Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Maticmaker said:
They would only be subject to conscription to the armed forces, once they were domiciled here, i.e. citizens of the UK (or perhaps more correctly, subjects of the Crown).
Click to expand...
Yes currently, but I understood that he suggested to grant citizenship for people who join the military voluntarily, not by conscription.
 
stefan92 said:
Yes currently, but I understood that he suggested to grant citizenship for people who join the military voluntarily, not by conscription.
Click to expand...

Our reputation on such matters over recent years has not been good so I wouldn't readily trust our government, and in any case citizenship usually comes first.

However the Gurkha's from Nepal, and some other commonwealth personnel serving with the British military are able to seek British citizenship by transferring to the wider army after five years, or after discharge applying for settlement and then naturalisation. I don't know all the details but I suspect it is assigned on an individual basis, similar to normal naturalisation applications.
 
Impressive grandstanding from the odious Marjorie Greene. Hit every populist note with a hammer without skipping a beat. She's quite charismatic when unchallenged; shame she's a lunatic.
 
Ukraine aid passes the House 311 : 112 : 1

More Republicans voted against (112) than for (101). All Democrats that voted were in favour.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Ukraine aid passes the house 311 : 112 : 1

More Republicans voted against (112) than for (101). All democrats that voted were in favour.
Click to expand...

Its a pretty good barometer of where the GOP is politically at the moment. Fortunately when you combine all the votes, its nearly 3 to 1 in favor.
 
Finally. History will judge the pro-Russia GOP extremists for stalling and opposing, hopefully not too much damage has been done.
 
Includes $8b in frozen Russian assets. Putin must be fuming.

 
Ekkie Thump said:
Impressive grandstanding from the odious Marjorie Greene. Hit every populist note with a hammer without skipping a beat. She's quite charismatic when unchallenged; shame she's a lunatic.
Click to expand...

She's melting down on CNN right now because a few members were waiving Ukrainian flags in the chamber as results were announced.



 
Raoul said:
She's melting down on CNN right now because a few members were waiving Ukrainian flags in the chamber as results were announced.

Click to expand...

The amount of people against supporting Ukraine is totally baffling. Unsurprising considering ‘that side’ is so hellbent on being contrarian to literally anything that makes fecking sense, but it’s infuriating.
 
VeevaVee said:
The amount of people against supporting Ukraine is totally baffling. Unsurprising considering ‘that side’ is so hellbent on being contrarian to literally anything that makes fecking sense, but it’s infuriating.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that Johnson seems to have outflanked Marge by making a trip to Mar-a-Lardo to kiss the ring. Trump then, instead of coming out against Ukraine aid, has been conspicuously silent which allowed more Republicans to vote for it without fear of MAGA retribution. Marge has now come out and said she won't ask for a motion to recall Johnson either. He's come out of this pretty unscathed while successfully passing a monumentally important bill.
 
61B is good amount, and very very welcome, but seeing how 40B was just enough to stall russian advance, I'm a tad sceptical as to how much success this will acutally bring on to battlefield in terms or regaining lost land, russians seems to be well dug in now in the lines they drew during Ukraine's counteroffensive.
Will be interesting to see where they go with this, russians will pay much heavier price now for any sort of advancement, but don't think that's going to stop them from trying, where as ukrainians, you would think, have learned from last spring to hoard and blow loads of supplies on counteroffensive.
Any info on what sort of weapons are coming in first aid package? Think Biden this week mentioned long range ATACMS, would be great if they would get those instead of something like 10 Abrams tanks.
 
ShoePolish said:
61B is good amount, and very very welcome, but seeing how 40B was just enough to stall russian advance, I'm a tad sceptical as to how much success this will acutally bring on to battlefield in terms or regaining lost land, russians seems to be well dug in now in the lines they drew during Ukraine's counteroffensive.
Will be interesting to see where they go with this, russians will pay much heavier price now for any sort of advancement, but don't think that's going to stop them from trying, where as ukrainians, you would think, have learned from last spring to hoard and blow loads of supplies on counteroffensive.
Any info on what sort of weapons are coming in first aid package? Think Biden this week mentioned long range ATACMS, would be great if they would get those instead of something like 10 Abrams tanks.
Click to expand...

What it will do is infuse Ukraine with the weapons it needs. Putin's entire calculous of Ukraine not getting anymore funding is now decimated and he will have to spend more dwindling money and resources he too is short of, to deal with what's coming at him. Russian propaganda have been pushing hard for this not to happen, which should tell us where Putin is coming from on the issue. The fact that the 8b in frozen assets is a part of it will also enrage him since it will now give Europe (where most of the rest of the asset money is held) to do the same.
 
Raoul said:
What it will do is infuse Ukraine with the weapons it needs. Putin's entire calculous of Ukraine not getting anymore funding is now decimated and he will have to spend more dwindling money and resources he too is short of, to deal with what's coming at him. Russian propaganda have been pushing hard for this not to happen, which should tell us where Putin is coming from on the issue. The fact that the 8b in frozen assets is a part of it will also enrage him since it will now give Europe (where most of the rest of the asset money is held) to do the same.
Click to expand...

Don't think he'd have banked on US not passing another aid package before Bidens term is up, it being delayed this long must've been stuff of dreams for him. His main priority will be seeing if Trump gets in though, that's got to be his main calculus.
 
ShoePolish said:
Any info on what sort of weapons are coming in first aid package? Think Biden this week mentioned long range ATACMS, would be great if they would get those instead of something like 10 Abrams tanks.
Click to expand...
ATACMS are specifically mentioned in the bill so at least some quantity of those will be transferred, I would also expect more GMLRS missiles for the M-142s and M-270s to go along with the ATACMS . But I expect that air defense missiles are at the top of the list, PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles for the Patriots and also short and mid range missiles like AMRAAM and Sidewinders for the NASAMS systems. Artillery ammunition and ATGMs for the ground forces to repell the Russian armored attacks are probably also very much needed at the moment. Drones are doing a decent job right now but they have their limitaions and are not nearly as effective as artillery and ATGMs

I wouldn't expect too many new weapon sytems delivered in the imidiate furure, ammunition replenishments and spare parts for the systems already in use are probably the biggest priority.
 
Would be nice if the EU does a similar financing, so that Ukraine finally can gain the momentum again.
 
the hea said:
ATACMS are specifically mentioned in the bill so at least some quantity of those will be transferred, I would also expect more GMLRS missiles for the M-142s and M-270s to go along with the ATACMS . But I expect that air defense missiles are at the top of the list, PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles for the Patriots and also short and mid range missiles like AMRAAM and Sidewinders for the NASAMS systems. Artillery ammunition and ATGMs for the ground forces to repell the Russian armored attacks are probably also very much needed at the moment. Drones are doing a decent job right now but they have their limitaions and are not nearly as effective as artillery and ATGMs

I wouldn't expect too many new weapon sytems delivered in the imidiate furure, ammunition replenishments and spare parts for the systems already in use are probably the biggest priority.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, 1st bit will consist mostly of AD missiles, MLRS rockets and shells, but it's bare minimum stuff, and russia just grinds this out.
But really, I'll be holding my face in a palm, if I see money wasted on sending another 10 abrams tanks.
Think any ideas of victory by overwhelming military advancement need to be shelved if not abandoned, and rather focus on supply line attrition. Saw on twitter 300 km ATACMS being mulled over, hopefully penny will drop with those finally.
 
Revan said:
Would be nice if the EU does a similar financing, so that Ukraine finally can gain the momentum again.
Click to expand...
They already did.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/eu-ukraine-funding-deal-intl/index.html
The problem is that very few EU countries have the stocks or the production capacity to be able to give any meaningful military assistance to Ukraine. Most countries in Europe abandoned their militaries and military industries in the past decades so even if they have the money there is very little equipment or ammuntion available to donate.
 
utdalltheway said:
Yeah it’s clear from that but the shame should be more publicly done.
Click to expand...

The people that voted no are generally in MAGA heavy districts, so naming and shaming them wouldn't really do much unless Trump suddenly came out in favor of supporting Ukraine.

Also, Zelenskyy recently invited Trump to visit Kyiv, which may have also influenced Trump's decision to remain silent on the vote.
 
Last edited:
utdalltheway said:
The fcukers that voted against this should be named and shamed very publicly.
Click to expand...

Among the Dems who voted against, I want to know on what kind of drugs Jamie Raskin and Jim Clyburn were. Those two are among the very last I'd expect to go against the party line.
 
I'm doing the rounds on Twitter and all of the pro-Russian idiots out there are now moaning like a bunch of unpaid prostitutes. I'm taking a big chunk of fun in poking them, especially that cnut Greene.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
It must have been on something else or it was a mistake then. I remember seeing both names on the minority of Democrats who voted against one of the bills, but can't remember which one.
Click to expand...

A bunch of Dems voted no on Israel aid, which was a separate vote than Ukraine aid.
 
Red in STL said:
Would be interesting to hear his views given he's Ukrainian by birth
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve seen him speaking in support of the invasion, but he does talk from time to time about Russophobia and other stuff, which is rarely a good sign.

His mother still lives in Ukraine as well! At least she did in 2023.
 
VorZakone said:
There isn't mountains of evidence to support that. The WSJ had an article a couple of weeks ago. Ukrainian minister Kuleba said there were no binding commitments. The discovery of Bucha was one of the turning points.

Granted, you may or may not believe the article and what the Ukrainians say. But to suggest there is mountains of credible evidence...I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

After 4000 posts in this thread, you're still floundering behind the eight ball. When I first mentioned that a deal was almost clinched, your knee-jerk reaction was to reject it without a second thought and pooh pooh on the sources. Now, with the Foreign Affairs piece hitting the stands, you rushed to trot out some second-tier Polish commentary on the piece as if it’s a scoop. Bravo indeed.



Key points summarized for the TLDR crowd:
  • in the midst of Moscow’s unprecedented aggression, the Russians and the Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU. (NB: @Lemoor neutrality and the EU )
  • A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security.
  • The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha
  • President Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield
  • The communiqué calls for a peaceful resolution of the Crimea dispute within 10-15 years, highlighting a shift as Russia, having annexed Crimea in 2014 and consistently refused to discuss its status, agreed to negotiate, implicitly acknowledging that Crimea's status was on the table
Anyhoo - acqua passata now
 
Suedesi said:
After 4000 posts in this thread, you're still floundering behind the eight ball. When I first mentioned that a deal was almost clinched, your knee-jerk reaction was to reject it without a second thought and pooh pooh on the sources. Now, with the Foreign Affairs piece hitting the stands, you rushed to trot out some second-tier Polish commentary on the piece as if it’s a scoop. Bravo indeed.



Key points summarized for the TLDR crowd:
  • in the midst of Moscow’s unprecedented aggression, the Russians and the Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU. (NB: @Lemoor neutrality and the EU )
  • A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security.
  • The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha
  • President Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield
  • The communiqué calls for a peaceful resolution of the Crimea dispute within 10-15 years, highlighting a shift as Russia, having annexed Crimea in 2014 and consistently refused to discuss its status, agreed to negotiate, implicitly acknowledging that Crimea's status was on the table
Anyhoo - acqua passata now
Click to expand...


This alone would disqualify any peace deal, especially as Ukraine was already in the process of thwarting all other Russian advances in country after initial sentiment was that Russia may take over the all of Ukraine. Once they booted them out of the north, Ukrainians began to believe they could one day reclaim all territory the Russians were squatting on. The rest of the communique is useless given that Ukraine would never give up Crimea or any of its other occupied land.
 
harms said:
I don’t think I’ve seen him speaking in support of the invasion, but he does talk from time to time about Russophobia and other stuff, which is rarely a good sign.

His mother still lives in Ukraine as well! At least she did in 2023.
Click to expand...

On that note...Hvae never seen this brought up, and was wondering if you knew anything, or had any guesses.

Chess player Alexander Grischuk (Russian, born in Russia) made a very public statement condemning the invasion. He's married to Kateryna Lagno, also a GM, born in Ukraine, but now a Russian citizen. She has made zero statements as far as I can tell.
Is it because somebody with her background (I'm assuming she's from the disputed provinces) would be more sympathetic to the invasion? Or more fear of reprisal? Or it's impossible to know?

e - I looked it up and she was born in Lviv which is western Ukraine, close to Poland and not at all like the east...there goes theory 1!
 
africanspur said:
Isn't Sudesis position essentially just a variation of Raoul's position on foreign affairs? That might is right? Except Russian might is more regional compared to the American global might.

I disagree fundamentally with Sudesi on this, as I do with Raoul.
Click to expand...

It's not. In fact, it's the opposite - I don't want our resources squandered ($250 billion and counting so far) on a country of a limited strategic importance for the US, when our debt is spiraling, infrastructure is decrepit, healthcare is unaffordable and education subpar.

I couldn't care if it's Russia/Ukraine, or Turkey/Armenia, or Ethiopia/Eritrea - I don't want US to police the world.

And, for the record Putin stated the war so he's the criminal, but we (the collective west that is) could have done more to help prevent it.
 
africanspur said:
Isn't Sudesis position essentially just a variation of Raoul's position on foreign affairs? That might is right? Except Russian might is more regional compared to the American global might.

I disagree fundamentally with Sudesi on this, as I do with Raoul.
Click to expand...

No its actually in complete lock step with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Putin's desired position America should take on Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.