The Steppenwulf

This government has a track record of saying big numbers on lots of things and then not delivering.
If it happens great, but they are currently lame ducks waiting to be removed in less than a year.
However I think the new lot are likely to keep supporting Ukraine depending on the state of finances which isn't great...
Ohhh to be able to have back all the lost tax revenues from the recent massive increase of red tape between us and our closest and largest trading partners. 😢 

The counter point to this is that Russia has somehow managed to survive as an inherently unstable imperial state (in its current size) for over 300 years. It has collapsed twice before but always has come back as an imperial state.  There are more than a few theories on how this keeps happening; my personal favourite is that Russia exists because geopolitically it has been rejected- not European, not Asian, not Persian. That rejection has become an identity in itself: Russia - the original punk-state.
Regardless of how it happened, one has to admit Russia keeps going long after it should.  That quality appears baked into the culture and identity. I also think this war may likely break the current incarnation of the Russian state.  Pressures that have been set in motion may unite a people in the short term but will very well break it in the long term. Russia is very likely going to remain isolated from the West for a long time after this war.  It will also very likely be pulled into the Chinese power sphere - although that relationship has always been weird.
Bur what is very important here is the speed of a Russian collapse.  A slow rattling decline is something we can manage.  A collapse that takes 20-30 years can be boxed up and contained.  When it hits the tipping point it will still seem dramatic but a slow motion collapse, much like the last one with the fall of the Soviet Union is always the preferred option.  It is the fast uncontrolled collapse that must be avoided.  A collapse without mitigations in place.  Too many unknowns, too much energy released too fast.  
The strategic options spaces get far too stark and frankly untenable in this scenario.  We will very likely fail to make the brutal decisions required if Russia plummets suddenly. The result risks runaway mechanisms that could wind up making the entire region (if not the globe) much worse.  And there has been far too much hand waving on this point - “Ya,ya, whatever…but Ukraine!” This reality is why we are not conducting NATO airstrikes into Russia and putting western troops on the ground.
So we take the slow road. Contain but fuel the conflict. Hoping Russia runs out of gas slowly. Hoping Putin will have a sudden “health crisis”.  It is often said in military circles that “hope is not an option”.  I always smirk at this one because historically it has very often been the only option.  We keep things rolling in the hopes a better option will emerge.  Hope is a child of uncertainty, and we are very uncertain right now.

And how much better off would Ukraine be if the 860,000 fighting aged Ukrainians were back in their home country defending it as opposed to hiding out in other nations?
"Millions of Ukrainians have fled the country since Russia(opens in a new tab)'s full-scale invasion in 2022, mostly to neighbouring European countries. The European Union's statistics agency, Eurostat, says 4.3 million Ukrainians are living in EU countries, 860,000 of them men 18 years of age or older."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukraine-is-putting-pressure-on-fighting-age-men-outside-the-country-as-it-tries-to-replenish-forces-1.6861301
All those "kids who don't make a difference" add up to brigades and divisions that can definitely make a difference.  Fully agree on weapons, ammunition and vehicles but they are useless without Ukrainian people to use them in their own defence.

Manpower shortage is absolutely an issue for Ukraine - not all the weapons in the world would matter if there's not enough warm bodies around to fire them. Hence why the conscription age has already been lowered.
I'd wager you that if you took all the men who said "it doesn't matter if just I dodge the draft (but also please continue providing me with state services while I live comfortably in a richer country)", you'd get at least enough men to create a couple of divisions, with replacement personnel to spare.

Freedom ain’t free.  Someone has to stop Russia from doing what it is doing which is definitely not “perfectly fine”.  In reality the kid did not run away, his family did when he was 16.  Now that he is 18 and of age; he is “staying away”.  I think every citizen has a duty to protect their nation in times of crisis.  A duty to protect each other when threatened.  If they cannot or will not do that then they really are no longer a nation.  This is one thing I think we have lost, and it will come back and bite us.  There is a solemn duty in being a citizen, and even a greater one in a free nation.  It is one that takes sacrifice for the greater good.  Now this kid could be from a pacifist ideology or religion, ok there are a lot of ways to fulfill this duty to serve.
What I disagree with is that is all fine for a young man like this to selfishly protect himself while his own people are suffering.  Running away to “embrace life” when Ukrainian children are dying back in Ukraine does not wash with me.  Personally I have been in two wars that really had not much to do with Canada.  We were really doing it for some greater global good (really did not turn out well in the end) but we all believed in it and honoured kids maybe a year older than this one who died in crappy places no one will remember in 50 years. The idea that one could “sit out” an atrocity like this invasion of Ukraine and still claim citizenship or ethnicity does not sit well with me at all.  It is shirking duty and letting others pay the price.   As we have discussed this kid does not even have to fight.  He can be in a support trade or work in industry or even humanitarian.  But his people and his country need him right now which is more important than how he gets to spend his twenties.  It is more important than him as an individual.  
Mark my words on this, we have more of this coming.  The future is likely going to demand more sacrifice for the greater good not less.  We will have to stand or kneel in the end.  And right now to my eyes, that young man is kneeling.

The tradition pre-dates WW1 by the look of it.  I know in WW1 it was used in the colonies.  This sort of micro-social pressure has tremendous power, both good and bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
Sure the young man could still serve behind the lines but right now he is whining about losing consular services on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.  Plenty of work and not all of it fighting.  But, as has been stressed many times here, the UA is running low on fighting troops.  The answer to this is not tell every 18-30 year old Ukrainian male (not sure what the Ukrainian policy is on women in combat) “Gee, sorry to bring it up but you might have heard Russia is intent on destroying our nation. They are also willing to do so in a brutal and criminal manner.  If you feel like it, we would very much appreciate it if you would consider fighting for your nations freedom.”  
There will always be a slice of the fighting age population excluded from combat for various reasons but they should be contributing as directly as they can regardless.  For Ukraine this is a whole of society war, not a “those that kinda want to” war…you know the ones we in the West have been fighting for 30 years.

“Only 20k”?!  Let’s not be hypoboblic either.  10% of a field force is no small measure.  The point of my original post is that there are young Ukrainian men running away from the fight while (only) 20 thousand foreigners are there doing the dying.  That ain’t right.

Exhausted soldiers, not enough of them, and not enough heavy weaponry. Meanwhile, Russia has gone all in.
That said, I too have my doubts whether Russia can sustain multiple advances for several months and not just end up in the same situation as earlier in the war. They have much worse equipment (other than drones), worse soldiers (but many more of them), less good communications etc. And I have to wonder about their logistics for supporting an offense.

So the story really does not get into his motivations for not fighting.  “I want to be safe” is what we get.  Of course to “be safe” in Ukraine right now means fighting for that safety.  We do not know if the young man has religious grounds or even ideological ones.
White feathers is a poor analogy.  They were used in the British Empire to shame young men to go and fight in a mainland European war.  Many of these young men were in far flung nations such as Canada or Australia.  The peer pressure for them was to go to fight and die in what could be considered an imperial war.
Ukraine is in an existential war. The Russians have left pretty much zero doubt of this based on both their plans and actions.  If anyone wants to “go home to safe Ukraine” as a Ukrainian they are going to have to either be willing to fight for this..or let someone else do it for them.  This young man definitely would have somewhere to live…likely a trench on the front.  Based on how desperate the UA is for manpower he would likely have a job…killing Russians.  
Now it is his personal choice as to whether or not he wishes to do that but this reads a lot like the “cake and eat it too” generations we have right now.  I want all the healthcare safeties but no vaccines.  I want peace and security but not to fight for it.  I want cheap products and lifestyles but no climate change.  If this young man wants to live in a free and safe Ukraine he needs to be willing to do what generations before have done…be willing to fight and die to make that happen. Because it simply won’t be delivered like DoorDash or streaming entertainment.  Don’t want to kill?  Become a medic.  
My fundamental question back to this kid is “if you want to go home to Ukraine one day then what are you still doing here?” 

On more than a few levels to be honest.  The fact that this young (assuming healthy) man “wants to return to Ukraine” once the war is over is particularly irksome.  Essentially the young man is saying that as soon as “others fight and die for his own nation”, he is eager to return home.  Now this is one individual that Canadian overly-liberal media have glommed onto because “if it cries it leads” these days.  However, this sentiment cannot be entirely isolated given the significant number of fighting aged people who have simply run away from Ukraine while the nation fights for its life.
Meanwhile foreigners, many without any Ukrainian connections, fight and die for that nation.  Nope, does not sit well at all.

To restate the points I made earlier in this thread:
Bolton and others have said directly that Trump had planned to pull out of NATO in a second term and there is no evidence that he now intends the contrary. Trump has also quite publicly rejected the Pentagon’s top generals who restrained him from this direction in the first term and there is no constituency in Trump world that has a stake in European stability. Quite the opposite, in fact, as they can anticipate making enormous amounts of money off of the Russian oligarchy should the US swing into acquiescence to a Russian dominated Eastern Europe. Don’t kid yourself. If he wins, NATO is very likely to die.
It is also a canard that Putin was holding back on Ukraine before Trump left office. The reality is that Putin’s regime was involved in a full court press to pressure Ukraine into subservience with the willing assistance of political appointees in the White House. Russia hasn’t gone to war because Putin didn’t think he needed to and clearly the Russian government expected Trump to win a second term. War was decided when it became clear that Biden had won and the immediate focus of American power was going to be on containing Moscow. Putin’s clique imagined that the US was still too shaken politically from the previous four years and too involved in Afghanistan to reorient rapidly while the Ukrainian military wouldn’t be able to put up significant resistance. Virtually wrong on all counts. 

ISW doing great stuff, as always.

Is there any /military/ point in sinking more ships?
It looks good, and plays great, but this war isn't going to be won on the Black Sea, and the Russian fleet has already been neutralised. Maintain the threat for sure, but there doesn't seem much point expending any further resources there.

your attempt to play the both-siderism game is pathetic and shows an incredible amount of ignorance, both in historic and in current events.  What Gingerich did was completely unprecedented.  What McConnell did was completely unprecedented.  And Trump is off the charts for breaking both norms and laws.  ANd where on the left are the insane ones that are wielding power?   Where's the dem Matt Gaetz?  MTGreene?  American democracy is on the brink and it is due to one side and one side only.  Guess what --  Biden won't attempt to throw the country into a civil war to unlawfully try to cling to power.  Trump's been doing that for last 4 years, including a full on mob-coup attempt that left people dead.  So just WTF are you even talking about?  Clearly you've been watching Hannity or some other bull**** monger and now you are parroting their bulls--t.
So stop watching Fox & newsmax.  It makes you look like a damn fool.
Oh, and please respond by telling me how it's the dems fault the GOP held up UKR aid for 3 months.  Dems aint the ones on Putin's payroll.  
 

Fundamentally this is a thread about the Russo-Ukraine war that is (unsurprisingly) pro-Ukrainian. So the U.S. political party that refused to bring aid to a vote is going to catch the most flak here. And like yea AOC might be destructive to some process but she isn't destructive to getting Ukraine the materials the country needs to fight the Russian invasion. The House vote tally was overwhelming for aid so why wasn't there a vote on the aid 6 months ago?

Like I don't want to talk about gun rights, or schools, or abortion, or any number of other U.S. hot button topics. But I've been sitting here for ~6 months watching as one particular party refused to allow Ukraine what it needs. And frankly I'm not an unbiased observer about this and its one of the reasons I stepped away from the thread for a while. Its hard to come in here to hear and see bad news about the war and then be non-partisan about the partisan politics that are getting Ukrainians killed. Like if you trawl this thread you will see video evidence on nearly every page of real soldiers and civilians who died needlessly for some partisan BS.

 
 

Removed. Pointless responding to MAGA brainworm infections.

Yet you do!!! Time again you do!
What has it to do with Ukraine?
🙄

Russians gradually have been learing of Ukrainian experience of artillery fire control. If in 2022  - mid 23 we have seen typical Soviet style of whole batteries and even battalions of side-by-side standing guns simultainous work, that now Russians are more and more shifting to dispersing of artillery and work by single guns of a battery with individaual targeting for each.
Here is google-translated post about changes since 2022. "The work was carried out in areas with a low coeeficient of UAV use" - means "ineffective area fire with low UAV usage", though for summer 2022 it's not always could be true, or soldiers then reported about dozen Orlans and Zala, ajusting fire. Probably ajusting was inefefctive or come on too long command chain, which made it ineffective.

 
And addition to this post by other Russian artillerist with my translation:
I'l throw my 5 cents:
Regimental artillery tied on artillery chief (of regiment). He, sitting on command post (let's call it in such way) together with chief of recon, watch streams from UAVs (and intercepted streams of the enemy). Spotting the target chief of artillery transmits it to battery commander or senior battery officer  [he is commander of 1st artillery platoon also] and they transmit this data to the gun. 2-7 minutes for targeting of the gun, the bird [drone] in the sky. First shoot - the fire ajustment from artilelry chief directly to the gun. Or artillery chief opens the map, come into communication with gun commandr through the radio and gives the targeting (angle, azimuth, lines). The gun crew lives on position 2-5 days, further a rotation is coming. Nobody drink on position, it's taboo, else they go to "zakrep" [probably those who have to hold the ground after assault] - and this is more scary than to stormers. 
We don't work with mortars since new year. This is no longer relevant becaus of crews life preservation purposes. Drones already fly on 10 km in the rear, so they clicks them at once  

And here Russian feedback about CAESERs

As a lawyer you should know better that it's much more than just an 'attitude'. It's an entire legal framework underpinning the political ideology of liberal democracy.

Yes the west can sponsor whomever they like, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but there is much more going on here with the particular case of Ukraine because Ukraine has made it no secret that it aspires to joining the EU. As a matter of straightforward facts:-
Ukraine will never join the EU if it does not uphold EU law - indeed it has to adopt EU law in order to be a member. Membership means compliance with the ECHR and its rulings. The ECHR enforces the core principles laid out and agreed upon by the union of liberal democratic states. Some of those principles cover the protection of minority groups and protection of individual freedoms etc.. This is just the way it is. You cannot cherry-pick the core ideas of liberal democracy anymore than you can cherry-pick the legal framework and membership of the EU.          

It's currently being reported that the House has passed the Ukraine aid deal 311-112.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-vote-ukraine-israel-taiwan-aid-04-20-24/index.html

On the topic of democracy (democracy indexes, democratic backsliding and the like) I can actually contribute with more than my typical "expert amateur's" opinion since poli sci is my academic background.
The Economist Democracy Index appears to be from 2021 (based on Norway's and Sweden's scores of 9.75 and 9.26 respectively). That year Switzerland dipped down below 9.00, which changed its colour in the map @The_Capt posted. It might be a colour vision thing @kimbosbread? Personally I know that my red-green colour vision is in the dumps, and I cannot make out any distinction what so ever between the colours assigned to 8, 7 and 6 in that map. That still places it as a full democracy though.
It should be noted for the Economist Democracy Index's use of the term "Flawed democracy" doesn't mean that it's not a democracy, undemocratic or the like:
In the case of the USA, this likely refers to issues such as voter turnout, gerrymandering, first-past-the-post and the virtual two party system, civil rights, etc. Emphasis on "likely" though, because the Economist Democracy Index is based on anonymous scoring from undisclosed experts, so no one can say with certainty what particular aspects influenced a state's scoring.
 
V-dem is in my experience the preferred democracy index, notwithstanding any personal bias (it's from my alma mater). What makes the most difference (going by the examples cited here) though is how you measure democracy: Visual Capitalist choses to measure shares of the global poluation as opposed to number of states. This leads to statistical oddities/misrepresentations of the scale of democratic backsliding, since states are entities: if say State A and State B have become democracies whereas State Z has become an autocracy, that's a net increase in democracy, regardless of the fact that State A & B only have a combined population of say 20 million whereas State Z has a population of 1 billion. That's how Visual Capitalist arrives at the dire conclusion of "2010 Democracy: 50.4% vs 2021 Democracy: 29.3%".
India alone being reclassed from "electoral democracy" to "electoral autocracy" is behind a not insignificant portion of that change: the number of people living in electoral autocracies increased by 1.76 billion between 2010 and 2021 (India's population today reaching 1.41 billion). The remaining net global population which has shifted from "liberal/electoral democracy" to "electoral/closed autocracy" is "only" 0.7 billion. I.e., one single country falling back into autocracy is behind a smidge over 2/3 of that shift.
 
If we were to look at states instead (the typical poli sci method and arguably the more accurate measurement), we get this more positive picture:

Between the end of the Cold War and 2022, liberal democracies have remained virtually the same, more than half the world's closed autocracies have gone the way of the dodo, and electoral democracies and electoral autocracies are tied at 32.58%: back in 1990, electoral autocracies were almost 30% ahead of electoral democracies, and a staggering 36.84% of the world's states were closed autocracies. Closed autocracies were by far the most common form of government in the world when the Cold War ended: today its the opposite, it's the least common.
 
That was an argument against Visual Capitalist's measurement of democracy. Democratic backsliding is accepted among most experts, but there's not much certainty as to whether or not this will turn out to be a lasting development or if it's simply a symptom of many politically and socially underdeveloped/unprepared states which were democratised when the Cold War wrapped up simply having reverted to forms of government which are more in line for what could be expected of them.
 
 
Edit: I was going to write a brief reply. Instead I wrote more here than I've gotten done on my thesis during the last two months combined. FFS...

Yes, I did take a look at the other links. The part of my point that is in question here is "The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization". And I stand by that. I don't think a 20 year decline constitutes a trend in democratization any more than a one year decline represents a trend in the stock market. When you zoom out the overall trend is still clearly upwards.

I’ve been reading those folks pushing the idea that Iran intentionally flubbed the attack on Israel with some…restrained amusement. Us old folks remember how analysis of the USSR routinely made the same threat-inflating mistake as analysts responded, consciously or not, to pressures that essentially drove them to see every flaw, error or omission as yet another devious maneuver by those mustachio twisting apparatchiks in Moscow to lower our guard. 
The reality is that yes, Iran didn’t throw the kitchen sink at Israel but at the same time, the idea was for Iran to establish a higher level of deterrence against Israeli strikes directly on Iranian territory, assets and personnel. To do that, Iran need to actually show the ability to do significant damage in ways that Israel cannot address. What happened instead? Iran managed to unite Israel’s neighbors around it (despite, Bibi and Gaza!) to such a degree that they are bragging quietly how many Iranian munitions they shot down (including by the pilot/princess of Jordan) and celebrating (not very quietly) how well they can and will cooperate against Iran. 
Deterrence is information without the cure. If Iran had managed to get through and wallop a couple of Israel airfields and hit a scattering of other bases, that would not have set off a conflagration and would have delivered a solid deterrence message. It would have been “We send 300 and hit 20% of the time. Imagine if we send 3000?”. Now, Israel and the rest of the region can imagine it and has reason to think they can handle it (if, again more to Iran’s strategic detriment, they keep the US onside and willing to lend support).
Deterrence isn’t achieved by demonstrating what you can’t do. 

1) Basically every industrial country has far more energy generation capacity than it needs to ensure continuous production - even if several plants need to be taken off the grid for maintenance or simply damage repairs. 
2) Outside of the planned over-capacity, older power plants are not immediately demolished when a newer one is finished. They remain for years as a "strategic reserve". And due to improved technology energy companies are almost always building something newer and more efficient somewhere, so there is a continuous rotation from older to newer.
3) Special government programs like in Germany, where renewables are being pushed, means that a lot of conventional power plants have been taken off the grid, but are not destroyed. Germany gets between 30% and 40% of its daily energy from renewables (and growing), and has roughly the same capacity, mostly in coal plants, dormant and ready to be fired up. 
Ukraine's economy before the war used 125 TWh per year, which has dropped significantly due to the war to something below 100 TWh.
Germany alone has likely 200 TWh of unused capacity next to the 500 to 600 TWh it currently needs per year.

As a lawyer you should know better that it's much more than just an 'attitude'. It's an entire legal framework underpinning the political ideology of liberal democracy.

Yes the west can sponsor whomever they like, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but there is much more going on here with the particular case of Ukraine because Ukraine has made it no secret that it aspires to joining the EU. As a matter of straightforward facts:-
Ukraine will never join the EU if it does not uphold EU law - indeed it has to adopt EU law in order to be a member. Membership means compliance with the ECHR and its rulings. The ECHR enforces the core principles laid out and agreed upon by the union of liberal democratic states. Some of those principles cover the protection of minority groups and protection of individual freedoms etc.. This is just the way it is. You cannot cherry-pick the core ideas of liberal democracy anymore than you can cherry-pick the legal framework and membership of the EU.