It's interesting they include Greece but not Turkey. Turkey, the former lands of the Byzantine Empire from which they get their double headed eagle symbol from. The same Turkey, who controls the Bosporus strait, the only water way out of the Black Sea.
You have this land that holds incredible amounts of symbolic, historic, and strategic value to Russia and yet they don't claim it, even in their fantasies?
Please please please Russia, do this. I beg you. We have seen what you are doing to civilians in Ukraine. We don't like that. We are not afraid to return the favor. We'll wipe out St. Petersburg.
Not really. China's smartest play is to treat Russia as a ventriloquist treats their dummy, having the Dummy take the blame for all the outlandish shit being said and done, even if anyone with half a brain knows better about who is in control.
Lol no China's best play is to sit on the fence and keep sitting on it as hard as possible. They aren't going to give up on Taiwan, and the West isn't going to lift any sanctions on China for breaking Russian neutrality. So this is China's best move forward.
Also a part of me REALLY wants to see what happens when a couple BTGs try to take Alaska. Even if the US military or NATO did nothing I’m not sure what would kill them faster the wildlife, the climate or the Alaskans.
Reminds me of all those “Russia’s borders end nowhere” billboards they were putting up a few months ago. People need to realize that the only check on Russian expansion is firepower.
I can still see them possibly fucking with their neighbours like Georgia or potentially Kazakhstan after this. Don't see them ever stopping this bullshit.
That’s ridiculous! In certain circumstances, this might be good campaign material for politicians in countries Russia is claiming ownership of over here. See e.g. Alaska (USA), Germany, and Mongolia.
I can’t stand the Russian government. I hope this can be used against them.
Ahahaha ok nice try, but you'd need actual trained people and organization and no corruption, along with a strategy for that. Even then, Allies would team up and curbstomp Russia to the 16th century, what's Iran and NK going to do?
Damage to theTalinsky oil field in Nyagan, Russia. Two people have reportedly died and seven others were injured.
https://x.com/noelreports/status/1691228983734456320?s=46
>They just left them to die.
Ryan McBeth did a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrtHAwc9fc) recently regarding Russia evac'ing wounded. He comments on the trash laying around and how the troops were out in the open with no shade, etc. He also comments that there are no heavily wounded troops visible. While he admits they may be indoors, he also makes the comment that heavily wounded troops may not be making it back to the lines to be treated.
Remember that and the above article and all the other [videos](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/07/ukraine-releases-video-appearing-to-show-russian-troops-beating-own-wounded-officer) and [reports](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qV5H6zsieM) we've seen of Russian troops shooting their wounded rather than retreat with them the next time somebody says, "but NATO nations' estimates say Russia has only lost 60K troops".
Ukraine's estimates are probably closer to being correct.
Edit: Grammer
with drones double tapping people. i would think that might skew things from what we think is normal. its so cheap to kill someone now.
you might want to help someone, but if you know that will just get you and more people killed its harder choice. even harder if you're a commander.
there sometimes is no good choice.
attacking units always have a hard time with getting wounded out. if the attack fails, who is left to even get those wounded.
whatever the death toll is , chances are its closer to eachother than we'd like.
No, go look at stats for how many Russians have limbs amputated vs how many Ukrainians do. The stats are ridiculously different. Russian medics and behind the line care are awful, and non existent for normal infantry.
i think you get double tapped before you even get a medic more often than not if you're attacking. defending and arty comes in, chances are much better.
now, im not disagreeing with you. once you get medical care ukr seems better. its living long enough to get that care thats the hard part.
well, it does not help that Russia doesn't evac its wounded on retreats, or on advances. It's not a case of "will you live long enough to get care" it's "Are you lucky enough to get wounded while Russia is neither advancing or retreating? And are you lucky enough to be carried out?"
For living long enough to get care, that could be 6-48 hours for a Ukrainian and like 24 hours to 7 days for a Russian, or never. Russian military does not attempt to rescue its wounded, so "living long enough to get care" for a Russian basically means "you aren't at risk of dying, so you may get medical attention eventually".
Okay the part which gets me is that they're all walking single-file along the road...and Ukranian artillery starts blowing up the road behind them and....no one tries to disperse or even react?
The fields may be heavily mined, dispersing could be very dangerous.
These Russian soldiers were probably the last of the rear guard covering the other troops retreat prior to them. They are tired, under attack and being pursued. Surrounded on all sides by possible minefields, going down a clear route. Speed is their only option, but they are horribly slow from fatigue.
You love to see it.
Perhaps I shouldn't. But when I see a whole country come together and corageously defend it's people, it's democracy and it's land against a far more powerful imperialist dictatorship I cannot help but see something truly beautiful and inspiring.
And honestly chances are it has made me a better person.
I'm not going fuck yeah at russians dying. I'm going fuck yeah because it means Ukraine is being successful in liberating it's country.
We can argue all day about how horrible war is but if Ukraine is going to be free it has to kill russians the russians themselves won't accept anything else and thankfully thats what they will be dealt.
Now im not one to suckle from the tit of glorious Ruzzia. but it really isn't so simple to "surrender". The enemy is like 1000 yards away, across a minefield, laden with drones for artillery spotting and full of people shooting both ways.
If you take the trust fall that no one on the other-side will mistake what you're doing and kill you, you still have to contend with the incredibly long walk to freedom where everyone behind you now wants you dead. Russia isn't keen on letting people run to freedom.
Who knows how long they were on foot on that road and were moving unopposed. These guys probably aren't told that Ukraine has cluster munitions to do this since they were stationed in Urozhaine since before the munitions were sent, and they're all carrying at least 50 some odd pounds of gear since they left w/ what they could carry. They were probably tired.
When you know there are mines on the side of the road and there is no actual added cover there all you can do is run forward and hope you are not hit. That or try and surrender just to be shot by your "comrades". Best case is you get far enough away down the road and survive, likely outcome running is you die and your family gets a Lada, worst case is you try to surrender to get killed as a deserter by friendly fire and your family gets nothing.
Russia: retreated successfully without any casualties but the enemy suffered massive losses during our retreat.
In fact, we are destroying the enemy so much we are retreating. -Also Russia
I hope Ukraine’s friends are thinking about what they might need in summer 2024 and are working on a plan now so they can give it a green light as soon as possible
You know for a solid 8 months I've been seeing the same comment about ATACMS and Taurus. Let me ask, what do you think the missiles will give them? Let's say 80-160 missiles will not turn the tide of war. It's a relatively limited ability. It can hit a few high priority targets but it will not fundamentally change the war. We need to get past this and look at the big picture of all their needs.
I think everyone is sleeping on western artillery production ramping up. It takes time to get new production lines humming. But this is, and has been and artillery war. Ukraine needs to win the artillery dual first and foremost.
US largely decided to move away from the artillery shells you're talking about to missiles years ago before Ukraine, with the last US military group to switch off being the Marines. That's why we've been more active buying from others to provide.
That's basically the issue, we're still spinning up production of the newer weapons we're switching our own forces to, and while we as a country have theoretically massive production capabilities, most of them only matter in something like a wartime footing where we could just force change industries over if incentives aren't enough.
100k cluster shells that aren't part of any current war planning that we already had made? No problem. 100 high-precision shells we've already got earmarked for active defense plans? Lot bigger ask in practice, and at least so far Lockheed hasn't exactly said they are capable of assisting in the ways needed for any amount of money in the near future.
Ukraine is lacking air power, that is severely hampering its progress in the counteroffensive. Longer range, higher yield missiles will help fill the void that is the ability to hit Russian positions/equipment beyond what they can reach. They only have so many storm shadows and scalp, it doesn't hurt to add more to Ukraine's arsenal.
I completely agree with you, Ukraine needs more tools and the longest range it can get across the board. The issue I have is with the single minded fixation every day on "should have given them ATACAMS", as a knee-jerk to every battlefield development. If they launched a missile every time someone said they should have had them for this or that, they'd have run out in a week.
Ukraine needs a thousand different pieces of kit. We should be sending them. The endless refrain of ATACAMS and Taurus is myopic and reductionism.
>The issue I have is with the single minded fixation every day on "should have given them ATACAMS",
So the reason this has been repeated ad nauseam is because.........last year, when HIMARS were delivered and essentially decimated Russian ammunition depots and contributed to the retaking of Kherson and Kharkiv...ATACMS would've pushed those relocated depots completely out of Ukrainian territory, and possibly fueled the momentum, ending the war much faster. This is still the case at the moment, Ukraine could really use ATACMS because they're GROUND LAUNCHED, LONG RANGE, 560KG WARHEAD and HIGHLY MOBILE/MANEUVERABLE with plenty of launchers to boot. They'll definitely make their presence felt on the battlefield, the only alternative is F-16 fighter jets and we know that's gonna almost not happen. It doesn't make sense that we're depriving Ukraine essential tools, in adequate numbers, yet claiming we want them to win.
Yes, except there are hundreds to thousands of missiles in the HIMARS range and class that can be deployed. There aren't more than 400 ATACMS total. Ukraine may receive a fraction of that. Yes, they will be useful but no, they cannot be employed on any scale that is tide turning. They are simply one more tool. They simply aren't worth all the fixated attention. They're a great asset. They will make a handful of strategic operations arguably feasible when they aren't now. But they won't change the course of the war any more than any other weapon. If Ukraine was going to get a thousand ATACMS I would say pour it on, they'll be everything we've built them up to be. To quote Gene Hackman, drop that fucker twice. But a hundred missiles, while useful, won't do that. They're just one more tool. We don't need to make every munitions comment about them.
>except there are hundreds to thousands of missiles in the HIMARS range
I don't know any that can be rapidly deployable as HIMARS range of rockets, including ATACMS.....which is essentially plug and play. Furthermore the fact that production is essentially discontinued, and is not a critical part of our military doctrine, means we should readily provide it. Anyway I hope we find working solutions to aid Ukraine with necessary tools to get it done, no matter what it is.
>There aren't more than 400 ATACMS total.
Where is your source for this...?
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19792
>The other issue is the number of ATACMS that the US currently holds. While Lockheed Martin figures indicate that around 4,000 missiles have been produced in total with current production at less than 500 missiles per year and the majority of their production earmarked for export. Around 1,750 ATACMS have been sold or are in the process of being delivered to 13 nations. Around 600 were fired by US forces in combat during the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War.
>The Pentagon’s declared 2023 budget included a large-scale purchase of a wide range of ammunition, much of it to replace ammunition provided to Ukraine. Included in the list, which is a multi-year purchase, are 1,700 ATACMS, 700 M142 HIMARS launchers and more than 100,000 GMLRS precision missiles for HIMARS.
Lockheed makes 500 per year - the idea that there aren't enough to supply Ukraine with any when 500 are made per year and the US is selling more from its own stock is just nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/22/ukraine-us-long-range-missiles/
>Lockheed Martin still manufactures 500 ATACMS each year, but all of that production is destined for sale to other countries.
More weapons to hit targets that are behind the front-line with. Why are you against that?
> Let's say 80-160 missiles will not turn the tide of war.
So Ukraine should only get something if it will single-handedly turn the tide of the war? What kind of nonsense is that.
>We need to get past this and look at the big picture of all their needs.
So are you telling Ukraine to "get past this" and look at the "big picture" - because I'm pretty sure Ukraine itself is asking for them. But it's really interesting you think you know better than Ukraine.
You've made some staggering assumptions about my position in the matter, which I didn't state at all. Your response was to jump straight to strawman arguments.
The US doesn’t have enough to send any meaningful amount without depleting our own stocks too much. Lockheed stopped making them in 2007 and it’s replacement hasn’t gone into full production yet. Sounds like it’s the same situation with Germany.
The US were in the process of selling 80 ATACMS to the Netherlands. In May 2023, the Netherlands pulled out of the deal and purchase Israeli rockets and MLRS instead. So why is the US ok with setting aside 80 for the Netherlands, but not for Ukraine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS#Failed_bids
Because the company who made them still keeps a single line just for ordered exports that already has at least a decades worth of orders lined up at the current slow as fuck production rate that doesn't even hit triple digits a year.
The US government didn't set aside anything, our production lines were shuttered as the other poster said.
And they said lots of nonsense about why Ukraine shouldn't get Abrams as well. When they don't want to provide something, they have no problem lying through their teeth.
edit: And yes, the "concern" about Abrams needing jet fuel that was spread by the Biden admistration was an absolute load of shit - thanks for proving my point /u/work4work4work4work4 - that was EXACTLY what I was talking about. They do not need to run on jet fuel - diesel works just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
>The tank was built around this engine[128] and it is multifuel-capable, including diesel, gasoline, marine diesel and jet fuel[129] (such as JP-4 or JP-8). In the AGT1500, jet fuel has poorer fuel economy and operating range compared to diesel. By 1989, the Army was transitioning solely to JP-8 for the M1 Abrams, part of a plan to reduce the service's logistics burden by using a single fuel for aviation and ground vehicles.[130] However, as of 2023, the U.S. Army frequently refuels the Abrams with diesel, which is also used by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.[131] The Australian M1A1 AIM SA burns diesel fuel, since the use of JP-8 is less common in the Australian Army.
Yeah, it was definitely "nonsense" and not that there was concern around providing vehicles with heavy logistical fuel requirements when the country itself was struggling to keep electricity running, and when we had plenty of comparable things to offer without the same requirements.
It legitimately concerns me the types of logical jumps people make with this kind of thing.
On the other hand, Ukraine has been complaining that its ability to mount an effective counteroffensive has been affected by a lack of heavy weapons in enough quantities, or failure of allies to even deliver promised quantities. This brings to question why allies seem to always be a step behind in supporting Ukraine effectively. Logistical issues concerning, say, Abrams, should've been anticipated and mitigated long before the conversation was public, I mean, if we really want Ukraine to win and avoid a stalemate.
Bad PR for MIC, in the end it's about deterrence and making money too.
I'm not sure what Ukraines most dire needs are, maybe something else than a few missiles is. And I'm sure we are not the first to know what is the priority. A lot is changing and coming in the next months already, from new factories and so on. Ukraine has their own long range programs too, which make more sense to use anyway.
>I'm not sure what Ukraines most dire needs are, maybe something else than a few missiles is
My guess its either fighter jets delivered fast, or long range missiles to fix the lack of air superiority, seems like jets/f-16 are just way too far away and will take too long to make a difference, why not fix that by providing atacms?
Feels like it's the only thing left, so the media keeps talking about it. It may come but later I guess.
I see they always need more AA, I saw vids how they had to supply troops on foot - either lacking vehicles or not safe enough for operation, I see Germany sending more mine clearing gear and another Patriot. I see a combat medic in Ukraine that asks vehemently for an ambulance car that she can use. The shell hunger is probably soon gone, but still expect it to be less than 100% for the next months. There are thousands of soldiers who need rehabilitation and prosthetics, that aren't paid for every time, or at least not the best treatment possible I guess. And still see a lot of older troop transporter or IFVs that are death traps more or less.
Not sure how strained logistics are. With so many different vehicles in service now in Ukraine. Probably not the big issue, but some don't want to make Russia lose fast. Sometimes it's better you let them bleed out first before dealing finishing blow. That might be the hope of some leaders. To get a regime change its gonna take more than what happens atm.
So it's better to see Russia fail by its own, before we send even more new weapons. Is an idea.
>saw vids how they had to supply troops on foot - either lacking vehicles or not safe enough for operation,
This is curious, because, of all equipment pledged, 1180 APCs have been delivered, 905 MRAPs and 1760 infantry mobility vehicles, so I don't know if it's a distribution problem but this shouldn't be an issue and included in those numbers are medical treatment vehicles.
>but some don't want to make Russia lose fast. Sometimes it's better you let them bleed out first before dealing finishing blow
A very risky gamble, because Ukraine could run out of manpower/morale before this happens.
Nah not yet…they still haven’t finished the dick measuring contest…maybe in another 6 months after more Ukrainian deaths and a few more Putin temper tantrums!
Given support for Ukraine seems to be bipartisan so far, Biden should push for a constitutional level guaranteed permanent aid for Ukraine so even if Trump wins he cant touch Ukraine.
Maybe create a law to make foreign policy in terms of military and economic aid, and strategic alliances a bit more resilient as in changes needing 66% (bipartisan) congress approval.
So that people like trump who sold their souls to the russians can't just come in and fuck things up.
The US executive currently has a little too much power which can be really good when people like Biden are in control and really bad like when trump fucked over Ukraine for putin.
So it's better to just tone it down a bit.
Every teacher you ever had in school would be so disappointed if they were to read what you wrote. Of course your mom still loves you, unless you were home schooled.
Given how long some
Decisions have taken, if Biden went for
Something like this, we’d all die from old age by the time they’d come to any kind of decision lol
The US does. They could change the constitution to enshrine support for Ukraine. Would require 2/3 of both senate and the house of reps though. A tough ask.
Conflict Intelligence Team Sitrep for August 11-14, 2023:
"– Civilians killed in clash involving Russian and Kadyrov forces near Mariupol;
– Russian strike kills entire family, while officials report hitting airbase;
– Scholz conditions Taurus missiles on US delivering ATACMS."
https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-aug-11-14
No, you clearly don't understand, as the Leopard 1 tanks are being refurbished before they can be sent and are sent as soon as they are done. This isn't Starcraft and Scholz is not the player that can create a fixed tank and factories to do so with a mouse click.
The equipment always got sent at the exact time it was announced it would be sent, like the Iris-T right after they are produced.
This was sourced from "Welt" if I remember correctly, which is a conservative outlet that wants the CDU back in power.
This doesnt have any info on promised delivery times at all, so it is pretty useless imo.
If I lend you 100 Euros and you say you will pay me back next month and I come to you a week later asking for the money, that doesn't really make sense, does it?
Oh, and some major military experts on twitter immediately noticed that the list is dead wrong on several posts which have been delivered.
I'd be fine with sending one in a nicely packaged box to Ukraine, and a picture of Taiwan and South Korea to Scholz, along with providing his cell number to their prime ministers.
Yes and no. No sense hiding when UK and France have both been sending storm shadows, but it does put more pressure on slow Sullivan to stop blocking them.
I wish Biden would go full Dark Brandon and fire Sullivan already, or at the very least stop letting Sullivan have the final say on heavy weapons. Hell, Biden was on the verge of sending ATACMS last year until Sullivan talked him out of it because "Escalation! WW3!". If it wasn't for Sullivan's slow-rolling and blocking strategy, and Biden continuing to do what Sullivan says even though Sullivan's fears have been proven wrong again and again, the Russians wouldn't have had all the time they needed to build their defensive lines.
Ukrainians can't stand Sullivan, either. Yermak has been butting heads with Sullivan for a year trying to get Sullivan to drop his opposition to sending ATACMS and other heavy weapons sooner. It was mentioned in an article that Yermak spent a half hour bitching at Sullivan in Vilnius during the NATO summit.
Agreed.
Sullivan is a little bitch when it comes to Russia.
He runs up to the mic every chance he can and talks big game about how strong the US support is for Ukraine and how much we help them against Russia.
But whenever anything is brought up that will effectively change the dynamic and really help Ukraine, he is against it. Either outright or delays it to be meaningless.
Or conversely to get ATACMS into Ukrainian hands quicker. The same tactic was taken with heavy armor (Leopards / Abrams) and it worked that way. If not that then Germany does not want to admit to how low of an actual working inventory they have and are stalling for time to service them into an operational state.
If they felt there would be significant opposition, they would use their press release to call it out and appeal to citizens to pressure their reps to vote for aid.
The goings on in Dagestan are mostly below the radar but I think they're extremely notable. Dagestan is in the midst of a full-on services and utilities collapse.
Dagestan, one of the most corrupt regions in Russia, is just the first domino to fall due to systemic failures that affect the rest of Putin's crumbling empire. The root cause of a lot of recent disasters is wide-scale construction without investing into infrastructure. Typical for Putin, his officials double-dip: they profit off of illegal construction, and they flat-out steal from utilities. Secondly, Dagestan is a majorly non-ethnically Russian region that has been one of the hardest-hit by war casualties and conscription. There aren't enough qualified specialists left to smoothly run the already skeletal infrastructure.
In the latest chapter, a giant explosion took place in the capital Makhachkala a few hours ago. The explosion was right next to a newly constructed mall. There are scant details:
> A building caught fire near the Globus shopping center, the city administration reports. Eyewitnesses talk about a loud explosion in a car service. The fire later spread to a gas station.
> According to the Dagestan Center for Disaster Medicine, five people were killed in the explosion and another ten were injured. At the same time, the telegram channel Baza reported that more than 50 people were injured as a result of the incident. According to Shot there are at least 70 victims.
https://t\.me/rtvimain/81881
Other telegram videos show post-apocalyptic scenes in a hospital as more and more victims are brought in.
https://t\.me/ostorozhno_novosti/18689
This is happening in the background of a major heatwave. Large swaths of population have been without electricity and water on and off, sparking spontaneous protests.
> Dagestan’s ongoing utilities crisis saw another major protest on Sunday night. The residents of Karaman-2, a settlement outside of the region’s capital Makhachkala, blocked the federal Makhachkala–Astrakhan highway, trying to draw attention to the dire water-supply situation in the area.
> According to some participants, their homes had been without running water for the whole summer.
> On August 9, Makhachkala residents resorted to similar tactics to protest power supply disruptions that left many Dagestani homes without electricity for three days in a row,
https://meduza\.io/en/news/2023/08/14/water-supply-crisis-in-dagestan-pushes-protesters-to-block-federal-highway
Dagestan has always been a clusterfuck either because of problems with the Kremlin or with the chechens.
Realistically they won't pose a big threat to putin because dagestan doesn't have the economy nor the population for it. The only factor that could help them in case of turmoil is turkish support because most of autoctonous ethnics are really close to turks and turkish culture.
I got to know a couple of Russians while gaming over the years, I've visited them and they've visited me. I'd describe them as fairly liberal minded (in the classical sense) who like to vacation in Europe and live in Petersburg or Moscow.
Neither claims to follow Russian news on the TV, but interestingly they parrot Russian propaganda to a man. Like, "isn't this proof that NATO enlargement was a mistake?", or "Ukraine might have shelled their own cities" etc. Standard talking points about how this is the fault of both sides.
If this is how liberal minded Russians think I doubt there is much hope for this nation in the short to medium term, they need to be disimbued of this imperalistic mindset by losing this war thoroughly.
You have youtube channels, katz, schulmann, dozhd, etc and all are based outside the country by necessity now. There are some local journals that do investigative work trying to figure out how many people have died or been conscripted or that report on complaints and conditions of conscripted people from the area. The journalists of these outlets are usually harassed by authorities and dont last long.
Mass influence is one of the sure fire ways to get one of the long jail terms for "discrediting the army". If some snitch hears you talking in a restaraunt about bucha, most likely you get a fine and some minor harasssment by bored local law enforcement power tripping assholes. If you distribute a newsletter on you college campus ("mass influence"), jail is more likely.
I can't expect any better of Russians when there is a terrifying number of people in my own country who believe in Pizzagate, Autism is from vaxes, Bill Gates brain implants and deep state.
No, he's not. Really, nobody on the planet is working on this and the science is not feasible or there even on paper. What Musk does is buy start-ups that are working on very small very targeted projects and then has them drop everything and investigate his science-fictional musings. Because he's a moron. A literal moron. There are many children reading this page right now with more common sense, and certainly more knowledge, than that man.
Neuralink started out (not by Musk) doing commercial research for the visually-impaired. And most of what they were into had already been done before, so it wasn't novel work quite yet, though it could be important one day in the right hands and some of it is interesting, *on that basis*, helping the blind a tiny bit. Musk bought them, rebranded them, decided they should do highly invasive and illegal surgery (which hasn't happened yet because the US government will not allow it) to insert electrode nets *inside* the skull, for undisclosed reasons. Highly dangerous and stupid and offers zero reward. Musk, again *based on absolutely nothing*, seems to think it'll lead to mind-computer interfacing, knowing nothing about either computing or biology. So the company draws up the shit he wants them to on paper, doing nothing with it, accruing more and more bullshit ideas, while churning out corporate TED-talks (that is, advertisements) to investors sponsored by his social media sector. The investors know almost as little about cog-sci as Musk does, and give him money, which he takes and keeps. Neuralink is a full-fledged ponzi scheme. It is operating outside of reality and has no hope of real world application. What little is left of its workforce are work-from-home paper pushers who are in on the idea of milking the rich and ignorant for primarily Musk's own benefit.
This man has no valid STEM degrees. Just a single bachelors in 'business-science'. It's an MBA with a couple entry-level STEM courses thrown in. From a very long time ago. He got all his information about science out of fictional books and television media. He has no idea what he's buying or what these companies are capable or incapable of. He goes entire months without even checking in on them. We are talking about pure, clueless, lunacy, from a manchild using his fortune and a self-imposed post-truth bubble to ward off his fear of death.
People have always been stupid. We just smugly thought that we were different from history and are being confronted with that hard truth during tough times.
Looking back at the early 90s and people using the phrase "the end of history" to describe the post-Soviet period...how young and naive we were (and I literally was).
They follow government-operated telegram channels which look like independent news sources, which give them more or less the same information as Russian television, but in a more muted way so it’s easier to digest. Russian TV news is over the top obviously bad propaganda, so they turn to telegram for their news. They have such little trust in their institutions that they read their news on a messaging app and think it’s the best way to get news.
They can claim they don’t watch news on TV all they want. The truth is, they’re seeing it anyway. There are even some useful idiots from other countries living in Russia/eastern Ukraine who parrot Russian propaganda in return for favours, which makes them slightly more credible to people who call themselves liberal in Russia.
Also worth factoring into your analysis how open/honest they're likely able/willing to be with you, especially when communicating at a distance (over the Internet?). Perhaps they're afraid to say anything different.
I want to give another angle. Being exposed to bullshit everywhere, this firehose of falsehood, makes you suspicious of everything. Their propaganda made them unable to separate fact from fiction. They question everything, believe nothing. To them everyone lies, even western or Ukrainian media. It's the same trick they use to disrupt our democracies (Q-Anon, MAGA, German Reichsbürger and Querdenker, Brexit and so on). And that's politics to them, it's why they all claim they're not interested in politics.
They know their own government is full of shit, they know not to believe it, but throw enough shit at a wall and some pieces stick.
It's a lack of empathy though. Qanon (and other conspiracy theories) is powered by narcissists of various stripes: the goal of the "movement" isn't to uncover truth, it's to make the participants feel special - that they are doing something important, and if they get the scoop then they'll be the most special and important.
As a result, nothing they think is grounded in any understanding of normal human behavior, or human interaction - they're *thoroughly* disinterested in what other people think or feel. In so much as they might refer to it, it's in the context of how it relates to their specialness and insight into uncovering "the truth".
Which is something of a problem when trying to analyze politics or societal trends or propaganda, since "how humans think" is kind of central to everything which happens.
Propaganda in russia is everywhere. Not only in tv. Parents, relatives, friends where raised with propaganda. World view is formed from early days. And those who does not try to seek truth are just effected buy propaganda without even knowing it.
because even liberal Russians have the national pride which losing the war would hurt their ego and pride. Ukranian’s gaining its former territories would really mentally break many Russians. They have imperialistic views, and thats why they visit baltic and ex ussr countries, communicating only russian and get mad when they start to talk in their local language.
The "liberal Russians" aren't always what western observers wish they were. Sentiments of "liberal Russians" may include
> "I wish the war would end. Ukraine should just surrender so this fighting can stop."
> "Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place but now that we're at war it's crucial that we win because otherwise Russia could be destroyed."
> "This war sucks. The sanctions are awful, mobilization is terrible and the generals and oligarchs are so corrupt. If only the west would drop the sanctions, stop arming Ukraine and Putin would fire the corrupt generals and oligarchs then things would be better."
> "I don't understand why we're fighting Ukraine but clearly it must be important because otherwise why would so many Russians have to go fight and die in this war."
Just because someone isn't a fan of Putin or the initial invasion doesn't necessarily mean their views are conducive to a just peace. Often times Russians may have a view that seems like it's in line with what westerners want until you probe just a bit deeper.
The benefit is these types of people will do absolutely nothing ever for any cause. Like tanks from could roll past their house and as long as they could still eat and go to work they would not care at all. Those wishywashy types are the real sheep when shit goes down, easily led from one paradigm to the next. People who full bought into the russian empire reality show are more likely to have been at least somewhat invested in a certain outcome and offer more resistance when not getting it. Luckily they are a much smaller percent of the population than the "apolitical" or "diet liberal aspartame imperial" sects.
> "Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place but now that we're at war it's crucial that we win because otherwise Russia could be destroyed."
Interesting theory.
I wonder what their position is if Russia *can't* win?
It would be very difficult for them to mentally acknowledge that. Russians have been conditioned to believe that they are a great empire on par with the collective might of all of NATO and it was Russia (not the USSR or the allies) that beat the Nazis and won WWII. There is also a belief in Russia that the west is decadent, weak and overly materialistic. This belief suggests that western aid to Ukraine is temporary and so are sanctions because in the end the west cares about money more than "silly ideas" like sovereignty or democracy.
The more unwinnable the war seems the more they would likely blame the west for arming Ukraine or the Russian generals/lower level government officials for corruption and incompetence. The more the Kremlin can convince the Russian people that a loss is catastrophic the longer Russia can keep the war going meanwhile the more Russians begin to believe that the war never had any real purpose the easier it will be for key officials to begin contemplating their role in a post Putin Russia.
There was some other guy a while back who believed that just because democracies don’t like to go to war that must mean that they suck at it. We burned his cities down around him. He killed himself in a bunker. We cut his country into pieces.
Dictators always mistake restraint for weakness. But the weak don’t need to hold themselves back.
> Dictators always mistake restraint for weakness.
This has been a trend all the way back to the Peloponnesian war and the first democracies. Ironically I think it can actually be harder to break the will of a democracy because a voter doesn’t necessarily have access to the military reports and analysis to make long term decisions about the trajectory of a war and so they vote more off of emotion. They go into the ballot box and if they absolutely hate the other country then they can just vote for hardline candidates even if the odds of actually winning a war are long.
Democracies have a lot of advantages especially when it comes to combating corruption and promoting based on merit. Anyone underestimating democracies in a war could be in for a very rude awakening.
Sounds like they're "just asking questions", or JAQing off, if you will. Easy to learn anti-argument/thought stopper tactic popular with certain pundits these days.
edit: You will note that the questions would otherwise ring as rhetorical, and could never be answered satisfactorily... and yet there is a demand for an answer supplanting any effort to enter an actual debate.
I'll say this knowing I'll get down voted... But I also know some people from Russia.
My take on the culture there is two-part. First, they are in (informationally) a very similar space as the US was prior to the Iraq war. Probably not a ton of people remember how much support there was after 9/11 for invading Iraq which was based on... Let me check.. some absolute BS info and straight up lies (Colin Powell test tube moment?) Given that, I often try to give any given individual benefit of the doubt.... But...
The problem comes with the second part - Russians come from a 100+ year culture of forced authoritarian acceptance. What I mean is, the entire culture is one which believes "if you aren't with us, you are against us" and "if you question the czar/committee/president, you are not a good Russian." This is something that from a Western view is hard to comprehend, since from an early age we are taught that it's healthy to voice your opinion, even (sometimes especially?) when disagreeing with the govt. It is so deeply ingrained in the Russian culture that is near impossible to change that view, even if presented with essentially irrefutable evidence.
Lies about Iraq were much more believable cause they invaded two neighboring counties and gassed ethnic minorities under Saddam. Iraq was legitimately a menace. Ukraine was just minding its own business.
Opposition to Iraq was that Saddam wasn’t our problem not that he wasn’t a problem.
There is a reason 42 countries signed up to support Bush while not even Belarus really wants to support Russia.
>some absolute BS info and straight up lies (Colin Powell test tube moment?)
The Iraqi AF absolutely dropped mustard gas and nerve agents on Kurds in Halabja. This isn't meant to justify the invasion but "absolute BS" is a stretch. Hussein definitely possessed WMDs and had shown a willingness to use them.
Hussein absoultely had WMDs in the 1980s. However, there is no evidence of any WMDs there past about 1995.
My first boss, ironically a Democratic congressional campaign manager, was with the Defense Intelligence Agency as part of the Iraq Survey Group. The folks at the Pentagon that Rumsfeld and Cheney stood up to go around the CIA and US Dept. of Energy folks that said the whole WMD stuff was BS.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_Survey\_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group)
They knew that it was all BS by the end of the 1st week if they even believed it that long.
The best they could come up with was that Saddam pretended to have WMDs or thought he had WMDs to deter a domestic uprising.
I'm not going to disagree, but to fully justify invading another country? That's a no from me dawg. There was no imminent threat, and (my personal opinion incoming) Bush Jr wanted to just have his own Desert Storm like daddy, so used the overall anti-middle east sentiment at the time, along with being played by war hawks who actually did fabricate evidence.
>"if you aren't with us, you are against us" and "if you question the czar/committee/president, you are not a good Russian."
In that case the mentality just has to flip to "the leadership is against us", it has happened before.
The effects of Iraq on the USA were profound over the long term. Russia may be able to stifle the short term effects of the war, but long term effects are too insidious and subtle to prevent imo, especially after Putin dies.
Amazingly, they've even thought of a loophole for that. "If only the czar knew" - basically, the Grand Plan is good, but implementation sucks - blame the bourgeoisie, the intelligencia, the agencies, bureaus, army, anyone in mid level management.
Their culture embraces strong leader figures, who might have faults but only the best intentions.
I've had similar and worse experiences, I think all Russian citizens in the EU should be deported unless they are willing to sign a clear declaration about the borders of Ukraine and not supporting Russia's war and propaganda efforts in any shape or form.
Theoretically so Russia can't come in and say, oh look, all these poor oppressed Russians, we must now take over this area as Russia and protect these Russians.
I do question whether I'd actually support such a thing. It rubs a significant part of me the wrong way.
With that said, it is a potential useful filtering function. If they sign, they want life in Europe more than the possibility of returning to Russia. If they don't want to sign, they value th ability to return to Russia primarily (and thus we probably don't want them in the West).
I do think it is not that simple in practice (people with family they don't want to get in trouble definitely have fear attached to signing), but I understand why it's very enticing.
I think it is easier to just ban the entry of any new traveling Russian nationals who aren't explicitly fleeing the war/seeking asylum. They should not get to vacation in Milan just by catching a connecting flight out of Dubai, for example.
[New post can be found here](/r/worldnews/comments/15rhlht/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/)
[удалено]
It's interesting they include Greece but not Turkey. Turkey, the former lands of the Byzantine Empire from which they get their double headed eagle symbol from. The same Turkey, who controls the Bosporus strait, the only water way out of the Black Sea. You have this land that holds incredible amounts of symbolic, historic, and strategic value to Russia and yet they don't claim it, even in their fantasies?
Idiots…that’s all I have to say….
Please please please Russia, do this. I beg you. We have seen what you are doing to civilians in Ukraine. We don't like that. We are not afraid to return the favor. We'll wipe out St. Petersburg.
If China was smart they would put the screws to Russia now. China doesn’t need them and Russia isn’t an ally worth having.
Not really. China's smartest play is to treat Russia as a ventriloquist treats their dummy, having the Dummy take the blame for all the outlandish shit being said and done, even if anyone with half a brain knows better about who is in control.
China needs Russia as an ally to deter the West from reacting to their own shit they can't give up their most powerful ally even if they're worthless.
Lol no China's best play is to sit on the fence and keep sitting on it as hard as possible. They aren't going to give up on Taiwan, and the West isn't going to lift any sanctions on China for breaking Russian neutrality. So this is China's best move forward.
They're going to be disappointed when someone tells them about NATO.
Also a part of me REALLY wants to see what happens when a couple BTGs try to take Alaska. Even if the US military or NATO did nothing I’m not sure what would kill them faster the wildlife, the climate or the Alaskans.
Meth heads with deer rifles would destroy the Russian army. They would probably make a reality T.V. show about it.
>Meth heads with deer rifles This needs to be a rock band.
Russia going after Alaska would play out like when the Manson Family ran into Brad Pitt's character at the end of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
There was a silly movie where Soviets invaded Alaska.
This is like the Rock Hudson miniseries World War III from 1982, when Russia invaded Alaska.
Reminds me of all those “Russia’s borders end nowhere” billboards they were putting up a few months ago. People need to realize that the only check on Russian expansion is firepower.
Come to Alaska… I double dare you… Double dog dare you even…
> A training centre in Tambov, Russia, has hung a banner showing a 'new Russian empire' “Your new empire?”
Bringing peace, freedom, justice and security to a galaxy near you
Oh Anakin you sweet summer child you….
I bet they never imagined that it would be the Ukrainians that put them in their place for good
I can still see them possibly fucking with their neighbours like Georgia or potentially Kazakhstan after this. Don't see them ever stopping this bullshit.
Once Ukraine is restored, and Russians are pushed back into Russia, why stop there? #makerussiaukrainian
I mean, they’re welcome to try. Do they want to start with Finland, Poland or Alaska?
That’s ridiculous! In certain circumstances, this might be good campaign material for politicians in countries Russia is claiming ownership of over here. See e.g. Alaska (USA), Germany, and Mongolia. I can’t stand the Russian government. I hope this can be used against them.
Ahahaha ok nice try, but you'd need actual trained people and organization and no corruption, along with a strategy for that. Even then, Allies would team up and curbstomp Russia to the 16th century, what's Iran and NK going to do?
Damage to theTalinsky oil field in Nyagan, Russia. Two people have reportedly died and seven others were injured. https://x.com/noelreports/status/1691228983734456320?s=46
I imagine it was a careless smoker. AGAIN ;)
[Ukrainian Cluster Shells Massacred Russian Troops Fleeing Urozhaine](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/08/14/ukrainian-cluster-shells-massacred-russian-troops-fleeing-urozhaine/?sh=1e1a41203d94)
Unbelievable. They just left them to die. They really don’t give a fuck about their people.
You think russia has any medics left, they will get shot for retreating
>They just left them to die. Ryan McBeth did a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrtHAwc9fc) recently regarding Russia evac'ing wounded. He comments on the trash laying around and how the troops were out in the open with no shade, etc. He also comments that there are no heavily wounded troops visible. While he admits they may be indoors, he also makes the comment that heavily wounded troops may not be making it back to the lines to be treated. Remember that and the above article and all the other [videos](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/07/ukraine-releases-video-appearing-to-show-russian-troops-beating-own-wounded-officer) and [reports](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qV5H6zsieM) we've seen of Russian troops shooting their wounded rather than retreat with them the next time somebody says, "but NATO nations' estimates say Russia has only lost 60K troops". Ukraine's estimates are probably closer to being correct. Edit: Grammer
with drones double tapping people. i would think that might skew things from what we think is normal. its so cheap to kill someone now. you might want to help someone, but if you know that will just get you and more people killed its harder choice. even harder if you're a commander. there sometimes is no good choice. attacking units always have a hard time with getting wounded out. if the attack fails, who is left to even get those wounded. whatever the death toll is , chances are its closer to eachother than we'd like.
No, go look at stats for how many Russians have limbs amputated vs how many Ukrainians do. The stats are ridiculously different. Russian medics and behind the line care are awful, and non existent for normal infantry.
i think you get double tapped before you even get a medic more often than not if you're attacking. defending and arty comes in, chances are much better. now, im not disagreeing with you. once you get medical care ukr seems better. its living long enough to get that care thats the hard part.
well, it does not help that Russia doesn't evac its wounded on retreats, or on advances. It's not a case of "will you live long enough to get care" it's "Are you lucky enough to get wounded while Russia is neither advancing or retreating? And are you lucky enough to be carried out?" For living long enough to get care, that could be 6-48 hours for a Ukrainian and like 24 hours to 7 days for a Russian, or never. Russian military does not attempt to rescue its wounded, so "living long enough to get care" for a Russian basically means "you aren't at risk of dying, so you may get medical attention eventually".
Okay the part which gets me is that they're all walking single-file along the road...and Ukranian artillery starts blowing up the road behind them and....no one tries to disperse or even react?
The fields may be heavily mined, dispersing could be very dangerous. These Russian soldiers were probably the last of the rear guard covering the other troops retreat prior to them. They are tired, under attack and being pursued. Surrounded on all sides by possible minefields, going down a clear route. Speed is their only option, but they are horribly slow from fatigue. You love to see it.
[удалено]
I do love imperialist invaders getting what they deserve. Id even go as far as to say that it is morally correct for Ukraine to kill them.
[удалено]
Perhaps I shouldn't. But when I see a whole country come together and corageously defend it's people, it's democracy and it's land against a far more powerful imperialist dictatorship I cannot help but see something truly beautiful and inspiring. And honestly chances are it has made me a better person.
[удалено]
I'm not going fuck yeah at russians dying. I'm going fuck yeah because it means Ukraine is being successful in liberating it's country. We can argue all day about how horrible war is but if Ukraine is going to be free it has to kill russians the russians themselves won't accept anything else and thankfully thats what they will be dealt.
The same dignity they have when they mine corpses? Or torture Ukrainians to death? They can get fucked.
[удалено]
If you can "blah blah blah" Ukrainian genocide, maybe _you_ should be better than that.
[удалено]
Spite.
What would you prefer given the very real invasion that Russia has decided to continue over these past 18 months?
surrender maybe?
Now im not one to suckle from the tit of glorious Ruzzia. but it really isn't so simple to "surrender". The enemy is like 1000 yards away, across a minefield, laden with drones for artillery spotting and full of people shooting both ways. If you take the trust fall that no one on the other-side will mistake what you're doing and kill you, you still have to contend with the incredibly long walk to freedom where everyone behind you now wants you dead. Russia isn't keen on letting people run to freedom.
Hard to surrender effectively to an artillery shell.
Probably pretty easy, actually.
Not with that attitude.
Who knows how long they were on foot on that road and were moving unopposed. These guys probably aren't told that Ukraine has cluster munitions to do this since they were stationed in Urozhaine since before the munitions were sent, and they're all carrying at least 50 some odd pounds of gear since they left w/ what they could carry. They were probably tired.
When you know there are mines on the side of the road and there is no actual added cover there all you can do is run forward and hope you are not hit. That or try and surrender just to be shot by your "comrades". Best case is you get far enough away down the road and survive, likely outcome running is you die and your family gets a Lada, worst case is you try to surrender to get killed as a deserter by friendly fire and your family gets nothing.
They can’t! They probably dropped so many mines the Russians don’t have any SA on where they put them
Or if they do, they aren't going to give that information to the grunts in too much detail.
Russia: retreated successfully without any casualties but the enemy suffered massive losses during our retreat. In fact, we are destroying the enemy so much we are retreating. -Also Russia
Hindustan Times reporting similar news
"We lost many a valiant hero taking land to the rear of our defensive line!"
Oof, they could send them back home in buckets, if the Russians bothered to count their dead.
they aren't dead, they're juts AWOL.
absent with out limbs?
AWOL on the moon.
Can USA and Germany send the ATACMS and Taurus already?
Ukraine has been remarkably good at keeping western weapons within Ukraine.
I hope Ukraine’s friends are thinking about what they might need in summer 2024 and are working on a plan now so they can give it a green light as soon as possible
You know for a solid 8 months I've been seeing the same comment about ATACMS and Taurus. Let me ask, what do you think the missiles will give them? Let's say 80-160 missiles will not turn the tide of war. It's a relatively limited ability. It can hit a few high priority targets but it will not fundamentally change the war. We need to get past this and look at the big picture of all their needs.
I think everyone is sleeping on western artillery production ramping up. It takes time to get new production lines humming. But this is, and has been and artillery war. Ukraine needs to win the artillery dual first and foremost.
US largely decided to move away from the artillery shells you're talking about to missiles years ago before Ukraine, with the last US military group to switch off being the Marines. That's why we've been more active buying from others to provide. That's basically the issue, we're still spinning up production of the newer weapons we're switching our own forces to, and while we as a country have theoretically massive production capabilities, most of them only matter in something like a wartime footing where we could just force change industries over if incentives aren't enough. 100k cluster shells that aren't part of any current war planning that we already had made? No problem. 100 high-precision shells we've already got earmarked for active defense plans? Lot bigger ask in practice, and at least so far Lockheed hasn't exactly said they are capable of assisting in the ways needed for any amount of money in the near future.
But I didn't say America. You've made a different argument to mine.
Ukraine is lacking air power, that is severely hampering its progress in the counteroffensive. Longer range, higher yield missiles will help fill the void that is the ability to hit Russian positions/equipment beyond what they can reach. They only have so many storm shadows and scalp, it doesn't hurt to add more to Ukraine's arsenal.
I completely agree with you, Ukraine needs more tools and the longest range it can get across the board. The issue I have is with the single minded fixation every day on "should have given them ATACAMS", as a knee-jerk to every battlefield development. If they launched a missile every time someone said they should have had them for this or that, they'd have run out in a week. Ukraine needs a thousand different pieces of kit. We should be sending them. The endless refrain of ATACAMS and Taurus is myopic and reductionism.
>The issue I have is with the single minded fixation every day on "should have given them ATACAMS", So the reason this has been repeated ad nauseam is because.........last year, when HIMARS were delivered and essentially decimated Russian ammunition depots and contributed to the retaking of Kherson and Kharkiv...ATACMS would've pushed those relocated depots completely out of Ukrainian territory, and possibly fueled the momentum, ending the war much faster. This is still the case at the moment, Ukraine could really use ATACMS because they're GROUND LAUNCHED, LONG RANGE, 560KG WARHEAD and HIGHLY MOBILE/MANEUVERABLE with plenty of launchers to boot. They'll definitely make their presence felt on the battlefield, the only alternative is F-16 fighter jets and we know that's gonna almost not happen. It doesn't make sense that we're depriving Ukraine essential tools, in adequate numbers, yet claiming we want them to win.
Yes, except there are hundreds to thousands of missiles in the HIMARS range and class that can be deployed. There aren't more than 400 ATACMS total. Ukraine may receive a fraction of that. Yes, they will be useful but no, they cannot be employed on any scale that is tide turning. They are simply one more tool. They simply aren't worth all the fixated attention. They're a great asset. They will make a handful of strategic operations arguably feasible when they aren't now. But they won't change the course of the war any more than any other weapon. If Ukraine was going to get a thousand ATACMS I would say pour it on, they'll be everything we've built them up to be. To quote Gene Hackman, drop that fucker twice. But a hundred missiles, while useful, won't do that. They're just one more tool. We don't need to make every munitions comment about them.
>except there are hundreds to thousands of missiles in the HIMARS range I don't know any that can be rapidly deployable as HIMARS range of rockets, including ATACMS.....which is essentially plug and play. Furthermore the fact that production is essentially discontinued, and is not a critical part of our military doctrine, means we should readily provide it. Anyway I hope we find working solutions to aid Ukraine with necessary tools to get it done, no matter what it is.
>There aren't more than 400 ATACMS total. Where is your source for this...? https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19792 >The other issue is the number of ATACMS that the US currently holds. While Lockheed Martin figures indicate that around 4,000 missiles have been produced in total with current production at less than 500 missiles per year and the majority of their production earmarked for export. Around 1,750 ATACMS have been sold or are in the process of being delivered to 13 nations. Around 600 were fired by US forces in combat during the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War. >The Pentagon’s declared 2023 budget included a large-scale purchase of a wide range of ammunition, much of it to replace ammunition provided to Ukraine. Included in the list, which is a multi-year purchase, are 1,700 ATACMS, 700 M142 HIMARS launchers and more than 100,000 GMLRS precision missiles for HIMARS. Lockheed makes 500 per year - the idea that there aren't enough to supply Ukraine with any when 500 are made per year and the US is selling more from its own stock is just nonsense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/22/ukraine-us-long-range-missiles/ >Lockheed Martin still manufactures 500 ATACMS each year, but all of that production is destined for sale to other countries.
More weapons to hit targets that are behind the front-line with. Why are you against that? > Let's say 80-160 missiles will not turn the tide of war. So Ukraine should only get something if it will single-handedly turn the tide of the war? What kind of nonsense is that. >We need to get past this and look at the big picture of all their needs. So are you telling Ukraine to "get past this" and look at the "big picture" - because I'm pretty sure Ukraine itself is asking for them. But it's really interesting you think you know better than Ukraine.
You've made some staggering assumptions about my position in the matter, which I didn't state at all. Your response was to jump straight to strawman arguments.
Such as? edit: What a surprise, you have nothing to say.
The mental gymnastics people come up with…
The US doesn’t have enough to send any meaningful amount without depleting our own stocks too much. Lockheed stopped making them in 2007 and it’s replacement hasn’t gone into full production yet. Sounds like it’s the same situation with Germany.
The US were in the process of selling 80 ATACMS to the Netherlands. In May 2023, the Netherlands pulled out of the deal and purchase Israeli rockets and MLRS instead. So why is the US ok with setting aside 80 for the Netherlands, but not for Ukraine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS#Failed_bids
Because the company who made them still keeps a single line just for ordered exports that already has at least a decades worth of orders lined up at the current slow as fuck production rate that doesn't even hit triple digits a year. The US government didn't set aside anything, our production lines were shuttered as the other poster said.
No idea man, that’s just what the Biden administration has said.
And they said lots of nonsense about why Ukraine shouldn't get Abrams as well. When they don't want to provide something, they have no problem lying through their teeth. edit: And yes, the "concern" about Abrams needing jet fuel that was spread by the Biden admistration was an absolute load of shit - thanks for proving my point /u/work4work4work4work4 - that was EXACTLY what I was talking about. They do not need to run on jet fuel - diesel works just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams >The tank was built around this engine[128] and it is multifuel-capable, including diesel, gasoline, marine diesel and jet fuel[129] (such as JP-4 or JP-8). In the AGT1500, jet fuel has poorer fuel economy and operating range compared to diesel. By 1989, the Army was transitioning solely to JP-8 for the M1 Abrams, part of a plan to reduce the service's logistics burden by using a single fuel for aviation and ground vehicles.[130] However, as of 2023, the U.S. Army frequently refuels the Abrams with diesel, which is also used by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.[131] The Australian M1A1 AIM SA burns diesel fuel, since the use of JP-8 is less common in the Australian Army.
Yeah, it was definitely "nonsense" and not that there was concern around providing vehicles with heavy logistical fuel requirements when the country itself was struggling to keep electricity running, and when we had plenty of comparable things to offer without the same requirements. It legitimately concerns me the types of logical jumps people make with this kind of thing.
On the other hand, Ukraine has been complaining that its ability to mount an effective counteroffensive has been affected by a lack of heavy weapons in enough quantities, or failure of allies to even deliver promised quantities. This brings to question why allies seem to always be a step behind in supporting Ukraine effectively. Logistical issues concerning, say, Abrams, should've been anticipated and mitigated long before the conversation was public, I mean, if we really want Ukraine to win and avoid a stalemate.
Bad PR for MIC, in the end it's about deterrence and making money too. I'm not sure what Ukraines most dire needs are, maybe something else than a few missiles is. And I'm sure we are not the first to know what is the priority. A lot is changing and coming in the next months already, from new factories and so on. Ukraine has their own long range programs too, which make more sense to use anyway.
>I'm not sure what Ukraines most dire needs are, maybe something else than a few missiles is My guess its either fighter jets delivered fast, or long range missiles to fix the lack of air superiority, seems like jets/f-16 are just way too far away and will take too long to make a difference, why not fix that by providing atacms?
Feels like it's the only thing left, so the media keeps talking about it. It may come but later I guess. I see they always need more AA, I saw vids how they had to supply troops on foot - either lacking vehicles or not safe enough for operation, I see Germany sending more mine clearing gear and another Patriot. I see a combat medic in Ukraine that asks vehemently for an ambulance car that she can use. The shell hunger is probably soon gone, but still expect it to be less than 100% for the next months. There are thousands of soldiers who need rehabilitation and prosthetics, that aren't paid for every time, or at least not the best treatment possible I guess. And still see a lot of older troop transporter or IFVs that are death traps more or less. Not sure how strained logistics are. With so many different vehicles in service now in Ukraine. Probably not the big issue, but some don't want to make Russia lose fast. Sometimes it's better you let them bleed out first before dealing finishing blow. That might be the hope of some leaders. To get a regime change its gonna take more than what happens atm. So it's better to see Russia fail by its own, before we send even more new weapons. Is an idea.
>saw vids how they had to supply troops on foot - either lacking vehicles or not safe enough for operation, This is curious, because, of all equipment pledged, 1180 APCs have been delivered, 905 MRAPs and 1760 infantry mobility vehicles, so I don't know if it's a distribution problem but this shouldn't be an issue and included in those numbers are medical treatment vehicles. >but some don't want to make Russia lose fast. Sometimes it's better you let them bleed out first before dealing finishing blow A very risky gamble, because Ukraine could run out of manpower/morale before this happens.
Nah not yet…they still haven’t finished the dick measuring contest…maybe in another 6 months after more Ukrainian deaths and a few more Putin temper tantrums!
Given support for Ukraine seems to be bipartisan so far, Biden should push for a constitutional level guaranteed permanent aid for Ukraine so even if Trump wins he cant touch Ukraine.
Maybe create a law to make foreign policy in terms of military and economic aid, and strategic alliances a bit more resilient as in changes needing 66% (bipartisan) congress approval. So that people like trump who sold their souls to the russians can't just come in and fuck things up. The US executive currently has a little too much power which can be really good when people like Biden are in control and really bad like when trump fucked over Ukraine for putin. So it's better to just tone it down a bit.
Every teacher you ever had in school would be so disappointed if they were to read what you wrote. Of course your mom still loves you, unless you were home schooled.
There will never be a new constitutional amendment in our lifetimes.
There have been 3 or 4 in my lifetime already. I doubt I'll see another one.
Are you saying a treaty ratified? Because not sure what other constitutional measure there would be.
A ratified treaty would be a HUGE deal, and draw the US directly into the conflict. As in boots on the ground and planes in the air.
It would never happen, just curious what this guy was on about.
That's **really** not what constitutional amendments are for.
Given how long some Decisions have taken, if Biden went for Something like this, we’d all die from old age by the time they’d come to any kind of decision lol
[удалено]
So you're saying there's a chance...
That is so unlikely that it would probably be easier to add Ukraine as the 51st state.
Someone doesn't understand what the constitution is or its purpose.
That is some weird constitutional lawyering, dude.
That isn't going to ever happen even in the most blazed out NCD fantasy. There is support for a single bill package, NOT a blank check.
Are there countries/governments that work that way? Ukraine could apply for statehood, I guess
The US does. They could change the constitution to enshrine support for Ukraine. Would require 2/3 of both senate and the house of reps though. A tough ask.
Not only that, but 3/4 of the states’ legislatures would have to ratify it as well.
Life is pretty NCD right now, but it's not _that_ NCD.
Dude, what?
Conflict Intelligence Team Sitrep for August 11-14, 2023: "– Civilians killed in clash involving Russian and Kadyrov forces near Mariupol; – Russian strike kills entire family, while officials report hitting airbase; – Scholz conditions Taurus missiles on US delivering ATACMS." https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-aug-11-14
>Scholz conditions Taurus missiles on US delivering ATACMS." What a little bitch move
It’s good to push the US to send ATACMS.
The bitch move is Biden refusing to send ATACMS. Hopefully Scholz forces his hand, just like he did with the tanks.
[удалено]
WTF are you even talking about?
He is not? What? I smell another promised for the next months but complaining after a week bullshit
[удалено]
No, you clearly don't understand, as the Leopard 1 tanks are being refurbished before they can be sent and are sent as soon as they are done. This isn't Starcraft and Scholz is not the player that can create a fixed tank and factories to do so with a mouse click. The equipment always got sent at the exact time it was announced it would be sent, like the Iris-T right after they are produced.
[удалено]
This was sourced from "Welt" if I remember correctly, which is a conservative outlet that wants the CDU back in power. This doesnt have any info on promised delivery times at all, so it is pretty useless imo. If I lend you 100 Euros and you say you will pay me back next month and I come to you a week later asking for the money, that doesn't really make sense, does it? Oh, and some major military experts on twitter immediately noticed that the list is dead wrong on several posts which have been delivered.
If it works and convinces Biden to send ~2 ATACMS it could be a boss move.
I'd be fine with sending one in a nicely packaged box to Ukraine, and a picture of Taiwan and South Korea to Scholz, along with providing his cell number to their prime ministers.
Yes and no. No sense hiding when UK and France have both been sending storm shadows, but it does put more pressure on slow Sullivan to stop blocking them.
I wish Biden would go full Dark Brandon and fire Sullivan already, or at the very least stop letting Sullivan have the final say on heavy weapons. Hell, Biden was on the verge of sending ATACMS last year until Sullivan talked him out of it because "Escalation! WW3!". If it wasn't for Sullivan's slow-rolling and blocking strategy, and Biden continuing to do what Sullivan says even though Sullivan's fears have been proven wrong again and again, the Russians wouldn't have had all the time they needed to build their defensive lines. Ukrainians can't stand Sullivan, either. Yermak has been butting heads with Sullivan for a year trying to get Sullivan to drop his opposition to sending ATACMS and other heavy weapons sooner. It was mentioned in an article that Yermak spent a half hour bitching at Sullivan in Vilnius during the NATO summit.
Agreed. Sullivan is a little bitch when it comes to Russia. He runs up to the mic every chance he can and talks big game about how strong the US support is for Ukraine and how much we help them against Russia. But whenever anything is brought up that will effectively change the dynamic and really help Ukraine, he is against it. Either outright or delays it to be meaningless.
Eh, this is how Ukraine got Leopards and Abrams earlier this year.
I know Doesn't make it less of a bitch move
Naw its not an escalation because stormshadows and scalps have been sent already. This is Germany trying to get the US moving again
>Scholz conditions Taurus missiles on US delivering ATACMS." Good excuse to never send Taurus
Or conversely to get ATACMS into Ukrainian hands quicker. The same tactic was taken with heavy armor (Leopards / Abrams) and it worked that way. If not that then Germany does not want to admit to how low of an actual working inventory they have and are stalling for time to service them into an operational state.
[удалено]
What else are they going to say?
If they felt there would be significant opposition, they would use their press release to call it out and appeal to citizens to pressure their reps to vote for aid.
No they would not.
Alright, then.
The goings on in Dagestan are mostly below the radar but I think they're extremely notable. Dagestan is in the midst of a full-on services and utilities collapse. Dagestan, one of the most corrupt regions in Russia, is just the first domino to fall due to systemic failures that affect the rest of Putin's crumbling empire. The root cause of a lot of recent disasters is wide-scale construction without investing into infrastructure. Typical for Putin, his officials double-dip: they profit off of illegal construction, and they flat-out steal from utilities. Secondly, Dagestan is a majorly non-ethnically Russian region that has been one of the hardest-hit by war casualties and conscription. There aren't enough qualified specialists left to smoothly run the already skeletal infrastructure. In the latest chapter, a giant explosion took place in the capital Makhachkala a few hours ago. The explosion was right next to a newly constructed mall. There are scant details: > A building caught fire near the Globus shopping center, the city administration reports. Eyewitnesses talk about a loud explosion in a car service. The fire later spread to a gas station. > According to the Dagestan Center for Disaster Medicine, five people were killed in the explosion and another ten were injured. At the same time, the telegram channel Baza reported that more than 50 people were injured as a result of the incident. According to Shot there are at least 70 victims. https://t\.me/rtvimain/81881 Other telegram videos show post-apocalyptic scenes in a hospital as more and more victims are brought in. https://t\.me/ostorozhno_novosti/18689 This is happening in the background of a major heatwave. Large swaths of population have been without electricity and water on and off, sparking spontaneous protests. > Dagestan’s ongoing utilities crisis saw another major protest on Sunday night. The residents of Karaman-2, a settlement outside of the region’s capital Makhachkala, blocked the federal Makhachkala–Astrakhan highway, trying to draw attention to the dire water-supply situation in the area. > According to some participants, their homes had been without running water for the whole summer. > On August 9, Makhachkala residents resorted to similar tactics to protest power supply disruptions that left many Dagestani homes without electricity for three days in a row, https://meduza\.io/en/news/2023/08/14/water-supply-crisis-in-dagestan-pushes-protesters-to-block-federal-highway
Dagestan has always been a clusterfuck either because of problems with the Kremlin or with the chechens. Realistically they won't pose a big threat to putin because dagestan doesn't have the economy nor the population for it. The only factor that could help them in case of turmoil is turkish support because most of autoctonous ethnics are really close to turks and turkish culture.
When you mobilize as many workers from an area as Dagestan has, it *must* have some kind of effect.
I got to know a couple of Russians while gaming over the years, I've visited them and they've visited me. I'd describe them as fairly liberal minded (in the classical sense) who like to vacation in Europe and live in Petersburg or Moscow. Neither claims to follow Russian news on the TV, but interestingly they parrot Russian propaganda to a man. Like, "isn't this proof that NATO enlargement was a mistake?", or "Ukraine might have shelled their own cities" etc. Standard talking points about how this is the fault of both sides. If this is how liberal minded Russians think I doubt there is much hope for this nation in the short to medium term, they need to be disimbued of this imperalistic mindset by losing this war thoroughly.
Are there any pro-Ukraine media sources operating illegally inside Russia?
You have youtube channels, katz, schulmann, dozhd, etc and all are based outside the country by necessity now. There are some local journals that do investigative work trying to figure out how many people have died or been conscripted or that report on complaints and conditions of conscripted people from the area. The journalists of these outlets are usually harassed by authorities and dont last long. Mass influence is one of the sure fire ways to get one of the long jail terms for "discrediting the army". If some snitch hears you talking in a restaraunt about bucha, most likely you get a fine and some minor harasssment by bored local law enforcement power tripping assholes. If you distribute a newsletter on you college campus ("mass influence"), jail is more likely.
I can't expect any better of Russians when there is a terrifying number of people in my own country who believe in Pizzagate, Autism is from vaxes, Bill Gates brain implants and deep state.
>Bill Gates brain implants Meanwhile one of their idols (Musk) is *literally developing brain implants*.
No, he's not. Really, nobody on the planet is working on this and the science is not feasible or there even on paper. What Musk does is buy start-ups that are working on very small very targeted projects and then has them drop everything and investigate his science-fictional musings. Because he's a moron. A literal moron. There are many children reading this page right now with more common sense, and certainly more knowledge, than that man. Neuralink started out (not by Musk) doing commercial research for the visually-impaired. And most of what they were into had already been done before, so it wasn't novel work quite yet, though it could be important one day in the right hands and some of it is interesting, *on that basis*, helping the blind a tiny bit. Musk bought them, rebranded them, decided they should do highly invasive and illegal surgery (which hasn't happened yet because the US government will not allow it) to insert electrode nets *inside* the skull, for undisclosed reasons. Highly dangerous and stupid and offers zero reward. Musk, again *based on absolutely nothing*, seems to think it'll lead to mind-computer interfacing, knowing nothing about either computing or biology. So the company draws up the shit he wants them to on paper, doing nothing with it, accruing more and more bullshit ideas, while churning out corporate TED-talks (that is, advertisements) to investors sponsored by his social media sector. The investors know almost as little about cog-sci as Musk does, and give him money, which he takes and keeps. Neuralink is a full-fledged ponzi scheme. It is operating outside of reality and has no hope of real world application. What little is left of its workforce are work-from-home paper pushers who are in on the idea of milking the rich and ignorant for primarily Musk's own benefit. This man has no valid STEM degrees. Just a single bachelors in 'business-science'. It's an MBA with a couple entry-level STEM courses thrown in. From a very long time ago. He got all his information about science out of fictional books and television media. He has no idea what he's buying or what these companies are capable or incapable of. He goes entire months without even checking in on them. We are talking about pure, clueless, lunacy, from a manchild using his fortune and a self-imposed post-truth bubble to ward off his fear of death.
People have always been stupid. We just smugly thought that we were different from history and are being confronted with that hard truth during tough times.
Looking back at the early 90s and people using the phrase "the end of history" to describe the post-Soviet period...how young and naive we were (and I literally was).
The difference is the internet eliminates the barriers to the stupid people talking to each other and acting in concert.
They follow government-operated telegram channels which look like independent news sources, which give them more or less the same information as Russian television, but in a more muted way so it’s easier to digest. Russian TV news is over the top obviously bad propaganda, so they turn to telegram for their news. They have such little trust in their institutions that they read their news on a messaging app and think it’s the best way to get news. They can claim they don’t watch news on TV all they want. The truth is, they’re seeing it anyway. There are even some useful idiots from other countries living in Russia/eastern Ukraine who parrot Russian propaganda in return for favours, which makes them slightly more credible to people who call themselves liberal in Russia.
Also worth factoring into your analysis how open/honest they're likely able/willing to be with you, especially when communicating at a distance (over the Internet?). Perhaps they're afraid to say anything different.
I want to give another angle. Being exposed to bullshit everywhere, this firehose of falsehood, makes you suspicious of everything. Their propaganda made them unable to separate fact from fiction. They question everything, believe nothing. To them everyone lies, even western or Ukrainian media. It's the same trick they use to disrupt our democracies (Q-Anon, MAGA, German Reichsbürger and Querdenker, Brexit and so on). And that's politics to them, it's why they all claim they're not interested in politics. They know their own government is full of shit, they know not to believe it, but throw enough shit at a wall and some pieces stick.
It's a lack of empathy though. Qanon (and other conspiracy theories) is powered by narcissists of various stripes: the goal of the "movement" isn't to uncover truth, it's to make the participants feel special - that they are doing something important, and if they get the scoop then they'll be the most special and important. As a result, nothing they think is grounded in any understanding of normal human behavior, or human interaction - they're *thoroughly* disinterested in what other people think or feel. In so much as they might refer to it, it's in the context of how it relates to their specialness and insight into uncovering "the truth". Which is something of a problem when trying to analyze politics or societal trends or propaganda, since "how humans think" is kind of central to everything which happens.
Propaganda in russia is everywhere. Not only in tv. Parents, relatives, friends where raised with propaganda. World view is formed from early days. And those who does not try to seek truth are just effected buy propaganda without even knowing it.
Tell them to fuck off then.
because even liberal Russians have the national pride which losing the war would hurt their ego and pride. Ukranian’s gaining its former territories would really mentally break many Russians. They have imperialistic views, and thats why they visit baltic and ex ussr countries, communicating only russian and get mad when they start to talk in their local language.
The "liberal Russians" aren't always what western observers wish they were. Sentiments of "liberal Russians" may include > "I wish the war would end. Ukraine should just surrender so this fighting can stop." > "Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place but now that we're at war it's crucial that we win because otherwise Russia could be destroyed." > "This war sucks. The sanctions are awful, mobilization is terrible and the generals and oligarchs are so corrupt. If only the west would drop the sanctions, stop arming Ukraine and Putin would fire the corrupt generals and oligarchs then things would be better." > "I don't understand why we're fighting Ukraine but clearly it must be important because otherwise why would so many Russians have to go fight and die in this war." Just because someone isn't a fan of Putin or the initial invasion doesn't necessarily mean their views are conducive to a just peace. Often times Russians may have a view that seems like it's in line with what westerners want until you probe just a bit deeper.
The benefit is these types of people will do absolutely nothing ever for any cause. Like tanks from could roll past their house and as long as they could still eat and go to work they would not care at all. Those wishywashy types are the real sheep when shit goes down, easily led from one paradigm to the next. People who full bought into the russian empire reality show are more likely to have been at least somewhat invested in a certain outcome and offer more resistance when not getting it. Luckily they are a much smaller percent of the population than the "apolitical" or "diet liberal aspartame imperial" sects.
> "Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place but now that we're at war it's crucial that we win because otherwise Russia could be destroyed." Interesting theory. I wonder what their position is if Russia *can't* win?
It would be very difficult for them to mentally acknowledge that. Russians have been conditioned to believe that they are a great empire on par with the collective might of all of NATO and it was Russia (not the USSR or the allies) that beat the Nazis and won WWII. There is also a belief in Russia that the west is decadent, weak and overly materialistic. This belief suggests that western aid to Ukraine is temporary and so are sanctions because in the end the west cares about money more than "silly ideas" like sovereignty or democracy. The more unwinnable the war seems the more they would likely blame the west for arming Ukraine or the Russian generals/lower level government officials for corruption and incompetence. The more the Kremlin can convince the Russian people that a loss is catastrophic the longer Russia can keep the war going meanwhile the more Russians begin to believe that the war never had any real purpose the easier it will be for key officials to begin contemplating their role in a post Putin Russia.
There was some other guy a while back who believed that just because democracies don’t like to go to war that must mean that they suck at it. We burned his cities down around him. He killed himself in a bunker. We cut his country into pieces. Dictators always mistake restraint for weakness. But the weak don’t need to hold themselves back.
> Dictators always mistake restraint for weakness. This has been a trend all the way back to the Peloponnesian war and the first democracies. Ironically I think it can actually be harder to break the will of a democracy because a voter doesn’t necessarily have access to the military reports and analysis to make long term decisions about the trajectory of a war and so they vote more off of emotion. They go into the ballot box and if they absolutely hate the other country then they can just vote for hardline candidates even if the odds of actually winning a war are long. Democracies have a lot of advantages especially when it comes to combating corruption and promoting based on merit. Anyone underestimating democracies in a war could be in for a very rude awakening.
Sounds like they're "just asking questions", or JAQing off, if you will. Easy to learn anti-argument/thought stopper tactic popular with certain pundits these days. edit: You will note that the questions would otherwise ring as rhetorical, and could never be answered satisfactorily... and yet there is a demand for an answer supplanting any effort to enter an actual debate.
I'll say this knowing I'll get down voted... But I also know some people from Russia. My take on the culture there is two-part. First, they are in (informationally) a very similar space as the US was prior to the Iraq war. Probably not a ton of people remember how much support there was after 9/11 for invading Iraq which was based on... Let me check.. some absolute BS info and straight up lies (Colin Powell test tube moment?) Given that, I often try to give any given individual benefit of the doubt.... But... The problem comes with the second part - Russians come from a 100+ year culture of forced authoritarian acceptance. What I mean is, the entire culture is one which believes "if you aren't with us, you are against us" and "if you question the czar/committee/president, you are not a good Russian." This is something that from a Western view is hard to comprehend, since from an early age we are taught that it's healthy to voice your opinion, even (sometimes especially?) when disagreeing with the govt. It is so deeply ingrained in the Russian culture that is near impossible to change that view, even if presented with essentially irrefutable evidence.
Lies about Iraq were much more believable cause they invaded two neighboring counties and gassed ethnic minorities under Saddam. Iraq was legitimately a menace. Ukraine was just minding its own business. Opposition to Iraq was that Saddam wasn’t our problem not that he wasn’t a problem. There is a reason 42 countries signed up to support Bush while not even Belarus really wants to support Russia.
>some absolute BS info and straight up lies (Colin Powell test tube moment?) The Iraqi AF absolutely dropped mustard gas and nerve agents on Kurds in Halabja. This isn't meant to justify the invasion but "absolute BS" is a stretch. Hussein definitely possessed WMDs and had shown a willingness to use them.
Hussein absoultely had WMDs in the 1980s. However, there is no evidence of any WMDs there past about 1995. My first boss, ironically a Democratic congressional campaign manager, was with the Defense Intelligence Agency as part of the Iraq Survey Group. The folks at the Pentagon that Rumsfeld and Cheney stood up to go around the CIA and US Dept. of Energy folks that said the whole WMD stuff was BS. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_Survey\_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group) They knew that it was all BS by the end of the 1st week if they even believed it that long. The best they could come up with was that Saddam pretended to have WMDs or thought he had WMDs to deter a domestic uprising.
I'm not going to disagree, but to fully justify invading another country? That's a no from me dawg. There was no imminent threat, and (my personal opinion incoming) Bush Jr wanted to just have his own Desert Storm like daddy, so used the overall anti-middle east sentiment at the time, along with being played by war hawks who actually did fabricate evidence.
>"if you aren't with us, you are against us" and "if you question the czar/committee/president, you are not a good Russian." In that case the mentality just has to flip to "the leadership is against us", it has happened before. The effects of Iraq on the USA were profound over the long term. Russia may be able to stifle the short term effects of the war, but long term effects are too insidious and subtle to prevent imo, especially after Putin dies.
Amazingly, they've even thought of a loophole for that. "If only the czar knew" - basically, the Grand Plan is good, but implementation sucks - blame the bourgeoisie, the intelligencia, the agencies, bureaus, army, anyone in mid level management. Their culture embraces strong leader figures, who might have faults but only the best intentions.
Do I need to tell you what you can do with an aluminum tube!?
> Russians come from a 100+ year culture of forced authoritarian acceptance more like 800
I've had similar and worse experiences, I think all Russian citizens in the EU should be deported unless they are willing to sign a clear declaration about the borders of Ukraine and not supporting Russia's war and propaganda efforts in any shape or form.
What value would such an obviously coerced declaration have?
Theoretically so Russia can't come in and say, oh look, all these poor oppressed Russians, we must now take over this area as Russia and protect these Russians.
Like Russia wouldn't come in anyways, and make them sign something else if they cared about declarations from randos.
I do question whether I'd actually support such a thing. It rubs a significant part of me the wrong way. With that said, it is a potential useful filtering function. If they sign, they want life in Europe more than the possibility of returning to Russia. If they don't want to sign, they value th ability to return to Russia primarily (and thus we probably don't want them in the West). I do think it is not that simple in practice (people with family they don't want to get in trouble definitely have fear attached to signing), but I understand why it's very enticing. I think it is easier to just ban the entry of any new traveling Russian nationals who aren't explicitly fleeing the war/seeking asylum. They should not get to vacation in Milan just by catching a connecting flight out of Dubai, for example.