Russia & Ukraine

TreeFrogTrader · Mar 29, 2024

I am shamelessly doing a little "I told you so" here for a minute.

A while back I said that the Ruskies were getting giddy and happy over the fact that funding for Ukraine has been stalled- but that they need to worry about Biden approving the use of longer range missiles as a way of increasing support to Ukraine in a way that does not require Congressional approval (or at least Biden acts as though it does not). Similar to the approval of F-16's for Ukraine. Both the F-16's and the long range ATACMS are/ would crossing two of Vlad's "red lines."

Ukraine is taking a severe beating. I do not deny that. Nevertheless, Russia will be confronted - by summer- with having to deal with F-16's and ATACMS in the mix. In addition the delivery of conventional 155 and 105mm artillery shells will be kicking in. Not only from American and European production but also from existing inventories in Japan and South Koreas- plus Erdogan the Snake is even sending some. Russia a big and powerful force. They may be able to overcome it all, but they will have their hands full even though they are giddy now.

The Pentagon is releasing the possibility of providing ATACMS so that the CIA/military can assess what the Russians are saying about it backchannel. It is going to happen. The ATACM launch system also takes intermediate range missiles. The U.S. will provide the launch systems but claim that they are only shipping intermediate range missiles. (that is already happening). Then they will be set up and ready to go when the longer range missiles arrive.

They can also be used for bargaining with the Russians. Example: If they Ruskies keep their long range bombers out of Ukraine, the U.S. will not provide long range missiles to Ukraine. That type of thing.

Giving ATACMS to Ukraine no longer as risky, says Joint Chiefs chairman
The United States is becoming more comfortable giving Ukraine the long-sought weapons.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/...nger-risky-says-joint-chiefs-chairman/395329/

smallfil · Mar 29, 2024

TreeFrogTrader said:
Am I right in thinking that this is another one- in addition to the recent two amphibious warships a couple days ago?

If not then correct me.

But if it is a third beyond the other two, then I would like to say the following: HOLY SHIT!

Ukraine Strikes Yet Another Ship in Russia's Black Sea Fleet

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-strikes-another-ship-russia-black-sea-fleet-four-crimea-1883436

Ukraine doing a helluva job launching those drone motorboats with assistance from NATO advisers on the ground in Ukraine. Russians will invade and eventually, take Odessa where the attacks are coming from. They cannot continue to ignore it. Russia dominating from the air with their drones, missiles and now, glide bombs.

Businessman · Mar 29, 2024

Proxy wars are fraught with moral peril. Those who fund proxy wars (from a safe distance) can easily convince themselves that, by outsourcing the fighting to others, they avoid moral accountability for the tragic and inevitable consequences of war.

The moral implications of a proxy war are especially heightened when those funding it profit from the war’s duration and intensity.

Where, for example, those funding a proxy war sell weapons to those doing the actual fighting, the former might encourage the latter to keep fighting—regardless of whether it’s in the latter’s interest to do so—discouraging efforts to bring the conflict to a peaceful end.

The funder reaps profits. The proxy sheds blood.

This is not to say there’s no risk in funding a proxy war. To the contrary, the funder can easily be drawn into the war’s impetuous vortex. When the proxy realizes it’s fighting a war it can’t win, the funder may finally “put boots on the ground” to preserve its own reputation.

Having deployed its own military to fight in a foreign land, not to protect its own people or those of the proxy, but its own reputation, the funding nation may soon find itself making decisions that are fairly perceived as both illogical and immoral.

Thus, by fueling proxy wars, the funding nation jeopardizes not only its own blood and treasure, but also its reputation. By so doing, it ultimately undermines the security and prosperity of its people.

Sure, weapons manufacturers make a killing through all of this. And yes, that creates a few jobs along the way. But at what cost? -- Mike Lee