[OutsiderFan]

Also, UN Security Council is meeting at Russia’s request to discuss the Us’s biological weapons “program” in Ukraine.

The brazenness of the gaslighting would impress me, if it didn’t have devastating consequences.

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.

BC

And how nauseating that Tucker Carlson is apparently parroting that same Russian propaganda on his pro-Russia/Anti-American TV program.

Here are the facts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...s-ukraine/

[OutsiderFan]

Also, UN Security Council is meeting at Russia’s request to discuss the Us’s biological weapons “program” in Ukraine.

The brazenness of the gaslighting would impress me, if it didn’t have devastating consequences.

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.

BC

And how nauseating that Tucker Carlson is apparently parroting that same Russian propaganda on his pro-Russia/Anti-American TV program.

Here are the facts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...s-ukraine/

[martyup]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

[martyup]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

[2006alum]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

+1.

[2006alum]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

+1.

[gailtate]

Also, UN Security Council is meeting at Russia’s request to discuss the Us’s biological weapons “program” in Ukraine.

The brazenness of the gaslighting would impress me, if it didn’t have devastating consequences.

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.

BC

Some interesting insight:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morni...c-suicide/

[gailtate]

Also, UN Security Council is meeting at Russia’s request to discuss the Us’s biological weapons “program” in Ukraine.

The brazenness of the gaslighting would impress me, if it didn’t have devastating consequences.

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.

BC

Some interesting insight:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morni...c-suicide/

[Goose]

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.


BC

The idea of giving them jets has IMHO many issues that for some reason nobody is talking about. "On 7 September 2011, the Polish Air Force awarded a contract to the WZL 2 company to modernise its MiG-29 fleet to be compatible with Polish F-16s." This means a glass cockpit, changing the hardpoint rails to support NATO weapons, changing the communications system to NATO standard, and changing the IFF system to NATO standard. The cockpit should be quite foreign to the Ukrainian pilots. The weapons Ukraine is using are as far as I know of Soviet origin. The Polish planes can't carry them, can't target them, and can't fire them. The comms would have to be removed for security reasons leaving VHF voice with no encryption as the only communications, The IFF crypto box would also have to be removed. The transponder could be retained, but it is improbable the Ukraine is using a STANAG 4193 compatible system with their own crypto anyway. AFAIK, Ukrainian MIG-29s still are using Parol for IFF. It operates on completely different radio frequencies, so the antennas aren't even compatible. They aren't you father's Fulcrums.

As an update, the  Polish jets apparently did NOT get updated for NATO weapons. They still use Soviet ones. The electronics issues are still  there though.

[Goose]

In the meantime, apparently the line of how much NATO will do apparently lies between giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, but not giving them jets.


BC

The idea of giving them jets has IMHO many issues that for some reason nobody is talking about. "On 7 September 2011, the Polish Air Force awarded a contract to the WZL 2 company to modernise its MiG-29 fleet to be compatible with Polish F-16s." This means a glass cockpit, changing the hardpoint rails to support NATO weapons, changing the communications system to NATO standard, and changing the IFF system to NATO standard. The cockpit should be quite foreign to the Ukrainian pilots. The weapons Ukraine is using are as far as I know of Soviet origin. The Polish planes can't carry them, can't target them, and can't fire them. The comms would have to be removed for security reasons leaving VHF voice with no encryption as the only communications, The IFF crypto box would also have to be removed. The transponder could be retained, but it is improbable the Ukraine is using a STANAG 4193 compatible system with their own crypto anyway. AFAIK, Ukrainian MIG-29s still are using Parol for IFF. It operates on completely different radio frequencies, so the antennas aren't even compatible. They aren't you father's Fulcrums.

As an update, the  Polish jets apparently did NOT get updated for NATO weapons. They still use Soviet ones. The electronics issues are still  there though.

[newguy]

In my opinion, this is Putin's first major blunder.
He hasn't even planned for an endgame.  
And those Bayraktars are giving the Russians nightmares.
Literally.

[newguy]

In my opinion, this is Putin's first major blunder.
He hasn't even planned for an endgame.  
And those Bayraktars are giving the Russians nightmares.
Literally.

[Treefence]

Hopefully this post is considered geopolitical and not political, but I can change it if needed. There's been a lot of talk about the MiG's recently, and I have a few thoughts on it.  I think a lot of countries are afraid to give them to Ukraine directly.  Biden is getting hammered for having vetoed the recent proposal Poland made, but I believe that's because we'd be giving them to Ukraine directly. Poland could give them to Ukraine directly, and we'd even provide F-16's to replace them, and provide coverage till their pilots are trained, but I think Poland is afraid to do this, because that might put the target on their back.  

I do think there is a point to be made, that there are more useful things for the Ukrainians, given they still have most of their fighter jets intact, and the real shortage might actually be in trained Ukrainian pilots.  I also think the air is so contested that the real advantage is in the ground troops with anti air, as opposed to the planes, they seem to be doing little for Russia except get shot down. 

Rumors are the US will provide better Anti-air systems which I'd mostly agree with, especially since that would likely protect the supply lines as well.  Of course, if Ukraine starts losing jets, it's possible Nato allies would be much quicker to work out a deal.  I think overall, everyone wants to do whatever they can, so when someone or a nation seems to resist in their assistance to Ukraine, everyone freaks out.  

The more this war goes on, the more hope I have in Ukraine.  Ever since the first few days, I keep getting this feeling or intuition, that They could straight up win this war.  Obviously Russia has some brobdingnagian advantages, and have been gaining ground slowly but surly, mostly in the south.  Going into this, Russia had what most considered the 2nd best military in the world, and Ukraine was in the 20's.  There are also some distinct advantages for Ukraine.  Since they are the defending country, they are much less likely to lose morale. They also can, and will, use all he troops and resources available to them.  Russia cannot do this, because they have to keep a reasonable amount of troops to protect their outrageously large borders.   

We've seen countless blunders by the Russians, from supply line logistic failures, completely flawed plans based on rubbish intel, and poor combat tactics.  Heck, they've already lost 3 generals, which is a monumental failure.  They also have a complete disregard for the lives of their soldiers, sending them into situations unprotected.  

All that being said, for Ukraine to win they need to continue punching above their weight, and being as efficient as possible.  Russia could very easily start storming through Ukraine, making this war what most people thought it would be from the beginning, or god forbid they can start using chemical weapons or worse.

[Treefence]

Hopefully this post is considered geopolitical and not political, but I can change it if needed. There's been a lot of talk about the MiG's recently, and I have a few thoughts on it.  I think a lot of countries are afraid to give them to Ukraine directly.  Biden is getting hammered for having vetoed the recent proposal Poland made, but I believe that's because we'd be giving them to Ukraine directly. Poland could give them to Ukraine directly, and we'd even provide F-16's to replace them, and provide coverage till their pilots are trained, but I think Poland is afraid to do this, because that might put the target on their back.  

I do think there is a point to be made, that there are more useful things for the Ukrainians, given they still have most of their fighter jets intact, and the real shortage might actually be in trained Ukrainian pilots.  I also think the air is so contested that the real advantage is in the ground troops with anti air, as opposed to the planes, they seem to be doing little for Russia except get shot down. 

Rumors are the US will provide better Anti-air systems which I'd mostly agree with, especially since that would likely protect the supply lines as well.  Of course, if Ukraine starts losing jets, it's possible Nato allies would be much quicker to work out a deal.  I think overall, everyone wants to do whatever they can, so when someone or a nation seems to resist in their assistance to Ukraine, everyone freaks out.  

The more this war goes on, the more hope I have in Ukraine.  Ever since the first few days, I keep getting this feeling or intuition, that They could straight up win this war.  Obviously Russia has some brobdingnagian advantages, and have been gaining ground slowly but surly, mostly in the south.  Going into this, Russia had what most considered the 2nd best military in the world, and Ukraine was in the 20's.  There are also some distinct advantages for Ukraine.  Since they are the defending country, they are much less likely to lose morale. They also can, and will, use all he troops and resources available to them.  Russia cannot do this, because they have to keep a reasonable amount of troops to protect their outrageously large borders.   

We've seen countless blunders by the Russians, from supply line logistic failures, completely flawed plans based on rubbish intel, and poor combat tactics.  Heck, they've already lost 3 generals, which is a monumental failure.  They also have a complete disregard for the lives of their soldiers, sending them into situations unprotected.  

All that being said, for Ukraine to win they need to continue punching above their weight, and being as efficient as possible.  Russia could very easily start storming through Ukraine, making this war what most people thought it would be from the beginning, or god forbid they can start using chemical weapons or worse.

[81alum]

I agree largely with what Treefence just posted.  The Ukrainians are not now able to fly more than about 5 of their 37 current Mig 29s because the airspace is so saturated with anti-air missiles, and the Russians have sharply limited their flights over Ukraine too for the same reason.  The air war is and likely will remain a stalemate.  Additional Migs would mostly be a symbolic expression of support. 

I am also struck by how useless tanks and armor have become in this war.

We may be seeing a paradigm shift in warfare, in which individual soldiers with anti tank and anti aircraft missiles are able to defeat far more sophisticated (and expensive) weapons.  I am beginning to think about what happened to battleships in WWII. 

But in addition to a possible paradigm-shift, and in addition to Putin's disastrous decision making, this war is truly exposing are the costs of corruption in Putin's kleptocracy.  The Soviet Union--for all its faults--limited corruption and inspired its soldiers.  The same cannot be said for Putin's Russia.  Twenty year old MREs, fuel shortages, untrained soldiers--this is what rampant corruption produces.

Makes me even more worried about the Russian nuclear arsenal.  Neglect and decay and poor training is NOT the right strategy for maintaining a nuclear force.

[81alum]

I agree largely with what Treefence just posted.  The Ukrainians are not now able to fly more than about 5 of their 37 current Mig 29s because the airspace is so saturated with anti-air missiles, and the Russians have sharply limited their flights over Ukraine too for the same reason.  The air war is and likely will remain a stalemate.  Additional Migs would mostly be a symbolic expression of support. 

I am also struck by how useless tanks and armor have become in this war.

We may be seeing a paradigm shift in warfare, in which individual soldiers with anti tank and anti aircraft missiles are able to defeat far more sophisticated (and expensive) weapons.  I am beginning to think about what happened to battleships in WWII. 

But in addition to a possible paradigm-shift, and in addition to Putin's disastrous decision making, this war is truly exposing are the costs of corruption in Putin's kleptocracy.  The Soviet Union--for all its faults--limited corruption and inspired its soldiers.  The same cannot be said for Putin's Russia.  Twenty year old MREs, fuel shortages, untrained soldiers--this is what rampant corruption produces.

Makes me even more worried about the Russian nuclear arsenal.  Neglect and decay and poor training is NOT the right strategy for maintaining a nuclear force.

[Goose]

I agree largely with what Treefence just posted.  The Ukrainians are not now able to fly more than about 5 of their 37 current Mig 29s because the airspace is so saturated with anti-air missiles, and the Russians have sharply limited their flights over Ukraine too for the same reason.  The air war is and likely will remain a stalemate.  Additional Migs would mostly be a symbolic expression of support. 

Totally agree.

I am also struck by how useless tanks and armor have become in this war.

We may be seeing a paradigm shift in warfare, in which individual soldiers with anti tank and anti aircraft missiles are able to defeat far more sophisticated (and expensive) weapons.  I am beginning to think about what happened to battleships in WWII.

Don't be so sure about that. Wait 6 weeks or so for the ground to dry out. Right now, the Russians can't leave the roads in the north of the country.  That won't be true shortly. It is a lot easier to defeat any attack if said attack is constrained in geometry and objectives. For sure infantry is better off with having anti-tank missiles than not having them. However, that isn't new. The Sagger delt a big blow to the IDF in the Yom Kippur War. However, it has always been true that armor cannot operate without infantry support. When it has that support, so that it can't be surprised, the opposing infantry doesn't shoot many anti-tank missiles. They are too busy being blown up. The Russians are not showing the ability to mount a combined arms operation. That is what is killing their armor. Same thing happened to the UK armor during WWII in Africa until they finally figured out tanks need infantry support. That was due to PAK, no missiles required.
If you want to argue that air operations have made armor untenable, you would be more on the right track. However, that is only true if the air force has air superiority and precision guided weapons (so they can stay above AAA and MANPADs). Right now, it appears Russia has neither in sufficient strength. Neither does Ukraine, but even more so.
What Ukraine really needs right now is lots of land mines. I am pretty sure they don't have any, or else the Russians would have an even bigger problem. Clearing defended minefields can be a real painful process.

But in addition to a possible paradigm-shift, and in addition to Putin's disastrous decision making, this war is truly exposing are the costs of corruption in Putin's kleptocracy.  The Soviet Union--for all its faults--limited corruption

Yes it did.

and inspired its soldiers.

In general, I would say not. Then, as now, there are "elite" units in the Russian army that are well motivated and pretty good. They are treated much better than the rest of the force. In Ukraine, the Russian airborne divisions are such a force. Unfortunately for Russia, that force has been pretty badly mauled. That was not expected, particularly by the airborne forces themselves. Equally, then and now, there were lots of "conscript" divisions that were not good for much. The conscripts were not well treated and were generally very poorly trained. They were (and apparently still are) not well led. Russia had three levels of army divisions, A, B, and C. The A level divisions were good. The rest not so much.

The same cannot be said for Putin's Russia.  Twenty year old MREs, fuel shortages, untrained soldiers--this is what rampant corruption produces.

Makes me even more worried about the Russian nuclear arsenal.  Neglect and decay and poor training is NOT the right strategy for maintaining a nuclear force.

True. While I am sure the strategic forces get the best treatment available, it probably isn't a bed of roses to be sitting alert in a Russian missile base/submarine. There are reasons to worry about accidents leading to accidental launches. Supposedly Russia basically copied the US WRA system, thereby making such an event difficult to happen. However, who knows what neglect and poor training can produce.

[Goose]

I agree largely with what Treefence just posted.  The Ukrainians are not now able to fly more than about 5 of their 37 current Mig 29s because the airspace is so saturated with anti-air missiles, and the Russians have sharply limited their flights over Ukraine too for the same reason.  The air war is and likely will remain a stalemate.  Additional Migs would mostly be a symbolic expression of support. 

Totally agree.

I am also struck by how useless tanks and armor have become in this war.

We may be seeing a paradigm shift in warfare, in which individual soldiers with anti tank and anti aircraft missiles are able to defeat far more sophisticated (and expensive) weapons.  I am beginning to think about what happened to battleships in WWII.

Don't be so sure about that. Wait 6 weeks or so for the ground to dry out. Right now, the Russians can't leave the roads in the north of the country.  That won't be true shortly. It is a lot easier to defeat any attack if said attack is constrained in geometry and objectives. For sure infantry is better off with having anti-tank missiles than not having them. However, that isn't new. The Sagger delt a big blow to the IDF in the Yom Kippur War. However, it has always been true that armor cannot operate without infantry support. When it has that support, so that it can't be surprised, the opposing infantry doesn't shoot many anti-tank missiles. They are too busy being blown up. The Russians are not showing the ability to mount a combined arms operation. That is what is killing their armor. Same thing happened to the UK armor during WWII in Africa until they finally figured out tanks need infantry support. That was due to PAK, no missiles required.
If you want to argue that air operations have made armor untenable, you would be more on the right track. However, that is only true if the air force has air superiority and precision guided weapons (so they can stay above AAA and MANPADs). Right now, it appears Russia has neither in sufficient strength. Neither does Ukraine, but even more so.
What Ukraine really needs right now is lots of land mines. I am pretty sure they don't have any, or else the Russians would have an even bigger problem. Clearing defended minefields can be a real painful process.

But in addition to a possible paradigm-shift, and in addition to Putin's disastrous decision making, this war is truly exposing are the costs of corruption in Putin's kleptocracy.  The Soviet Union--for all its faults--limited corruption

Yes it did.

and inspired its soldiers.

In general, I would say not. Then, as now, there are "elite" units in the Russian army that are well motivated and pretty good. They are treated much better than the rest of the force. In Ukraine, the Russian airborne divisions are such a force. Unfortunately for Russia, that force has been pretty badly mauled. That was not expected, particularly by the airborne forces themselves. Equally, then and now, there were lots of "conscript" divisions that were not good for much. The conscripts were not well treated and were generally very poorly trained. They were (and apparently still are) not well led. Russia had three levels of army divisions, A, B, and C. The A level divisions were good. The rest not so much.

The same cannot be said for Putin's Russia.  Twenty year old MREs, fuel shortages, untrained soldiers--this is what rampant corruption produces.

Makes me even more worried about the Russian nuclear arsenal.  Neglect and decay and poor training is NOT the right strategy for maintaining a nuclear force.

True. While I am sure the strategic forces get the best treatment available, it probably isn't a bed of roses to be sitting alert in a Russian missile base/submarine. There are reasons to worry about accidents leading to accidental launches. Supposedly Russia basically copied the US WRA system, thereby making such an event difficult to happen. However, who knows what neglect and poor training can produce.

[OutsiderFan]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

What did I say that isn't the truth? How is it "political" to point out reality? 

- Russia gave a presentation to UN Security council claiming the United States is orchestrating a chemical weapons program in Ukraine. 
- Russian observers and U.S./NATO IC believes this is a pretext and justification for RU to use chemical weapons on Ukraine.
- Russia has three chemical/bio weapons labs that have never been inspected by outside agencies like UN.
- The White House says the United States has dismantled all of its chemical weapons programs and facilities.
- The U.S. provided assistance at 46 locations in Ukraine to help fight pig flu - this is what Russia is bastardizing into chemical weapons story. 

I had a friend tell me a reason he was against U.S. involvement in Ukraine was because we are building chemical weapons there. I had never heard this before when he said this. Then I saw people complaining Tucker Carlson was spreading this same Russian bullshit, which prompted me to read the WaPo story and make the post I did. Not political. Just fact.

[OutsiderFan]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

What did I say that isn't the truth? How is it "political" to point out reality? 

- Russia gave a presentation to UN Security council claiming the United States is orchestrating a chemical weapons program in Ukraine. 
- Russian observers and U.S./NATO IC believes this is a pretext and justification for RU to use chemical weapons on Ukraine.
- Russia has three chemical/bio weapons labs that have never been inspected by outside agencies like UN.
- The White House says the United States has dismantled all of its chemical weapons programs and facilities.
- The U.S. provided assistance at 46 locations in Ukraine to help fight pig flu - this is what Russia is bastardizing into chemical weapons story. 

I had a friend tell me a reason he was against U.S. involvement in Ukraine was because we are building chemical weapons there. I had never heard this before when he said this. Then I saw people complaining Tucker Carlson was spreading this same Russian bullshit, which prompted me to read the WaPo story and make the post I did. Not political. Just fact.

[OutsiderFan]

A Stanford perspective with optimism! Seems plausible to me and confirms what a lot of us have been observing. Hope it's true!

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FSIStanford/status/1502343791025471489[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

A Stanford perspective with optimism! Seems plausible to me and confirms what a lot of us have been observing. Hope it's true!

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FSIStanford/status/1502343791025471489[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

There is no way at this point for Russia to "win", that is accomplish their political objectives of regime change and a puppet Ukraine. Russia doesn't have the troops to defeat and occupy Ukraine. Even if their initial operation to take Kiev and assassinate Zelensky had been a success a la the storming of Tajbeg palace, just like in Afghanistan this would only lead to a festering wound that would continually hurt Russia.

Of course Putin probably can't abide a loss. So end states for the conflict in my mind are three 1) Putin murdered by FSB 2) Ukraine cedes Crimea and Donbas formally, there is some formal neutrality declaration (this probably is not a stable end state) 3) nuclear exchange.

Pretty soon Russia will not be able to mount effective offensive operations if their best units are all non-functioning and they still don't have air superiority.

Also, my inclination on the Mig resupply is that it is cool and we should provide some, even if it is likely only a small gain for their operations. At least we should be providing Mig spares and missiles so that if Ukraine still has ample pilots and airframes they can keep them fighting. Tow them across the border, lend-lease style, and dare Russia to try and hit them with long range missiles, which by early experience are likely not accurate enough to accomplish this and are probably running low already. 

Providing more S300 SAMs and more advanced British MANPADS would be far more useful to Ukrainian defense than the Migs of course, but as a policy issue, we shouldn't let Russian nuclear threats limit the arms we supply. US and USSR fought plenty of proxy wars, and it's not like jets were ever off the table, though USSR leadership I trust more to avoid an offensive nuclear strike than Putin and all the power he has reserved to himself.

[dabigv13]

There is no way at this point for Russia to "win", that is accomplish their political objectives of regime change and a puppet Ukraine. Russia doesn't have the troops to defeat and occupy Ukraine. Even if their initial operation to take Kiev and assassinate Zelensky had been a success a la the storming of Tajbeg palace, just like in Afghanistan this would only lead to a festering wound that would continually hurt Russia.

Of course Putin probably can't abide a loss. So end states for the conflict in my mind are three 1) Putin murdered by FSB 2) Ukraine cedes Crimea and Donbas formally, there is some formal neutrality declaration (this probably is not a stable end state) 3) nuclear exchange.

Pretty soon Russia will not be able to mount effective offensive operations if their best units are all non-functioning and they still don't have air superiority.

Also, my inclination on the Mig resupply is that it is cool and we should provide some, even if it is likely only a small gain for their operations. At least we should be providing Mig spares and missiles so that if Ukraine still has ample pilots and airframes they can keep them fighting. Tow them across the border, lend-lease style, and dare Russia to try and hit them with long range missiles, which by early experience are likely not accurate enough to accomplish this and are probably running low already. 

Providing more S300 SAMs and more advanced British MANPADS would be far more useful to Ukrainian defense than the Migs of course, but as a policy issue, we shouldn't let Russian nuclear threats limit the arms we supply. US and USSR fought plenty of proxy wars, and it's not like jets were ever off the table, though USSR leadership I trust more to avoid an offensive nuclear strike than Putin and all the power he has reserved to himself.

[Goose]

At least we should be providing Mig spares and missiles so that if Ukraine still has ample pilots and airframes they can keep them fighting.

Poland actually relied to a significant extent on Ukraine to manufacture replacement parts for their MIGs. Antonov had reverse-engineered lots of the parts to keep the Ukraine MIGS running. While Poland has some number of Soviet designed/built air-to-air and air-to-ground stores, as long as they are supporting their own MIGs, they need them. Poland was more than happy to dump all the "old" stuff (and get F-16s to replace them), but if they can't get rid of the planes, they need the weapons.

[Goose]

At least we should be providing Mig spares and missiles so that if Ukraine still has ample pilots and airframes they can keep them fighting.

Poland actually relied to a significant extent on Ukraine to manufacture replacement parts for their MIGs. Antonov had reverse-engineered lots of the parts to keep the Ukraine MIGS running. While Poland has some number of Soviet designed/built air-to-air and air-to-ground stores, as long as they are supporting their own MIGs, they need them. Poland was more than happy to dump all the "old" stuff (and get F-16s to replace them), but if they can't get rid of the planes, they need the weapons.

[BostonCard]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

What did I say that isn't the truth? How is it "political" to point out reality? 

- Russia gave a presentation to UN Security council claiming the United States is orchestrating a chemical weapons program in Ukraine. 
- Russian observers and U.S./NATO IC believes this is a pretext and justification for RU to use chemical weapons on Ukraine.
- Russia has three chemical/bio weapons labs that have never been inspected by outside agencies like UN.
- The White House says the United States has dismantled all of its chemical weapons programs and facilities.
- The U.S. provided assistance at 46 locations in Ukraine to help fight pig flu - this is what Russia is bastardizing into chemical weapons story. 

I had a friend tell me a reason he was against U.S. involvement in Ukraine was because we are building chemical weapons there. I had never heard this before when he said this. Then I saw people complaining Tucker Carlson was spreading this same Russian bullshit, which prompted me to read the WaPo story and make the post I did. Not political. Just fact.

That’s all fine. Just don’t bring Tucker Carlson or Fox News into this discussion, please.

BC

[BostonCard]

OF, this thread has been allowed to stay open because the posts have been thoughtful and geo-political.  Please don't ruin that.

What did I say that isn't the truth? How is it "political" to point out reality? 

- Russia gave a presentation to UN Security council claiming the United States is orchestrating a chemical weapons program in Ukraine. 
- Russian observers and U.S./NATO IC believes this is a pretext and justification for RU to use chemical weapons on Ukraine.
- Russia has three chemical/bio weapons labs that have never been inspected by outside agencies like UN.
- The White House says the United States has dismantled all of its chemical weapons programs and facilities.
- The U.S. provided assistance at 46 locations in Ukraine to help fight pig flu - this is what Russia is bastardizing into chemical weapons story. 

I had a friend tell me a reason he was against U.S. involvement in Ukraine was because we are building chemical weapons there. I had never heard this before when he said this. Then I saw people complaining Tucker Carlson was spreading this same Russian bullshit, which prompted me to read the WaPo story and make the post I did. Not political. Just fact.

That’s all fine. Just don’t bring Tucker Carlson or Fox News into this discussion, please.

BC

[lex24]

I vote for the thread to be shut down.  I come here for sports. And escape.  Period. There are plenty of places to discuss Ukraine.  Doesn’t need to be here.

Just my opinion.

[lex24]

I vote for the thread to be shut down.  I come here for sports. And escape.  Period. There are plenty of places to discuss Ukraine.  Doesn’t need to be here.

Just my opinion.

[BostonCard]

One of the best threads out there on why the Russian army has sucked, how the Russian people have responded, and how the Russian speaking side of Ukraine has reacted to the war.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502673952572854278?s=21[/tweet]

Very long thread, but very much worth reading.

BC

[BostonCard]

One of the best threads out there on why the Russian army has sucked, how the Russian people have responded, and how the Russian speaking side of Ukraine has reacted to the war.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502673952572854278?s=21[/tweet]

Very long thread, but very much worth reading.

BC

[newguy]

i think the subject of this thread is important enough that the thread should remain open, as long as it doesn't stray too deep into political territory.

[newguy]

i think the subject of this thread is important enough that the thread should remain open, as long as it doesn't stray too deep into political territory.

[JJJ]

i think the subject of this thread is important enough that the thread should remain open, as long as it doesn't stray too deep into political territory.

+1. For instance, that Twitter thread by BC. I would've never found that on my own. Thanks.

[JJJ]

i think the subject of this thread is important enough that the thread should remain open, as long as it doesn't stray too deep into political territory.

+1. For instance, that Twitter thread by BC. I would've never found that on my own. Thanks.

[dabigv13]

Good article on where possible coup power could originate from in Russia.

https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91e...09582dd007

Also, regarding the earlier Fukuyama post, I agree with a lot of it, but then seeing who it's from makes me reconsider. The guy is mostly mentioned now in introductory paragraphs of articles about how wrong he was. Hope that's how it turns out.

[dabigv13]

Good article on where possible coup power could originate from in Russia.

https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91e...09582dd007

Also, regarding the earlier Fukuyama post, I agree with a lot of it, but then seeing who it's from makes me reconsider. The guy is mostly mentioned now in introductory paragraphs of articles about how wrong he was. Hope that's how it turns out.

[newguy]

i think the subject of this thread is important enough that the thread should remain open, as long as it doesn't stray too deep into political territory.

+1. For instance, that Twitter thread by BC. I would've never found that on my own. Thanks.

thanks JJJ.
we've got some knowledgeable alumni here, as well as some sharp non-alumni who are contributing to this thread.

[newguy]

i think the subject of this thread is important enough that the thread should remain open, as long as it doesn't stray too deep into political territory.

+1. For instance, that Twitter thread by BC. I would've never found that on my own. Thanks.

thanks JJJ.
we've got some knowledgeable alumni here, as well as some sharp non-alumni who are contributing to this thread.