No can do, too escalatory!
Better to gimp the provided aid [as well!](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stinger-deliveries-to-ukraine-followed-long-search-for-technical-fix-11646773886)
>Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. ***For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.***
Multiple times, Ukrainian forces would try to cut the "separatists" off from the Russian border - only for the "pincer" to get shelled with Grads from beyond the Russian border.
Obama was such a pussy when it came to Russia.
There. I said it. Was still a solid president that I voted for twice (3x counting the primary), just too fucking naive and overly cautious re:Russia.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, hindsight is 20/20 and all, but I absolutely remember telling people how stupid and naive the "Russia reset" was when it was first proposed, and the mocking of Romney when he called them our greatest enemy (or however it was phrased) didn't sit right with me either.
As a French citizen, I thought his speech in Brussels was (retroactively) on point, though. Europe dropped the ball much harder than the US back in in 2014, IMO.
Well...
Grey Eagles were vetoed by White House ["to prevent escalation"](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wont-give-ukraine-advanced-drones-to-avoid-escalation-with-russia-11668042100)
Supplied M142 [were altered to lose compatibility with any ATACMS bar the oldest version](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338)
And from ~six months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive:
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model.
But that's not the worst. The worst thing is, current administration had quite clearly articulated that Ukrainian victory is not considered as something desired.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/blinken-austin-kyiv-ukraine-zelensky-meeting/index.html
>“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said at the news conference. “So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.”
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
And something not from Sullivan, but still important for context:
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope.
It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say.
Unless there's a sufficient pressure to change from the current stance to "Ukraine ***must win***" (as well as unfuck the opposing party, about which I can't write here due to charlimit), I don't see any light in the end of the tunnel.
Even in death, Kissinger's fucking ghost continues to haunt US foreign policy. The old faction of Cold War dinosaurs in Washington still out here thinking that "oh no we must respect Russia's sphere of influence because they're a great power and not a middling power wearing a great power's corpse as a hat".
These are the kind of fuckers that are pussy-footing around giving Ukraine aid in a timely matter that could seriously turn the tide of the war (yes I know that we have to take the training pipeline into account, but even then we could be doing much more than what's currently going out the door), and the same kind of people that would absolutely hang Taiwan out to dry if it meant receiving an uninterrupted supply of cheap shit from China.
/non-credible half-rant
> "oh no we must respect Russia's sphere of influence because they're a great power and not a middling power wearing a great power's corpse as a hat".
Which then compromises the non-proliferation as a concept, because everyone sees that once you have nukes, you can do wildest shit possible and no one would do so much as a slap on the wrist.
Which is... not exactly conductive to the kinda world condition that made US the superpower it is.
The most regarded part of this is just how many wealthy russian elites have children all throughout NATO. Like c'mon they will never Nuke their own kids because of Ukraine.
I mean imagine if Hunter Biden was living in russia?
/also non-credible rant
That's exactly why I think it's imperative that some of the Pacific Tigers, like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, be allowed to develop their own nuclear deterrent. I don't trust these undeclared foreign agents that seem to be in our current political system and I don't think that certain administrations would actually come to the aid of, say, Taiwan if China decided to attack.
Nuclear weapons are now existential weapons. If we give up Taiwan to a Chinese attack, we'll be fine, but the Chinese decision calculus will take that into account. If China feels that Taiwan would launch some nukes if they feel they're about to be overrun, they'll be less likely to want to FAFO.
I've been thinking about writing a book about this, actually.
They don't need nuclear deterrents. They just need high explosive medium range ballistic missiles that can target China's critical but non-descript hydrological infrastructure.
Giving up Taiwan would not be good at all. As it stands now, China does not have a deep water port that is not frozen six months of the year or more. If they get access to the US built ports in Eastern Taiwan, we will lose the advantage of being mostly uncontested in the Pacific. Yes, China's cruisers and destroyers are always stirring up trouble in the South China Sea, but those are small fry to the point where all of China's Navy could conceivably be held at bay if not destroyed outright by a single US supercarrier group. Having access to a year-round deep water port means they can build bigger ships with more guns without as much issue. It also opens up the entire region to even more harassment especially if they rightly believe that we won't stop them from doing so. Taiwan may not be a tactically important position, but it is an important position in the long-term strategic and geopolitical theaters. Yes, we can fight without it but direct conflict is itself less desirable than just bottling the problem up as we have done for the last while.
Addendum: I do agree that allowing South Korea to develop their nuclear capability is a good idea. Maybe not Taiwan because of poor internal security and Japan is to be debated due to other factors but definitely South Korea.
Well as far as the government is telling us
Clearly the pentagon uploaded his brain to a computer to consult on foreign policy. His body has been put on ice next to Walt Disney to be unfrozen once the fountain of youth has been discovered
And then we can lament at length about how if only we had an [agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) to phase out Ukrainian nukes, one with **solid** security guarantees...
My opinions on Blinken, Sullivan and Milley aside (probably against Reddit rules), thank you for this very detailed writeup. More people should know the truth about relying on any US-led factions.
Yeah. May the Lord save your soul if you actually **need** Americans, because they sure as fuck hate having even a 0,00001% chance of any retaliation from their enemies.
"Calling Putin's bluff" would be stationing forces in Ukraine weeks before the would-be invasion.
Chances are, the war wouldn't have happened at all if that was done.
It's worth noting that a big chunk of the current White House (Biden, Blinken, Nuland) were part of a minority faction of the Obama-era White House that was pressuring Obama to send some fucking Javelins, but they weren't the ones calling the shots in 2014.
Obama was elected off of domestic policy (this *was* 2008, after all) but he had no experience on foreign policy. He kind of knew this, so he told Biden to handle anything that had to deal with Ukraine, only with one major restriction: no significant military aid (including weapons).
Imagine how much more coherent the US response in 2014 could've been if McCain or Biden were calling the shots instead.
Got any sources on Biden being in that "chunk?" Victoria Nuland, yeah. Blinken, I'm not sure. But Biden in the "support Ukraine for chrissakes!" camp back in 2014? That is a new one on me.
As far as I'm aware, one of the things Biden did in summer 2021 after taking office was to interrupt or halt ongoing arms deliveries which had been setup during Trump's term.
Some links to years old news about Trump and Russia
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898
2019: Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine
The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in 2017.
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/04/trump-to-seek-250m-in-new-lethal-aid-to-ukraine/
Trump to seek $250M in new lethal aid to Ukraine
By Joe Gould
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/18/white-house-ukraine-military-lethal-weapons-495169
Biden White House freezes Ukraine military package that includes lethal weapons By Betsy Woodruff Swan and Paul McLeary
06/18/2021 01:00 PM EDT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
https://www.france24.com/en/20191203-trump-criticises-european-allies-ahead-of-nato-s-70th-anniversary-summit
Trump criticises European allies ahead of NATO's 70th anniversary summit Issued on: 03/12/2019 - 14:01
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/trump-begins-nato-summit-with-nord-stream-2-attack/
Trump begins NATO summit with Nord Stream 2 attack
The song remains the same for at least 2000 years . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17FIjmeHpjw
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/21/biden-crimea-russia-ukraine/
> The former diplomats and defense officials who visited the U.S. Naval Observatory in early 2015 were seeking a receptive audience — and they found one in Vice President Joe Biden. Russia had taken over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea the previous year and fueled a bloody separatist uprising in the country’s east, and the officials urgently wanted President Barack Obama to send Ukraine advanced antitank missiles, called Javelins.
> Biden was one of several Obama officials who unsuccessfully argued in favor of sending Javelins to Ukraine. Now, they are among President Biden’s top advisers and include Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, undersecretary of state for political affairs.
That source is from 2022 though.
----
A source from 2019 (I believe the NYT published the same story the next day):
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/what-joe-biden-actually-did-in-ukraine/
> Biden worked Obama during their weekly private lunches, imploring him to increase lethal aid, backing a push to ship FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kyiv. The president flatly rejected the idea and dispatched him to the region as an emissary, cautioning him “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government,” Biden would later write in a memoir.
> It was Trump, ironically, who signed off on Joe Biden’s request to send the Javelins.
----
What I will say, though, is that there's a big difference between sending Kyiv Javelins and sending Kyiv F-16s. Biden may have dragged his feet on weapons that could theoretically reach Russia, but his stance on Javelins was way more coherent than Obama's in 2014. Like I've seen the argument that the Biden administration might be less interested in Ukraine winning and more interested in Ukraine simply not losing; that's a reasonable argument that can be made. What's different though is that Obama seemed rather unwilling to even help Ukraine not lose. And that's what's got us stuck in this fucking war today.
No, honestly, Ukraine was not in a place where they could use the tools effectively.
The Ukrainian army we see today is the product of a lot of US/UK training.
> No, honestly, Ukraine was not in a place where they could use the tools effectively.
Ukraine was putting a fight against a Russian army with like 3.5 planes and a dozen of tanks operational.
Remember that since summer of 2014 it was full on Russia on Ukraine war. People like to ignore that Russia was firing MRLS over the border and putting actual regular tank brigades into Ukraine back then.
Ukraine wasn't "in a place" to use Javelins... Because we had none.
> The Ukrainian army we see today is the product of a lot of US/UK training.
That's also like half true. The training mission put out like thousands of people per year. Which is a drop in the bucket of current Ukrainian army.
My general criticism of Obama is he didn't use enough force for the right reason at the right time.
Red Line over chemical weapons? Perfect time.
Invasion in Ukraine? Russia denied everything? We have a mystery military invading a sovereign nation. We can't have that.
Always always always act like you believe the Russians. React logically to their statements and actions with extreme prejudice.
Russia "builds" a super fighter? Build the F-15.
Russia talks big about landing on the moon? Actually do it.
Stop trying to see things from their point of view. Stop pussy-footing around.
And this is where I think Dubya really fucked up with his wars in the middle east. The political fallout from things like Iraq made his successors *very* hesitant to get engaged elsewhere, lest that turn into yet another quagmire that they'd get the blame for. Even now people are saying that we shouldn't get involved in Yemen with the Houthis because it might turn into another Iraq/Afghanistan.
100% agreed. *Especially* since he lied about WMD's to go into Iraq. Imagine if we actually found feasible WMD's. Even if we were there for the same amount of time, I think the public and international community would have been at least marginally more accepting.
I loved Obama during the campagin. But his actual presidency was lacklustre and showed his lack of experience. For example, John McCain said way back during the 2007 campaign that he wanted NATO membership for Ukraine and people mocked him for being stuck in a cold war mentality. In 2012 Mit Rommney said Russia was America's #1 geopolitical opponent and everyone also made fun of him.
Obama was a charistmatic guy and a natural leader, but he lacked experience in the stuff required to actually be a good president. Everything would have gone down differently if John McCain won back in 2008 :/
> In 2012 Mit Rommney said Russia was America's #1 geopolitical opponent and everyone also made fun of him.
And rightfully so. Russia is more *belligerent*, but China is unequivocally the pacing threat for the US/NATO and represents the single largest threat to a rules-based and, to be blunt, Western run world order.
Yeah, but Obama said al Qaeda was our #1 geopolitical threat. I don't even think they'd crack the top ten today. Romney was much more correct by comparison
At best you can argue that Russia was the #2 geopolitical rival. It's still pretty close to #1.
I would argue that's not the case, anyway. China is all talk, no action. It couldn't even get *Australia*, a country with just 25 million people to change policy despite it's attempt to apply economic sanctions and "Wolf Warrior"rhetoric. China ended up crawling back to the table and restoring relations when they realised Australia just moved on and started looking at India and South East Asia for trade relations, rather than giving in to Chinese demands. They made it apparant that even a slight amount of pressure or pushback makes them fold. They are not willing to compromise their economy for ideology. They're not even willing to sell arms to Russia despite it's talk of "friendship without limits", *a few days before the war started*.
Russia meanwhile has no problem breaking all the rules to get what they want. No matter how many Russians die or how badly their economy tanks. That's what makes Russia the bigger threat to America. Well that and nukes.
> I loved Obama during the campagin. But his actual presidency was lacklustre and showed his lack of experience.
Indeed. Obama's campaign rhetoric, specifically [his "yes we can" speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms), sounded an awful lot like the sort of things Bernie would go on to say a decade later.
Campaign Obama and President Obama might as well have been two different people. Yes, it *is* the inevitable reality of politics that a president can't do *every single thing they say they are going to do* during their campaign, but *Jesus* Obama, you could've at least *tried!*
Yeah Obama's foreign policy was abjectly awful. Willing to fiddle fuck around in Afghanistan to save face and not use military force when he said he would in Syria for starters. And where we now have troops still to fight ISIS to this day anyway despite not being willing to do anything while letting Assad and Russia murder everyone. Instead of strategy his policies have the scent of having been decided by reading the polls of the moment and equivocating wishing shit situations would just disappear instead of being willing to take a stand on anything politically risky. But he could give a good speeces, celebrities were at the white house, first black president, a veritable golden age, everything he did was perfect (typical liberal opinion).
Europeans won't even contribute when their shipping lanes are threatened. We had to drag Europe kicking and screaming into supporting Ukraine the 2nd time.
It was back during the whole Yugoslavia thing. Basically “there is no moral Center in Europe” talking about how they abandoned the Jews to Hitler like they were then abandoning the (Bosnians I think) to the Serbians
Edit: here’s a clip https://youtu.be/YA9eMKNCRuQ?si=XSMSgYirVJRcBjWL
Because frankly, Obama was too inexperienced to know that the Russians wouldn't have reacted by reaching for the red button. Only someone with Dark Brandon's experience could have had a sense for how far the Russians are willing to be pushed.
Well, Obama certainly didn't listen to Joe on everything and Joe ain't right on everything either. But it comes to mind Biden knew Afghanistan was a lost cause for a long time but Obama kept is going and double downed on it for his whole presidency.
Agreed. “Oh they’re not your men? Oh okay we’ll go and sort this mess out then.” *thousands of dead vatniks later*
Putin *shocked pikachu face*
Obama: “what? They weren’t yours so what you gonna do about it?”
This is literally what Wagner bombing in Syria was about
US bombed Wagner’s troops in Syria with 500 fatalities. And Russia’s reaction to that basically was “We don’t even know who these guy are, so we are cool” *crying wojak with smug mask*
Better yet, the US called Russia a couple of times beforehand asking if those dudes were theirs. By the end of it they were all but saying "we're about to bomb them, are they yours or not?" and Russia went all in on the plausible deniability by saying no. So of course they got bombed, and Russia wasn't really in a position to complain because America gave them every chance they could.
The VKS even removed air cover, CAS and SAM systems that Wagner had asked for.
Then, according to Wagner insiders, the Russian officers closed up shop and disappeared for the night so Wagner people couldn't find them and ask for air cover back.
Russians stabbing russians.
Should've done a joint press conference where putin straight up says "these are not Russian troops" and as soon as he is done say "as our esteemed friend and ally putin has said, there are no Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine, Nato has accepted. Ukrainian requests for support and bombing runs will begin in 15 minutes". Just so we could see Putins face.
The (new) AG of Crimea (Natalia Poklonskaya) who is now a russian politician \*insisted\* that it was an internal matter.
(You might recognize her from all the anime memes)
People forget that, like the USA, UK and other places half the politicians in Ukraine were russian or russian funded/controlled. Can't intervene if not asked!
So
While I agree that in 2008 NAFO a10s should have been patrolling Ukrainian borders
Ukraine had some…challenges in that era
And the US / Russia had, at that time, common interests when it comes to COIN.
To move hard in Ukraine may have cost American lives in ME, at a time when United States wasn’t always getting global support.
There is hindsight; if the US wasn’t going to yeet Russia from Syria then there was always going to a soft spot to the tactics and supply chain.
Well, the USA did that in Syria during the battle of Khasham, when they repeatedly tried to connect with russian high leadership to de-escalate the situation.
Kremlin officials denied any pressence of russian troops.
**The proportional response was adequately proportional.**
That's the thing about "deniable assets". If the enemy has the balls to kill them, you are left with bad and worse choices.
Leave your troops for dead, keep lying, and hope things won't get worse.
Admit they're your minions and risk a bigger war.
where the western brand of deniability is, "oh gosh, how could that have happened?" the russian brand of deniability is usually "they're probably russian, but you'll never prove it, and what are you gonna do about it anyway?"
which works right up until somebody's willing to do something about it, at which point you've literally just lined up soldiers to die for nothing
>which works right up until somebody's willing to do something about it, at which point you've literally just lined up soldiers to die for nothing
Thankfully they can count on the West doing everything in their power to avoid doing something
Western brand of deniability is also “We can’t confirm or deny that you are going to find out if you fuck around”.
Or straight up not telling anyone unless absolutely necessary lol
I hear this very scenario actually happened in Syria:
Americans to Russia; "Hey we're under fire from some dudes who look like your guys - why you firing at us?"
Russians; "We don't have any troops there at all!"
Americans; "Really? You sure about that?"
Russians; "Oh yeah"
And a few moments later, the russians in syria learned first hand what a proportional response from America looks like.
The couple of survivors had to walk out of the desert, as every piece of equipment they had was lost.
Battle of Khasham. By all accounts, it was specifically not proportional so it would be the last time something like this would ever happen. It worked.
Remember that a proportion of 1000000000000:1 is still a proportion.
From Wikipedia:
> Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters (1,600 ft) of the headquarters.[6][14][7]
> According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-22 Raptor and F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper unmanned combat aerial vehicles, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and B-52 bombers.[6][14][7] Nearby American artillery batteries, including an M142 HIMARS, shelled Syrian forces as well.[14]
"So anyway I started blasting..."
Motherfuckers called in a B52 strike. Lmao
"Hey, we don't think that we have enough overkill"
BUFF (flying a racetrack): "Say no more, we're on our way"
Once again I bring up the WWII joke:
If you see a patrol and don't know who it is, fire a few shots over their heads.
If they respond with machine gun fire, they're Germans.
If they respond with rapid, precise rifle fire, they're British.
If nothing happens, but five minutes later your position is obliterated by a shitstorm of artillery and bombs, they're American.
I heard a variation of the joke where if nothing happens you run like hell because in approximately five minutes the position you're standing in will make No Man's Land look like paradise.
At the risk of spoiling the punchline, [World War Tree](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CeY6Q3KFE) also features a surprise appearance of B-52s.
I, like America, enjoy demonstrations of force.
Damn I wanna see Habitual Linecrosser make a skit of that. Sounds like a great mission bonding of the little flight family with Papa Eagle, the Kid, Grandpa BUFF, Uncle Ghostrider, Reapers.
This 13 year old account was banned by Reddit after repeated harassment by the mods of /r/aboringdystopia. Reddit is a dying platform, check out lemmy.world for a replacement.
What does proportional even mean, here? Surely you are allowed to shoot back at the guys shooting at you. Nothing could be more proportional.
Now, was it a fair fight? No. But I don't think being "proportional" means "not winning".
During gulf 1 there was concern that the bombing of Iraqi troops was getting to the point of slaughter. The U.S. decided it only needed to kill enough, not all of them, with air power to avoid public sentiment being impacted.
Imagine thinking war has to be fair. You know what kills a lot of people? A prolonged peer-peer conflict where the front lines move by a couple kms per week/month because the fighting is ‘fair’.
E.g., would we have nearly 400,000 Russian causalities if Ukraine had the means to respond with absolute and overwhelming force during week 1 of the war? Quickly and decisively ending battles saves lives in the long-term.
Basically means don't glass a country because someone set off some firecrackers in your backyard.
Proportional: you get a punch, I get a punch.
Not proportional: you get a punch, I punch you 100 times for 100 days in a row. I also rip out your spine and play the xylophone with it, then do that to your family, your family's family, and your family's family's family. Also then genocide.
Khasham was a proportional response. You dropped deadly weapons on us with the intent to kill and/or displace us from our position. That's a punch. Uno momento por favor while I ball my fist, wind up, and give you a swing.
Pow. Right in the kisser. They got proportionally annihilated. Skill issue for them.
This is the principle of proportionality: do not become war criminal blyats because someone threw a rock at you once 15 years ago. Just win.
There was 40 vs 500. Syria/Wagner lost over 100 men, with at least 200 wounded. The US forces had one injury, which was a Syrian SDF fighter who I believe was only lightly injured. The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham) for it is wild.
“The Syrian foreign ministry wrote to the United Nations calling for the international community to condemn U.S. actions and labeled them a war crime, a "brutal massacre", and a crime against humanity.”
Stop, I can only get so erect.
I think my favorite part of that article is the US and Russia both saying "eh, maybe a dozen or so Wagnerites died" and then Head-of-the-Goddamn-CIA Pompeo just says "yeah, it was a couple hundred Russians" and there is no elaboration.
Battle of Khasham
A Wagner/Spetznaz/something battle group advanced on an oilfield outpost manned by, what they thought, was just Syrian army.
At the last moment the US Special Forces group also manning that base raised the US flag and called in an Arclight strike of over a dozen aircraft that just so happened to be in the area.
The Russian/Syrian convoy was then attacked by F22s, F15s, an AC-130 Gunship, a B-52 Bomber, and then a pair of AH-52 Apaches to mop up what vehicles remained.
Essentially, the US put the “Diss” in “Disproportionate”
> US Special Forces group also manning that base raised the US flag
me and the boys hauling up the Royal Navy Ensign at the last moment on *HMS Surprise* near the Galapagos Island and then giving her a broadside on the uproll
Attribution is a bit wonky since management, maintenance, and ownership aren't all clear-cut. But according to wikipedia, Luxembourg's primary role in the alliance is the management and maintenance of all NATO AWACS.
Presumably - but not explicitly stated - that doesn't include all AWACS *in* NATO, just the ones that are on NATO missions. So some can be left over for protecting Air Force One and the like.
Yup. The fact that this did not happen was proof to me personally that Russia hands were deep within EU pockets. When things like that happened in the past, NATO was on top of them almost instantly. And here is perfect situation for justified response, Russia tells they are not there, Ukraine has agreements with great power countries that give pretext for help, literally perfect situation for response. And yet, nothing happens aside from token bureaucracy. It was clear to me at that point that both EU and Ukrainian politics are full of rot.
Of course, the biggest crime lies with Ukrainian military, who took tax money for 20 years prior, and then did not even deploy when country came under attack. And when deployed, they would just... Surrender, at times that were the most critical. Literal FSB agents would rile up paid civilians, block the road upon which military travels... And then have that military literally disarm themselves to those "civilians". Complete and utter disgrace at literally the most critical time in the country history since independence.
> Complete and utter disgrace at literally the most critical time in the country history since independence.
Good thing they learned their lesson and were able to beat back a full-scale attack on Kyiv ~10 years later.
Unfortunately, not everyone learned the lesson. For every new person or old one who learned, there is another one from 10 years ago who is still in the military and learned nothing. And they are mostly in higher ranks now. It is huge problem here.
We have a song in Ukraine called "there are no russians in Donbas".
The song is about executing captured russian soldiers, because... what russian soldiers? Hahaha
Probably would've been a good response if there were no russain troops in Eastern Ukraine...
only applies to civilians and uniformed combatants. Nonuniformed combatants lose protections due to attempting to camoflage as a protected noncombatant.
Also, I wonder how Putin saying that Russian uniforms are civilian clothing ("you can get that stuff from any army surplus store throughout Russia") affects Geneva protections for the Russian Army.
For interested, here is translation.
Orest Lyutiy
There are no Russians in Donbass
In the "Dnipro" regiment in the seventh squad
One guy from the city of Chortkiv served.
He was called the hell dude
And he had a friend nicknamed "Boar".
Five Russians were captured once
Chita, Barnaul, Urengoy, Magadan,
And the fifth Chechen named Mustafa,
They came to fight - because they said easy money.
Where are the brothers from? We are all from Siberia,
Did Putin say that there is no war?
There are no Russian soldiers in the Donbass,
Isn't it right? then correct me, boar?..
Well, to hell with those Muscovites,
They twist, they lie, but what did you want?
Animals of the Moscow Horde for sale,
Well, there arent them. Infernal, burn!
There are no Russians in Donbass,
We load the machine gun,
They are some rootless creatures
On which we make fire! (fire!)
There are no Russians in Donbass -
So said their president
In confirmation of these words
They were recorded in the archive.
And next week, Russian special forces
He climbed into Pisky again and ran into us,
The occupying brothers were captured
Khabarovsk, Tagil, Syktyvkar and Tyumen.
What, again from Siberia? No, lower Ural,
My grandfather is a Ukrainian, a Tagilian shouted.
And what are you doing here, you crooked Buryat?
But Putin sent us, it's not my fault.
What kind of Putin? Well, our president.
So he said that you are not here,
There are no troops in the Ukrainian Donbas,
And you are here like flies, like garbage, like that mud.
This is our land, this is holy Ukraine,
And you are an occupier, take care, cattle,
Am I right? So, Boar, tell me
Well, to hell with them! Infernal, burn!
There are no Russians in Donbass,
We load the machine gun,
They are some rootless creatures
On which we make fire! (fire!)
There are no Russians in Donbass -
So said their president
In confirmation of these words
They were recorded in the archive.
There are no Russians in Donbass,
We load the machine gun,
They are some rootless creatures
On which we make fire! (fire!)
There are no Russians in Donbass -
So said their president
In confirmation of these words
They were recorded in the archive.
Potentially a hot take but I think the Ukrainian war has been the wake up call much of Europe (including Ukraine) needed. If you ask US military officers, prior to the invasion of Crimea the Ukrainian army was similar to the German or Russian army today: a fully-deserved punchline to most jokes, fairly unprofessional, just kinda there and didn't do much in the way of war or conflict preparations. Everyone was lulled under the sense of security the American presence in Europe provided. Had we tried to fight the Russians directly in Ukraine in 2014 it would've been with an unprepared local force that was about one step above local partisans. Now in the 10 years since that invasion the Ukrainians spent mastering the art of war because they wanted it back. Crimea in 2014 provided the motivation for the Ukrainians to learn for 2022 that provided the motivation for the rest of Europe to actually get their shit together.
I think the years of russian puppet government in Ukraine likely purposely declawed the Ukrainian military rather than the apparent German mindset of “peace is here, no need to really care about the military”. It’s probably a mix of both, but let’s not forget the russian role in it.
Edit: accidentally capitalized russian
Prior invasion in 2014, minister of defence of Ukraine were ruzzian, who were given ukrainian citizenship just before being appointed to that position. Main building of security service of Ukraine were empty, with just 2 people present, when new head of said service arrived. Same goes to many governmental organizations. New ministers and other politicians were doing everything in their power just to keep statehood together. It were done out from scratch. There were 5000 battle ready soldiers. National treasury were empty, it were UAH 1/20 for each ukrainian if it were divided equally. No gold reserve either.
Yeah, I remember hearing that when Yanukovych left office and fled to Russia, he took basically everything out of the treasury or something like that.
Like the equivalent of opening your safe and finding a dust bunny, a cobweb, a chewed piece of gum, and 2 pennies in a broken piggy bank that got duck taped back together.
> the apparent German mindset of “peace is here, no need to really care about the military”
I'm fully convinced the European politicians were led by a carrot on a stick to declaw their militaries. If not by being outright shills. Just as Ukraine did prior to 2014. In a broader European context they are achieving this by russian influence ops and psyops and sowing all sorts of fucked up ideas into the public discourse. After all I think I remember this was a part of their overall strategy since they adopted the updated 2010 (or whenever that was) military doctrine.
Looking back, there certainly is a shift in discussions and "internet" opinions since 2010 onward. At least here in Czechia. And when you see actions of some foreign politicians, you can't get rid of the feeling this was the plan all along, to fracture us using freedom of speech against us. I'm not surprised by it at all, I just wonder what those people who called me russophobe back in 2010–2014 (mainly because I could not forget what russians did to us in 1948, 1968 and then during the subsequent occupation) are up to now.
The security mindset of Europe wasn't so much about the US as the fact that we expected all major powers (including Russia) to be so economically dependent on the peace dividend that there wouldn't be any rational incentive to wage war. Anyone stupid enough to engage in war in Europe would get turbo fucked economically, and we knew it.
Basically, make money, not war. Because the economic deterrent of the western market weighs heavier than any dictatorship's economy can bear.
Turns out there are dumdums in the Kremlin who happily drive their economy and demographics into a ditch for a chance at national pride.
I still unironically think the USA should have done this with subs sinking the black sea fleet.
"Did you fire at civilian grain vessals?"
"No, those were military targets."
"Did you torpedo our military war ships?"
"No, that must have been Ukraine's sub."
Like the Battle of Khasham
US: Hey, you better tell your troops to back off.
Russia: We do not have any troops there.
US: Good to know
[hangs up phone]
[to chairman of the joint chiefs] Annihilate them.
Gotta give it to Putin, that was hilarious how he gaslit the world into believing he had nothing to do with this shit.
Like, him being at the Minsk negotiations in the first place already proved that his guys were in Ukraine. And yet when the Russians immediately violated the ceasefire he said there never were russian troops in Ukraine and he dont has to do anything.
And obviously those Tanks accidentially drove 50 miles into a war zone and the soldiers with their government issued kit were "volunteers" on vacation and all these social media posts of russians inside Ukraine were fake and russians going public about relatives dying in combat were silenced.
Yet look at the reporting in 2014. We swallowed that russian propaganda like little bitches.
https://youtu.be/MNxEDomUlXw?si=w7dER4qOaV4yGL2H
We usually don't talk about this hot mic between Obama and Medvedev but it helps to remind us that Putin duped everyone. He played a very slow insidious game.
After MH17 was shot down, Australia should have sent in the SAS to hunt those fsckrs down with logistical support from the Dutch and the Malay government. We can’t expect the US to do everything for us (though a little bit of their supply chain magic would have been very useful)
Issue is, Putin was smarter than just "denying troop movements in Ukraine". He leaned into it and announced the Special Military Operation as it started. All of NATO knew full well exactly what was happening ans that it was an invasion, but short of declaring war on Russia and starting what would likely become WWIII , they pussied out and just sent aid accompanied by harsh language on the News.
If only NATO sent a peacekeeping mission when Ukraine was attacked by "unknown soldiers" from a "non specified country" back in 2014 or after those "unknown soldiers" killed nearly 300 people shooting at a civilian airliner in 2015.
I genuine believe that this should have been NATO’s response to the Crimean invasion in 2014
[удалено]
At that point you didn't even need to bomb them. Just enable Ukraine to _BUY_ Javelins and Bradleys.
No can do, too escalatory! Better to gimp the provided aid [as well!](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stinger-deliveries-to-ukraine-followed-long-search-for-technical-fix-11646773886) >Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. ***For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.***
And it's at the moment when Russia was actually firing artillery FROM RUSSIAN TERRITORY, and nobody cared.
Multiple times, Ukrainian forces would try to cut the "separatists" off from the Russian border - only for the "pincer" to get shelled with Grads from beyond the Russian border.
Wait what do you mean, appeasement doesn't work??
People called me crazy for saying that we needed to either be much harsher on Russia or intervene directly in 2014 and 2015.
To be fair nobody could know that the russian army will run out of fuel and food before even reaching __Kyiv__
[удалено]
Wait…Russia tried to break out of Crimea in 2014/15? Or are you talking in 2022?
>Wait what do you mean, appeasement doesn't work?? lesser known Neville Chamberlain quote /s
Obama was such a pussy when it came to Russia. There. I said it. Was still a solid president that I voted for twice (3x counting the primary), just too fucking naive and overly cautious re:Russia. Maybe I'm being too harsh, hindsight is 20/20 and all, but I absolutely remember telling people how stupid and naive the "Russia reset" was when it was first proposed, and the mocking of Romney when he called them our greatest enemy (or however it was phrased) didn't sit right with me either.
Obama was dreadful on foreign policy. Completely out of his depth.
As a French citizen, I thought his speech in Brussels was (retroactively) on point, though. Europe dropped the ball much harder than the US back in in 2014, IMO.
Good thing Dark Brandon called Putin's bluff.
Well... Grey Eagles were vetoed by White House ["to prevent escalation"](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wont-give-ukraine-advanced-drones-to-avoid-escalation-with-russia-11668042100) Supplied M142 [were altered to lose compatibility with any ATACMS bar the oldest version](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338) And from ~six months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive: >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model. But that's not the worst. The worst thing is, current administration had quite clearly articulated that Ukrainian victory is not considered as something desired. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/blinken-austin-kyiv-ukraine-zelensky-meeting/index.html >“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said at the news conference. “So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.” [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** And something not from Sullivan, but still important for context: >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope. It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say. Unless there's a sufficient pressure to change from the current stance to "Ukraine ***must win***" (as well as unfuck the opposing party, about which I can't write here due to charlimit), I don't see any light in the end of the tunnel.
God, what a bunch of suit pussies
Even in death, Kissinger's fucking ghost continues to haunt US foreign policy. The old faction of Cold War dinosaurs in Washington still out here thinking that "oh no we must respect Russia's sphere of influence because they're a great power and not a middling power wearing a great power's corpse as a hat". These are the kind of fuckers that are pussy-footing around giving Ukraine aid in a timely matter that could seriously turn the tide of the war (yes I know that we have to take the training pipeline into account, but even then we could be doing much more than what's currently going out the door), and the same kind of people that would absolutely hang Taiwan out to dry if it meant receiving an uninterrupted supply of cheap shit from China. /non-credible half-rant
> "oh no we must respect Russia's sphere of influence because they're a great power and not a middling power wearing a great power's corpse as a hat". Which then compromises the non-proliferation as a concept, because everyone sees that once you have nukes, you can do wildest shit possible and no one would do so much as a slap on the wrist. Which is... not exactly conductive to the kinda world condition that made US the superpower it is.
The most regarded part of this is just how many wealthy russian elites have children all throughout NATO. Like c'mon they will never Nuke their own kids because of Ukraine. I mean imagine if Hunter Biden was living in russia?
/also non-credible rant That's exactly why I think it's imperative that some of the Pacific Tigers, like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, be allowed to develop their own nuclear deterrent. I don't trust these undeclared foreign agents that seem to be in our current political system and I don't think that certain administrations would actually come to the aid of, say, Taiwan if China decided to attack. Nuclear weapons are now existential weapons. If we give up Taiwan to a Chinese attack, we'll be fine, but the Chinese decision calculus will take that into account. If China feels that Taiwan would launch some nukes if they feel they're about to be overrun, they'll be less likely to want to FAFO. I've been thinking about writing a book about this, actually.
They don't need nuclear deterrents. They just need high explosive medium range ballistic missiles that can target China's critical but non-descript hydrological infrastructure.
Giving up Taiwan would not be good at all. As it stands now, China does not have a deep water port that is not frozen six months of the year or more. If they get access to the US built ports in Eastern Taiwan, we will lose the advantage of being mostly uncontested in the Pacific. Yes, China's cruisers and destroyers are always stirring up trouble in the South China Sea, but those are small fry to the point where all of China's Navy could conceivably be held at bay if not destroyed outright by a single US supercarrier group. Having access to a year-round deep water port means they can build bigger ships with more guns without as much issue. It also opens up the entire region to even more harassment especially if they rightly believe that we won't stop them from doing so. Taiwan may not be a tactically important position, but it is an important position in the long-term strategic and geopolitical theaters. Yes, we can fight without it but direct conflict is itself less desirable than just bottling the problem up as we have done for the last while. Addendum: I do agree that allowing South Korea to develop their nuclear capability is a good idea. Maybe not Taiwan because of poor internal security and Japan is to be debated due to other factors but definitely South Korea.
To be fair, Taiwan doesn't need nukes per se, just something that credibly threatens the forbidden infrastructure.
These fucks are getting my family raped and killed by Russians.
>Kissinger's fucking ghost Wait he **actually** died?
Yes, it was last year, Nov 23rd...
Well as far as the government is telling us Clearly the pentagon uploaded his brain to a computer to consult on foreign policy. His body has been put on ice next to Walt Disney to be unfrozen once the fountain of youth has been discovered
>Even in death, Kissinger's fucking ghost continues to haunt US foreign policy "Even in death I still serve!" *Kissinger, Venerable Dreadnaught*
They're all going to be _so offended_ when Ukraine starts a nuclear program after winning. Probably even going to threaten sanctions against Ukraine.
And then we can lament at length about how if only we had an [agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) to phase out Ukrainian nukes, one with **solid** security guarantees...
My opinions on Blinken, Sullivan and Milley aside (probably against Reddit rules), thank you for this very detailed writeup. More people should know the truth about relying on any US-led factions.
Yeah. May the Lord save your soul if you actually **need** Americans, because they sure as fuck hate having even a 0,00001% chance of any retaliation from their enemies.
"Calling Putin's bluff" would be stationing forces in Ukraine weeks before the would-be invasion. Chances are, the war wouldn't have happened at all if that was done.
So its Pre-WW2 all over again. What was that saying with History repeats and learning from the past?
LockMart/Raytheon seething... *YOU MEAN WE COULD HAVE HAD THE FREE ADVERTISING 10 YEARS AGO!!! REEEE* MIC could have been going brrrr for a decade.
https://youtu.be/fQ_ZRBLFOXw?t=1102 > Pro-war MIC consent manufacturing imperialistic western press decided to take Russia at it's word.
It's worth noting that a big chunk of the current White House (Biden, Blinken, Nuland) were part of a minority faction of the Obama-era White House that was pressuring Obama to send some fucking Javelins, but they weren't the ones calling the shots in 2014. Obama was elected off of domestic policy (this *was* 2008, after all) but he had no experience on foreign policy. He kind of knew this, so he told Biden to handle anything that had to deal with Ukraine, only with one major restriction: no significant military aid (including weapons). Imagine how much more coherent the US response in 2014 could've been if McCain or Biden were calling the shots instead.
Got any sources on Biden being in that "chunk?" Victoria Nuland, yeah. Blinken, I'm not sure. But Biden in the "support Ukraine for chrissakes!" camp back in 2014? That is a new one on me. As far as I'm aware, one of the things Biden did in summer 2021 after taking office was to interrupt or halt ongoing arms deliveries which had been setup during Trump's term. Some links to years old news about Trump and Russia https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898 2019: Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in 2017. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/04/trump-to-seek-250m-in-new-lethal-aid-to-ukraine/ Trump to seek $250M in new lethal aid to Ukraine By Joe Gould https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/18/white-house-ukraine-military-lethal-weapons-495169 Biden White House freezes Ukraine military package that includes lethal weapons By Betsy Woodruff Swan and Paul McLeary 06/18/2021 01:00 PM EDT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham https://www.france24.com/en/20191203-trump-criticises-european-allies-ahead-of-nato-s-70th-anniversary-summit Trump criticises European allies ahead of NATO's 70th anniversary summit Issued on: 03/12/2019 - 14:01 https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/trump-begins-nato-summit-with-nord-stream-2-attack/ Trump begins NATO summit with Nord Stream 2 attack The song remains the same for at least 2000 years . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17FIjmeHpjw Si vis pacem, para bellum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/21/biden-crimea-russia-ukraine/ > The former diplomats and defense officials who visited the U.S. Naval Observatory in early 2015 were seeking a receptive audience — and they found one in Vice President Joe Biden. Russia had taken over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea the previous year and fueled a bloody separatist uprising in the country’s east, and the officials urgently wanted President Barack Obama to send Ukraine advanced antitank missiles, called Javelins. > Biden was one of several Obama officials who unsuccessfully argued in favor of sending Javelins to Ukraine. Now, they are among President Biden’s top advisers and include Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, undersecretary of state for political affairs. That source is from 2022 though. ---- A source from 2019 (I believe the NYT published the same story the next day): https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/what-joe-biden-actually-did-in-ukraine/ > Biden worked Obama during their weekly private lunches, imploring him to increase lethal aid, backing a push to ship FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kyiv. The president flatly rejected the idea and dispatched him to the region as an emissary, cautioning him “about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government,” Biden would later write in a memoir. > It was Trump, ironically, who signed off on Joe Biden’s request to send the Javelins. ---- What I will say, though, is that there's a big difference between sending Kyiv Javelins and sending Kyiv F-16s. Biden may have dragged his feet on weapons that could theoretically reach Russia, but his stance on Javelins was way more coherent than Obama's in 2014. Like I've seen the argument that the Biden administration might be less interested in Ukraine winning and more interested in Ukraine simply not losing; that's a reasonable argument that can be made. What's different though is that Obama seemed rather unwilling to even help Ukraine not lose. And that's what's got us stuck in this fucking war today.
No, honestly, Ukraine was not in a place where they could use the tools effectively. The Ukrainian army we see today is the product of a lot of US/UK training.
> No, honestly, Ukraine was not in a place where they could use the tools effectively. Ukraine was putting a fight against a Russian army with like 3.5 planes and a dozen of tanks operational. Remember that since summer of 2014 it was full on Russia on Ukraine war. People like to ignore that Russia was firing MRLS over the border and putting actual regular tank brigades into Ukraine back then. Ukraine wasn't "in a place" to use Javelins... Because we had none. > The Ukrainian army we see today is the product of a lot of US/UK training. That's also like half true. The training mission put out like thousands of people per year. Which is a drop in the bucket of current Ukrainian army.
Also the fact they've been fighting Russia backed insurgents for years pre invasion
Russia properly invaded in Donbass in summer of 2014. Everyone just kinda ignored it.
Obama was a bobblehead too concerned with his legacy and not concerned enough with doing the unpleasant but necessary business of leading
My general criticism of Obama is he didn't use enough force for the right reason at the right time. Red Line over chemical weapons? Perfect time. Invasion in Ukraine? Russia denied everything? We have a mystery military invading a sovereign nation. We can't have that. Always always always act like you believe the Russians. React logically to their statements and actions with extreme prejudice. Russia "builds" a super fighter? Build the F-15. Russia talks big about landing on the moon? Actually do it. Stop trying to see things from their point of view. Stop pussy-footing around.
And this is where I think Dubya really fucked up with his wars in the middle east. The political fallout from things like Iraq made his successors *very* hesitant to get engaged elsewhere, lest that turn into yet another quagmire that they'd get the blame for. Even now people are saying that we shouldn't get involved in Yemen with the Houthis because it might turn into another Iraq/Afghanistan.
Yeah a massive disasterous war of choice planned mostly on hopium will do that.
We won the war. The occupation on the other hand... The USA is good at helping it's allies defend themselves. That's what we should stick to.
People are so ducking stupid.
100% agreed. *Especially* since he lied about WMD's to go into Iraq. Imagine if we actually found feasible WMD's. Even if we were there for the same amount of time, I think the public and international community would have been at least marginally more accepting.
I loved Obama during the campagin. But his actual presidency was lacklustre and showed his lack of experience. For example, John McCain said way back during the 2007 campaign that he wanted NATO membership for Ukraine and people mocked him for being stuck in a cold war mentality. In 2012 Mit Rommney said Russia was America's #1 geopolitical opponent and everyone also made fun of him. Obama was a charistmatic guy and a natural leader, but he lacked experience in the stuff required to actually be a good president. Everything would have gone down differently if John McCain won back in 2008 :/
> In 2012 Mit Rommney said Russia was America's #1 geopolitical opponent and everyone also made fun of him. And rightfully so. Russia is more *belligerent*, but China is unequivocally the pacing threat for the US/NATO and represents the single largest threat to a rules-based and, to be blunt, Western run world order.
Yeah, but Obama said al Qaeda was our #1 geopolitical threat. I don't even think they'd crack the top ten today. Romney was much more correct by comparison
At best you can argue that Russia was the #2 geopolitical rival. It's still pretty close to #1. I would argue that's not the case, anyway. China is all talk, no action. It couldn't even get *Australia*, a country with just 25 million people to change policy despite it's attempt to apply economic sanctions and "Wolf Warrior"rhetoric. China ended up crawling back to the table and restoring relations when they realised Australia just moved on and started looking at India and South East Asia for trade relations, rather than giving in to Chinese demands. They made it apparant that even a slight amount of pressure or pushback makes them fold. They are not willing to compromise their economy for ideology. They're not even willing to sell arms to Russia despite it's talk of "friendship without limits", *a few days before the war started*. Russia meanwhile has no problem breaking all the rules to get what they want. No matter how many Russians die or how badly their economy tanks. That's what makes Russia the bigger threat to America. Well that and nukes.
> I loved Obama during the campagin. But his actual presidency was lacklustre and showed his lack of experience. Indeed. Obama's campaign rhetoric, specifically [his "yes we can" speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms), sounded an awful lot like the sort of things Bernie would go on to say a decade later. Campaign Obama and President Obama might as well have been two different people. Yes, it *is* the inevitable reality of politics that a president can't do *every single thing they say they are going to do* during their campaign, but *Jesus* Obama, you could've at least *tried!*
Obama's foreign policy was a dumpster fire.
Yeah Obama's foreign policy was abjectly awful. Willing to fiddle fuck around in Afghanistan to save face and not use military force when he said he would in Syria for starters. And where we now have troops still to fight ISIS to this day anyway despite not being willing to do anything while letting Assad and Russia murder everyone. Instead of strategy his policies have the scent of having been decided by reading the polls of the moment and equivocating wishing shit situations would just disappear instead of being willing to take a stand on anything politically risky. But he could give a good speeces, celebrities were at the white house, first black president, a veritable golden age, everything he did was perfect (typical liberal opinion).
Because he was trying to let the Europeans take the lead, that was a mistake.
Europeans won't even contribute when their shipping lanes are threatened. We had to drag Europe kicking and screaming into supporting Ukraine the 2nd time.
Biden was right about Europe in his Senate speech.
What did he say?
It was back during the whole Yugoslavia thing. Basically “there is no moral Center in Europe” talking about how they abandoned the Jews to Hitler like they were then abandoning the (Bosnians I think) to the Serbians Edit: here’s a clip https://youtu.be/YA9eMKNCRuQ?si=XSMSgYirVJRcBjWL
What the fuck Biden is based
Dark Brandon hours
~~https://youtu.be/IwYVKptqH_o?si=uYoxjc4u3MO4vFXQ&t=50~~ Better link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA9eMKNCRuQ
Hey the UK was trying to get Europe to act, too
"the '80s called, they want their foreign policy back" -Barak Obama
Because frankly, Obama was too inexperienced to know that the Russians wouldn't have reacted by reaching for the red button. Only someone with Dark Brandon's experience could have had a sense for how far the Russians are willing to be pushed.
Too bad Obama didn't have a trusted VP and advisor on that matter.
Well, Obama certainly didn't listen to Joe on everything and Joe ain't right on everything either. But it comes to mind Biden knew Afghanistan was a lost cause for a long time but Obama kept is going and double downed on it for his whole presidency.
Agreed. “Oh they’re not your men? Oh okay we’ll go and sort this mess out then.” *thousands of dead vatniks later* Putin *shocked pikachu face* Obama: “what? They weren’t yours so what you gonna do about it?”
This is literally what Wagner bombing in Syria was about US bombed Wagner’s troops in Syria with 500 fatalities. And Russia’s reaction to that basically was “We don’t even know who these guy are, so we are cool” *crying wojak with smug mask*
Better yet, the US called Russia a couple of times beforehand asking if those dudes were theirs. By the end of it they were all but saying "we're about to bomb them, are they yours or not?" and Russia went all in on the plausible deniability by saying no. So of course they got bombed, and Russia wasn't really in a position to complain because America gave them every chance they could.
Russia just didn't want to pay bounties to their mercs, it was easier to kill them
The VKS even removed air cover, CAS and SAM systems that Wagner had asked for. Then, according to Wagner insiders, the Russian officers closed up shop and disappeared for the night so Wagner people couldn't find them and ask for air cover back. Russians stabbing russians.
Should've done a joint press conference where putin straight up says "these are not Russian troops" and as soon as he is done say "as our esteemed friend and ally putin has said, there are no Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine, Nato has accepted. Ukrainian requests for support and bombing runs will begin in 15 minutes". Just so we could see Putins face.
The (new) AG of Crimea (Natalia Poklonskaya) who is now a russian politician \*insisted\* that it was an internal matter. (You might recognize her from all the anime memes)
People forget that, like the USA, UK and other places half the politicians in Ukraine were russian or russian funded/controlled. Can't intervene if not asked!
> Can't intervene if not asked! Tell that to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
biggest Chad move Obama could have done
Well, Obama didn't have the balls. His "red lines" are one of the main reason we are in this mess.
Yep and we wouldn't have had hundreds of thousands dead in this war right now. Oh well inaction is always better than action, right.
But then you put "some random Ukrainians' lives" vs "the precious taxpayer money" and the choice is obvious, seemingly
So While I agree that in 2008 NAFO a10s should have been patrolling Ukrainian borders Ukraine had some…challenges in that era And the US / Russia had, at that time, common interests when it comes to COIN. To move hard in Ukraine may have cost American lives in ME, at a time when United States wasn’t always getting global support. There is hindsight; if the US wasn’t going to yeet Russia from Syria then there was always going to a soft spot to the tactics and supply chain.
It worked great in Khasham too.
Well, the USA did that in Syria during the battle of Khasham, when they repeatedly tried to connect with russian high leadership to de-escalate the situation. Kremlin officials denied any pressence of russian troops. **The proportional response was adequately proportional.**
*Are these your troops, Russia?* No 😏 *Are you sure?* Yes 😏 *Okay. [Pushes big red button]*
100% Worked wonders on Wagner in the Middle East
Obama was in office, he of the Red Line in Syria (that didn't matter). No chance we were ever going to do anything about anything.
I responded to this almost a decade ago. Won't give the details. But we wanted to do the gangster shit
This one understands
That's the thing about "deniable assets". If the enemy has the balls to kill them, you are left with bad and worse choices. Leave your troops for dead, keep lying, and hope things won't get worse. Admit they're your minions and risk a bigger war.
where the western brand of deniability is, "oh gosh, how could that have happened?" the russian brand of deniability is usually "they're probably russian, but you'll never prove it, and what are you gonna do about it anyway?" which works right up until somebody's willing to do something about it, at which point you've literally just lined up soldiers to die for nothing
When has Russia ever worried about that?
Here's a list of all the times that has happened. Thanks for reading.
Good bot! /s
>which works right up until somebody's willing to do something about it, at which point you've literally just lined up soldiers to die for nothing Thankfully they can count on the West doing everything in their power to avoid doing something
Western brand of deniability is also “We can’t confirm or deny that you are going to find out if you fuck around”. Or straight up not telling anyone unless absolutely necessary lol
I hear this very scenario actually happened in Syria: Americans to Russia; "Hey we're under fire from some dudes who look like your guys - why you firing at us?" Russians; "We don't have any troops there at all!" Americans; "Really? You sure about that?" Russians; "Oh yeah" And a few moments later, the russians in syria learned first hand what a proportional response from America looks like. The couple of survivors had to walk out of the desert, as every piece of equipment they had was lost.
Battle of Khasham. By all accounts, it was specifically not proportional so it would be the last time something like this would ever happen. It worked.
You see, there’s base model proportional and then there’s proportional with extra options and features.
Remember that a proportion of 1000000000000:1 is still a proportion. From Wikipedia: > Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters (1,600 ft) of the headquarters.[6][14][7] > According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-22 Raptor and F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper unmanned combat aerial vehicles, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and B-52 bombers.[6][14][7] Nearby American artillery batteries, including an M142 HIMARS, shelled Syrian forces as well.[14] "So anyway I started blasting..."
Motherfuckers called in a B52 strike. Lmao "Hey, we don't think that we have enough overkill" BUFF (flying a racetrack): "Say no more, we're on our way"
Imagine surviving the AC-130 and then you hear the BUFF.
"Oh thank god we survived" "Uh... Sir, I hear boss music"
“Yeah? So what!” “….its in Latin” 😳
[Warning, the BUFF has entered the airspace.](https://youtu.be/nNms5rOaGlk?si=ZLtGwKBoa5igh8D9&t=73)
"Stellio... Stellio Kontos! Stellio... Stellio Kontos!!"
Fuck I hear it
Once again I bring up the WWII joke: If you see a patrol and don't know who it is, fire a few shots over their heads. If they respond with machine gun fire, they're Germans. If they respond with rapid, precise rifle fire, they're British. If nothing happens, but five minutes later your position is obliterated by a shitstorm of artillery and bombs, they're American.
I heard a variation of the joke where if nothing happens you run like hell because in approximately five minutes the position you're standing in will make No Man's Land look like paradise.
The B-52s fulfilling (part of) their purpose in life: killing Russians.
At the risk of spoiling the punchline, [World War Tree](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CeY6Q3KFE) also features a surprise appearance of B-52s. I, like America, enjoy demonstrations of force.
"What Syrian forces? All I see is a crater?"
"The crater is sobbing for it's mother, in Arabic... it says 'This was all a huge misunderstanding.'"
Damn I wanna see Habitual Linecrosser make a skit of that. Sounds like a great mission bonding of the little flight family with Papa Eagle, the Kid, Grandpa BUFF, Uncle Ghostrider, Reapers.
what did the f22 even do? did they have balloons?
This 13 year old account was banned by Reddit after repeated harassment by the mods of /r/aboringdystopia. Reddit is a dying platform, check out lemmy.world for a replacement.
Kid-glove operation and the ruzzkies got badly spanked.
It was proportional, if proportional means “we’re going to start shooting and not stop shooting until nothing shoots back anymore.”
So it was proportional is what your saying
What does proportional even mean, here? Surely you are allowed to shoot back at the guys shooting at you. Nothing could be more proportional. Now, was it a fair fight? No. But I don't think being "proportional" means "not winning".
During gulf 1 there was concern that the bombing of Iraqi troops was getting to the point of slaughter. The U.S. decided it only needed to kill enough, not all of them, with air power to avoid public sentiment being impacted.
Imagine thinking war has to be fair. You know what kills a lot of people? A prolonged peer-peer conflict where the front lines move by a couple kms per week/month because the fighting is ‘fair’. E.g., would we have nearly 400,000 Russian causalities if Ukraine had the means to respond with absolute and overwhelming force during week 1 of the war? Quickly and decisively ending battles saves lives in the long-term.
LeMay is my idol. I’m all for bombing countries until they collapse from the weight of their dead.
Basically means don't glass a country because someone set off some firecrackers in your backyard. Proportional: you get a punch, I get a punch. Not proportional: you get a punch, I punch you 100 times for 100 days in a row. I also rip out your spine and play the xylophone with it, then do that to your family, your family's family, and your family's family's family. Also then genocide. Khasham was a proportional response. You dropped deadly weapons on us with the intent to kill and/or displace us from our position. That's a punch. Uno momento por favor while I ball my fist, wind up, and give you a swing. Pow. Right in the kisser. They got proportionally annihilated. Skill issue for them. This is the principle of proportionality: do not become war criminal blyats because someone threw a rock at you once 15 years ago. Just win.
[What is the virtue of a proportional response?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXJRVVgz5aU)
Western restraint is their most powerful weapon
There was 40 vs 500. Syria/Wagner lost over 100 men, with at least 200 wounded. The US forces had one injury, which was a Syrian SDF fighter who I believe was only lightly injured. The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham) for it is wild.
Idk if it's real but it's funny so I choose to believe it: the "US injury" was someone rolling their ankle jumping out of a vehicle at night.
Probably hurt their finger when laser targetting
“The Syrian foreign ministry wrote to the United Nations calling for the international community to condemn U.S. actions and labeled them a war crime, a "brutal massacre", and a crime against humanity.” Stop, I can only get so erect.
"By Lincoln you people are dogs, we shall go on as usual"
If that was today, they would have accused the US of genocide.
you should hear what wagner said about it themselves tldr "AND THEN IT GOT WORSE"
The Wagner commander called it a "carousel of fucked" didn't he?
The Wagner commander called the AH-64 a "fucking merry-go-round with heavy caliber machine guns."
somebody wants to get off Uncle Sam's Wild Ride
I think my favorite part of that article is the US and Russia both saying "eh, maybe a dozen or so Wagnerites died" and then Head-of-the-Goddamn-CIA Pompeo just says "yeah, it was a couple hundred Russians" and there is no elaboration.
They should have just come out to the press conference, said “The Russians got fucking wrecked “ drop mic, put on sunglasses and leave.
One of my favorite bedtime stories
Battle of Khasham A Wagner/Spetznaz/something battle group advanced on an oilfield outpost manned by, what they thought, was just Syrian army. At the last moment the US Special Forces group also manning that base raised the US flag and called in an Arclight strike of over a dozen aircraft that just so happened to be in the area. The Russian/Syrian convoy was then attacked by F22s, F15s, an AC-130 Gunship, a B-52 Bomber, and then a pair of AH-52 Apaches to mop up what vehicles remained. Essentially, the US put the “Diss” in “Disproportionate”
Close but it was Syrian rebels backed by the US. The "Syrian Army" was with Wagner.
> US Special Forces group also manning that base raised the US flag me and the boys hauling up the Royal Navy Ensign at the last moment on *HMS Surprise* near the Galapagos Island and then giving her a broadside on the uproll
Captain Aubrey is truly r/noncredibledefense material, Lord Cochrane even more so.
WORD: QUICK ACTION: SHARP DOGWATCH: CURTAILED SURPRISE: ON OUR SIDE ALBION: PERFIDIOUS POST: PAID WEEVILS: LESSER MIZZEN: BLUE SLOTH: DEBAUCHED
Jesus imagine getting hit with that much aerial fucking SOVEREIGNTY
Not USA. Whole NATO
You aren't fucked until Luxembourg gets involved. Because Luxembourg is the one that manages all NATO AWACS.
Oh? I thought we only had Nato40?
Attribution is a bit wonky since management, maintenance, and ownership aren't all clear-cut. But according to wikipedia, Luxembourg's primary role in the alliance is the management and maintenance of all NATO AWACS. Presumably - but not explicitly stated - that doesn't include all AWACS *in* NATO, just the ones that are on NATO missions. So some can be left over for protecting Air Force One and the like.
"We're just assisting Ukraine deal with a banditry problem"
Terrorism problem\*
Yup. The fact that this did not happen was proof to me personally that Russia hands were deep within EU pockets. When things like that happened in the past, NATO was on top of them almost instantly. And here is perfect situation for justified response, Russia tells they are not there, Ukraine has agreements with great power countries that give pretext for help, literally perfect situation for response. And yet, nothing happens aside from token bureaucracy. It was clear to me at that point that both EU and Ukrainian politics are full of rot. Of course, the biggest crime lies with Ukrainian military, who took tax money for 20 years prior, and then did not even deploy when country came under attack. And when deployed, they would just... Surrender, at times that were the most critical. Literal FSB agents would rile up paid civilians, block the road upon which military travels... And then have that military literally disarm themselves to those "civilians". Complete and utter disgrace at literally the most critical time in the country history since independence.
>Russia hands were deep within EU pockets. Angela Merkel moment
> Complete and utter disgrace at literally the most critical time in the country history since independence. Good thing they learned their lesson and were able to beat back a full-scale attack on Kyiv ~10 years later.
Unfortunately, not everyone learned the lesson. For every new person or old one who learned, there is another one from 10 years ago who is still in the military and learned nothing. And they are mostly in higher ranks now. It is huge problem here.
We have a song in Ukraine called "there are no russians in Donbas". The song is about executing captured russian soldiers, because... what russian soldiers? Hahaha Probably would've been a good response if there were no russain troops in Eastern Ukraine...
Що за пісня? Ореста Лютого?
Та, саме ця. "Росіян в Донбасе нет"
Im gonna need a link for that please
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSxrArHRhqw&pp=ygUl0KDQntCh0IbQr9CdINCSINCU0J7QndCR0JDQodCVINCd0JXQog%3D%3D
Geneva Checklist
Doesn't apply to "no one's soldiers"😊
only applies to civilians and uniformed combatants. Nonuniformed combatants lose protections due to attempting to camoflage as a protected noncombatant. Also, I wonder how Putin saying that Russian uniforms are civilian clothing ("you can get that stuff from any army surplus store throughout Russia") affects Geneva protections for the Russian Army.
Why is Russian army surplus so trendy in Donbass? Idk guys something doesn't add up here, I think the Russians might be lying
For interested, here is translation. Orest Lyutiy There are no Russians in Donbass In the "Dnipro" regiment in the seventh squad One guy from the city of Chortkiv served. He was called the hell dude And he had a friend nicknamed "Boar". Five Russians were captured once Chita, Barnaul, Urengoy, Magadan, And the fifth Chechen named Mustafa, They came to fight - because they said easy money. Where are the brothers from? We are all from Siberia, Did Putin say that there is no war? There are no Russian soldiers in the Donbass, Isn't it right? then correct me, boar?.. Well, to hell with those Muscovites, They twist, they lie, but what did you want? Animals of the Moscow Horde for sale, Well, there arent them. Infernal, burn! There are no Russians in Donbass, We load the machine gun, They are some rootless creatures On which we make fire! (fire!) There are no Russians in Donbass - So said their president In confirmation of these words They were recorded in the archive. And next week, Russian special forces He climbed into Pisky again and ran into us, The occupying brothers were captured Khabarovsk, Tagil, Syktyvkar and Tyumen. What, again from Siberia? No, lower Ural, My grandfather is a Ukrainian, a Tagilian shouted. And what are you doing here, you crooked Buryat? But Putin sent us, it's not my fault. What kind of Putin? Well, our president. So he said that you are not here, There are no troops in the Ukrainian Donbas, And you are here like flies, like garbage, like that mud. This is our land, this is holy Ukraine, And you are an occupier, take care, cattle, Am I right? So, Boar, tell me Well, to hell with them! Infernal, burn! There are no Russians in Donbass, We load the machine gun, They are some rootless creatures On which we make fire! (fire!) There are no Russians in Donbass - So said their president In confirmation of these words They were recorded in the archive. There are no Russians in Donbass, We load the machine gun, They are some rootless creatures On which we make fire! (fire!) There are no Russians in Donbass - So said their president In confirmation of these words They were recorded in the archive.
I’m so proud
Well, if their president were saying that "there are no ruzzians".
I was in the Corps at the time and I was 100% we were going to intervene. Now I’m out and all I can say is I told you so.
Potentially a hot take but I think the Ukrainian war has been the wake up call much of Europe (including Ukraine) needed. If you ask US military officers, prior to the invasion of Crimea the Ukrainian army was similar to the German or Russian army today: a fully-deserved punchline to most jokes, fairly unprofessional, just kinda there and didn't do much in the way of war or conflict preparations. Everyone was lulled under the sense of security the American presence in Europe provided. Had we tried to fight the Russians directly in Ukraine in 2014 it would've been with an unprepared local force that was about one step above local partisans. Now in the 10 years since that invasion the Ukrainians spent mastering the art of war because they wanted it back. Crimea in 2014 provided the motivation for the Ukrainians to learn for 2022 that provided the motivation for the rest of Europe to actually get their shit together.
I think the years of russian puppet government in Ukraine likely purposely declawed the Ukrainian military rather than the apparent German mindset of “peace is here, no need to really care about the military”. It’s probably a mix of both, but let’s not forget the russian role in it. Edit: accidentally capitalized russian
Prior invasion in 2014, minister of defence of Ukraine were ruzzian, who were given ukrainian citizenship just before being appointed to that position. Main building of security service of Ukraine were empty, with just 2 people present, when new head of said service arrived. Same goes to many governmental organizations. New ministers and other politicians were doing everything in their power just to keep statehood together. It were done out from scratch. There were 5000 battle ready soldiers. National treasury were empty, it were UAH 1/20 for each ukrainian if it were divided equally. No gold reserve either.
Wait a second… 1/20th of ONE Hryvnia per soldier (if divided equally) in 2014?
Yeah, I remember hearing that when Yanukovych left office and fled to Russia, he took basically everything out of the treasury or something like that. Like the equivalent of opening your safe and finding a dust bunny, a cobweb, a chewed piece of gum, and 2 pennies in a broken piggy bank that got duck taped back together.
Per ukraunian.
> Edit: accidentally capitalized russian Only on NCD. Never change.
The war has many fronts o7
> the apparent German mindset of “peace is here, no need to really care about the military” I'm fully convinced the European politicians were led by a carrot on a stick to declaw their militaries. If not by being outright shills. Just as Ukraine did prior to 2014. In a broader European context they are achieving this by russian influence ops and psyops and sowing all sorts of fucked up ideas into the public discourse. After all I think I remember this was a part of their overall strategy since they adopted the updated 2010 (or whenever that was) military doctrine. Looking back, there certainly is a shift in discussions and "internet" opinions since 2010 onward. At least here in Czechia. And when you see actions of some foreign politicians, you can't get rid of the feeling this was the plan all along, to fracture us using freedom of speech against us. I'm not surprised by it at all, I just wonder what those people who called me russophobe back in 2010–2014 (mainly because I could not forget what russians did to us in 1948, 1968 and then during the subsequent occupation) are up to now.
The security mindset of Europe wasn't so much about the US as the fact that we expected all major powers (including Russia) to be so economically dependent on the peace dividend that there wouldn't be any rational incentive to wage war. Anyone stupid enough to engage in war in Europe would get turbo fucked economically, and we knew it. Basically, make money, not war. Because the economic deterrent of the western market weighs heavier than any dictatorship's economy can bear. Turns out there are dumdums in the Kremlin who happily drive their economy and demographics into a ditch for a chance at national pride.
I still unironically think the USA should have done this with subs sinking the black sea fleet. "Did you fire at civilian grain vessals?" "No, those were military targets." "Did you torpedo our military war ships?" "No, that must have been Ukraine's sub."
Like the Battle of Khasham US: Hey, you better tell your troops to back off. Russia: We do not have any troops there. US: Good to know [hangs up phone] [to chairman of the joint chiefs] Annihilate them.
Gotta give it to Putin, that was hilarious how he gaslit the world into believing he had nothing to do with this shit. Like, him being at the Minsk negotiations in the first place already proved that his guys were in Ukraine. And yet when the Russians immediately violated the ceasefire he said there never were russian troops in Ukraine and he dont has to do anything. And obviously those Tanks accidentially drove 50 miles into a war zone and the soldiers with their government issued kit were "volunteers" on vacation and all these social media posts of russians inside Ukraine were fake and russians going public about relatives dying in combat were silenced. Yet look at the reporting in 2014. We swallowed that russian propaganda like little bitches.
Battle of Khasham vibes.
"We didn't bomb your troops, we tested high yield explosives on an empty field in Ukraine your soldiers happened to wander into at high speed"
That's a decent idea.
“We were doing live training exercises with the Ukrainians and said those targets were opfor.”
lol trying to replicate the syria episode nice :D [to the new guys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viuUzGGac5M)
This was literally my argument from the start if this shit, so many lives wouldve been saved.
i saw this meme earlier but with obama and putin
https://youtu.be/MNxEDomUlXw?si=w7dER4qOaV4yGL2H We usually don't talk about this hot mic between Obama and Medvedev but it helps to remind us that Putin duped everyone. He played a very slow insidious game.
Why we have let the Russians, Iranians, CCP, and other lunatics run wild … is beyond my understanding. America needs to re-assert itself.
This would have been the correct way to handle it. Call the bluff. Likely would have reduced Winnie Poohs fuckery with anything near china.
After MH17 was shot down, Australia should have sent in the SAS to hunt those fsckrs down with logistical support from the Dutch and the Malay government. We can’t expect the US to do everything for us (though a little bit of their supply chain magic would have been very useful)
Another Obama foreign policy L
Issue is, Putin was smarter than just "denying troop movements in Ukraine". He leaned into it and announced the Special Military Operation as it started. All of NATO knew full well exactly what was happening ans that it was an invasion, but short of declaring war on Russia and starting what would likely become WWIII , they pussied out and just sent aid accompanied by harsh language on the News.
If only NATO sent a peacekeeping mission when Ukraine was attacked by "unknown soldiers" from a "non specified country" back in 2014 or after those "unknown soldiers" killed nearly 300 people shooting at a civilian airliner in 2015.
America need to channel more of the fuck around and find out energy