It will be interesting to see how long hot dog cart man survives. The longer he lasts the more I’m convinced that more of the Russian oligarchs/FSB are turning on Putin
It will be interesting to see how long hot dog cart man survives. The longer he lasts the more I’m convinced that more of the Russian oligarchs/FSB are turning on Putin
“Prigozhin started off that day as a traitor at breakfast, he had been pardoned by supper, and then a few days later, he was invited for tea,” Mr. Moore told the audience. “So, there are some things that even the chief of MI6 finds a little bit difficult to try and interpret, in terms of who’s in and who’s out.”
“He is clearly under pressure,” Mr. Moore said of Mr. Putin. “You don’t have a group of mercenaries advance up the motorway toward Rostov and get to within 125 kilometers of Moscow unless you have not quite predicted that was going to happen.”
Basically affirms my own hypothesis that Putin blinked, and Prighozin is pretty much untouchable right now. But Putin is trying to save face at the same time.
The spy chief said this turbulence in Russia, and growing disaffection with the war in Ukraine was creating fertile ground for the CIA to recruit Russians to spy on behalf of the U.S.
"It would be crazy for us not to take advantage of what is, in effect, a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a human intelligence service," Burns said.
The CIA recently posted a video on the Telegram app providing Russians with a secure way to contact the U.S. spy agency. Burns said it received 2.5 million views the first week it was posted.
"So the truth is, there's a lot of disaffection in Russia, in the elite and outside it, in Russia right now," he said.
When the CIA chief brags about how many potential spies it recruited publically, you know things are bad for Putin
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Canada can and could have played a large role in doing our part by counter-acting Russia's economic war games.
Russian gas and oil holding you for ransom? Canada will deliver at Russia prices. (if we actually had the infrastructure to do this doiiiii)
Grain exports from Russia and Ukraine stopping causing global famine? Here comes Canada's bread basket.
We don't have the army tech to help and our NATO contribution needs a bump. We should be helping in this way IMO.
Who is going to build all this infrastructure on the hopes it gets used in the event of a Russia/Ukraine war?
And I'm assuming our farmers are growing things right now that is of use to people. So if they shift to grow more wheat - the world runs low on whatever they would stop growing.
Who is going to build all this infrastructure on the hopes it gets used in the event of a Russia/Ukraine war?
And I'm assuming our farmers are growing things right now that is of use to people. So if they shift to grow more wheat - the world runs low on whatever they would stop growing.
Well the gas export infrastructure should have been built ages ago, that’s the could have. The fact we should be selling our commodities world-wide as one of the few places it can be had without human rights violations is a bit of a different conversation.
But yeah more specifically for grain, I’m assuming there are surpluses held onto that we can start sending and then , yeah I’m sure farmers would love having a whole new market where their product is going and maybe will continue to go (ie not to Ukraine, to markets where Ukraines grain would normally go.
I don’t know all the logistics of it, just seems like we could be helping in this way.
A bit of intrigue going on between Poland, Russia, and Belarus. Apparently, Wagner has been conducting exercises close to the Polish border with Belarus, so Poland has increased their military presence along the Poland/Belarus border. Russia has used this increased military presence to push the notion that Poland is threatening Belarus with an attack to reclaim historical Polish areas. It is of course nonsense that Poland would attack Belarus, but I wouldn't put it past Wagner to try something against Poland to try and draw a response. Russia has stated that an attack on Belarus would be considered an attack on Russia.
I think Poland would be wise enough not to fall for these types of shenanigans, but something to keep an eye on anyway. It wasn't that long ago that Belarus tried to manufacture a migrant refugee crisis in Poland, so you know they aren't against antagonizing Poland to see what they do.
I think the most infuriating part of that video is when Putin says that Poland was abandoned by Western allies during WW2 and then freed by the Soviet Union. Yes, Western abandonment after WW2 was a real thing for Central and Eastern Europe, but the Soviets invaded Poland with the intention to partition it with Nazi Germany and killed hundred of thousands of Poles in the process and then installed a brutal dictatorship after the war. The USSR was bad for Poland just like the the Nazis were.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 07-22-2023 at 12:56 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Russia's biggest fear at this point is NATO involvement. Wagner is Russian and and aggression in Polish territory would trigger article 5. Lukashenko knows he'd be finished if that happened.
This is intended to drive fear in the west of an escalation.
Russia's biggest fear at this point is NATO involvement. Wagner is Russian and and aggression in Polish territory would trigger article 5. Lukashenko knows he'd be finished if that happened.
This is intended to drive fear in the west of an escalation.
I don't think so. Quite the contrary.
Military exercises mostly happen near borders, because that's where conflicts mostly happen. In Belarus there are five borders to choose from: Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian. Out of those five choices, the Polish border has by far the least amount of political implication and military threat attached to it, despite some of the recent news. For scale, the Belarussian military budget is around 3% of that of the Polish military, and Poland has something like three times the manpower, much of it already focused on the Belarussian border. If there was a genuine intent to threaten escalation with the placement of these exercises, the threat would be placed at Latvian, Lithuanian or Ukrainian borders, not Poland.
If there is a political message with these exercises, it's that "Belarus is preparing itself against a western invasion", not "Belarus/Russia is threatening to escalate".
The real implication of these exercises is the implication that Wagner is being integrated into the Belarussian military structure. This is significant in two ways;
First, it's just a pretty big deal for Belarussian military strength. while I'm not sure of the exact numbers, the Wagner forces are in the ballpark in size as the Belarussian ground forces, or in any case a really significant addition proportionally, so adding Wagner to Belarussian forces makes much more of a difference in hypothetical military power than retracting them from the Russian side did. (I'm saying hypothetical because as we've seen, mercenaries aren't always reliable.)
Second issue is the impact this has in Belarussian power structure. If we assume Wagner is now under Belarussian command, that means Belarussian president Lukashenka now has an army of mercenaries backing him. Lukashenka's hold on power has been considered rather fragile ever since he cheated his way to an election win back in 2020, and there has been quite a lot of speculation that if Lukashenka was to try to order his forces to attack Ukraine, there's a good chance this would only lead to the military removing him from power. Adding Wagner troops to this equation changes everything. Of course there's no guarantee that Prigozhin would necessarily back Lukashenka, but the threat of that happening is likely to keep Belarussian internal resistance in check at least in the short term.
(In the long term bringing a mercenary army of Wagner's size into Belarus seems like a terrible idea for Belarus, especially when it's impossible to know where the loyalties of that army actually lies on any given day.)
Last edited by Itse; 07-22-2023 at 08:54 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
While media likes to play up the threat factor of stuff like Belarussian military exercises near the Polish border just for the clicks, it's good to remember that it makes a lot of political sense for European governments, especially the Polish government, to play up the idea of Russia escalating the conflict. They've been adding a ton to their military spending, and being democracies they need public support for that spending. Reminding people of the possibility of escalation is a way to do just that.
It also makes strategic sense for the West to play up the possibility of an escalation basically anywhere that isn't Ukraine, as it can help tie up Russian/Belarussian forces in places that are anywhere but Ukraine or the Ukrainian border.
Additionally, if we still agree with the idea (which was popular about a year ago) that Lukashenka is trying to not get dragged into the war against Ukraine, it makes sense for Lukashenka to play up the idea that "we totally need to protect our western border, we couldn't possibly move any more troops to the Ukrainian border".
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
My thinking on US support for Ukraine has evolved. Not their motivations, I still believe they're helping Ukraine because they believe in supporting sovereign democracy and defeating evil. Yes there are also benefits to it like diminishing Russian power and signaling to China that it will not back down.
My thinking on why the slow drip of weapons has changed. It's not fear of escalation. It's great of an outright Russian loss. It's a fear of Putin being replaced with someone worse. They want Russia defeated but not Putin, because then you could have Prigozhin type in charge of the military and nukes
I don’t get where this narrative that the U.S. is holding back support is coming from. Ukraine is blowing through munitions at an astonishing rate (as militaries in hot wars do). The U.S. doesn’t have infinite stockpiles of artillery, SAMS, etc. And no country’s military brass is going to be okay with reducing their own stockpiles beneath the minimums needed to meet their own defence needs*. American arms production capacity is ramping up, but that can’t be achieved in a few months.
* American military doctrine calls for the capacity to fight two overseas hot wars simultaneously (ie in Europe and in Asia), each consuming military hardware in at least the rate that we’re seeing in Ukraine. Given the growing power of China’s military, that’s a huge commitment of resources that need to be held back for national security.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I don’t get where this narrative that the U.S. is holding back support is coming from. Ukraine is blowing through munitions at an astonishing rate (as militaries in hot wars do). The U.S. doesn’t have infinite stockpiles of artillery, SAMS, etc. And no country’s military brass is going to be okay with reducing their own stockpiles beneath the minimums needed to meet their own defence needs*. American arms production capacity is ramping up, but that can’t be achieved in a few months.
* American military doctrine calls for the capacity to fight two overseas hot wars simultaneously (ie in Europe and in Asia), each consuming military hardware in at least the rate that we’re seeing in Ukraine. Given the growing power of China’s military, that’s a huge commitment of resources that need to be held back for national security.
That would be the case if the US gave everything they could until production was ramped up, but it took months for each item to finally be approved. Months of "we don't want to escalate" followed by finally approving in a slow piecemeal fashion. It took 4 months for the US to finally say ok to HIMARS. Tanks were a no until UK just said we'll do it. The US could've given all that stuff from the start as they still haven't replaced what they gave earlier. Both Europe and the US did not start ramping up artillery production until a few months ago. F-16s were "absolutely not" until last week.
Yes they need to have enough materiel for readiness, but that hasn't prevented them from what they have given. Why was it all approved so slowly?
That would be the case if the US gave everything they could until production was ramped up, but it took months for each item to finally be approved. Months of "we don't want to escalate" followed by finally approving in a slow piecemeal fashion. It took 4 months for the US to finally say ok to HIMARS. Tanks were a no until UK just said we'll do it. The US could've given all that stuff from the start as they still haven't replaced what they gave earlier. Both Europe and the US did not start ramping up artillery production until a few months ago. F-16s were "absolutely not" until last week.
Yes they need to have enough materiel for readiness, but that hasn't prevented them from what they have given. Why was it all approved so slowly?
Because this is a major geopolitical and diplomatic crisis. The fears of escalation are absolutely valid. And you just can’t hand over dozens of tanks and ‘have at er’. Modern armaments are hi-tech weapons systems that require 6+ months of dedicated training. Then there are legal restrictions - some European countries had to change their laws to allow arms sales to combatants at war.
The military support the West has been providing Ukraine is extraordinary - unprecedented since WW2 in its scope and speed.
So what’s your theory for why support hasn’t ramped up as quickly as you’d like? What’s the hidden agenda?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
That would be the case if the US gave everything they could until production was ramped up, but it took months for each item to finally be approved. Months of "we don't want to escalate" followed by finally approving in a slow piecemeal fashion. It took 4 months for the US to finally say ok to HIMARS. Tanks were a no until UK just said we'll do it. The US could've given all that stuff from the start as they still haven't replaced what they gave earlier. Both Europe and the US did not start ramping up artillery production until a few months ago. F-16s were "absolutely not" until last week.
Yes they need to have enough materiel for readiness, but that hasn't prevented them from what they have given. Why was it all approved so slowly?
Because it was unclear Ukraine would be able to fight so well and that Russia would be so dumb. The concern at the beginning had to be, 'we can't give Ukraine a bunch of stuff that will just fall into Russia's hands in three weeks.' Crappy for Ukraine, but totally prudent from America's perspective.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Because this is a major geopolitical and diplomatic crisis. The fears of escalation are absolutely valid. And you just can’t hand over dozens of tanks and ‘have at er’. Modern armaments are hi-tech weapons systems that require 6+ months of dedicated training. Then there are legal restrictions - some European countries had to change their laws to allow arms sales to combatants at war.
Ok, nobody disagrees, but the issue is it took them over a year in some cases to begin training after finally deciding to provide them many months after they were needed.
Quote:
The military support the West has been providing Ukraine is extraordinary - unprecedented since WW2 in its scope and speed.
So what’s your theory for why support hasn’t ramped up as quickly as you’d like? What’s the hidden agenda?
I explicitly said it in the post you quoted. I think US intelligence is scared of a post Putin Russia. What if someone worse takes power? Putin is very clearly scared of dying and of NATO involvement so nuclear retaliation doesn't seem to be a serious concern.
Because it was unclear Ukraine would be able to fight so well and that Russia would be so dumb. The concern at the beginning had to be, 'we can't give Ukraine a bunch of stuff that will just fall into Russia's hands in three weeks.' Crappy for Ukraine, but totally prudent from America's perspective.
That explains the first 3 or 4 months, but not the rest
That explains the first 3 or 4 months, but not the rest
I think it applies and continues to apply. The west is feeding them enough arms to keep chipping away at Russia and allowing Ukraine to stay in the fight. It shouldn't be a mystery the west is looking out for the west here. It's terrible for Ukrainians, but they're not going to say no to the help because they have no other options. The west is perfectly pleased to watch this war erode Russia, Putin's power and the capabilities of the Russian military without any western soldiers having to fight. This is a mild proxy war of NATO versus Russia at this point using Ukrainian manpower. It has to be a best-case-scenario situation for NATO military leaders right now.
I think it applies and continues to apply. The west is feeding them enough arms to keep chipping away at Russia and allowing Ukraine to stay in the fight. It shouldn't be a mystery the west is looking out for the west here. It's terrible for Ukrainians, but they're not going to say no to the help because they have no other options. The west is perfectly pleased to watch this war erode Russia, Putin's power and the capabilities of the Russian military without any western soldiers having to fight. This is a mild proxy war of NATO versus Russia at this point using Ukrainian manpower. It has to be a best-case-scenario situation for NATO military leaders right now.
They'd have eroded Putin's faster if they gave the weapons faster. Giving the Russians time to dig in and prepare sure doesn't improve the return on their investment
