Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[digitalpigsmuggler]

20% of Ukrainian weapons destroyed in just two weeks – New York Times

Quote

The Ukrainian military lost 20% of the equipment it sent to the battlefield during the first two weeks of its counteroffensive, the New York Times reported on Saturday. This high attrition rate was reportedly a key factor in Kiev’s decision to pause the operation.

https://www.azerbaycan24.com/en/20-of-ukrainian-weapons-destroyed-in-just-two-weeks-new-york-times/

The offensive clearly has been a failure so far. There is no longer any debate.

[digitalpigsmuggler]

Not going well indeed. Keep in mind this is only first 2 weeks.

Quote

Last week, the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers were being killed per day in the counteroffensive, with 30 percent of its Western supplies of tanks already destroyed in counteroffensive operations. Ukraine has not denied these figures

This would indicate that well over 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already been slaughtered in the two-week-old offensive that has resulted in a grand total of eight small villages and just 113 square kilometers of territory seized by Ukraine.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/22/bvvz-j22.html

Edited July 17, 2023 by digitalpigsmuggler

[romad1]

This is amazing 

Uh, he kinda wrote the actual book on two subjects the original tweet misses on.  

[romad1]

goes without saying

[romad1]

Oh, remember the Montreaux Convention?

 

[digitalpigsmuggler]

US Pressuring Ukraine to Push Harder in Counteroffensive

Western officials are blaming Ukraine's tactics for the lack of success

Quote

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that US officials believe Ukraine should be launching large-scale assaults against Russia’s defensive lines despite the risk of major losses and are blaming Ukraine’s tactics for the struggling counteroffensive.

The main complaint from the US and other Western countries is that Ukraine is not using “combined arms” tactics, which integrate infantry, armored vehicles, and artillery. Instead, Ukraine is relying on artillery and sending small teams of engineers to clear minefields,

exasperated at the slow pace of the initial assault and fearing increased casualties among their ranks, had reverted to old habits — decades of Soviet-style training in artillery barrages — rather than sticking with the Western tactics

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/07/18/us-pressuring-ukraine-to-push-harder-in-counteroffensive/

[romad1]

Maybe you shouldn't slaughter and torture innocents and steal children, Vladdie

[romad1]

Good lord.   Vladdie might be believing his own spin. 

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Good lord.   Vladdie might be believing his own spin. 

and Ukraine drops the other shoe. Bold - if they can back it up:

 

[romad1]

If this mess is going to escalate it would be because a NATO ship was attacked by the Russians

[ewsieg]

I heard an interview from Trump where he was forced to give specifics on just how he would end the war in 1 day.  In a somewhat surprising (but maybe not so) twist, he says he'd call on Russia to take major concessions and if they refused, he would simply give Ukraine everything they wanted.  I know everyone talked about him as Putin's puppet, but the administration was actually hawkish against Russia under him.  I wonder if that kind of talk would have any effect on Russian decision makers.

[gehringer_2]

I still have to belive Ukraine is basically slow walking. They want to use the long range fires they have to chew up Russian rear echelon supplies, keep the Russians firing as much as possible to burn burn more supplies, and then make a bigger commitment when they can field more effective air power.

I still believe the single biggest pivot in this conflict would be Ukraine finding a way to take down a Russian long range missile platform like a TU95. I don't know if adding F16 capabilities gets them there, but that is what would have the Russian MOD forcing Putin to find a way out.

Edited July 20, 2023 by gehringer_2

[digitalpigsmuggler]

Bribes from ukraine!

[smr-nj]

“Somehow coerced”…. “Presumably in exchange”….

(Cernovich retweeted)

😂

[digitalpigsmuggler]

 

Quote

Senator Rand Paul declared Wednesday that the U.S. cannot afford to keep sending money and ammo to Ukraine in order to fight a war with Russia, because the country has run out of both.

From a fiscal conservative perspective, it makes no sense to borrow money from China to send it to Ukraine,” Paul urged, adding “It’s not like we’re sending them surplus funds. It’s like, ‘Oh, we have surplus ammo around.

Video: Rand Paul Warns “We’re Out Of Ammo, We’re Out Of Money” – Summit News

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by digitalpigsmuggler

[gehringer_2]

Paul is in idoit, and he's wrong anyway. if you can use Chinese money to defeat the Russians, by all means go for it!

Almost as good as using Iranian money against the Contras, except that Ronnie  apparently forgot they had passed a law against that. (Sadly, he was soon to forget a lot of things......)

Edited July 20, 2023 by gehringer_2

[digitalpigsmuggler]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Paul is in idoit, and he's wrong anyway. if you can use Chinese money to defeat the Russians, by all means go for it!

Almost as good as using Iranian money against the Contra's, except that RR apparently forgot they had passed a law against that.

Quote

Since the start of the trade war between China and US in 2018, there has been a growing concern that China could possibly “weaponise” its US debt holding as a way to retaliate against trade tariffs.

 

If China were to begin dumping US debt, this could trigger a sell-off in the bond market, sending US interest rates higher and potentially hurting economic growth.

US debt to China: how big is it and why is it important? | South China Morning Post (scmp.com)

Owing China money who clearly is a hostile nation is a horrible thing. Racking up more debt to send to Ukraine is stupid. You are taking money away from Americans to pay for a needless war.

[gehringer_2]

Old econ expression: When you owe a bank a little they own you. When you owe a bank enough, you own them. Possession of US Treasuries does not give China any usable leverage.

Edited July 20, 2023 by gehringer_2

[digitalpigsmuggler]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Old econ expression: When you owe a bank a little they own you. When you owe a bank enough, you own them. Possession of US Treasuries does not give China any usable leverage.

Absurd. There is a massive amount of interest that is already being paid. Not to mention the results if they called in the debt. 
 

money could be better used helping Americans. Not to line corrupt Ukraine government officials pockets. 

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, digitalpigsmuggler said:

Absurd. There is a massive amount of interest that is already being paid. Not to mention the results if they called in the debt. 
 

money could be better used helping Americans. Not to line corrupt Ukraine government officials pockets. 

1) The interest cost of the debt is the same no matter who it is paid to. To whatever degree it is an issue, it's not because of who owns it. 2) The Chinese cannot cash out without bankrupting themselves. This stuff is econ 101.

Edited July 20, 2023 by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I heard an interview from Trump where he was forced to give specifics on just how he would end the war in 1 day.  In a somewhat surprising (but maybe not so) twist, he says he'd call on Russia to take major concessions and if they refused, he would simply give Ukraine everything they wanted.  I know everyone talked about him as Putin's puppet, but the administration was actually hawkish against Russia under him.  I wonder if that kind of talk would have any effect on Russian decision makers.

Last time I was conned with a answer like that was at a job interview where the boss told me I was getting his old client list only to find out later that 2/3 of the accounts were on trade and I got nothing for servicing them and the rest of the accounts had 4 other people on them in the year or so before I came in.

In other words I learned over 40 years ago never to believe a con man. Especially one who has proved it over and over.

[romad1]

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

Last time I was conned with a answer like that was at a job interview where the boss told me I was getting his old client list only to find out later that 2/3 of the accounts were on trade and I got nothing for servicing them and the rest of the accounts had 4 other people on them in the year or so before I came in.

In other words I learned over 40 years ago never to believe a con man. Especially one who has proved it over and over.

A lot of people really want to believe this 

[CMRivdogs]

What was really funny about that time period was the guy jumped all over me for giving notice while he was on his month long vacation accusing me of being disloyal (my wife received a good job offer and it proved to be a better relationship situation for us)

I found out later he sold the station a month after I left.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I heard an interview from Trump where he was forced to give specifics on just how he would end the war in 1 day.  In a somewhat surprising (but maybe not so) twist, he says he'd call on Russia to take major concessions and if they refused, he would simply give Ukraine everything they wanted.  I know everyone talked about him as Putin's puppet, but the administration was actually hawkish against Russia under him.  I wonder if that kind of talk would have any effect on Russian decision makers.

So bending over and licking Putin's boots is now defined as "hawkish"?

I'm confused.

I was pretty certain Trump extorted Ukraine in an attempted slander at the opposing opposition party (specifically Biden). But I guess that is also called "hawkish" nowadays...?

Can somebody help me with this? Because i don't get it.

[romad1]

28 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

So bending over and licking Putin's boots is now defined as "hawkish"?

I'm confused.

I was pretty certain Trump extorted Ukraine in an attempted slander at the opposing opposition party (specifically Biden). But I guess that is also called "hawkish" nowadays...?

Can somebody help me with this? Because i don't get it.

Nobody who had a brain and saw Helsinki or the extortion of Zelenskyy for which he was impeached should have any illusions about Trump being in service to Putin.