Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[SilverMachine]

A little skeptical in the sense that first it was "1000" now it's "2000", but yeah, rising casualty numbers do make sense in recent weeks. The qualifier of course being that that's because there's been a lot of fighting and Russia's beaten back the Ukrainians to take more of their land, so...

 

[Soldier30]

An episode of the movement of a column and landing of troops of the Russian BMP-2 in Novoivanovka, Kursk region of Russia. The BMP-2 as part of a column consisting of a T-72 tank and five BMP-2s broke through to Ukrainian positions in the settlements of Zeleny Shlyakh and Novoivanovka. The column split into two parts, during the movement of the column one of the tanks was hit by a strike, presumably by a drone, it is not clear from the video how much the tank was damaged. The video shows the landing of troops from the Russian BMP-2 in the village of Novoivanovka and the attack of a Ukrainian grenade launcher from behind a building, as noted in the video. The BMP-2 was attacked twice, the first grenade launcher strike was tangential, the second grenade launcher shot into the ground. The BMP-2 was not damaged and landed troops.

 

[MaciekRS]

It looks like Trump is choosing interesting people
"Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, criticized the Biden Administration for not arming Ukraine quickly enough, and called Putin a "war criminal" trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union. "Ceasefires? You know what ceasefires are for him? An opportunity to reload""

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856507992725680296

I'm not surprized that russia is in hurry to recapture Kursk at all cost. Grandpa "dont do shit to not escalate" Biden is going away.

 

[Woland]

It looks like Trump is choosing interesting people
"Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, criticized the Biden Administration for not arming Ukraine quickly enough, and called Putin a "war criminal" trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union. "Ceasefires? You know what ceasefires are for him? An opportunity to reload""

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856507992725680296

I'm not surprized that russia is in hurry to recapture Kursk at all cost. Grandpa "dont do shit to not escalate" Biden is going away.

It's a mixed bag. Here's what we know:

Neocons:
- Secretary of State - Marco Rubio. Supports Ukraine in essence, but wants clearly defined objectives and more action from Europe. Voted against Ukraine aid Supplemental in April 2024. Experienced politician, supported by traditional Republicans but not MAGA Republicans.
- National Security Advisor - Mike Waltz. An ex-Green Beret, he mostly supported providing Ukraine with weapons, though criticized "lack of oversight" and the lack of action from Europe. Voted against the Supplemental. There was a interview with him last month where he spoke a lot about Ukraine.
- CIA Director - John Ratcliffe. There's not much about John Ratcliffe and Ukraine, except this policy paper he wrote together with General Kellogg in late 2022:
It's very inline with Mike Waltz's and Marco Rubio's views; The US should stand with Ukraine, but Europe should be doing more, clear policy objectives should be stated, and without it aid should not be provided.
- Special envoy for war in Ukraine - Brian Hook, lawyer who served in the Republican administrations of George W. Bush as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, under Donald Trump as Special Representative for Iran, and was a senior adviser to Mitt Romney's foreign policy campaign.

MAGA:
- Director of National Intelligence - Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard is a Putin and Assad apologist.

???
- Secretary of Defense - Pete Hegseth. There's limited information about his views on Ukraine, in part because he's a news anchor rather than a politician. We do know that he has been dismissive of supporting Ukraine though: 1, 2. He has minimal experience and the off-the-record reaction from Republicans to his nomination was shock. He's very strange and inexperienced.

Cabinet positions need to be confirmed by the Senate. Both Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard might run into difficulties, especially now that voting has finished and the Senate Majority Leader is McConell's protege John Thune.

 

[blackjack]

It looks like Trump is choosing interesting people
"Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, criticized the Biden Administration for not arming Ukraine quickly enough, and called Putin a "war criminal" trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union. "Ceasefires? You know what ceasefires are for him? An opportunity to reload""

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856507992725680296

I'm not surprized that russia is in hurry to recapture Kursk at all cost. Grandpa "dont do shit to not escalate" Biden is going away.

It's a mixed bag. Here's what we know:

Neocons:
- Secretary of State - Marco Rubio. Supports Ukraine in essence, but wants clearly defined objectives and more action from Europe. Voted against Ukraine aid Supplemental in April 2024. Experienced politician, supported by traditional Republicans but not MAGA Republicans.
- National Security Advisor - Mike Waltz. An ex-Green Beret, he mostly supported providing Ukraine with weapons, though criticized "lack of oversight" and the lack of action from Europe. Voted against the Supplemental. There was a interview with him last month where he spoke a lot about Ukraine.
- CIA Director - John Ratcliffe. There's not much about John Ratcliffe and Ukraine, except this policy paper he wrote together with General Kellogg in late 2022:
It's very inline with Mike Waltz's and Marco Rubio's views; The US should stand with Ukraine, but Europe should be doing more, clear policy objectives should be stated, and without it aid should not be provided.
- Special envoy for war in Ukraine - Brian Hook, lawyer who served in the Republican administrations of George W. Bush as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, under Donald Trump as Special Representative for Iran, and was a senior adviser to Mitt Romney's foreign policy campaign.

MAGA:
- Director of National Intelligence - Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard is a Putin and Assad apologist.

???
- Secretary of Defense - Pete Hegseth. There's limited information about his views on Ukraine, in part because he's a news anchor rather than a politician. We do know that he has been dismissive of supporting Ukraine though: 1, 2. He has minimal experience and the off-the-record reaction from Republicans to his nomination was shock. He's very strange and inexperienced.

Cabinet positions need to be confirmed by the Senate. Both Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard might run into difficulties, especially now that voting has finished and the Senate Majority Leader is McConell's protege John Thune.

in the end this guy right here is the commander in chief.

i dont think the cabinet choice matters as much as republicans that are given the house or senate that support Ukraine matters since the decision on spending bills is this guy.

 

[Anastasius]

in the end this guy right here is the commander in chief.
View attachment 72037
i dont think the cabinet choice matters as much as republicans that are given the house or senate that support Ukraine matters since the decision on spending bills is this guy.

Yeah, not really. Unlike Russia, US has a thing called checks-and-balances specifically designed to stop the president from making decisions with zero opposition.

 

[blackjack]

Yeah, not really. Unlike Russia, US has a thing called checks-and-balances specifically designed to stop the president from making decisions with zero opposition.

i don't think you know what a cabinet position is and who appoints them.

 

[Woland]

i don't think you know what a cabinet position is and who appoints them.

I don't think you read the post above even though you responded to it, as it answers this very point. All cabinet positions have to go before the Senate for a hearing, followed by a vote. A majority is required before any cabinet-level position is approved. In the Senate Republicans are 53 to Democrats 47, meaning 4 Republicans can stop a cabinet position nominee (since Vice President breaks ties).

The only way around this is to recess the Senate and appoint a cabinet-level nominee during the recess. Recesses have to be approved by the Senate Majority Leader. Prior to being chosen as Senate Majority Leader, Thune indicated that he may not be opposed: “We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. We cannot let Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people.” However the decision rests with him now, not Trump alone.

 

[blackjack]

I don't think you read the post above even though you responded to it, as it answers this very point. All cabinet positions have to go before the Senate for a hearing, followed by a vote. A majority is required before any cabinet-level position is approved. In the Senate Republicans are 53 to Democrats 47, meaning 4 Republicans can stop a cabinet position nominee (since Vice President breaks ties).

The only way around this is to recess the Senate and appoint a cabinet-level nominee during the recess. Recesses have to be approved by the Senate Majority Leader. Prior to being chosen as Senate Majority Leader, Thune indicated that he may not be opposed: “We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. We cannot let Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people.” However the decision rests with him now, not Trump alone.

Trump signs the 60 billion dollar check, you have the Senate and house ruled by Republicans. Good luck. I don't think his cabinet members pass the bills as far as I am aware

 

[Kartal1]

BIG: A briefing prepared for Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence suggests Ukraine could develop a basic nuclear bomb within months if U.S. military support is withdrawn.

Using plutonium extracted from spent nuclear reactor fuel, Ukraine could potentially construct a weapon similar in design to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945.

According to Oleksii Yizhak of Ukraine’s National Institute for Strategic Studies, Ukraine has enough reactor plutonium to make hundreds of low-yield warheads, capable of targeting military bases or infrastructure.

Source: The Times

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856734778919207279

 

[blackjack]

They don't have any uranium enrichment and the development of the required centifuge trains is both unaffordable and beyond their technical abilities. They could try to make plutonium by irridating fuel assemblies in their remaining RMBK reactors (which unlike PWRs can have fuel rods inserted/removed while the reactor is online and generating electrical power) but where would they get the fuel rod assemblies, and how would they then process the hot fuel rods and separate out the plutonium? AFAIK attempts by Westinghhouse to develop rods for Ukraine reactors has been a failure, and Ukraine doesn't have fuel reprocessing facilities (fuel supplies came from Russia).

 

[Relic]

Here we go again a guy that can never give a direct answer is still mad I am a moderator (you should complain about it the 3rd time next).

All you have to do is give a time, date, and recorded footage of Ukrainians supposedly causing massive casualties in a single day besides me being the only one that can provide that as vice versa. The information you gave me still proves my point that the casualties from the Ukrainians are still more massive with a huge reason why they keep getting pushed back with no plans yet when they will start another counteroffensive somewhere in 2025.

Ukraine Aid is Important, But So is Oversight of This Funding and Assistance

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a devastating loss of life, widespread humanitarian crisis, and other global effects. As of April, Congress has appropriated more than $174 billion to assist Ukraine. This includes funding to purchase missiles, ammunition, and combat vehicles for Ukraine...

www.gao.gov

Another bill has to be passed if they want to make any progress again to start any major counteroffensive and the chances of that happening are slim with the transition to the trump administration in less than 2 months with him not being so lenient in raising money past the 175 billion dollars that was already spent on Ukraine. Any news or claims of higher Russian casualties than Ukraine are just delusions because Ukraine has not made progress on their last major offensive like they have done with their previous major offensives and Russia is still pushing them back. Europe only paying the bill is just going to rake up Ukrainian casualties at a higher number than before.

I feel like people here don't realize how much 175 billion dollars is from the US(which is not counting Europe or funding from US going way back to 2014) and how that funding got Ukraine nowhere but got them pushed back after each major bill has been passed. Less money = less weapons and less weapons = more casualties. So please understand why I ask questions and ask for evidence when some goofs are telling me Russian casualties=Ukrainian casualties when Ukrainians are getting pushed back along with no major bills being passed now with the US election results. Saying Ukrainians have equal casualties with Russia under these circumstances is like saying native Americans had equal casualties to conquistadors

This is what I'm talking about. You refuse to simply have an honest conversation.

Ukraine did not receive $175 Billion usd from USA . That's a partisan propaganda myth perpetuated by the far right and lazy people who read headlines and don't do any research.

The United States has actually provided $106 Billion usd in funding. The $175 Billion usd figure you're citing, refers to the total funding allocated in the bills that have been passed since the outset of the war, as well as some other levers that the U.S. Government can pull to release funding. However, a huge amount of that $175 Billion usd was actually spent to backfill weapons in U.S. inventories and stimulate the defense industry to rapidly increase production. As of September 2024, $69.8 Billion usd had been sent to Ukraine in the form of U.S. military aid. A further $33.3 Billion usd had been sent in the form of budget support for the Ukrainian Government. Approximately $3 Billion usd had been sent as humanitarian aid... $69 Billion usd was spent back in America, or supporting other countries in region. Therefore, more than 1/3 of the money you claim was sent to Ukraine, wasn't. That's completely false.

Now, let's deal with this notion that $106 Billion usd is a lot of money for the USA .

USA Defense Spending By Year:

2022: $860.69 Billion usd
2023: $916.02 Billion usd
2024: $873.80 Billion usd

Total: $2.65 Trillion usd

$106 Billion is 4% of the U.S. Defense budget for the last 3 years. It's also less than 0.2% of the U.S. GDP over that same time frame. We're talking about peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

How Much U.S. Aid Is Going to Ukraine?

Nine charts illustrate the extraordinary level of support the United States has provided Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders.

www.cfr.org

 

[Spitfire9]

BIG: A briefing prepared for Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence suggests Ukraine could develop a basic nuclear bomb within months if U.S. military support is withdrawn.

It would be ironical. Russia has said that it would be only be prepared to use nuclear weapons if its existence were threatened. On that basis it must approve of Ukraine only being prepared to use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened.

Who on earth might threaten Ukraine's existence?