How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, Twisk said:

Politicians are elected to lead after all.

A bit nit-picky but no, they are not. They are elected to represent the people. So, ideally, a parliament needs no polls, a vote would have the same outcome, regardless. A government is there to execute what the parliament, and so by extension the people want.

Now, in reality I agree that politicans shouldn't be looking at polls all the time. On the other hand, a democracy where the voter can vote once every 4 years and that's it... well, not very appropriate anymore nowadays, I think.

[Zeleban]

 

That's what I call the deadly Russian army. IFV Bradley, have not yet been delivered to Ukraine, and the Russians have already destroyed 4 of them

[Butschi]

2 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/german-minister-berlin-shouldnt-oppose-transfer-of-polish-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine

@Butschi insights on this guy? 

Interesting development, indeed. Big news here, right now. You may have noticed that he didn't say that Germany should deliver Leos but only that we should not keep other countries from giving theirs to Ukraine. Looks like preparing for a compromise that allows Scholz to save face and not do a 180 right now (and, who knows, once Leos cross the Polish-Ukrainian border on a regular basis it is probably not a big deal to join in).

[Kraft]

31 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Great BMP hunting vid:
longish format GoPro, international forces

Includes BMP-2M taking NLAW to the face with only a mobility kill. Also spot the wild DP-28 between the M4s with ACOGs

At 2:36 the footage is from this here: 

The location named in twitter doesn't match the YT video description but the video is still worth a watch! 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Kraft

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Which is one reason Obama was a terrible leader in many ways.  There was a window of opportunity where American leadership could have made a big difference in Syria.  At a minimum keeping the Russians out of it.  But Obama looked at the polls, saw that there was just about zero domestic support to do anything meaningful, and so he didn't push for anything that would have made a difference.  In a little bit of dark humor, the Republicans slammed him for his lack of leadership even though he was doing exactly what they wanted done (i.e. nothing).  Which meant that Obama didn't have political support for policies the opposition was in favor of.  Just imagine if Obama did something they weren't in favor of.

In Obama's defense the problem wasn't just polling in America and the lack of political will of the legislative body, because it was exactly the same in Europe.  The only thing that Europeans really had a strong opinion about was the refugee crisis that came about because nothing was being done to solve the cause of it.

Ukraine is different for many reasons, the biggest of them is that Ukraine directly borders Europe (sorry Turkey, you're not included!) and this isn't a civil war.  That and few in the West had a bone to pick with Assad, but most have a long list of grievances against Putin's regime.  And those that didn't, such as Germany, now do thanks to Putin's bad decision making.

Steve

Obama should've known that historically, getting embroiled in a middle eastern/central asian country is a quick an easy affair. He could've had the boys back in time for christmas. 

Worked for Britain in Afghanistan, Russia in Afghanistan, the US in Afghanistan, the US in Iraq.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Simcoe

[Astrophel]

If you are fast off the mark you can use this link https://on.ft.com/3ixu3Bs

He has the unenviable job of sorting the German energy supply problems and imo has done it exceptionally well, albeit at the cost of some popularity.  He is sympathetic to Ukraine, that's for sure.

[Twisk]

21 minutes ago, Butschi said:

A bit nit-picky but no, they are not. They are elected to represent the people. So, ideally, a parliament needs no polls, a vote would have the same outcome, regardless. A government is there to execute what the parliament, and so by extension the people want.

I just disagree with this notion of political leadership. Every X number of years sets of politicians will be voted in on certain platforms and the people are entrusting them with the responsibilities of leadership. They shouldn't be beholden to whatever 50+1% of people want or even what 60% or 75% of people want at any instant. What they need to do though is prove, during the next election, that their decisions were correct.

Simply put it might be that an unpopular position will turn out to be the correct only in retrospect so a politician must be a leader and not just a representative. Capable of making choices that are correct regardless of their popularity but then being able to prove that their decision was corrrect during the next election.

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Twisk

[Battlefront.com]

Here's an odd one.  Russia just released a detained American, apparently without any sort of US concession.  Seems the guy was... well... not worth hanging onto:

Quote

Dudley reportedly had been attending a music festival in Poland when he was detained. It was not clear why he crossed the border into the Russian province.

----

A State Department spokesman indicated that Dudley had been deported from Russia, another signal that his release was not equivalent to earlier swaps and may have little bearing on the case of another U.S. citizen in Russia, Paul Whelan, whom the Biden administration has been trying to free through a prisoner exchange.

 

“Generally, when a U.S. citizen is deported, the State Department may provide assistance to help facilitate the return of the U.S. citizen to the United States,” the spokesman said. Like others, this person spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal procedures.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

That's what I call the deadly Russian army. IFV Bradley, have not yet been delivered to Ukraine, and the Russians have already destroyed 4 of them

Must have been a slow day at the Russian Ministry of Disinformation if they are making up stuff for things that should be weeks away from being lied about.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Obama should've known that historically, getting embroiled in a middle eastern/central asian country is a quick an easy affair. He could've had the boys back in time for christmas. 

Worked for Britain in Afghanistan, Russia in Afghanistan, the US in Afghanistan, the US in Iraq.

Oh for sure there were no easy answers for anybody other than Russia.  The point is that there were options open at the time that were short of a significant military investment that weren't explored because they needed to be backed up.  The widespread Western lack of will to do anything significant required good leadership to get something achieved more intelligently.  But nobody in the West wanted to touch Syria and so that signaled to Assad, Iran, and Russia that they were free and clear to do whatever they wanted.

Again, this is about leadership.  Good leadership understands a situation for what it is and takes steps to address it, polls and support be damned.  Nobody in the West was willing to do that, even for countries (i.e. Europe) that should have foreseen the refugee situation (like Libya before it).

Steve

[Butschi]

9 minutes ago, Twisk said:

I just disagree with this notion of political leadership. Every X number of years sets of politicians will be voted in on certain platforms and the people are entrusting them with the responsibilities of leadership. They shouldn't be beholden to whatever 50+1% of people want or even what 60% or 75% of people want at any instant. What they need to do though is prove, during the next election, that their decisions were correct.

Simply put it might be that an unpopular position will turn out to be the correct only in retrospect so a politician must be a leader and not just a representative. Capable of making choices that are correct regardless of their popularity but then being able to prove that their decision was corrrect during the next election.

 

Well, the details may be different in other countries. The German constitution is very brief on this but also quite clear.

"Sie sind Vertreter des ganzen Volkes, an Aufträge und Weisungen nicht gebunden und nur ihrem Gewissen unterworfen." (Art. 38, Abs 1 GG). Roughly translated: "They [parliamentarians] are represantatives for the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions and only answerable to their own conscience."

So, by law, they are "just" representatives. On the other hand they are not bound by polls or anything. That they shouldn't  involve the people only once in four years is my personal opinion.

[Kinophile]

58 minutes ago, Butschi said:

A bit nit-picky but no, they are not. They are elected to represent the people. So, ideally, a parliament needs no polls, a vote would have the same outcome, regardless. A government is there to execute what the parliament, and so by extension the people want.

Now, in reality I agree that politicans shouldn't be looking at polls all the time. On the other hand, a democracy where the voter can vote once every 4 years and that's it... well, not very appropriate anymore nowadays, I think.

Sure,  the politicians represent but the Government,  consisting of politicians etc,  leads.  It decides on things to, the people can pressure it, agree with it or oppose it. But the Government leads the nation, and its leader (or as in Scholz's case, the Not So Glorious And Downright Humdrum Dogsbody) leads the Government. 

 

[Kinophile]

26 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Well, the details may be different in other countries. The German constitution is very brief on this but also quite clear.

"Sie sind Vertreter des ganzen Volkes, an Aufträge und Weisungen nicht gebunden und nur ihrem Gewissen unterworfen." (Art. 38, Abs 1 GG). Roughly translated: "They [parliamentarians] are represantatives for the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions and only answerable to their own conscience."

So, by law, they are "just" representatives. On the other hand they are not bound by polls or anything. That they shouldn't  involve the people only once in four years is my personal opinion.

Interesting.  I wonder why not the Constitution also. 

[Butschi]

26 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Interesting.  I wonder why not the Constitution also. 

I speak very broken legalese at best. The constitution is also in the oath of office. Now the question is whether, according to Art. 38, a parliamentarian is actually bound by his oath...

EDIT: I guess we are getting a bit far off-topic, right?

Edited January 12, 2023 by Butschi

[Battlefront.com]

32 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I speak very broken legalese at best. The constitution is also in the oath of office. Now the question is whether, according to Art. 38, a parliamentarian is actually bound by his oath...

EDIT: I guess we are getting a bit far off-topic, right?

I hate to talk stereotypes, but you just checked off two boxes for Germans... a lover of details and also very smart   If there was a time component to your post I have faith you'd check off a third box!

Yes, let's move on from this particular off-topic discussion.

Steve

[Huba]

Here's a new and very disheartening article about GLSDB. In short:

- there are no political reservations against sending the weapon, it is not considered "escalatory" by the administration ( this are the only "good news") 

- there are issues of bureaucratic nature though, weapons were not yet ordered

- lead time for the first weapons is assessed at 9 months, with perhaps 750 that could be delivered till the end of 2024.

- this runs contrary to previous statements by Saab representative, who IIRC mentioned that they could start delivering them already in the spring

If this informations are reliable, then UA  won't get any longer range strike capabilities this year, except perhaps some ER-GMLRS from initial production runs. That is, unless we break through another taboo and get them ATACMS or some cruise missiles, which still sounds rather unlikely. 

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Huba

[Beleg85]

Interesting thread a propos Moskals logistics:

 

[Beleg85]

About Western supplied tanks and IFV's and their effect on Russian morale...here a graphic from one of Russian channels showing how to fight Bradleys.

At the bottom is the line: "If there is a possibility to call airstrike, do not risk and call air support!" Apparently they took it to the heart so much they already destroyed 4 pieces. Fast learners.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Beleg85

[Huba]

Prighozin's premature claim of taking Soledar now forces Wagner to push desperately, suffering horrible losses, as his personal reputation is now at stake. Short, but terrifying thread:

 

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh for sure there were no easy answers for anybody other than Russia.  The point is that there were options open at the time that were short of a significant military investment that weren't explored because they needed to be backed up.  The widespread Western lack of will to do anything significant required good leadership to get something achieved more intelligently.  But nobody in the West wanted to touch Syria and so that signaled to Assad, Iran, and Russia that they were free and clear to do whatever they wanted.

Again, this is about leadership.  Good leadership understands a situation for what it is and takes steps to address it, polls and support be damned.  Nobody in the West was willing to do that, even for countries (i.e. Europe) that should have foreseen the refugee situation (like Libya before it).

Steve

I see where you're coming from. 

I'm just not sure if it was necessarily a fault of Obama. We all know the military industrial complex loves a war to sell weapons for. Whether legitimate (Ukraine) or not (Iraq/Afghanistan). They can shape public opinion to get the war they want.

If the military industrial complex said "let's let this one go" the analysis must have looked really bad.

[fireship4]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

They are elected to represent the people.

If I may, an excerpt from https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited

Quote

Proportional representation
Such are the theoretical differences between the old and the new theories. As an example of the practical difference between the theories, I propose to examine the issue of proportional representation.

The old theory and the belief that the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people constitutes a natural right, or a divine right, form the background of the usual argument in favour of proportional representation. For if people rule through their representatives, and by majority votes, then it is essential that the numerical distribution of opinion among the representatives mirrors as closely as possible that which prevails among those who are the real source of legitimate power: the people themselves. Everything else will he not only grossly unfair but against all the principles of justice.

This argument collapses if the old theory is given up, so that we can look, more dispassionately, and perhaps without much prejudice, at the inescapable (and possibly unintended) practical consequences of proportional representation. And these are devastating.

First of all, proportional representation confers, even if only indirectly, a constitutional status on political parties which they would otherwise not attain. For I can no longer choose a person whom I trust to represent me: I can choose only a party. And the people who may represent the party are chosen only by the party. And while people and their opinions always deserve the greatest respect, the opinions adopted by parties (which are typically instruments of personal advancement and of power, with all the chances for intrigue which this implies) are not to be identified with ordinary human opinions: they are ideologies.

In a constitution that does not provide for proportional representation, parties need not be mentioned at all. They need not be given official status. The electorate of each constituency sends its personal representative to the chamber. Whether he stands alone, or whether he combines with some others to form a party, is left to him. It is an affair he may have to explain and defend to his electorate.

His duty is to represent the interests of all those people whom he represents to the best of his ability. These interests will in almost all cases be identical with those of all the citizens of the country, of the nation. These are the interests he must pursue to the best of his knowledge. He is personally responsible to persons.

This is the only duty and the only responsibility of the representative that must be recognised by the constitution. If he considers that he has also a duty to a political party, then this must be due solely to the fact that he believes that through his connection with that party he can do his primary duty better than without the party. Consequently it is his duty to leave the party whenever he realises that he can do his primary duty better without that party, or perhaps with a different party.

All this is done away with if the constitution of the state incorporates proportional representation. For under proportional representation the candidate seeks election solely as the representative of a party, whatever the wording of the constitution may be. If he is elected, he is elected mainly, if not solely, because he belongs to, and represents, a certain party. Thus, his main loyalty must be to his party, and to the party’s ideology; not to people (except, perhaps, the leaders of the party).

It can therefore never be his duty to vote against his party. On the contrary, he is morally bound to the party as whose representative he was voted into parliament. And in the event that he can no longer square this with his conscience, it would, in my opinion, be his moral duty to resign not only from his party but from parliament, even though the country’s constitution may place no such obligation upon him.

In fact, the system under which he was elected robs him of personal responsibility; it makes of him a voting machine rather than a thinking and feeling person. In my view, this is by itself a sufficient argument against proportional representation. For what we need in politics are individuals who can judge on their own and who are prepared to carry personal responsibility.

Such individuals are difficult to find under any party system, even without proportional representation—and it must be admitted that we have not yet found a way of doing without parties. But if we have to have parties, we had better not, by our constitution, add deliberately to the enslavement of our representatives to the party machine and to the party ideology by introducing proportional representation.

The immediate consequence of proportional representation is that it will tend to increase the number of parties. This, at first glance, may seem desirable: more parties means more choice, more opportunities, less rigidity, more criticism. It also means a greater distribution of influence and of power.

However, this first impression is totally mistaken. The existence of many parties means, essentially, that a coalition government becomes inevitable. It means difficulties in the formation of any new government, and in keeping a government together for any length of time.

 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Prighozin's premature claim of taking Soledar now forces Wagner to push desperately, suffering horrible losses, as his personal reputation is now at stake. Short, but terrifying thread:

 

You couldn't find a more perfect illustration of how Putin's ruling methodology...pitting sectors of the system against each other competitively...is gutting Russia's ability to fight the war in an efficient and effective fashion. Clausewitz said that "war is not merely a political act" but this is war as only a political act. 

[LongLeftFlank]

4 hours ago, Zeleban said:

 

That's what I call the deadly Russian army. IFV Bradley, have not yet been delivered to Ukraine, and the Russians have already destroyed 4 of them

All hail Soviet time travel genius!!!!!

...So the Bradley is living logistic-free inside their heads now.

[Kraft]

I think UA withdrew completely what could be withdrawn from Soledar today or yesterday.

Red boxes are geolocated areas of Wagner presence, in the videos there was not even gunfire in the background.

[Raptor341]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Oh for sure there were no easy answers for anybody other than Russia.  The point is that there were options open at the time that were short of a significant military investment that weren't explored because they needed to be backed up.  The widespread Western lack of will to do anything significant required good leadership to get something achieved more intelligently.  But nobody in the West wanted to touch Syria and so that signaled to Assad, Iran, and Russia that they were free and clear to do whatever they wanted.

Again, this is about leadership.  Good leadership understands a situation for what it is and takes steps to address it, polls and support be damned.  Nobody in the West was willing to do that, even for countries (i.e. Europe) that should have foreseen the refugee situation (like Libya before it).

Steve

This is a strong point for me personally - the collective West let the opportunity go in Syria and now everyone continues to pay for it. Leadership isn’t easy, and often I think these kind of things require action because someone else who you like even less (Russia) might take action in your absence. By giving up the initiative to act Russia gained control of much of the theatre. 

Perhaps it would have been a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t, but if you don’t take action and then the problem lands on your doorstep (Europe) you are affected regardless. The thought of what would have happened if the West didn’t act in 2022 is almost certainly a darker future that I really don’t even want to contemplate, yet must to help understand why acting is important in the first place. 
 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Raptor341
Spelling correction