Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Renegade7]

I don't blame Zelenskyy from looking at Iron Dome and saying "we need one of those"...

[88Comrade2000]

Isn’t one of the provisions classifying this as a loan? Or was it a wish of the gop? Heard some goper congressmen babble something about how the bill was split into 4 parts, with loan being 4th part?

[Renegade7]

I'm not against changing this from aid to loans...

 

This is where I hope someone who gets potential precedent on doing so better then I do steps in here.

 

From what I can tell, we didn't loan to UK during ww2 because so few countries paid back war loans during ww1.  Instead we found a way to give direct aid then gave a loan after war was over to cover gap Marshall Plan didn't go far enough to address and keep UK from officially going Bankrupt.

 

We went out of our way to save UK when they needed it most, but we didn't give them direct monetary loans during the war in order to do it. We did something called lend-lease instead where we gave them supplies in lieu of them giving as much back as they could (given some may be destroyed as part of war) when war was over.

 

Jus context I found interesting on this topic (anyone can correct me on this):

 

https://www.fdrlibrary.org/lend-lease#:~:text=Through the new Office of,of food and war materials.

[PokerPacker]

I'd prefer aid to a loan.  Ukraine will have a lot of rebuilding to do if they do manage to kick Russia out.  And I can definitely see Republicans weaponizing a loan when in office.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I'm not against changing this from aid to loans...

 

This is where I hope someone who gets potential precedent on doing so better then I do steps in here.

 

From what I can tell, we didn't loan to UK during ww2 because so few countries paid back war loans during ww1.  Instead we found a way to give direct aid then gave a loan after war was over to cover gap Marshall Plan didn't go far enough to address and keep UK from officially going Bankrupt.

 

We went out of our way to save UK when they needed it most, but we didn't give them direct monetary loans during the war in order to do it. We did something called lend-lease instead where we gave them supplies in lieu of them giving as much back as they could (given some may be destroyed as part of war) when war was over.

 

Jus context I found interesting on this topic (anyone can correct me on this):

 

https://www.fdrlibrary.org/lend-lease#:~:text=Through the new Office of,of food and war materials.

 

That's what we did, but we got very little back in compared to what we gave.  And even after lend-lease expired we sold them equipment at a 90% discount.  And then after the war we "gave" them more money through the Marshall plan and other programs.  For example, we ended up giving Britain $3.3 billion dollars after the war for promises related to tariffs, balancing a budget, etc through the Marshal plan.

 

In totality, what we gave was much more than what we got back through lend lease.  We were giving money out in one hand taking some of it back with the other so that we could say something had been paid back through lend lease.

 

If Ukraine wins, they are going to have rebuild much of their country which they'll need money for.  That they'll have money to pay anything back is just so unlikely it isn't worth considering.  The only way we gat paid anything at all meaningful back is if we do what we did with much of Europe after WWII and through another program give the money.

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

I'd prefer aid to a loan.  Ukraine will have a lot of rebuilding to do if they do manage to kick Russia out.  And I can definitely see Republicans weaponizing a loan when in office.

 

I propose we be open to limit our individual efforts to rebuilding Ukraine and encourage more international coroporation as we are struggling to do nation building here at home in the US.

 

The latest infrastructure bill was at least a trillion dollars...how many trillions did we spend nation building Iraq and Afghanistan recently? 

 

There's potential there for far more then just far right conservatives opposing this in different ways.

Edited April 20 by Renegade7

[MrSilverMaC]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

That's what we did, but we got very little back in compared to what we gave.  And even after lend-lease expired we sold them equipment at a 90% discount.  And then after the war we "gave" them more money through the Marshall plan and other programs.  For example, we ended up giving Britain $3.3 billion dollars after the war for promises related to tariffs, balancing a budget, etc through the Marshal plan.

 

In totality, what we gave was much more than what we got back through lend lease.  We were giving money out in one hand taking some of it back with the other so that we could say something had been paid back through lend lease.

 

If Ukraine wins, they are going to have rebuild much of their country which they'll need money for.  That they'll have money to pay anything back is just so unlikely it isn't worth considering.  The only way we gat paid anything at all meaningful back is if we do what we did with much of Europe after WWII and through another program give the money.

World war 2 was fought almost exclusively in Europe and Asia in part because of what we gave our allies under lend lease.
 

I’d rather arm allies to help them fight our enemies near their home than to have to fight them here and pay for rebuilding U.S cities because we balked at giving aid.
 

What would be the cost to rebuild L.A, S.F, Chicago, D.C or any other major city? Rebuilding just one of those cities would cost far more than it costs us to help Ukraine.
 

Add in the fact that it actually allows us an excuse to restock our stores with newly made weapons while weakening a major enemy and to me it’s a no-brainer.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, MrSilverMaC said:

World war 2 was fought almost exclusively in Europe and Asia in part because of what we gave our allies under lend lease.
 

I’d rather arm allies to help them fight our enemies near their home than to have to fight them here and pay for rebuilding U.S cities because we balked at giving aid.
 

What would be the cost to rebuild L.A, S.F, Chicago, D.C or any other major city? Rebuilding just one of those cities would cost far more than it costs us to help Ukraine.
 

Add in the fact that it actually allows us an excuse to restock our stores with newly made weapons while weakening a major enemy and to me it’s a no-brainer.

 

WWII was fought outside of the US because neither Germany or Japan had the ability to project power to the continental US.  The Japanese didn't think they could even hold Hawaii.  I guess if you imagine a scenario where Germany is able to knockout Russia and the UK without lend lease and Japan China and they're able to build a military directed at projecting power to the US, then maybe that changes things.

[EmirOfShmo]

Language

 

Spoiler

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Loans can be forgiven and are aid as long as they aren’t called. So if it makes it more palliative to give aid wrapped in a loan wrapping go for it.

[The Sisko]

7 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Language

 

  Hide contents

 

 

If you run out of fuel you can paddle! That’s some high level petty right there and I’m here for it!😂😂

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

Russia's economy is so driven by the war in Ukraine that it cannot afford to either win or lose, economist says

 

Russia's economy is completely dominated by its war in Ukraine, so much that Moscow cannot afford either to win or lose the war, according to one European economist.

 

Renaud Foucart, a senior economics lecturer at Lancaster University, pointed to the dire economic situation facing Russia as the war in Ukraine wraps up its second year.

 

Russia's GDP grew 5.5% year-over-year over the third quarter of 2023, according to data from the Russian government. But most of that growth is being fueled by the nation's monster military spending, Foucart said, with plans for the Kremlin to spend a record 36.6 trillion rubles, or $386 billion on defense this year.

 

"Military pay, ammunition, tanks, planes, and compensation for dead and wounded soldiers, all contribute to the GDP figures. Put simply, the war against Ukraine is now the main driver of Russia's economic growth" Foucart said in an op-ed for The Conversation this week.

 

Other areas of Russia's economy are hurting as the war drags on. Moscow is slammed with a severe labor shortage, thanks to young professionals fleeing the country or being pulled into the conflict. The nation is now short around 5 million workers, according to one estimate, which is causing wages to soar.

 

Inflation is high at 7.4% — nearly double the 4% target of its central bank. Meanwhile, direct investment in the country has collapsed, falling around $8.7 billion in the first three quarters of 2023, per data from Russia's central bank.

 

That all puts the Kremlin in a tough position, no matter the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Even if Russia wins, the nation can't afford to rebuild and secure Ukraine, due to the financial costs as well as the impact of remaining isolated from the rest of the global market.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Cheap Russian drones overwhelm US-made Abrams tanks, taken out of action

 

Ukrainian forces are withdrawing US-provided Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks from the front lines after at least five have been destroyed by cheap Russian drones, according to the AP.

 

A loud cheer went up amongst Ukraine’s support when the US announced in January 2023 it would deliver a battalion of Abrams tanks to Ukraine. The hope was that 31 US made tanks, which are far superior to the Russian T-72 tank that is in wide use by Russia’s forces, would be a game changer.

 

The Abrams has better front armour and a more powerful gun that can penetrate the Russian tanks armour. By October 2023, all 31 tanks had been successfully delivered, as confirmed by officials.

 

However, the evolving dynamics of warfare, particularly the proliferation of Russian surveillance and hunter-killer drones, have dramatically altered the operational landscape. It turned out that the Abrams were more vulnerable to Russian attacks than previously believed.

 

The Russian forces avoided head-to-head clashes between tanks that they were likely to lose and instead adopted a new tactic: attacking the Abrams with swarms of drones that targeted tanks weak points: typically the point where the turret meets the body, the rear covering of the engine and the top of the tank where the armour is thinnest.

 

The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) played on these weaknesses in the early days of the war, using US-suppliedJavelin missiles that swoop upwards before reaching their target before dropping down on the roof of the Russian tanks. As Soviet designers had chosen to store all the tank’s rounds in the turret, these would then explode and cause the Russian tanks to “pop their tops” killing everyone inside.

 

According to the US officials speaking to AP, the Russian drones have been very effective and led to the loss of five Abrams tanks on the battlefield, prompting a reassessment of their deployment.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Ukraine Decoy Missiles Spark Crimea Attack Fears

 

Ukrainian forces are preparing to attack the Kerch Strait Bridge, which connects Russia with the annexed Crimean peninsula, the Rybar Telegram channel, which has links to Russia's defense ministry, said this week.

 

Kyiv may have used U.S.-made ADM-160 Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) missiles this week to detect air defense systems and radars in preparation for another attack on the Black Sea peninsula, which was annexed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2014, the military blogger said.

 

The missiles, which are designed to distract and confuse enemy air defenses, are capable of mimicking a number of aircraft on radar screens.

 

The Kerch Strait Bridge serves as a key supply route for Russia's forces. Ukraine struck the 19-kilometer (12-mile) road and rail bridge in October 2022 and again in July 2023. The bridge is crucial to sustaining Moscow's military offensives in southern Ukraine, and Kyiv has vowed future strikes on the structure as it seeks to recapture the peninsula.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

Recall an ES poster once commenting that there are few environments more Darwinian than combat.  

 

The things that we're doing?  Other people are going to learn from.  (Anybody think China isn't studying what's going on?)  

[Gurgeh]

11 hours ago, Larry said:

Recall an ES poster once commenting that there are few environments more Darwinian than combat.  

 

The things that we're doing?  Other people are going to learn from.  (Anybody think China isn't studying what's going on?)  

 

We are also learning from what's happening. The effectiveness of sea drones. The weakness of our artillery ammunition supply. How drone surveillance makes it very difficult to mass troops and armor for an attack without the other side knowing. The ability to restock minefields faster than they can be cleared. What actually works in battlefield conditions and what doesn't (the Ukrainians have given up on some of the equipment and systems they've been supplied with because experience has shown they are simply ineffective against a near-equivalent foe).

 

IMO the biggest and most dangerous thing China will take from all this is that the US isn't really interested in defending democracies anymore. However expensive it is fighting in Ukraine, it'll be economic peanuts compared to what will happen if war breaks out in Taiwan.

[China]

UN monitors say North Korean missile struck Ukraine’s Kharkiv

 

The debris from a missile that landed in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on January 2 was from a North Korean Hwasong-11 series ballistic missile, United Nations sanctions monitors told a Security Council (UNSC) committee in a report seen by the Reuters news agency on Monday.

 

In the 32-page report, the UN sanctions monitors concluded that “debris recovered from a missile that landed in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on 2 January 2024 derives from a DPRK Hwasong-11 series missile” and is in violation of the arms embargo on North Korea.

 

The Russian and North Korean missions to the UN in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the monitors’ report.

 

The US and others have accused North Korea of transferring weapons to Russia for use against Ukraine, which it fully invaded in February 2022. Moscow and Pyongyang have denied the accusations, but promised last year to deepen military relations.

 

At a Security Council meeting in February, the US accused Russia of launching DPRK-supplied ballistic missiles against Ukraine on at least nine occasions.

 

Russia last month vetoed the annual renewal of the UN sanctions monitors – known as a panel of experts – which has for 15 years monitored the enforcement of the international sanctions on North Korea. The mandate for the current panel of experts will expire on Tuesday.

 

Click on the link for the full article