Update from Ukraine | A new Attack operation on the south | Kadyrov could be in coma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zpvDWopHCg
The summary of the situation of Russian re-invasion to Ukraine covering the recent developments on the battlefield, as of 13th September 2023 – 22:00 (Kyiv time). [NOTE: two summaries per week, released on Wednesday and Sunday]
https://militaryland.net/news/invasion-day-567-summary/
*** Great interactive maps with viewer controlled Map magnification tool to use for each Front!
https://militaryland.net/maps/
Not my flag
Not my nation
Not my problem
Shame on you for supporting this stupid war that’s destroying our nation financially and depleting our military equipment.
‘Ees pinin’ for the fjords!
CC
It’s a good prayer you posted. Hopefully the Russians will soon win totally and completely drive out NATO and its proxies, because that’s the best way to achieve lasting piece and security for the region and for the people of Ukraine. Anything else will lead to more aggression and more suffering, as has happened in so many other carnage-ridden countries “blessed” by attention from the West.
Stop the Ukraine Propaganda!
The lib dnc
All consuming uncontrollable diversity glob
They have unleashed
needs a death ray from God
To save the human race - earth
I posted the below question on the last “update” thread, but that thread had pretty well run out of steam, so, here goes, again:
This thread seems as good a place as any to ask a question of various posters (does not include hateful posters on either side, because I already know what they would say.)
Would you object to the USA providing directly to Ukraine from here on out only physical (not money) humanitarian aid and older weapons we would otherwise scrap or replace in coming(5?) years? None to be provided that would be particularly needed in event of a war with China (given that said war would likely be an air / sea affair.) If needing refurbishment or upgrades, other parties will be responsible at their cost, but can purchase services and/or parts from the US. 200 mile maximum range for missiles. Ukraine must agree to no strikes more than 70 miles inside Russia’s 2013 borders, and they must be on military or relevant logistics targets.
In addition, excess newer production / weapons and excess weapons in general may be purchased by NATO allies as usual at present*, and may be transferred to Ukraine at said allies’ discretion.* Again, 200 mile maximum range for missiles if transferred to Ukraine. Ukraine must agree to no strikes more than 70 miles inside Russia’s 2013 borders, and they must be on military or relevant logistics targets.
The idea here would be to save the sometimes considerable scrapping costs of the 1st category. Money from weapons sales (yes, I realize $$ from sales of new production go mostly to the manufacturers) and taxes on those could help fund the adoption and stocking of newer, better weapons. There should also be savings through scale of production of the second category. Some of the money taken in could help fund the humanitarian aid. These sales would also benefit our trade balance and economy in general.
*All normal cautions & restrictions stay in place, such as the reasons (mostly technologies’ protection) we did not sell F-35’s to Turkey. The latest and greatest would be limited to only replace older systems our allies have, not be sent to Ukraine.
I realize that in practice our NATO allies would not be happy, but, A) The Euros have recently committed a large block of funds to aiding Ukraine in coming years, so monies from those funds should be available, and, B) We could offer easy financing to stable NATO allies. C) Europe bears considerable responsibility for not listening to Trump years ago!
One will note here that I am quite bullish on the power of potential profits to entice our MIC to produce sufficient weapons quantities, and I am quite bullish on the depth of US older weapons stockpiles in most categories and types. (I researched.) And finally, the forecasts of other allied countries weapons makers, even if whittled back for being too optimistic, indicate rapid production capacities increases (a double edge sword for sure.) So, this is not likely a program needed for an extended time unless Russia is stupid enough to significantly attack a NATO country and then THAT drags out, a possibility I regard as unlikely, but, yes, possible.
The above surely needs fine tuning, but that’s the gist of it.
I don’t think our gov’t is smart enough to do this, at least not until 2025, but that’s a different matter. The idea is to reduce costs to the US taxpayer during this war, without showing yet another instance of weakness our external enemies (not just Russia!!!) are sure to exploit in the future.
Not my preferred indicator of assessing the conflict, it is still a useful one.
Thanks again, mom!