[Goose]

Obviously Russia could obliterate Ukraine into a radioactive slag, but they don't (thankfully).  Russia presumably has other weapons of mass destruction that they aren't using.   So, there are capabilities Russia has that they aren't using, and for good reason.

Yes, Russia has both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons that they are not (yet) using. There is a threshold that if crossed may lead to them doing so. The administration has been worried about this all along, as IMO they need to be. The real question in my mind is would Russia use a tac nuke in Crimea if they appear to be losing. Who knows? Russia probably has CBW capability they are not using.

What about cyber?  There were early discussions of cyber attacks, but I haven't heard any lately.  It does seem that cyber could be used in asymmetric warfare, allowing the smaller side to have significant effects on the populace of the larger side.   But I'd think Ukraine doesn't want to poke that bear. 

On that score I am pretty sure Ukraine is doing all it can on the cyber front. IMO cyber is a bit overrated. It would work much better against the US than it will against Russia, because many of the Russian civil and military activities are not automated or automated on such a low level that disrupting them is difficult. Russia is also very conscious of cyber and are both offensively and defensively active.

We hear about Russia's misinformation campaigns in the US.  Are both Russia and Ukraine putting out misinformation in the other's domain?

Absolutely. Both sides are also putting out misinformation in their own domains :-). Part of war.

Perhaps there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff impacting the Russian war machine (manufacturing, shipping, etc)  that isn't being made public.  Or is cyber too difficult for each side, or too risky?

Too difficult/impossible. I am sure both Ukraine and Russia are doing all they can, both offensively and defensively. Both sides are fighting in a manner that is pretty "low tech" in terms of things that are vulnerable to cyber, and both sides are aware of the threat. "Soft Kill" is often very hard.

[Goose]

Obviously Russia could obliterate Ukraine into a radioactive slag, but they don't (thankfully).  Russia presumably has other weapons of mass destruction that they aren't using.   So, there are capabilities Russia has that they aren't using, and for good reason.

Yes, Russia has both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons that they are not (yet) using. There is a threshold that if crossed may lead to them doing so. The administration has been worried about this all along, as IMO they need to be. The real question in my mind is would Russia use a tac nuke in Crimea if they appear to be losing. Who knows? Russia probably has CBW capability they are not using.

What about cyber?  There were early discussions of cyber attacks, but I haven't heard any lately.  It does seem that cyber could be used in asymmetric warfare, allowing the smaller side to have significant effects on the populace of the larger side.   But I'd think Ukraine doesn't want to poke that bear. 

On that score I am pretty sure Ukraine is doing all it can on the cyber front. IMO cyber is a bit overrated. It would work much better against the US than it will against Russia, because many of the Russian civil and military activities are not automated or automated on such a low level that disrupting them is difficult. Russia is also very conscious of cyber and are both offensively and defensively active.

We hear about Russia's misinformation campaigns in the US.  Are both Russia and Ukraine putting out misinformation in the other's domain?

Absolutely. Both sides are also putting out misinformation in their own domains :-). Part of war.

Perhaps there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff impacting the Russian war machine (manufacturing, shipping, etc)  that isn't being made public.  Or is cyber too difficult for each side, or too risky?

Too difficult/impossible. I am sure both Ukraine and Russia are doing all they can, both offensively and defensively. Both sides are fighting in a manner that is pretty "low tech" in terms of things that are vulnerable to cyber, and both sides are aware of the threat. "Soft Kill" is often very hard.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hungary-ratif...07367.html

Good news! Even if it takes a few more days it will be fine. Don't know what the Swedish Prime Minister said to Orbán, but it was enough. I suspect Orbán got his sweetheart deal on the fighter jets. It actually isn't a "big ask". Orbán also has a political scandal on his hands and looking like a "responsible" player is important to him ATM. There have been signs of more political opposition than usual to his "style" of government from groups that are usually somewhat politically passive. Having them go back to sleep is probably his goal.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hungary-ratif...07367.html

Good news! Even if it takes a few more days it will be fine. Don't know what the Swedish Prime Minister said to Orbán, but it was enough. I suspect Orbán got his sweetheart deal on the fighter jets. It actually isn't a "big ask". Orbán also has a political scandal on his hands and looking like a "responsible" player is important to him ATM. There have been signs of more political opposition than usual to his "style" of government from groups that are usually somewhat politically passive. Having them go back to sleep is probably his goal.

[TrumpCard]

We hear about Russia's misinformation campaigns in the US.  Are both Russia and Ukraine putting out misinformation in the other's domain?

Funny you should ask that question now.  It's only the top headline on wapo.com today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...-zaluzhny/

[TrumpCard]

We hear about Russia's misinformation campaigns in the US.  Are both Russia and Ukraine putting out misinformation in the other's domain?

Funny you should ask that question now.  It's only the top headline on wapo.com today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...-zaluzhny/

[dabigv13]

Ukrainian pilots will start graduating from F-16 fighter jet training in May, the Air National Guard estimates.

The first four pilots are “pretty close” to the end of their training, Air National Guard director Lt. Gen. Michael Loh told reporters Tuesday at the Air & Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium.

The U.S. is training 12 Ukrainian pilots in fiscal 2024—all of whom are set to graduate between May and August, according to Arizona National Guard spokesperson Capt. Erin Hannigan.
.......
The training effort started in late October at Morris Air National Guard base in Tucson, Arizona. Denmark is also leading an effort to train Ukrainian pilots on the fighter jet in Europe. 
.......
However, the U.S. won’t be able to keep this effort going and train more pilots beyond the first cohort if Congress doesn’t authorize more funding.

“Training cost is tuition-based and that funding is allocated prior to student arrival. Students currently enrolled are not expected to be impacted by funding issues. If additional pilots are needing to be trained, additional funding will be necessary,” Hannigan said. 

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/0...ay/394264/

[dabigv13]

Ukrainian pilots will start graduating from F-16 fighter jet training in May, the Air National Guard estimates.

The first four pilots are “pretty close” to the end of their training, Air National Guard director Lt. Gen. Michael Loh told reporters Tuesday at the Air & Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium.

The U.S. is training 12 Ukrainian pilots in fiscal 2024—all of whom are set to graduate between May and August, according to Arizona National Guard spokesperson Capt. Erin Hannigan.
.......
The training effort started in late October at Morris Air National Guard base in Tucson, Arizona. Denmark is also leading an effort to train Ukrainian pilots on the fighter jet in Europe. 
.......
However, the U.S. won’t be able to keep this effort going and train more pilots beyond the first cohort if Congress doesn’t authorize more funding.

“Training cost is tuition-based and that funding is allocated prior to student arrival. Students currently enrolled are not expected to be impacted by funding issues. If additional pilots are needing to be trained, additional funding will be necessary,” Hannigan said. 

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/0...ay/394264/

[TrumpCard]

Ain't nothing gonna happen for until the House returns to DC at the end of the month, and even then, item 1 on the agenda will be yet another CR to avoid a shutdown.  So Ukraine isn't getting any money until the week of March 5 at the very earliest.  And I understand those who think that a discharge petition is needed, but IMHO, the House leadership and Senate leadership need to find a mutually acceptable way forward.  Ukraine doesn't seem to have the luxury to wait around for this aid.  At this point, if the pro-Ukraine faction in the House had to wait for a discharge petition, Ukraine would be lucky to see that aid pass before Congress goes into hiatus in August.

[TrumpCard]

Ain't nothing gonna happen for until the House returns to DC at the end of the month, and even then, item 1 on the agenda will be yet another CR to avoid a shutdown.  So Ukraine isn't getting any money until the week of March 5 at the very earliest.  And I understand those who think that a discharge petition is needed, but IMHO, the House leadership and Senate leadership need to find a mutually acceptable way forward.  Ukraine doesn't seem to have the luxury to wait around for this aid.  At this point, if the pro-Ukraine faction in the House had to wait for a discharge petition, Ukraine would be lucky to see that aid pass before Congress goes into hiatus in August.

[Goose]

Ain't nothing gonna happen for until the House returns to DC at the end of the month, and even then, item 1 on the agenda will be yet another CR to avoid a shutdown.  So Ukraine isn't getting any money until the week of March 5 at the very earliest.  And I understand those who think that a discharge petition is needed, but IMHO, the House leadership and Senate leadership need to find a mutually acceptable way forward.  Ukraine doesn't seem to have the luxury to wait around for this aid.  At this point, if the pro-Ukraine faction in the House had to wait for a discharge petition, Ukraine would be lucky to see that aid pass before Congress goes into hiatus in August.

Yep. The damage that has been done so far is immense, but not fatal to Ukraine. I would not bet heavily that by August it will matter much. It is totally possible no more Ukraine aid will happen until after the next Congress is seated, and maybe not even then. By then, it will probably be a moot point. This issue has to be vocally and urgently made front and center now and a way found to send the aid IMO.

[Goose]

Ain't nothing gonna happen for until the House returns to DC at the end of the month, and even then, item 1 on the agenda will be yet another CR to avoid a shutdown.  So Ukraine isn't getting any money until the week of March 5 at the very earliest.  And I understand those who think that a discharge petition is needed, but IMHO, the House leadership and Senate leadership need to find a mutually acceptable way forward.  Ukraine doesn't seem to have the luxury to wait around for this aid.  At this point, if the pro-Ukraine faction in the House had to wait for a discharge petition, Ukraine would be lucky to see that aid pass before Congress goes into hiatus in August.

Yep. The damage that has been done so far is immense, but not fatal to Ukraine. I would not bet heavily that by August it will matter much. It is totally possible no more Ukraine aid will happen until after the next Congress is seated, and maybe not even then. By then, it will probably be a moot point. This issue has to be vocally and urgently made front and center now and a way found to send the aid IMO.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-mili...01230.html

This sums up Ukraine's problematic situation. Unlike Germany in 1943, Ukraine does have some hope that it can develop the necessary elements to execute maneuver warfare. Obviously that is true if and only if Ukraine receives the necessary equipment and training from NATO, primarily the US. The F-16 pilot training appears to be running mostly "by the book". August is a long time from now. It appears no allowance has been made for the fact Ukraine is at war. No corners are being cut. That may be good and necessary, but I bet the Ukrainian pilots are pissed.

I would also add the in the 1970s the NATO plan to operate on the defensive and trade space for time was not at all popular with the Bundeswehr. They had two sets of plans, the NATO plan that they paid lip service to and the plan they actually intended to execute. It wasn't exactly an "open" secret, but plenty of US people knew about it. As it turns out when the cold war ended we found out Russia wasn't going to attack out of Czechoslovakia because they didn't trust the Czech military at all. The German plan would have probably worked.  The concern was the German right flank on the shoulder of the Fulda Gap. It was going to be thinly screened by mountain troops. That was a big gamble that apparently would have worked. I wonder if the BND knew that and just kept it quiet :-).

Different subject:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-blames-...57453.html

IMO all these statements to reporters are fine. However, it is not nearly enough. Probably 2/3 of the population doesn't read/listen to these reporters anyway. This aid package is, IMO, a "big deal". The president (or his designee if that is deemed advisable) should request  airtime from the networks to make a statement on Ukraine aid. Yes, I know most people watch cable or the equivalent, but the clear action of showing the message is important might just get the public to pay attention. It will get universal press coverage. Public support for Ukraine aid  just might worry congress enough to get them to act. It may not work, but what is being done now in terms of raising public consciousness of the issue clearly isn't creating any "buzz".

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-mili...01230.html

This sums up Ukraine's problematic situation. Unlike Germany in 1943, Ukraine does have some hope that it can develop the necessary elements to execute maneuver warfare. Obviously that is true if and only if Ukraine receives the necessary equipment and training from NATO, primarily the US. The F-16 pilot training appears to be running mostly "by the book". August is a long time from now. It appears no allowance has been made for the fact Ukraine is at war. No corners are being cut. That may be good and necessary, but I bet the Ukrainian pilots are pissed.

I would also add the in the 1970s the NATO plan to operate on the defensive and trade space for time was not at all popular with the Bundeswehr. They had two sets of plans, the NATO plan that they paid lip service to and the plan they actually intended to execute. It wasn't exactly an "open" secret, but plenty of US people knew about it. As it turns out when the cold war ended we found out Russia wasn't going to attack out of Czechoslovakia because they didn't trust the Czech military at all. The German plan would have probably worked.  The concern was the German right flank on the shoulder of the Fulda Gap. It was going to be thinly screened by mountain troops. That was a big gamble that apparently would have worked. I wonder if the BND knew that and just kept it quiet :-).

Different subject:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-blames-...57453.html

IMO all these statements to reporters are fine. However, it is not nearly enough. Probably 2/3 of the population doesn't read/listen to these reporters anyway. This aid package is, IMO, a "big deal". The president (or his designee if that is deemed advisable) should request  airtime from the networks to make a statement on Ukraine aid. Yes, I know most people watch cable or the equivalent, but the clear action of showing the message is important might just get the public to pay attention. It will get universal press coverage. Public support for Ukraine aid  just might worry congress enough to get them to act. It may not work, but what is being done now in terms of raising public consciousness of the issue clearly isn't creating any "buzz".

[TrumpCard]

If you can come up with a tagline as short as “America First” that conveys the need to fund and supply Ukraine’s military, that might help. Today’s public stops paying attention by word 3.

Edit: “Axis of Evil” got air time and people understood the concept. I may have underestimated our collective attention span by a word or even two.

[TrumpCard]

If you can come up with a tagline as short as “America First” that conveys the need to fund and supply Ukraine’s military, that might help. Today’s public stops paying attention by word 3.

Edit: “Axis of Evil” got air time and people understood the concept. I may have underestimated our collective attention span by a word or even two.

[Goose]

If you can come up with a tagline as short as “America First” that conveys the need to fund and supply Ukraine’s military, that might help. Today’s public stops paying attention by word 3.

Edit: “Axis of Evil” got air time and people understood the concept. I may have underestimated our collective attention span by a word or even two.

I hear what you are saying. I am hoping that many internet "influencers" will pick this up and run with it. It seems that in this nation we can still generate a lot of enthusiasm to picket and demonstrate. I am of the (perhaps benighted) belief that most people engaging in that type of activity have a "reason", albeit one that may be very tangential (or even unrelated) to the issue at hand. I am hoping for some of that effect, even if true comprehension is elusive.

[Goose]

If you can come up with a tagline as short as “America First” that conveys the need to fund and supply Ukraine’s military, that might help. Today’s public stops paying attention by word 3.

Edit: “Axis of Evil” got air time and people understood the concept. I may have underestimated our collective attention span by a word or even two.

I hear what you are saying. I am hoping that many internet "influencers" will pick this up and run with it. It seems that in this nation we can still generate a lot of enthusiasm to picket and demonstrate. I am of the (perhaps benighted) belief that most people engaging in that type of activity have a "reason", albeit one that may be very tangential (or even unrelated) to the issue at hand. I am hoping for some of that effect, even if true comprehension is elusive.

[dabigv13]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

[dabigv13]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

[M T]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and  ….

I think we often gather into cliques and fool ourselves into believing that the way we see things is the One True Way and that all intelligent beings know this to be right. 

At this time of year, I hear political ads by pretty much every candidate which are trying to drive a wedge between the candidate’s Us and Them. 

Perhaps a two (versus many) party sustem contributes to the politization of more things (health policies come to mind). But I personally fear the situation when one party has such power as to push  through all its self-evident “truths” as laws and policies. That’s just pushing the pendulum further from its resting place. 

While I believe that the Russia-Ukraine war needs to be resolved with Russia not being rewarded for its invasion (as a lesson for all the countries that think they have a right for their neighbor’s land & people), I still respect that a large number of Americans have different values.  

I hope that the leaders can find a way to help their constituents see this war as a situation the US needs to support. A difficulty is to avoid it becoming a political flashpoint.

[M T]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and  ….

I think we often gather into cliques and fool ourselves into believing that the way we see things is the One True Way and that all intelligent beings know this to be right. 

At this time of year, I hear political ads by pretty much every candidate which are trying to drive a wedge between the candidate’s Us and Them. 

Perhaps a two (versus many) party sustem contributes to the politization of more things (health policies come to mind). But I personally fear the situation when one party has such power as to push  through all its self-evident “truths” as laws and policies. That’s just pushing the pendulum further from its resting place. 

While I believe that the Russia-Ukraine war needs to be resolved with Russia not being rewarded for its invasion (as a lesson for all the countries that think they have a right for their neighbor’s land & people), I still respect that a large number of Americans have different values.  

I hope that the leaders can find a way to help their constituents see this war as a situation the US needs to support. A difficulty is to avoid it becoming a political flashpoint.

[Goose]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

You could be correct. If you are and the House isn't going to pass the aid no matter what, Ukraine is screwed and that is it. However, if the majority of Americans actually believe the aid should pass, some of the highly political animals (particularly those from purple districts) that inhabit the congress may decide that voting for it is the lesser of two evils. It is one thing for the public to be in favor of something. It is another thing for the public to be vocal about it and make it an "issue". The latter is IMO not in evidence. It needs to be. We don't need all the votes from the "other" party. We just need a few more. I believe that not nearly enough public stress has been placed upon the downside of failure in Ukraine. IMO it will make a difference if this is done.

You may be correct that doing so and making a "big deal" out of it won't matter. However, the current situation leads to disaster. Trying to change that is IMO necessary. Not trying almost ensures the disaster will ensue.

[Goose]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

You could be correct. If you are and the House isn't going to pass the aid no matter what, Ukraine is screwed and that is it. However, if the majority of Americans actually believe the aid should pass, some of the highly political animals (particularly those from purple districts) that inhabit the congress may decide that voting for it is the lesser of two evils. It is one thing for the public to be in favor of something. It is another thing for the public to be vocal about it and make it an "issue". The latter is IMO not in evidence. It needs to be. We don't need all the votes from the "other" party. We just need a few more. I believe that not nearly enough public stress has been placed upon the downside of failure in Ukraine. IMO it will make a difference if this is done.

You may be correct that doing so and making a "big deal" out of it won't matter. However, the current situation leads to disaster. Trying to change that is IMO necessary. Not trying almost ensures the disaster will ensue.

[GK3]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

You could be correct. If you are and the House isn't going to pass the aid no matter what, Ukraine is screwed and that is it. However, if the majority of Americans actually believe the aid should pass, some of the highly political animals (particularly those from purple districts) that inhabit the congress may decide that voting for it is the lesser of two evils. It is one thing for the public to be in favor of something. It is another thing for the public to be vocal about it and make it an "issue". The latter is IMO not in evidence. It needs to be. We don't need all the votes from the "other" party. We just need a few more. I believe that not nearly enough public stress has been placed upon the downside of failure in Ukraine. IMO it will make a difference if this is done.

You may be correct that doing so and making a "big deal" out of it won't matter. However, the current situation leads to disaster. Trying to change that is IMO necessary. Not trying almost ensures the disaster will ensue.

I have little more to say on this mess, a Presidential Candidate is hawking sneakers, truck drivers won't deliver to NYC etc etc.  Common sense seems to be in very short supply.

[GK3]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

You could be correct. If you are and the House isn't going to pass the aid no matter what, Ukraine is screwed and that is it. However, if the majority of Americans actually believe the aid should pass, some of the highly political animals (particularly those from purple districts) that inhabit the congress may decide that voting for it is the lesser of two evils. It is one thing for the public to be in favor of something. It is another thing for the public to be vocal about it and make it an "issue". The latter is IMO not in evidence. It needs to be. We don't need all the votes from the "other" party. We just need a few more. I believe that not nearly enough public stress has been placed upon the downside of failure in Ukraine. IMO it will make a difference if this is done.

You may be correct that doing so and making a "big deal" out of it won't matter. However, the current situation leads to disaster. Trying to change that is IMO necessary. Not trying almost ensures the disaster will ensue.

I have little more to say on this mess, a Presidential Candidate is hawking sneakers, truck drivers won't deliver to NYC etc etc.  Common sense seems to be in very short supply.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/denmark-send-...50727.html

Good article. The Danes are doing their best. Unfortunately they have a bit of a record of promising things they can't actually do. I kind of wonder about the stated size of the Czech inventory, and they want to "get paid". It turns out the Czechs don't actually have them. They will come "from abroad". Thus the need to get paid. If it is available, it should go to Ukraine. The 122 mm is only usable in ex-Warsaw pact weapons, but Ukraine has plenty of them. Germany is "nearby". They can raise the money. Hopefully it can be "made to happen" immediately. Ukraine needs it NOW.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/02/18/c...-is-found/

---

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

You could be correct. If you are and the House isn't going to pass the aid no matter what, Ukraine is screwed and that is it. However, if the majority of Americans actually believe the aid should pass, some of the highly political animals (particularly those from purple districts) that inhabit the congress may decide that voting for it is the lesser of two evils. It is one thing for the public to be in favor of something. It is another thing for the public to be vocal about it and make it an "issue". The latter is IMO not in evidence. It needs to be. We don't need all the votes from the "other" party. We just need a few more. I believe that not nearly enough public stress has been placed upon the downside of failure in Ukraine. IMO it will make a difference if this is done.

You may be correct that doing so and making a "big deal" out of it won't matter. However, the current situation leads to disaster. Trying to change that is IMO necessary. Not trying almost ensures the disaster will ensue.

I have little more to say on this mess, a Presidential Candidate is hawking sneakers, truck drivers won't deliver to NYC etc etc.  Common sense seems to be in very short supply.

Sadly very true. Ukraine is grinding. Hopefully enough people in the US can do the same, despite all the background "nonsense".

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/denmark-send-...50727.html

Good article. The Danes are doing their best. Unfortunately they have a bit of a record of promising things they can't actually do. I kind of wonder about the stated size of the Czech inventory, and they want to "get paid". It turns out the Czechs don't actually have them. They will come "from abroad". Thus the need to get paid. If it is available, it should go to Ukraine. The 122 mm is only usable in ex-Warsaw pact weapons, but Ukraine has plenty of them. Germany is "nearby". They can raise the money. Hopefully it can be "made to happen" immediately. Ukraine needs it NOW.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/02/18/c...-is-found/

---

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

You could be correct. If you are and the House isn't going to pass the aid no matter what, Ukraine is screwed and that is it. However, if the majority of Americans actually believe the aid should pass, some of the highly political animals (particularly those from purple districts) that inhabit the congress may decide that voting for it is the lesser of two evils. It is one thing for the public to be in favor of something. It is another thing for the public to be vocal about it and make it an "issue". The latter is IMO not in evidence. It needs to be. We don't need all the votes from the "other" party. We just need a few more. I believe that not nearly enough public stress has been placed upon the downside of failure in Ukraine. IMO it will make a difference if this is done.

You may be correct that doing so and making a "big deal" out of it won't matter. However, the current situation leads to disaster. Trying to change that is IMO necessary. Not trying almost ensures the disaster will ensue.

I have little more to say on this mess, a Presidential Candidate is hawking sneakers, truck drivers won't deliver to NYC etc etc.  Common sense seems to be in very short supply.

Sadly very true. Ukraine is grinding. Hopefully enough people in the US can do the same, despite all the background "nonsense".

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eus-von-der-l...56190.html

Ursula von der Leyen is a person that IMO should never head anything that involves defense or the military. She was the "hit person" that pushed the German military "over the hump" from pathetic to utterly useless. She was instrumental in forcing the Luftwaffe to not buy F-35s and instead buy more Typhoons. The head of the air force resigned in protest. Few Typhoons were purchased, and they were basically unsuitable for the ground attack role for which they were needed. Belatedly, Germany is buying F-35s, although the ostensible reason is the F-35 being certified to carry US nuclear weapons and the Typhoon not. This is of course an excuse and not the "real" reason. It avoids admitting previous governments made a serious and costly error. The "Bundeswehr standing before you naked" happened on her watch, and she led the charge. Now she speaks about the EU "supporting democracy and supporting Ukraine. After her handiwork, Germany can't do so. IMO she is unsuitable to lead the EU for that reason.

She isn't "good" for Ukraine because she has no credibility in defense circles. Everybody knows what she did. The fact the chancellor (Merkel) appointed her to do it doesn't absolve her of blame. She has never said "we were wrong then" and that makes her newfound desire for military deterrent not credible.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eus-von-der-l...56190.html

Ursula von der Leyen is a person that IMO should never head anything that involves defense or the military. She was the "hit person" that pushed the German military "over the hump" from pathetic to utterly useless. She was instrumental in forcing the Luftwaffe to not buy F-35s and instead buy more Typhoons. The head of the air force resigned in protest. Few Typhoons were purchased, and they were basically unsuitable for the ground attack role for which they were needed. Belatedly, Germany is buying F-35s, although the ostensible reason is the F-35 being certified to carry US nuclear weapons and the Typhoon not. This is of course an excuse and not the "real" reason. It avoids admitting previous governments made a serious and costly error. The "Bundeswehr standing before you naked" happened on her watch, and she led the charge. Now she speaks about the EU "supporting democracy and supporting Ukraine. After her handiwork, Germany can't do so. IMO she is unsuitable to lead the EU for that reason.

She isn't "good" for Ukraine because she has no credibility in defense circles. Everybody knows what she did. The fact the chancellor (Merkel) appointed her to do it doesn't absolve her of blame. She has never said "we were wrong then" and that makes her newfound desire for military deterrent not credible.

[TrumpCard]

Apparently, it’s the new rage to change course, implicitly admitting years of mistakes, but never saw “I was wrong.”  I don’t endorse the tactic, but there are worse sins than correcting course.   

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...n-00141697

[TrumpCard]

Apparently, it’s the new rage to change course, implicitly admitting years of mistakes, but never saw “I was wrong.”  I don’t endorse the tactic, but there are worse sins than correcting course.   

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...n-00141697

[Goose]

Apparently, it’s the new rage to change course, implicitly admitting years of mistakes, but never saw “I was wrong.”  I don’t endorse the tactic, but there are worse sins than correcting course.   

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...n-00141697

Indeed, correcting course is laudable if genuine and motivated by reasons beyond immediate political expediency. However the public has shown a tendency in some cases to embrace the change and ignore the previous errors. It has also shown a tendency in some cases to reject the "sincerity" of the change and either tune out or condemn the politician as either less than honest or not very bright. Often this decision is based on whether the person involved is "liked". I would suggest Ursula von der Leyen is not particularly well liked, especially give the state of the EU economy. The following is IMO a bit "over the top" but it does illustrate some real issues. It also shows she isn't universally well liked :-)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/taken-just-fi...07755.html

As a leader, it is difficult to inspire public confidence if you don't at least acknowledge a change in course. It is legitimate to argue that a certain course of action was appropriate at the time but no longer is. It is also legitimate to say your opinion has changed in the light of new information. If a leader is simply silent about such a change, it may become hard to lead. Orwell in "1984" created a society where that was done as a matter of course. History was revised to eliminate the "errors" and there was no change. The new state of affairs was always the state of affairs. IMO we aren't quite there yet, fortunately.

[Goose]

Apparently, it’s the new rage to change course, implicitly admitting years of mistakes, but never saw “I was wrong.”  I don’t endorse the tactic, but there are worse sins than correcting course.   

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...n-00141697

Indeed, correcting course is laudable if genuine and motivated by reasons beyond immediate political expediency. However the public has shown a tendency in some cases to embrace the change and ignore the previous errors. It has also shown a tendency in some cases to reject the "sincerity" of the change and either tune out or condemn the politician as either less than honest or not very bright. Often this decision is based on whether the person involved is "liked". I would suggest Ursula von der Leyen is not particularly well liked, especially give the state of the EU economy. The following is IMO a bit "over the top" but it does illustrate some real issues. It also shows she isn't universally well liked :-)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/taken-just-fi...07755.html

As a leader, it is difficult to inspire public confidence if you don't at least acknowledge a change in course. It is legitimate to argue that a certain course of action was appropriate at the time but no longer is. It is also legitimate to say your opinion has changed in the light of new information. If a leader is simply silent about such a change, it may become hard to lead. Orwell in "1984" created a society where that was done as a matter of course. History was revised to eliminate the "errors" and there was no change. The new state of affairs was always the state of affairs. IMO we aren't quite there yet, fortunately.

[BigJohn043]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

I don't think Trump is "anti-Ukraine".

I do think Trump is anti-establishment and very anti-war.  There is a price to pay for all of the blood and treasure lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.  When Trump rails against the foreign policy & military establishment that got us into a bunch of stupid wars he isn't all together wrong.

Similarly, I don't think Trump is "anti-NATO".  I do think he feels like we have been getting wripped off by NATO.  We spend 3.5% of GDP on the military while many NATO countries struggle to get to 2%.  Why exactly are we financing Ukraine?  It is a Europe problem so let the Euros who have been under investing in NATO finance their own defense finally.

I think you aren't paying attention if you think the above isn't broadly popular.  A recent Gallup poll showed that 41% of Americans think we are spending too much in Ukraine.  Only 25% too little.

And foreign aid almost always polls really poorly.

FWIW, I think Ukraine and Israel are very different from Iraq and Afghanistan.  My biggest criticism is if we are going to support Ukraine we need to give them the tools to win....

[BigJohn043]

I don't think Americans broadly need convincing. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and the leadership of one party is captured by an anti-Ukraine faction, preventing Ukraine aid that most Americans support.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...nd-taiwan/

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

If tomorrow Trump said we should fund Ukraine, things would change. That will never happen sadly. A White House address from Biden will not move Johnson or the Republican base that is the stumbling block for Ukraine aid, more likely to make them dig in their heels unfortunately IMHO.

I don't think Trump is "anti-Ukraine".

I do think Trump is anti-establishment and very anti-war.  There is a price to pay for all of the blood and treasure lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.  When Trump rails against the foreign policy & military establishment that got us into a bunch of stupid wars he isn't all together wrong.

Similarly, I don't think Trump is "anti-NATO".  I do think he feels like we have been getting wripped off by NATO.  We spend 3.5% of GDP on the military while many NATO countries struggle to get to 2%.  Why exactly are we financing Ukraine?  It is a Europe problem so let the Euros who have been under investing in NATO finance their own defense finally.

I think you aren't paying attention if you think the above isn't broadly popular.  A recent Gallup poll showed that 41% of Americans think we are spending too much in Ukraine.  Only 25% too little.

And foreign aid almost always polls really poorly.

FWIW, I think Ukraine and Israel are very different from Iraq and Afghanistan.  My biggest criticism is if we are going to support Ukraine we need to give them the tools to win....

[BostonCard]

And foreign aid almost always polls really poorly.

The public believes we spend much more on foreign aid than we actually do.  They want us to spend less than what they believe we spend, but more than what we actually spend.



Though the above is from 2010, the effect is pretty consistent over time.  A majority of Americans support funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (even mores if the "Reagan Doctrine" is articulated: "The United States has historically provided security assistance to help its allies and friends defend themselves if they are willing to fight aggression against their own countries.")

https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-...nse-survey

BC

[BostonCard]

And foreign aid almost always polls really poorly.

The public believes we spend much more on foreign aid than we actually do.  They want us to spend less than what they believe we spend, but more than what we actually spend.



Though the above is from 2010, the effect is pretty consistent over time.  A majority of Americans support funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (even mores if the "Reagan Doctrine" is articulated: "The United States has historically provided security assistance to help its allies and friends defend themselves if they are willing to fight aggression against their own countries.")

https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-...nse-survey

BC

[TrumpCard]

There’s a reason populist has a negative connotation.

[TrumpCard]

There’s a reason populist has a negative connotation.