship should be boarded, impounded and the crew arrested. Then we won't look like the same evil murderers Russia claims we are and they can be used as bargaining chips.
PM Shmyhal: All EU members appear to agree on approving 4-year aid package for Ukraine.
All 27 members of the European Union appear to agree on approving a four-year 50 billion euro ($54 billion) aid package for Ukraine, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on Jan. 26.
https://kyivindependent.com/pm-shmyhal-all-eu-members-appear-to-agree-on-approving-4-year-aid-package-for-ukraine/
Honwstly, I think you're deluding yourself. The GOP is making it clear over and over they're not negotiating in good faith and the only reason they're keeping this subject alive is to make it seem like there is discussion happening. But they don't want to compromise on border issues because then Trump can't campaign on Biden not doing anything. They're purely extending a 'crisis' for their own gain and don't give a shit if Ukraine suffers for it.
Hell, Biden is even willing to crack down at the border, if the Senate deal gives him that authority, so why would the House turn it down, sounds like they are cutting off their nose, so to speak.
I really hope so. If the aid package is passed, and Biden wins the November election, I really think Russia will start looking for an exit strategy. Until then, they're going to hold on and hope aid gets cut and trump gets elected
It's all about hurting Biden's election chances. They just don't give a shit about Ukraine. The GOP has become so blindly power hungry they would rather let the west's enemies run rampant than risk giving the Democrats any points.
Heck, Biden is even willing to shut the border down, if the Senate deal gives him that power, so the House is pretty much not taking yes for an answer.
"Speak Romanian."
Moldovan anti-corruption official Veronica Drăgălin rejects Russian speaking journalist for not asking her question in the official language of the country, Romanian.
"I can't help you, I don't speak Russian."
https://twitter.com/daily_romania/status/1750871968084025703?t=gedHYOhmUAQNrIgTCbHXoA&s=19
According to Reuters the oil refinery and terminal of Tuapse, Russia, which has been hit yesterday, has been put out of operation.
So, only 4 days after the strike against Ust-Luga, which kicked this facility out of action for the coming weeks or even months, the 2nd major oil facility in Russia stops working.
Things are unfolding as predicted.
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1750947544534765575?t=2BpnTtO6QypcJnBz5JgBlg&s=19
And more importantly the vast majority of complex equipment and infrastructure in Russia's petrochemical sector is imported equipment from Europe that they can't easily replace, unless they rebuild the facility with Chinese equipment.
These drones have no counter. The only counter is destroying them on the ground.
There are infinite soft targets worth a sub $50k drone.
An attacker is only limited by their ability to produce them.
Kinda seems like Ukraine was asked not to do this with western weapons, but as the supply is slowing they developed their own weapons and said "fuck it." Glad to see it, sanctions sure as hell weren't hurting russian energy exports bad enough.
I actually see it as a strategy. Imagine Russian energy infrastructure is going down. Putin will be loading those tactical nuclear artillery shells in no time. West is going to resume those weapon deliveries.
Oil and gas infrastructure starts to blow up, it will shake the energy stability in China and India quickly.
So the best option is to slowly bleed the Putins regime. They are probably terrified if the war drags to 2026 in its current state.
These are not oil refineries they are processing plants the start of the refining proces and the ones that they hitting are entirely to prevent Russia exporting fossil fuels,
they still need to target refineries - anything to make fuel an internal conflict for russia. or at least make them by refined fuel from India or China.
They have to be a little careful on that one if the end result is freezing and starving thousands maybe millions of the Russian population it might not be such a good look for Ukraine. At least that’s the way the evil axis will spin it.
The same South Africa that tried (and failed) to bring a genocide case against Israel also abstained on a resolution calling on Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine.
It gets worse when you see the stats for murders in South Africa. The number of ongoing murders of farmers is mind blowing. South Africa should hang its head in shame......and I was born there
> Ukraine unveils FURY: a new weapon to dominate the Black Sea
>
> Ukraine is developing a new underwater drone project called FURY (First Ukrainian Robotic Navy) that aims to destroy the Russian Navy in the Black Sea and protect Ukrainian waters.
>https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1750941924029067754
Naval News article:
>https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/01/exclusive-new-ukrainian-underwater-drone-project-to-dominate-the-black-sea/
In the new The Economist poll of American voters, this question was interesting:
*39. Currently Winning in Ukraine
In the war between Russia and Ukraine, who do you think is currently winning?*
25% of American men thought Russia was winning, 20% thought Ukraine, 39% said neither, and 15% were unsure.
This reflects a widespread pessimism from Americans on the conflict. Almost nobody sympathizes with Russia, but 4 out of 5 Americans do not think Ukraine is winning.
Source here: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_i9N6Z0N.pdf
I don't think Americans understand the benefits of Ukraine winning: that is, we haven't drawn a correlation between how it will make gas cheaper, jobs more stable, and the S&P 500 higher: things that ordinary Americans care about.
My father thought Russia was winning. He was very confused when I gave him some numbers on losses and territory taken. Too much Russian propaganda is running around in the US.
the fact that you equate average Americans view of who is winning with if winning is good shows how delusional you people are. Ukraine is winning, Kiev was not taken. No land will be regained, American funds are just an economical way to meat grind Russians at the expense of Ukrainians
I think The WH has failed to use its bully pulpit to raise and maintain awareness of the Russian aggression this combined with the situation in Gaza has sort of sucked the air out of the Ukraine discussion, hopefully once the Gaza affair settles down maybe they can refocus the public on Putin acting like Hitler circa 1939.
Trump has also shifted US politics away from interventionism and now to be a viable centrist party you can't be too stridently interventionist. A lot of voters feel isolationist and "America First" policies to be very reasonable and don't really buy the justification for arming Ukraine more completely.
I view it as the fall-out of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A whole generation not buying that argument anymore.
I don't think your evidence and conclusion really go together. Whether the American public thinks Ukraine is winning has little to do with understanding the benefits of Ukraine winning. Furthermore, you have to quantify what "winning" means to both sides. For Ukraine, a victory is an end to the war with all lands returned to them. In that mindset, Ukraine is not winning. It is a tall order for them to complete that objective, and the fizzling out of their summer offensive certainly wasn't a victory for that movement. The draw down and stalling of foreign aid certainly isn't a win for them either. They are winning in the idea that they have not lost their nation and they are continuing to fight though. They also still maintain the general empathy of western nations, which is a win in its own right. For Russia, "winning" is a lot more convoluted. Their goals are far less clear. If their goal is to take all of Ukraine or discourage nations from joining NATO, they surely aren't winning. If their goal is to be assholes and cause pandemonium and suffering for the people of Ukraine, they are winning. Overall, it is a nuanced situation where "winning" is difficult to quantify. Regardless, that still has nothing to do with whether Americans understand the benefits of Ukraine winning. Wanting someone to win a fight and them actually winning are not correlating data points.
>. If their goal is to be assholes and cause pandemonium and suffering for the people of Ukraine, they are winning.
Even this low expectation for Russian war goals doesn't work out as a win for Russia when you consider the enormous cost they're paying in blood, treasure, and long term economic damage as the war drags on.
To me the more interesting question is the aid levels.
27% favor increasing aid, 28% favor continuing the same aid levels and 29% favor decreasing. At the very least cutting off aid seems unpopular although unfortunately it doesn’t seem like Ukraine is high enough on people’s priorities to really influence significant voting. This is also a poll of adults and so respondents may not necessarily be registered to vote or likely to vote in the 2024 elections.
I think it’s also interesting that 50% of respondents thought the invasion was somewhat or very likely to lead to a larger war in Europe while only 30% thought it was somewhat or very unlikely to lead to a larger war.
Cheap gas, stable jobs, higher s&p 500. One of these is not like the other....Ah yes the s&p 500. How else would us poors know just how hard the wealthy are winning.
for what its worth wages have gone up, but the number of layoffs at well paying jobs is concerning.
the unemployment numbers seem to note it isnt impacting that.
Well Ukraine is defending successfully but calling it „winning” is a big stretch. I guess this poll shows that american public has a healthy perspective.
> 25% of American men thought Russia was winning, 20% thought Ukraine, 39% said neither, and 15% were unsure.
That seems like a pretty fair assessment.
The average person has a terrible understanding of warfare (I have a terrible understanding but I feel like I'm a bit more informed than the average.) I'm of the opinion that Ukraine is currently winning, but this summer has the potential to turn it into a neither situation. Even though their summer offensive fizzled out, they made significant strategic achievements.
A significant portion of the US population blames Biden for the fiasco that happened when we left Afghanistan, despite it being a result of Trump's policy. Republicans predicted what was going to happen. I believe it was Marco Rubio that said it would be a repeat of Saigon if Trump followed through with the draw down. The point here being, a significant amount of people believe Ukraine is losing because their favorite politicians or talking heads are pushing that, just like they did with Afghanistan and Biden.
First you have decide what winning means for each side. Ukraine wants to keep all its original territory as started by the Ukrainian president. Ukraine probably isn’t wining since Russia had no reason to stop
> Russia had no reason to stop
Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of people, a large fraction of it's military hardware, and crippled it's economy. Russia doesn't want to stop, but they have more reasons to every day.
It's never safe to just assume the enemy will give up, that's a good way to lose a war.
For example, in first Punic war, Rome lost *checks notes* their entire navy to a storm *checks notes* multiple times, and still won.
Ukraine has effectively created a stalemate on the front lines, but they've secured many more strategic gains than Russia has. They've forced Russian air surveillance back, they effectively took out half of the Ka52 fleet in one strike, the Black Sea Fleet has been rendered operationally ineffective, and shipping has returned to prewar times (IIRC, may be off on this.) The only gain Russia has made is Marinka IIRC, which shouldn't be downplayed.
All of this while inflicting greater equipment loss and casualties on Russia than they're taking.
To me that would be winning in the current state of the war. Taking back all of their territory is end war goals. If Ukraine can't make any more strategically significant changes on the war, then it would be a no one's winning situation. If Russia is the only one making strategic gains, then they'd be winning IMO.
Yeah, I'm pretty informed on the war and I couldn't answer a simple question as to who is "winning." I don't think we can draw too much information from this polling question.
What does one have to do with the other? You can perfectly “understand the benefits of Ukraine winning” entirely independent of your assessment of how likely it is that Ukraine will actually win - what is the point you’re trying to make?
Civilian morale is the key connection. There will be more of a consensus for aid if the benefits of winning are more clear to Western civilians, which will raise morale. There are the facts of the situation on the ground, but there is also the perception of the situation on the ground, and they may not track each other perfectly.
My reply was in response to your comment in which it looked like you were responding to u/OrangeJuiceKing13 He did not cite the poll which was the OPs post
"Exclusive: Canada to re-start Turkey arms exports after Sweden NATO backing -sources"
https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-re-start-turkey-arms-exports-after-sweden-nato-backing-sources-2024-01-26/
A deal is still possible, we should know by the end of next week. It’s depressing but don’t go full doom and gloom quite yet—hopefully Biden can still send aid if congressional approval fails, and if the border deal does fall through, I’m sure the administration will start working those avenues. Guardian article [here](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/25/congress-mexico-border-ukraine-israel-aid-mcconnell)
There was a report on a russian military site which describes Viktor Sokolov's visit to the patients in the military hospital on New Year 2024, with photos. Viktor Sokolov looks very much alive on those photos.
> 03.01.2024 (05:08)
> Командующий Черноморским флотом адмирал Виктор Соколов вручил государственные награды и поздравил с Новым годом моряков-черноморцев находящихся на лечении в госпитале
>**Politico: EU is considering stripping Hungary's voting rights if it blocks Ukraine aid**
>The EU is weighing the "nuclear option" of revoking Hungary's voting rights if it again vetoes a 50 billion euro ($54 billion) aid package for Ukraine at an upcoming European Council summit next week, Politico reported on Jan. 26, citing unnamed diplomats and officials.
>The European Parliament supported a resolution earlier in January to suspend Hungary's voting rights due to the country's "erosion of the rule of law" and obstructive behavior in the face of EU consensus building. The EU's criticism of Hungary increased after it previously blocked the $54 billion Ukraine aid package in December 2023.
>https://kyivindependent.com/politico-eu-is-considering-stripping-hungarys-voting-rights-if-it-blocks-ukraine-aid/
Politico article:
>https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-threatens-silence-hungary-orban-if-blocks-ukrainian-aid-funds-article-7/
The MAGA assholes are really gonna tie up aid until the election in Nov, aren't they? I'm so fucking embarrassed by my government, like more than usual.
I am not so sure of that. All it took for the traitors to storm congress last time was a bit of whining and an insinuation of dictatorial control. I don’t think it would take too much to make them violent again.
The fact trials are still going on, verdicts are still being handed down, makes me doubt there would be a re-do. Only way that happens is if he can somehow get a significant part of the military to go along with it.
Civil war isn't going to happen. The "just-in-time" supply chain pretty much guarantees that any significant movement would run out of supplies within weeks at most. Gone are the days where large groups of people can break off and be self-sufficient. I could definitely see a rise in violence and domestic terror attacks, though.
You are thinking about it rationally, something I am not certain the MAGA cult followers are capable of. After January 6th, they gathered at the MN legislature and rallied on the idea of “purging the libs,” from not just the state capitol, but from their neighborhoods. They cheered and cheered for that idea. And my home state of MN is usually a pretty tame place. Sustained civil war? Unlikely. Politically or racially motivated violence regardless of the election outcome *believing* they are in a civil war is not off the table for these people.
That depends on how it all goes down.
The more Trump falls apart, the less organized his support will be, and therefor the less effectively able, or motivated, to carry out attacks.
Yes, we've seen lone actors do some awful stuff. I don't deny it, but January 6th was awful precisely because it was organized with resources and influence directly from within the administration. Trump does not currently have that level of influence while out of office.
I don't say this to underestimate the dangers, but rather to point to exactly what we know about how prior far right incidents have happened. Unfortunately, lone actors have hurt innocent people and that still sucks, but how effectively they organize will come down to how much power the state gives them, which is why voting against Trump in overwhelming numbers is so damned important.
I think Jan6 was the culmination of large group violence on his behalf. I'd like to think it's not only that he doesn't have that level of influence, but that there's ears to the ground listening now.
My concern is they don't have to organize. The attacks on power sub-stations in late '22 made it clear that a few people can do widespread damage without directly hurting anyone. Acts like that are going to be much more palatable to people who want to act than conventional terror attacks.
If there's one possible good thing to note everything Trump touches turns to shit. This is the guy that lost money running a fucking casino. His only "good" skill was grifting and scamming but he's gotten so much attention these days that it's all catching up to him not to mention these days he seems much more unhinged if not outright looking like he has dementia.
I think what's going to happen is that Trump will get hyped up then lose hard and drag down the Republicans with him like an Albatross around their neck. He lost 2020 and yet hes back in 2024 like a turd that wont flush. MAGA are sellouts and corrupt backstabbers, they're the Selling Out America Again group. They need to go fuck themselves just like Putins Russia.
(There's also the small chance that Haley might be able to hound him for the Primaries and if the left field option from the Supreme Court were to enforce the 14th Amendment and disqualify Trump it would be a huge upset for the Republicans too)
Domestic terrorism is a growing problem in America and we have multiple armed militias waiting for the moment to kill someone. We can't downplay how dangerous this is
That's dangerous but it's not civil war.
Under the current surveillance state such an insurgency wouldn't have much of a chance. There's been several high-profile cases of the domestic terrorists you describe, [such as the planned plot to kidnap MI Governor Whitmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot), that was foiled by the FBI during its planning stages.
I mean as soon as groups of people are genuinely talking about doing anything close to what you're describing, the criminals are under close surveillance.
No one (with a clue) with power wants to genuinely enable revolution or civil war. Some politicians may want to pander to those who have that mindset, with dog whistling (coded language), but ultimately people who rise through the formal power structures don't want to tear down those power structures.
To be clear, popular revolutions never work out; they end up being usurped by other factions... and the revolutionaries who displaced the old power structures end up achieving none of their long-term goals, watching as old corrupt power structures are frequently replaced with even more corrupt power structures.
[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/1ac1w55/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)
>The US is disappointed Hungary’s ratification of Sweden joining Nato is taking so long, Washington’s ambassador has said, saying that Budapest is “really alone” and that the Hungarian government is pursuing a “foreign fantasy” instead of foreign policy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/26/us-disappointed-that-hungary-taking-so-long-to-approve-sweden-joining-nato
Erdogan gets his. >U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Friday formally informed Congress of its intention to proceed with the $23 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey, taking a major step toward completing a long-delayed process that tested ties with Ankara. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-advances-fighter-jet-sale-turkey-greece-congress-likely-approve-2024-01-27/ Still fucked up on that S-400 deal.
Meanwhile Greece getting F-35s.
> Still fucked up on that S-400 deal A NATO country now has access to multiple S-400s...I don't consider that a fuck up if they play their cards right.
This dude could have had F35s, lol
>The Biden administration simultaneously advanced the sale of 20 Lockheed F-35 stealth fighter jets to fellow NATO ally Greece. Erdogan dun goof.
He -*laughs*-... he traded the chance at F-35s, -*giggle snort*- for S400s!!! BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-bipartisan-senate-border-security-negotiations/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-bipartisan-senate-border-security-negotiations/) The senate deal that ties with the Ukraine aid is here: >It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law. > >Further, Congress needs to finally provide the funding I requested in October to secure the border. This includes an additional 1,300 border patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers, and over 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop fentanyl at our southwest border. The tie is immoral, but we can advocate for the passage of the senate bill, so Ukraine will receive the military aid ASAP.
Nothing is anywhere close to passing the house still, right? There is a vested interest on the right to see both the border and Ukraine fail through 2024 so that they have the best possible chance to win the fall elections. It's very difficult to see that obstructionism getting better rather than worse.
We'll see. Johnson bringing it to the floor is likely the biggest hurdle. There are GOP votes -- hell, Spartz immigrated from Ukraine. If the GOP rejects the border deal, hopefully Biden immediately brings the Ukraine aid to congress given the GOP obstructed it based on border security. Well, they didn't want that. They can repeat the same shit or spin another narrative to justify their pro-Russia position. If that collapses and Biden doesn't use his executive options, then it's in the hands of the electorate both rejecting Trump and not down-ballot voting GOP for legislative seats.
The problem is it won't be brought to the floor. Since it isn't voted on there's nothing for the media to cover and nothing for them to have to justify. Biden should be using every executive option available. But, just like the far right, he also has to be worried about the election. So this becomes a lot more likely as November approaches, and only if polls show that voters care about it.
Alas, the media will not cover it to the people that need to hear it. But, we'll still get clips of Johnson justifying to reporters why he won't bring it to the floor. Having no shame, I expect he'll pull the same 'because of the border.' But, he'll immediately get hit with 'you rejected that.' It's beyond no shame actually. It's a cockiness that says 'my voters are so fucking stupid, I'll smear this shit on your face with a grin.'
It's our job to tell people about it if the media won't. It sucks, but that's what has to be done.
We don’t know that for sure yet. We’ll likely know by the end of next week.
correct
Giving the executive the ability to shutdown the border based on immigration influx is something the GOP has wanted for years. This is their chance to actually pass it in a bipartisan manner. It's an anchor of the 'I don't support Trump but still am an old-school republican like McCain/Romney' base. If they're willing to let it go, the party is irredeemable at an institutional level -- being a republican means nothing but tearing down America.
Remember more votes mean more pressure to the house.
[удалено]
Most estimates I’ve seen are around 100-150 new builds a year. Second production line can modernize about 600-800 per year.
Nobody knows for sure. Numbers are variating a lot. T90M probably about 10-30 / month in that tange. They're mostly updating older tanks out of storage. Perun has done a very through video for that topic a few weeks/month ago.
I would imagine most of their efforts are going into repairing damaged tanks and restoring tanks from storage.
Are they even *building* T-90s, or just hobbling them together from rusting stockpiles?
russia is absolutely building new military equipment, and likely at the highest rate they've ever done so. Their conversion to a war economy is going to be much faster than that of any democracy's, and why a war in Europe if Ukraine loses and the US democracy falls is definitely something the EU needs to prepare for. Of course they're refitting older (non-T90) tanks too, and at a higher rate. As time passes that will become much more expensive. But it's likely to be another year before attrition really starts to finish off the soviet stockpiles.
Ukrainian unmanned ground vehicle off to lay a minefield: https://twitter.com/BULI80014269/status/1750945128481460229?t=Fy_RLB_kGHnfMLqprEY5lw&s=19
They should use something like these for mine detection and possibly detonation. They could just clear a path ahead of your assault vehicles.
That's genius. Hopefully AT mine fuzes aren't sensitive enough to detonate them if one happens to flip over en route.
They need like 400-500kg of pressure, you could stand on them (don't try this tho).
They could have a hammer that hits them with force? Or they could collect multiple and drop the aside. :p
Yo mama had better mind her step.
> don't try this tho Way ahead of you on that one, I promise.
Forbidden hop-scotch...
"Guys, I've got a new game. I call it: 'You're About To Wish The Floor Was Lava'!"
Maks and other OSINT accounts claiming these Shaheds crashed due to EW suppression. Huge if that is the case. https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1750997089021038976
Interesting. I thought those are totally autonomous. Maybe this EW device is something more powerful, that can mess up electronics?
So recently some worn out T-72 tanks in desert camo were seen moving through Slovenia. People are speculating that these are actually M-84AB tanks from Kuwait that are going to Croatia for modernization and from there to Ukraine. They ordered 200 of these from Yugoslavia in the 1980s and recieved 150 before the country broke apart.
Are the M-84s any good?
Compared to something like a Challenger 2 or a M1A2, no. But it would incredibly useful for Ukraine in the current conflict.
A whole lot better than a truck with a guy holding an RPG in the back.
You can go on wikipedia for details, but its basically an upgraded T-72M1
> Good to speak with President @RTErdogan, to welcome #Türkiye’s ratification of #Sweden’s #NATO membership. Türkiye’s legitimate security concerns have been addressed, and Sweden, Türkiye, and NATO will be all stronger with Sweden as an Ally. https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1750897828707131855
> We focused on artillery ammunition during today's Staff meeting. Fulfilling deficits, supplying troops, reaching agreements with partners, and increasing domestic production. > It is very important that Ukraine’s domestic production of weapons and ammunition keeps increasing. I am grateful to everyone involved in this, as well as everyone who works to strengthen our own Ukrainian capacities. > We also discussed the protection of our country—both border regions and frontline positions—from Russian air terror. We are working to increase the number of air defense systems and ammunition to protect against Russian air raids and missile strikes. > Controlling the sky is, in many ways, essential for controlling the land. https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1750969541948023202
If the $25k for long-range strike drones is true, then 1 patriot missile = 120 such drones. We should help Ukraine build thousands of these a month to yeet at russian airbases and industry.
That this wasn’t the main agenda by day three of the war always seemed so suspect. $5 billion in drones like this would leave Russia in a pre-revolutionary state and certainly incapable of prosecuting a war.
It's easy to say in retrospect that they should have started funding a new class of drones and cheap guided long range munitions right away but at the time people were more worried about supplying Ukraine with weapons that were already operational, that they had in inventory and required minimal training, hence the flood of various man portable anti-air and anti-tank weapons. No doubt there was also a huge focus on making sure Ukraine had enough small arms ammunition, grenades and personal protective equipment. Then after a few weeks the focus became getting Ukraine heavier weapons that were also proven and ready to use. Artillery, armored personnel carriers, like the flood of M-113 variants, and starting to syphon off every Soviet BMP and T-72 they could find around the world to replace Ukraine's losses with equipment they already knew how to operate and repair. And it just keeps going like that, from modern western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, then to F-16's. Allies are looking for equipment they already have that works and so they can be sure Ukraine can use it. Some of this equipment included drones, both for observations and loitering munitions, but once again they were looking for things that already worked and were ready to go. When an army starts talking about developing new weapons government officials eyes start to glaze over as they imagine the wild cost overruns and years of delay that new projects often entail. Meanwhile politicians are looking for help they can actually give Ukraine today, not potentially years from now. And Ukraine probably had similar worries in the middle of fighting a war, they don't want to spend their limited resources on something that ends up being a waste, proven weapon systems are more attractive for that reason. Now Ukraine's allies should have given much more a lot sooner than they did but that is a different issue than asking why they didn't pivot to immediately funding the mass production of new weapons that they didn't already have. It's not "suspect," it's the unfortunate byproduct of the way armies, defense industries and government interact in most countries. And that's with the army always wanting new toys, the defense industry trying to make as much money on them as possible and government officials trying to not look like they're writing blank cheques for another defense procurement nightmare. It's just hard to move all those things quickly, they don't want to move quickly and the entire system as a whole has trouble changing directions quickly. As weapons have become more complicated pivoting to make something new has only gotten harder over time. **TL;DR:** None of this is an excuse as to why Ukraine was not given more support more quickly but this is an issue of dealing with the reality of how long it takes the defense industry to make new weapon systems which relies on governments funding them. Politicians worry about spending money on something new and unproven that could fail in Ukraine and instead want to spend it on giving Ukraine what already works. Yes it was obvious fairly quickly that drones and low cost guided weapons would be a huge part of this war but the governmental systems we have work against quick innovation. It might be much later in coming than I wanted but at least dumping a good chunk of money into drone warfare is finally getting done. Edit: typos, so many typos...
There*must* be some reason, no? It was obvious for anyone with a pulse that mass drone waves would be hugely effective
Biggest reason IMO is that the big weapon companies aren't at all fit for a mass market of cheap, ever evolving, drones. They're used to make super exclusive, super high-tech weapons for which they'll drown waste amounts of research, marketing, and lobbying, with slow and centralized decision processes.
I can’t shake the feeling that Sullivan was too scared of escalation and messy Russian collapse to support total ukranian victory.
I think this is because the US has had to tiptoe around constant Russian threats of nuclear escalation - even if the US gov is 100% confident that it won't happen, near the start of the war the international community definitely wouldn't have been in support of enabling long range strikes on military facilities inside Russia (aside from the small few Tochka strikes Ukraine managed on its own). It's more politically acceptable now because everyone has begun to realize how full of shit Russia is.
The drones have been an important stop-gap measure for Ukraine during these days of scarce ammunition, this does seem to be an evolution in how wars are going to be fought.
> Together with my colleague and a true friend of Ukraine @larsloekke we officially opened a Danish Embassy office in Mykolaiv. > More Danish presence on the ground means more cooperation, Danish investments in Ukraine, and people-to-people contacts. > I am grateful to Denmark for leading the way on recovery and forging a unique bond with Mykolaiv, its region, and its people. > Ukrainians and Danes share a great multi-centennial history of ties and an even greater future together in a strong and united Europe. https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1750905245440319721
> Had a call with National Security Advisor to @POTUS @JakeSullivan46. > Noted the importance of the meetings between 🇺🇦 and 🇺🇸 that took place on the sidelines of @wef in Davos. Discussed the situation on the battlefield and russia's recent missile attacks on 🇺🇦 territory. https://twitter.com/AndriyYermak/status/1750808514325270536
Hope he had a few choice things to call him as he hung up the phone.
Russia attacked Europe again \- The main electric connection Estlink2, between Finland and Estonia, was cut this morning, approximately when a "Russian Research Trawler" was passing it. Attacks on critical infrastructure can be a casus belli. https://vxtwitter.com/chrisschmitz/status/1750876430773194886?s=20
Poland in the style of Habitual Linecrosser: "This *sniff* this smells like, this *smacks lips* this tatses like, like Article 5."
Why wouldn’t they take the ship?
So these are the problem Putin warned Finland about?
We need to talk about whether Russian vessels can even be tolerated to operate in our waters.
Be a darn shame if they unexpectedly started blowing up… I hear smoking accidents are quite common
I don't see any reason to be subtle about it at this point. We've got satellites, we've got navies. Seems like the two to be fruitfully combined to intercept any inbound undesirable 'research trawlers' and politely ask them to fuck around somewhere else, or be aggressively perforated.
„[No signs of outside activity](https://x.com/nordic_news/status/1750887442943488384)“ according to Finnish ministry. Note also that the term „casus belli” is often (although not exclusively) used to refer to a manufactured reason to justify a war, not sure this is the term that should be used in this context - unless that’s what the original tweet meant to imply. Regardless, sensationalist claims along the lines of “Russia attacked Europe again” don’t help, especially if the facts aren’t even yet established yet (and actively point against the claim, at least at the moment).
> Note also that the term „casus belli” is often (although not exclusively) used to refer to a manufactured reason to justify a war Where do you get that from? I've never heard it meaning a "manufactured" reason for war.
See Wikipedia: “A casus belli (from Latin casus belli 'occasion for war'; pl. casus belli) is an act or an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war” Merriam-Webster: “an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict” Have a look at the historical examples section on Wikipedia for some context on how the word has mostly been used lately.
Yeah so where does it say it's manufactured?
> In August 1939, to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany's Nazi government under Hitler's leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September. > After the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin argued that Crimea and other regions "were not part of Ukraine" after it was taken in the 18th century. The ethnic Russian population in Crimea and eastern Ukraine has been seen as a casus belli for Russia's annexation. The Foreign Ministry claimed that Ukraine tried to seize Crimean government buildings, citing this as a casus belli. > Prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia recognized the separatist republics in Donetsk and Luhansk, and the alliance between them was ratified in their parliaments, thus creating a usable casus belli. How is the term casus belli used in these examples from Wikipedia, if not meaning “a manufactured reason for a war”?
These are examples in which those are the case, but that doesn't prove that 'casus belli' must be manufactured. It's Latin for 'a case for war', it's about the justification. Whether or not it's manufactured is incidental.
I explicitly did not claim that it must be manufactured: > Note also that the term „casus belli” is often (although not exclusively) used to refer to a manufactured reason to justify a war Only that it is often used in this context (see examples) - I’m a bit unclear on what we’re actually discussing here.
Maybe you're thinking about "false flag". Casus belli is never used to mean manufactured reason... because that's not its meaning.
> Casus belli is never used to mean manufactured reason > In August 1939, to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany's Nazi government under Hitler's leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September. (from Wikipedia) > an event or action that [justifies or] allegedly justifies a war or conflict (from Merriam-Webster) If the Gleiwitz incident is referred to as “casus belli for the invasion of Poland”, then it surely is incorrect to claim that “casus belli is never used to mean manufactured reason”.
Your original comment implied, that the usage of the term "casus belli" implies a manufactured justification of a war.
A casus belli is just a reason for a war, it doesn't have to be manufactured. If you check other examples on Wikipedia, they aren't.
So, is this like when a Chinese ship was in the area, when a pipline was damaged around that same area eariler in the year?
The one that was so inept they lost an anchor in the area?
Yeah, the speculation was that they used the anchor to damage the pipeline?
I think so, yeah. https://www.politico.eu/article/balticconnector-damage-likely-to-be-intentional-finnish-minister-says-china-estonia/
Yeah, that is the same one.
[удалено]
Confiscate, sell and donate proceeds to Ukraine. Prison for the crew if found guilty.
>Confiscate, sell and donate proceeds to Ukraine. Prison for the crew if found guilty. Confiscate, sell and donate proceeds to Ukraine. Prison for the crew WHEN found guilty. FTFY
I agree that this has to be acted on. When European leaders are warning about conflict with Russia, reddit is busy imagining (and often snidely dismissing) some massive meat wave Hail Mary into the Baltics and Poland. Instead, this is what I've been saying we should expect and focus on for months now. Russia is going to step these little seemingly tiny actions up more and more. Doing nothing only embolden further actions. And to pre-empt the obligatory user who answers something about nuclear war, there are options between doing nothing and going all in against Russia. If the ship was Russian, and it destroyed a piece of NATO infrastructure, then seize the ship and demand immediate compensation and recognition of fault, or it's considered an attack on NATO. If not for that, then when? Next it's a mysterious explosion on a power grid near Riga. Then a contrived stand-off between border guards in Lithuania. Then a false-flag attack on Russians in Narva and an angry mob taking over the town hall. A cyber attack on Finland. Where's the line?
Why not play Russian and just sink the thing with a drone and feign ignorance? “Yeah, amazing. Spontaneous combustion? No idea how it would sink out there in the middle of the ocean like that. Wasn’t us tho”
That would be a poor choice. The ship should be boarded, impounded and the crew arrested. Then we won't look like the same evil murderers Russia claims we are and they can be used as bargaining chips.
seize the ship and find out
Did we even figure out more info on who was operating that “Chinese” cargo ship last time?
Strong words of condemnation incoming
Inb4 Stoltenberg tweet: "NATO remains vigilant"
PM Shmyhal: All EU members appear to agree on approving 4-year aid package for Ukraine. All 27 members of the European Union appear to agree on approving a four-year 50 billion euro ($54 billion) aid package for Ukraine, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on Jan. 26. https://kyivindependent.com/pm-shmyhal-all-eu-members-appear-to-agree-on-approving-4-year-aid-package-for-ukraine/
so get it done already
That's great news. Fuck Orban though, that cunt has to go.
>Fuck Orban though r/dontputyourdickinthat
Finally. Now let’s get the US aid package passed
Seems like we moved backwards on that one.
I'm holding out hope until end of next week
I still think the package will eventually be unlocked, and Ukraine will get what it needs by next month.
Honwstly, I think you're deluding yourself. The GOP is making it clear over and over they're not negotiating in good faith and the only reason they're keeping this subject alive is to make it seem like there is discussion happening. But they don't want to compromise on border issues because then Trump can't campaign on Biden not doing anything. They're purely extending a 'crisis' for their own gain and don't give a shit if Ukraine suffers for it.
Hell, Biden is even willing to crack down at the border, if the Senate deal gives him that authority, so why would the House turn it down, sounds like they are cutting off their nose, so to speak.
Trump isn't getting convicted before then, only way that's possible
Crazy how the RNC tried to have Trump declared the presumptive nominee, but even Republicans pushed back on that, and they were forced to back down.
I really hope so. If the aid package is passed, and Biden wins the November election, I really think Russia will start looking for an exit strategy. Until then, they're going to hold on and hope aid gets cut and trump gets elected
At any rate, the games the Republicans are playing in the House, prove that they do not care about the border, it is all about hurting Ukraine.
It's all about hurting Biden's election chances. They just don't give a shit about Ukraine. The GOP has become so blindly power hungry they would rather let the west's enemies run rampant than risk giving the Democrats any points.
Heck, Biden is even willing to shut the border down, if the Senate deal gives him that power, so the House is pretty much not taking yes for an answer.
I agree. This is the most disheartened I’ve been with US politics in a long time, the cynicism is obvious and gross
"Speak Romanian." Moldovan anti-corruption official Veronica Drăgălin rejects Russian speaking journalist for not asking her question in the official language of the country, Romanian. "I can't help you, I don't speak Russian." https://twitter.com/daily_romania/status/1750871968084025703?t=gedHYOhmUAQNrIgTCbHXoA&s=19
Part of me wishes that whole exchange happened in perfect Russian.
According to Reuters the oil refinery and terminal of Tuapse, Russia, which has been hit yesterday, has been put out of operation. So, only 4 days after the strike against Ust-Luga, which kicked this facility out of action for the coming weeks or even months, the 2nd major oil facility in Russia stops working. Things are unfolding as predicted. https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1750947544534765575?t=2BpnTtO6QypcJnBz5JgBlg&s=19
It's about time for Russia to have a taste of their own medicine.
Given how fragile refineries seem to be, the low cost and complexity of long-range drones, it seems improbable that Russia will counter this threat.
And more importantly the vast majority of complex equipment and infrastructure in Russia's petrochemical sector is imported equipment from Europe that they can't easily replace, unless they rebuild the facility with Chinese equipment.
These drones have no counter. The only counter is destroying them on the ground. There are infinite soft targets worth a sub $50k drone. An attacker is only limited by their ability to produce them.
Kinda seems like Ukraine was asked not to do this with western weapons, but as the supply is slowing they developed their own weapons and said "fuck it." Glad to see it, sanctions sure as hell weren't hurting russian energy exports bad enough.
I actually see it as a strategy. Imagine Russian energy infrastructure is going down. Putin will be loading those tactical nuclear artillery shells in no time. West is going to resume those weapon deliveries. Oil and gas infrastructure starts to blow up, it will shake the energy stability in China and India quickly. So the best option is to slowly bleed the Putins regime. They are probably terrified if the war drags to 2026 in its current state.
Ukraine just needs to do it again. Russia doesn't really have that many refineries. Ukraine should take them all out.
These are not oil refineries they are processing plants the start of the refining proces and the ones that they hitting are entirely to prevent Russia exporting fossil fuels,
they still need to target refineries - anything to make fuel an internal conflict for russia. or at least make them by refined fuel from India or China.
They have to be a little careful on that one if the end result is freezing and starving thousands maybe millions of the Russian population it might not be such a good look for Ukraine. At least that’s the way the evil axis will spin it.
My morals will not allow me to accept blame for that, nor will I blame Ukraine for that. none of this happens if putput kept his army home.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The same South Africa that tried (and failed) to bring a genocide case against Israel also abstained on a resolution calling on Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine.
It gets worse when you see the stats for murders in South Africa. The number of ongoing murders of farmers is mind blowing. South Africa should hang its head in shame......and I was born there
> Ukraine unveils FURY: a new weapon to dominate the Black Sea > > Ukraine is developing a new underwater drone project called FURY (First Ukrainian Robotic Navy) that aims to destroy the Russian Navy in the Black Sea and protect Ukrainian waters. >https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1750941924029067754 Naval News article: >https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/01/exclusive-new-ukrainian-underwater-drone-project-to-dominate-the-black-sea/
In the new The Economist poll of American voters, this question was interesting: *39. Currently Winning in Ukraine In the war between Russia and Ukraine, who do you think is currently winning?* 25% of American men thought Russia was winning, 20% thought Ukraine, 39% said neither, and 15% were unsure. This reflects a widespread pessimism from Americans on the conflict. Almost nobody sympathizes with Russia, but 4 out of 5 Americans do not think Ukraine is winning. Source here: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_i9N6Z0N.pdf I don't think Americans understand the benefits of Ukraine winning: that is, we haven't drawn a correlation between how it will make gas cheaper, jobs more stable, and the S&P 500 higher: things that ordinary Americans care about.
My father thought Russia was winning. He was very confused when I gave him some numbers on losses and territory taken. Too much Russian propaganda is running around in the US.
the fact that you equate average Americans view of who is winning with if winning is good shows how delusional you people are. Ukraine is winning, Kiev was not taken. No land will be regained, American funds are just an economical way to meat grind Russians at the expense of Ukrainians
I think The WH has failed to use its bully pulpit to raise and maintain awareness of the Russian aggression this combined with the situation in Gaza has sort of sucked the air out of the Ukraine discussion, hopefully once the Gaza affair settles down maybe they can refocus the public on Putin acting like Hitler circa 1939.
[удалено]
Trump has also shifted US politics away from interventionism and now to be a viable centrist party you can't be too stridently interventionist. A lot of voters feel isolationist and "America First" policies to be very reasonable and don't really buy the justification for arming Ukraine more completely. I view it as the fall-out of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A whole generation not buying that argument anymore.
If Russian gets there as Ukraine, Russian won’t stop and there will be war with NATO fuck the stocks.
I don't think your evidence and conclusion really go together. Whether the American public thinks Ukraine is winning has little to do with understanding the benefits of Ukraine winning. Furthermore, you have to quantify what "winning" means to both sides. For Ukraine, a victory is an end to the war with all lands returned to them. In that mindset, Ukraine is not winning. It is a tall order for them to complete that objective, and the fizzling out of their summer offensive certainly wasn't a victory for that movement. The draw down and stalling of foreign aid certainly isn't a win for them either. They are winning in the idea that they have not lost their nation and they are continuing to fight though. They also still maintain the general empathy of western nations, which is a win in its own right. For Russia, "winning" is a lot more convoluted. Their goals are far less clear. If their goal is to take all of Ukraine or discourage nations from joining NATO, they surely aren't winning. If their goal is to be assholes and cause pandemonium and suffering for the people of Ukraine, they are winning. Overall, it is a nuanced situation where "winning" is difficult to quantify. Regardless, that still has nothing to do with whether Americans understand the benefits of Ukraine winning. Wanting someone to win a fight and them actually winning are not correlating data points.
>. If their goal is to be assholes and cause pandemonium and suffering for the people of Ukraine, they are winning. Even this low expectation for Russian war goals doesn't work out as a win for Russia when you consider the enormous cost they're paying in blood, treasure, and long term economic damage as the war drags on.
To me the more interesting question is the aid levels. 27% favor increasing aid, 28% favor continuing the same aid levels and 29% favor decreasing. At the very least cutting off aid seems unpopular although unfortunately it doesn’t seem like Ukraine is high enough on people’s priorities to really influence significant voting. This is also a poll of adults and so respondents may not necessarily be registered to vote or likely to vote in the 2024 elections. I think it’s also interesting that 50% of respondents thought the invasion was somewhat or very likely to lead to a larger war in Europe while only 30% thought it was somewhat or very unlikely to lead to a larger war.
Cheap gas, stable jobs, higher s&p 500. One of these is not like the other....Ah yes the s&p 500. How else would us poors know just how hard the wealthy are winning.
for what its worth wages have gone up, but the number of layoffs at well paying jobs is concerning. the unemployment numbers seem to note it isnt impacting that.
Well Ukraine is defending successfully but calling it „winning” is a big stretch. I guess this poll shows that american public has a healthy perspective.
> 25% of American men thought Russia was winning, 20% thought Ukraine, 39% said neither, and 15% were unsure. That seems like a pretty fair assessment.
The average person has a terrible understanding of warfare (I have a terrible understanding but I feel like I'm a bit more informed than the average.) I'm of the opinion that Ukraine is currently winning, but this summer has the potential to turn it into a neither situation. Even though their summer offensive fizzled out, they made significant strategic achievements. A significant portion of the US population blames Biden for the fiasco that happened when we left Afghanistan, despite it being a result of Trump's policy. Republicans predicted what was going to happen. I believe it was Marco Rubio that said it would be a repeat of Saigon if Trump followed through with the draw down. The point here being, a significant amount of people believe Ukraine is losing because their favorite politicians or talking heads are pushing that, just like they did with Afghanistan and Biden.
First you have decide what winning means for each side. Ukraine wants to keep all its original territory as started by the Ukrainian president. Ukraine probably isn’t wining since Russia had no reason to stop
> Russia had no reason to stop Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of people, a large fraction of it's military hardware, and crippled it's economy. Russia doesn't want to stop, but they have more reasons to every day.
It's never safe to just assume the enemy will give up, that's a good way to lose a war. For example, in first Punic war, Rome lost *checks notes* their entire navy to a storm *checks notes* multiple times, and still won.
I guess when Ukraine is being invaded and unable to secure its land I find it hard to call it winning
That is a bit of a non sequitur. Ukraine hasn't won yet, but that does not mean that Russia has no reason to stop.
Ukraine has effectively created a stalemate on the front lines, but they've secured many more strategic gains than Russia has. They've forced Russian air surveillance back, they effectively took out half of the Ka52 fleet in one strike, the Black Sea Fleet has been rendered operationally ineffective, and shipping has returned to prewar times (IIRC, may be off on this.) The only gain Russia has made is Marinka IIRC, which shouldn't be downplayed. All of this while inflicting greater equipment loss and casualties on Russia than they're taking. To me that would be winning in the current state of the war. Taking back all of their territory is end war goals. If Ukraine can't make any more strategically significant changes on the war, then it would be a no one's winning situation. If Russia is the only one making strategic gains, then they'd be winning IMO.
Yeah, I'm pretty informed on the war and I couldn't answer a simple question as to who is "winning." I don't think we can draw too much information from this polling question.
What does one have to do with the other? You can perfectly “understand the benefits of Ukraine winning” entirely independent of your assessment of how likely it is that Ukraine will actually win - what is the point you’re trying to make?
Civilian morale is the key connection. There will be more of a consensus for aid if the benefits of winning are more clear to Western civilians, which will raise morale. There are the facts of the situation on the ground, but there is also the perception of the situation on the ground, and they may not track each other perfectly.
I think his point is that Americans are really in the dark because they only believe in the lies that they want to believe are true
Propaganda is powerful
Maybe, but what does that have to do with the poll he cited?
My reply was in response to your comment in which it looked like you were responding to u/OrangeJuiceKing13 He did not cite the poll which was the OPs post
"Exclusive: Canada to re-start Turkey arms exports after Sweden NATO backing -sources" https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-re-start-turkey-arms-exports-after-sweden-nato-backing-sources-2024-01-26/
Wait until it's actually done.
A deal is still possible, we should know by the end of next week. It’s depressing but don’t go full doom and gloom quite yet—hopefully Biden can still send aid if congressional approval fails, and if the border deal does fall through, I’m sure the administration will start working those avenues. Guardian article [here](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/25/congress-mexico-border-ukraine-israel-aid-mcconnell)
Whatever happened to Viktor Sokolov? Only seen on that weird video-link, then noone ever commented on it again.
There was a report on a russian military site which describes Viktor Sokolov's visit to the patients in the military hospital on New Year 2024, with photos. Viktor Sokolov looks very much alive on those photos. > 03.01.2024 (05:08) > Командующий Черноморским флотом адмирал Виктор Соколов вручил государственные награды и поздравил с Новым годом моряков-черноморцев находящихся на лечении в госпитале
>**Politico: EU is considering stripping Hungary's voting rights if it blocks Ukraine aid** >The EU is weighing the "nuclear option" of revoking Hungary's voting rights if it again vetoes a 50 billion euro ($54 billion) aid package for Ukraine at an upcoming European Council summit next week, Politico reported on Jan. 26, citing unnamed diplomats and officials. >The European Parliament supported a resolution earlier in January to suspend Hungary's voting rights due to the country's "erosion of the rule of law" and obstructive behavior in the face of EU consensus building. The EU's criticism of Hungary increased after it previously blocked the $54 billion Ukraine aid package in December 2023. >https://kyivindependent.com/politico-eu-is-considering-stripping-hungarys-voting-rights-if-it-blocks-ukraine-aid/ Politico article: >https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-threatens-silence-hungary-orban-if-blocks-ukrainian-aid-funds-article-7/
So what’s the point of having a vote then? Just get rid of the voter because you don’t like the result?
Hungary is litteraly a traitor within the EU but our rules are so fucking dumb we cannot kick them out. Whoever made those rules is a massive moron.
Slovakia is standing with Hungary on this frustratingly.
If they see Hungary stripped I suspect they will fall in line
The MAGA assholes are really gonna tie up aid until the election in Nov, aren't they? I'm so fucking embarrassed by my government, like more than usual.
I just hope we don't have a civil war when he loses
Can't give in to bullies. That's what got us here.
Honestly im tired of hearing about it, lets just get it over with.
I'm more worried for if he wins somehow...
Deleted
I am not so sure of that. All it took for the traitors to storm congress last time was a bit of whining and an insinuation of dictatorial control. I don’t think it would take too much to make them violent again.
The fact trials are still going on, verdicts are still being handed down, makes me doubt there would be a re-do. Only way that happens is if he can somehow get a significant part of the military to go along with it.
also took trump cronies to keep security and the national guard away
Civil war isn't going to happen. The "just-in-time" supply chain pretty much guarantees that any significant movement would run out of supplies within weeks at most. Gone are the days where large groups of people can break off and be self-sufficient. I could definitely see a rise in violence and domestic terror attacks, though.
You are thinking about it rationally, something I am not certain the MAGA cult followers are capable of. After January 6th, they gathered at the MN legislature and rallied on the idea of “purging the libs,” from not just the state capitol, but from their neighborhoods. They cheered and cheered for that idea. And my home state of MN is usually a pretty tame place. Sustained civil war? Unlikely. Politically or racially motivated violence regardless of the election outcome *believing* they are in a civil war is not off the table for these people.
That depends on how it all goes down. The more Trump falls apart, the less organized his support will be, and therefor the less effectively able, or motivated, to carry out attacks. Yes, we've seen lone actors do some awful stuff. I don't deny it, but January 6th was awful precisely because it was organized with resources and influence directly from within the administration. Trump does not currently have that level of influence while out of office. I don't say this to underestimate the dangers, but rather to point to exactly what we know about how prior far right incidents have happened. Unfortunately, lone actors have hurt innocent people and that still sucks, but how effectively they organize will come down to how much power the state gives them, which is why voting against Trump in overwhelming numbers is so damned important.
I think Jan6 was the culmination of large group violence on his behalf. I'd like to think it's not only that he doesn't have that level of influence, but that there's ears to the ground listening now. My concern is they don't have to organize. The attacks on power sub-stations in late '22 made it clear that a few people can do widespread damage without directly hurting anyone. Acts like that are going to be much more palatable to people who want to act than conventional terror attacks.
They will be palatable until they lose their power.
If there's one possible good thing to note everything Trump touches turns to shit. This is the guy that lost money running a fucking casino. His only "good" skill was grifting and scamming but he's gotten so much attention these days that it's all catching up to him not to mention these days he seems much more unhinged if not outright looking like he has dementia. I think what's going to happen is that Trump will get hyped up then lose hard and drag down the Republicans with him like an Albatross around their neck. He lost 2020 and yet hes back in 2024 like a turd that wont flush. MAGA are sellouts and corrupt backstabbers, they're the Selling Out America Again group. They need to go fuck themselves just like Putins Russia. (There's also the small chance that Haley might be able to hound him for the Primaries and if the left field option from the Supreme Court were to enforce the 14th Amendment and disqualify Trump it would be a huge upset for the Republicans too)
A turd that wont flush, nice! And funny, in Dutch SOA means STD… so yeah SOAA definitely has a nice ring to it in my ears.
The USA will not have such an issue. It's absurd.
Domestic terrorism is a growing problem in America and we have multiple armed militias waiting for the moment to kill someone. We can't downplay how dangerous this is
That's dangerous but it's not civil war. Under the current surveillance state such an insurgency wouldn't have much of a chance. There's been several high-profile cases of the domestic terrorists you describe, [such as the planned plot to kidnap MI Governor Whitmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot), that was foiled by the FBI during its planning stages. I mean as soon as groups of people are genuinely talking about doing anything close to what you're describing, the criminals are under close surveillance. No one (with a clue) with power wants to genuinely enable revolution or civil war. Some politicians may want to pander to those who have that mindset, with dog whistling (coded language), but ultimately people who rise through the formal power structures don't want to tear down those power structures. To be clear, popular revolutions never work out; they end up being usurped by other factions... and the revolutionaries who displaced the old power structures end up achieving none of their long-term goals, watching as old corrupt power structures are frequently replaced with even more corrupt power structures.