How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So maybe a dumb question from an outsider but why not curb the powers of the presidency?   The US has a lot of checks and balances but maybe not enough.  I am sure there are a thousand reasons not to do this but seriously haven’t you guys had enough bad presidents to maybe rethink things a bit?

We have two types of pardons in Canada, one is done by the judicial system and the other is a royal pardon by the Governor General - normally ceremonial and rarely used.  The PM cannot pardon anyone - a pardon cannot be politicized.  The PM also has a lot less executive power - we do not have the executive order system in this country.  We have an Order in Council but it is also done be a committee and technically has to go past the GG.  In short there are political systems where one person can only do so much damage.

The ability of one administration to effectively hijack the democratic system is just a disaster waiting to happen.  It would be hilarious except for the whole “empire we all bet on” part.

The pardon power is written directly into the Constitution. 

Quote

The pardon power of the president is based on Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides: The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.

And since there ZERO chance of passing a constitutional amendment anytime soon, we are all just going to have live with that one. There is a fundamental problem with the Constitution, the founders did not understand political parties very well, and opposed them as a matter of principle. Of course within a decade they had founded several of them. It worked better before both parties became very sorted by ideology.  And all the problems are worse when the balance of power is so close.

Edited May 25, 2023 by dan/california

[MSBoxer]

8 minutes ago, billbindc said:

You would essentially need a reversal of the norms, laws and Supreme Court decisions from 1940 to 2020 to fix that and a bunch of structural changes in how politics works. Make no mistake...Congress is by much the more powerful branch but individual members don't want to be on the hook for difficult decisions. So, neither does the institution and decisions are handed over to the White  House. 

Yep, congress as a whole is a bunch of cowards.  Now there are individuals that are passionate dedicated upstanding pillars of their communities.  But when push comes to shove and their potential re-election is on the line, they will wuss out and pass the buck to either of the other two branches of government.  That is why they gave the president the power to commit to military action instead of coming together to declare war or rely on the courts to legislate through judicial rulings.

Yeah, I am a jaded old man, but I remember when our representatives stood up for what they believed.  I may not have agreed, but I respected them.

Edited May 25, 2023 by MSBoxer

[billbindc]

17 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Yep, congress as a whole is a bunch of cowards.  Now there are individuals that are passionate dedicated upstanding pillars of their communities.  But when push comes to shove and their potential re-election is on the line, they will wuss out and pass the buck to either of the other two branches of government.  That is why they gave the president the power to commit to military action instead of coming together to declare war or rely on the courts to legislate through judicial rulings.

Yeah, I am a jaded old man, but I remember when our representatives stood up for what they believed.  I may not have agreed, but I respected them.

Unless you are well into your early 120's, you missed the era of waxing Congressional power and responsibility.

[Pelican Pal]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Whats the range of the cannon on the A-10? ive only seen combat footage where the aircraft fly, fire off rockets into the air and then dip. Is this something the A-10 can perform as i dont think the cannon can be useful in any way in this conflict. What about needing to be high in the air? can the A-10 operate at the same sort of low-flying environment to not get murdered by AD?

Also, noting that yes, Ukraine has more pilots than airframes, and will suffer losses, losing trained pilots is still horribly a bad decision, and we see the effects of erosion of Russian airpower via the loss of trained personnel, that applies to Ukraine as well, i would caution against sacrificing personnel for merely destroying tanks. 

As @Kinophile said Ukraine has shown inventiveness with a lot of weapons systems so I wouldn't put it past them to figure out a way to make any additional aircraft work for them. But obviously, as Kinophile also said, this is a moot point given that they don't have them and aren't getting them.

The point I was trying to make though was two-fold.

1: From what I can find A-10 loss rates are relatively high when doing low level ground attack, but pilot loss rates don't match airframe loss rates.

2: Ukraine is in a situation where they must stomach losses Western forces wouldn't so the fact that A-10s were pulled from ground attack roles by the U.S. doesn't necessarily map to how a country in Ukraine's position might use them.

The conclusion being that the U.S. pulling them from ground attack just means that they aren't fit for that role within a U.S. context (limiting losses and looking towards fighting a U.S. peer enemy), but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be useful for Ukraine in its context.

[Offshoot]

Regarding Prigozhin's recent outbursts, here is an interview with a Russian journalist who has written about the power struggle between the different clans surrounding Putin. He contends that the clan wars have started and that Putin is weakening and indecisive - https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-clans-war-russia-interview-succession-ukraine-war/32425962.html

The original article this interview is based on (also linked in the interview) - https://istories.media/en/opinions/2023/01/09/in-russia-a-clan-war-for-putins-throne-has-begun-who-will-win/

[Simcoe]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So maybe a dumb question from an outsider but why not curb the powers of the presidency?   The US has a lot of checks and balances but maybe not enough.  I am sure there are a thousand reasons not to do this but seriously haven’t you guys had enough bad presidents to maybe rethink things a bit?

We have two types of pardons in Canada, one is done by the judicial system and the other is a royal pardon by the Governor General - normally ceremonial and rarely used.  The PM cannot pardon anyone - a pardon cannot be politicized.  The PM also has a lot less executive power - we do not have the executive order system in this country.  We have an Order in Council but it is also done be a committee and technically has to go past the GG.  In short there are political systems where one person can only do so much damage.

The ability of one administration to effectively hijack the democratic system is just a disaster waiting to happen.  It would be hilarious except for the whole “empire we all bet on” part.

I think the issue is the United States government was created at a time when coalitions were geographical and interests were not consistent within those coalitions. The framers assumed these coalitions/parties would never be coherent enough to threaten the political process. For the next couple centuries this held true and the activities of government were held together by tradition and common courtesy.

Next, the executive branch started strong due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation and became stronger whenever there was a threat such as the Civil War or the World Wars. The framers figured that any president who overstepped would be checked by the other two branches.

The problem is the two political parties have coalesced into coherent and ideologically driven coalitions that transcend the traditional checks and balances. A Republican legislature would never check a Republican president nor would a Democrat justice check a Democrat legislature. This is why Donald Trump was openly selling pardons for two million a pop.

We are reaching the end game of democracy in the United States. With the judicial branch firmly controlled by naked partisans all the Republicans need is a president in the white house and a greater than 50% majority in the house and senate and the chains come off. If you thought the president has sweeping powers now, wait for 2024.

[Kinophile]

41 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Edited to add: the pardon power is a central constitutional provision given to the Presidency. It is a plenary power that would require a constitutional amendment to change.

And absolutely mind boggling how it was instituted with no limits. Like, wtf..."this can only end well..." Its the untapped Achille's heel in the US democracy, just waiting for some smart sociopath to truly make use of.

[JonS]

7 hours ago, sburke said:

I once worked for a dotcom and someone proposed a company slogan of "we suck less!"  

I once worked for the procurement branch of a large org. The boss wanted a new slogan, and amongst the suggestions were "[branch]; delivering yesterday's technology tomorrow" and "[branch]; We're not happy till you're not happy!"

That second one very nearly became official until someone leaned in and whispered in the bosses ear.

[dan/california]

15 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Regarding Prigozhin's recent outbursts, here is an interview with a Russian journalist who has written about the power struggle between the different clans surrounding Putin. He contends that the clan wars have started and that Putin is weakening and indecisive - https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-clans-war-russia-interview-succession-ukraine-war/32425962.html

The original article this interview is based on (also linked in the interview) - https://istories.media/en/opinions/2023/01/09/in-russia-a-clan-war-for-putins-throne-has-begun-who-will-win/

These articles are excellent. 

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

And absolutely mind boggling how it was instituted with no limits. Like, wtf..."this can only end well..." Its the untapped Achille's heel in the US democracy, just waiting for some smart sociopath to truly make use of.

It was designed as a check on the judiciary and heretofore not notably abused. It should be clear too that Trump was dissuaded from trying it on himself, his family or directly in aid of a crime. In those cases, it's of a certainty that the Supreme Court...even this strongly conservative one...would have knocked him back. 

[MSBoxer]

26 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Unless you are well into your early 120's, you missed the era of waxing Congressional power and responsibility.

Not quite that old, but  the two instances I cited which I think are good examples both occurred during my time on this spinning orb.

[billbindc]

9 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Not quite that old, but  the two instances I cited which I think are good examples both occurred during my time on this spinning orb.

[Vet 0369]

9 hours ago, Eddy said:

And that's the difference between a professional and a bloke sat on his sofa - I thought it was for obscuring the bridge somehow

This is the correct question to ask if you’re looking to develop an “intentions” profile. Like “why would the Russians be testing smoke devices to obscure movement over a bridge or water borne movement?” Or, “which way, to Crimea or from Crimea,” And “for what purpose?”

[billbindc]

Don't say I didn't tell you so: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/ukraine-kremlin-drone-attack.html

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

It was designed as a check on the judiciary and heretofore not notably abused. It should be clear too that Trump was dissuaded from trying it on himself, his family or directly in aid of a crime. In those cases, it's of a certainty that the Supreme Court...even this strongly conservative one...would have knocked him back. 

With what? They could scold him but it's right there as a constitutional prerogative. Just takes balls and maybe a paramilitary force willing to fight dirty.

[sburke]

26 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Don't say I didn't tell you so: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/us/politics/ukraine-kremlin-drone-attack.html

saw this but this part cracked me up

Quote

 

The agencies reached their preliminary assessment in part through intercepted communications in which Russian officials blamed Ukraine and other communications in which Ukrainian officials said they believed their country was responsible for the attack, in which two drones were flown on May 3 toward the Kremlin, causing little damage.

U.S. officials say their level of confidence that the Ukrainian government directly authorized the Kremlin drone attack is “low” but that is because intelligence agencies do not yet have specific evidence identifying which government officials, Ukrainian units or operatives were involved.

 

so basically they think the chances are low the Ukrainian gov't was involved cause they don't actually know anything.

This one for example just means the Kremlin didn't know but doesn't mean some other Russians might.

Quote

In those internal discussions, Russian officials seemed surprised by the drone intrusion and blamed Ukraine. U.S. officials said this intelligence helped convince them that the attack was not carried out by the Russians.

The article supposes a lot on very little info other than intercepts that indicate the Russians are confused.

[Kinophile]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

saw this but this part cracked me up

so basically they think the chances are low the Ukrainian gov't was involved cause they don't actually know anything.

This one for example just means the Kremlin didn't know but doesn't mean some other Russians might.

The article supposes a lot on very little info other than intercepts that indicate the Russians are confused.

Yah seems pretty flimsy conclusions. This is NordStream all over again. I guess SPECTRE is getting active...

[Vet 0369]

6 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Except unhappily now, in the USA. Growing proud displays and embrace of all things Nazi, Hitler by the white supremacy crowd across the country. Swastika flags flown even in some smaller cities (recently here in mine, during a “vandalism” knockout of our electrical utility service.) 
Examples recent - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/box-truck-crashes-into-security-barriers-near-white-house-2023-05-23/  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/07/texas-mall-shooting-few-details-known

As a strict Constitutionalist, and not one of the offensive far-right or just one of the morons who were force-fed hatred by their even more moronic parents, I feel I must say that the First Amendment of the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, known as The Bill of Rights, guarantees every citizen of the U.S the Right to Peacefully Assemble, the Freedom of Speech, and The Freedom of Association, among other things, even with those whom the “majority” feel are reprehensible. The only time an American Citizen can lose a right, since a right cannot be taken away, is if that right is used by the individual to harm another in some way, such as yelling “Fire” in a theater in order to cause a panic. As long as exercising one’s rights isn’t done directly to cause harm or violate an existing law, that person’s “right” cannot be taken away.

Even though we might find their speech and symbology disgusting, they have the right to express it.

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

With what? They could scold him but it's right there as a constitutional prerogative. Just takes balls and maybe a paramilitary force willing to fight dirty.

That gets into very ugly territory but that transition is harder than it looks. Trump benefited from a political milieu that was having trouble catching up with the norm breaking he was engaged in. That's over and the institutions are hardened now in ways that they were not before. If Trump or the next of his ilk tries to go the route of violence, I think they will be in for a shock. 

[billbindc]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

saw this but this part cracked me up

so basically they think the chances are low the Ukrainian gov't was involved cause they don't actually know anything.

This one for example just means the Kremlin didn't know but doesn't mean some other Russians might.

The article supposes a lot on very little info other than intercepts that indicate the Russians are confused.

It's a pretty significant thing for US officials to say that they think Ukraine did it and what the article does not say, for obvious reasons, is *who* on the Russian side was confused by the attack and blamed it on the Ukrainians. 

[sburke]

11 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

As a strict Constitutionalist, and not one of the offensive far-right or just one of the morons who were force-fed hatred by their even more moronic parents, I feel I must say that the First Amendment of the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, known as The Bill of Rights, guarantees every citizen of the U.S the Right to Peacefully Assemble, the Freedom of Speech, and The Freedom of Association, among other things, even with those whom the “majority” feel are reprehensible. The only time an American Citizen can lose a right, since a right cannot be taken away, is if that right is used by the individual to harm another in some way, such as yelling “Fire” in a theater in order to cause a panic. As long as exercising one’s rights isn’t done directly to cause harm or violate an existing law, that person’s “right” cannot be taken away.

Even though we might find their speech and symbology disgusting, they have the right to express it.

I did 7 1/2 months without ever having committed nor been charged with a crime.  Then again I was on the left.  They don't seem to use those detention powers on the right.  Our rights are in the constitution, that does not however mean the state can't and hasn't denied folks that right... repeatedly.

Your point however is correct.  One of my favorite political movie lines by Michael Douglas said in The American President 

Quote

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by sburke

[Offshoot]

And an article on the use of Patriot systems in Ukraine: Ukrainian air defense uses Patriot systems in ways that surprised the US - https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-air-defense-uses-patriot-systems-in-ways-that-surprised-us-expert-interview-50326688.html

[sburke]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

It's a pretty significant thing for US officials to say that they think Ukraine did it and what the article does not say, for obvious reasons, is *who* on the Russian side was confused by the attack and blamed it on the Ukrainians. 

there was a guy offering money to anyone who could disrupt the may day festivities in Moscow with a drone landing.  Remember this guy?

Ukraine Fintech Founder Offers $500k for First to Land Drone in Moscow (insider.com)

Comparing that drone attack to the Nord Stream attack in the same article is kind of funky.  One was a truly intense operation and the other looked to be an amateur hour thing.  Then you have a possible hit on someone in Moscow.  I don't know, considering the crime family that is the Russian gov't, i don't think confusion in the Kremlin necessarily eliminates Russians.

And this "US officials" doesn't necessarily mean anything.  kind of like the Zelensky quote discussed earlier.  Seems that may not have actually occurred.

Not saying that Ukraine isn't behind any of this, I just don't see anything compelling yet.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, time to move on from two topics that have exceeded their relevance to this thread:

1.  Ukraine has a fascist problem that needs to be addressed, but so does every nation and so citizens of those nations need to be careful about throwing stones.  Especially if they are fascists trying to support Putin by parroting Russian fascist propaganda.

2.  What the merits of A-10s are/aren't on the battlefields of today.  I think the issues have been presented well enough, but should be saved until the Ukrainians actually ask for A-10s (if they ever do).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

ISW's May 24th report has, of course, a lot of stuff on Bakhmut and Prig, but this is the bit I found most interesting:

Quote

The overall Russian information space response to the capture of Bakhmut has fixated on attributing responsibility for its capture and speculating on the associated costs of the operation, thus depriving the Russian MoD of the oxygen necessary to positively frame the city’s capture. As ISW reported on May 22 factions within the pro-war information space immediately began arguing over whether Wagner or regular Russian units and commanders should receive medals and commendations for operations in Bakhmut.[8] Prigozhin’s claims about Wagner’s losses in Bakhmut have similarly become a distinct point of tension in the information space and have come to define the predominant discourse about Russia’s entire campaign in Bakhmut. In shifting the conversation towards claimed Wagner losses, Prigozhin has largely succeeded in further depriving the Russian MoD of the opportunity to claim informational victory over Bakhmut and will likely continue to define and lead conversations on Bakhmut going forward but at the cost of highlighting the huge losses his own forces suffered for a negligible gain.

Basically, Russia focused a huge amount of resources on taking Bakhmut, finally succeeded, and now can't get any positive vibes from it because even the pro-war guys understand it was a f'n disaster.

Girkin seems to have in mind casualty figures for Wagner that are pretty similar to those we speculated about (~40,000).

Ya know, if you're to do a massive waste of military resources at a time when you can ill afford any misallocation of said resources, you should AT LEAST do it for something that might give you some sort of "win" afterwards.  Sheesh.

Steve