FancyCat

Of course, all true, just important to note reassurances like expanding training of NCOs in the UKR military alongside staff officers, expansion of basic training training in Europe, require not just Ukrainian PR to get out to the public in Ukraine, but the required buy-in from NATO countries, but have the effect of reassuring a worried UKR public that Soviet doctrine is fading out. i've seen floating around reasons for having Western trainers return to Western Ukraine I suppose Lviv, be based not on escalation but on the ability for Ukraine to move personnel for training in Western Ukraine, train then come back to the front, and allowing Western trainers to more readily be able to defuse the learning of the personnel than from Poland or Germany. General Sodol has been sacked.

I wouldn't say lack of Western training support is "at fault", more like NATO knows how to train and maintain a modern fighting force vs whatever Russia does and what Ukraine does, and Ukrainians are aware of what works and what doesn't. As the article I linked notes, Ukrainian commanders are reporting lack of basic training, including familiarity with weapons, firing, many not having fired any ammo in training. A training instructor at a center reported only 20 bullets per trainee and no grenades or grenade launchers. One of the links you posted, the Congressional report, notes So sure the West has trained 122k in some form but the Ukrainian military went from its pre-invasion strength of 200k in total to a million today. We can definitely do more training and expansion in Europe to meet demand.

I believe part of the problem of the lack of volunteers is that training is not sufficient enough, long enough or the training personnel aren't enough nor well qualified enough to train and so that increases the reluctance of conscripts to join instead of dodge if they aren't assured of proper training. From WP, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/02/ukraine-training-soldiers-mobilization-war/ , if the words of the Ukrainian personnel in the article span true for the majority of Ukraine's recruitment and training pipeline, of which only a small part is quoted below, there are signs that trainers and their lack of quality is a serious issue: 1. personnel in the military since 2022 but in the rear have been not trained despite 2 years passing. 2. lack of equipment in training centers, veterans and trained personnel are probably all needed and hoarded on the frontlines instead of returning home to become trainers. large numbers of existing trained personnel by NATO before the invasion are depleted. 3. training centers and systems aren't developed, the NATO training center in Western Ukraine was shut down at the beginning of the invasion. 4. I believe Haudiuk has mentioned it, certain brigades are preferred and make efforts to take the best personnel in the pipeline. 5. quality of personnel trained by the pipeline is panned as useless and require extensive training on the frontlines. Article notably says that lack of training is a big fear for draft dodging, in that sense, expanding Western efforts to provide training and trainers and the space needed for that is essential for raising the morale of those being sought for conscription and thinking of dodging.

South Korea has been indirectly supplying Ukraine already, supplying more artillery shells than Europe combined. From December 2023 below. That said, cuting out middlemen is always good. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20231205000300315

Am i the only one disturbed by the fact that only now, 3 countries are basing and training Ukrainian personnel in basic training? Prior two were UK and Poland. Considering all the angst in Ukraine on conscription, training, one would think NATO would have winded up this much faster. It's great that Germany is stepping up alongside Poland and the UK but ya, Ukraine needs more.

more emphasis from the U.S, Ukraine now has the ability to counter Russian forces massing anywhere in front of the border with Ukraine.

Just a little news article on Ukraine's Vietnamese community. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/18/this-country-gave-me-a-lot-the-vietnamese-people-staying-in-ukraine

Article from The War Zone on the attack on Morosovsk Airfield, they got to speak to Budanov. Pulled a few paragraphs below. Interestingly, the base was previously attacked in April, with Ukraine claiming 8 damaged and 6 destroyed aircraft, but no evidence via satellite imagery has backed this assessment. https://www.twz.com/air/ukraine-strikes-blow-to-russian-su-34-fullback-base

This is Putin's answer to the peace summit in Switzerland beginning today.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/06/12/7460431/

Maybe the argument laid out in the article is overstating it, but there's been quite a rash of exploding air defense batteries in Crimea, it is interesting how those in Crimea seem to disappear more than other parts of the Russian occupied zones. Article suggests that Ukraine is gradually setting the stage to strangling Crimea and enable F-16s to be used to target Crimea. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-is-making-the-russian-occupation-of-crimea-untenable/

progress is continuing on how to best take advantage of frozen Russian sovereign assets stored in the West to support Ukraine. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-12/g-7-leaders-to-agree-to-tap-frozen-russian-assets-france-says

Sanctions expanded on Russia including IT sector, Moscow Stock Exchange will be halting trading of dollar.

A U.S Patriot battery currently in Poland will be given to Ukraine soon. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/us/politics/patriot-missiles-ukraine-war.html

long thread with twitter videos, from the 2024 Fires Symposium.

Has a map so worth showing despite same info.

I think your moving the goalposts. You asserted that no European state was willing to engage in escalation, and therefore NATO as a whole is not willing to prevent the fall of Ukraine, I've clearly pointed out to you that France is willing and signalling to Russia it considers Ukraine's fall to be unacceptable. That it's a slow small step up the ladder and not "french formations attacking Russian formations" off bat, I dunno how that defends your position that Ukraine isn't worth it to NATO to fall, aren't you the one worried about nuclear escalation and it tipping off uncontrollably? Should not Macron being all-controlled and small steps be perfectly in line with escalation management? Considering French position was for deferrence to Russia until recently, and that it was a position that persisted well into the invasion, it seems pretty natural that as France shifts it's positioning, it does so slowly and with ability for Russia to signal de-escalation on their part in response. Regarding Macron's domestic position...so what? We regard Russia and Putin's position internally as essential for understanding their escalation management, the same applies to Macron, Europe. As for "Hey France is ok with nuclear brinksmanship over Ukraine", that's not my position, that's the Russian position. "Macron is free to posture and even escalate unilaterally. But Ukraine does not pose an existential threat to either Europe or NATO, no matter what rhetoric is employed." Russian viewpoint or better to say symbolic of Russian hope that will result in Russian signalling paving the way for great power negotiation. What is there to say in response? Nothing, you clearly think it's empty rhetoric on Macron's part. We shall have to see how the military trainers in Ukraine pans out. Russia definitely has the ability to both target them specifically and not target them specifically, I think Macron might be calling Putin's bluff regarding targeting them.

Tbh I did not reply to you cause I figured Macron was acting purely rhetorically, but with the recent news of him pushing for western troops in Ukraine, it seems more appropriate to review. Macron has been signaling his heel turn for a while, headlines in March and April that the West should cross red lines when dealing with Putin. WSJ article from April 3: https://archive.ph/EO8HC Now, WSJ on the French initiative of trainers in Ukraine: https://archive.ph/khcMe From April 3 link, Macron presented his desire to move to strategic ambiguity first in February, ending with a public move to pledge military options including western troops would not be ruled out. He quickly got publicly isolated by Biden and Scholz in Feb. as noted in the article, but despite that he gained some support, with statements from Polish and Lithuania noting it could be possible. Article goes into further detail about him presenting the proposal in Feb and getting isolated among NATO nations and then walking on stage and declaring it should not be ruled out. In terms of "if Kiyv falls" Macron is worried about the fracturing of NATO not via Central Europe/Eastern Europe folding to Russia, but a scenario where U.S support in the event of a NATO vs Russia scenario is no longer ironclad meaning a Russian calculus of succeeding in conflict with NATO goes up. In that sense, if Ukraine falls, this is Macron's thinking not me mind u, the risk of broader regional or global conflict is already heightened between Europe vs Russia. My entire point mind you was to point out that striking dual use targets was not immediately nearing nuclear war escalation, to which you declared that Ukraine was not that important vs potential nuclear war via escalation mismanagement and that NATO would prefer to let Kiyv fall than risk that outcome. I then pointed out to you NATO is not united in that outlook you framed as "Ukraine is not important enough" and that suggesting NATO should be afraid of nuclear war enough to risk Ukraine falling, would instead risk the NATO alliance where allowing Ukraine to fall would cause fractures in the alliance and increase the potential of further conflict including nuclear. The current Macron stance represents that possibility pretty clear. France, a nuclear power and NATO country is actively pushing to involve Western troops into Ukraine, is gathering a coalition of countries to make the same commitments and doing so despite sustained opposition by major NATO allies precisely seemingly to ensure Ukraine's fall is out of the question, risking further escalation via the involvement of Western troops in harms way, finding that preferable to alternatives where Ukraine does fall.

Macron continues his course of rhetoric maintaining Ukraine is "existential". Way he's talking below sounds like he got burned away too many times offering off-ramps to Putin and got fed up of it. Huh, Macron says he has several other NATO nations ready to return military trainers to Ukraine alongside France. Baltics? Finland? Poland? Maybe it's just me but this is a serious escalation potentially occurring. Fed up Macron indeed. How are we to square this with the fact Russia will be likely to target these legitimate military targets? Maybe it's just me but this strongly suggests Macron's rhetoric is paired with a warning to not escalate further and target Western Ukraine. There is also context on that Russia has been accused of varying undercover operations in France including sabotage that may be part of Macron's reasoning for pushing this.