Nah, just swap them Texas for Ukraine.
Alstein
23933
How about we offer Russia Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma in exchange for leaving Ukraine alone.
The RAF does not really have spare aircraft.
There was a similar response from Sweden to Ukraine’s request for Gripens. Something along the lines that they wanted to help but still needed to be able to defend Sweden’s territorial integrity.
We can’t pull off that coup without an inside man.
KevinC
23937
That makes sense! If only there were a country around with some aging 4th generation fighters to spare.
(Looks around, sees everybody else took a step back.)
Well, shit.
KevinC
23939
ISW on the Bakhmut debate:
To me it is all about the exchange of casualties and equipment in Bakhmut.
If it is 1:1 then it makes little sense… but if UA is causing 2:1 or more casualty rates, then it makes a lot of sense to bleed Russia there
meeper
23941
1:1 (or worse) also makes perfect sense if it’s the best you’re able to manage and you’re fighting for your national survival.
Grifman
23942
Fascinating adaptability:
KevinC
23943
UK MoD (reported by ISW) says 2/3 of Russian tanks are destroyed or inoperable and that Russia is having issues producing replacements.
Grifman
23944
What this really tells us is that Russia’s vast “reserves” of tanks are worthless. They are either inoperable or so degraded that they need to build new ones rather than bringing the reserves up to speed for use in the war.
One of the reasons the US defense budget is so monstrous is that there are armies of contractors who go around all the vast arsenals of parked tanks and self-propelled artillery vehicles and trucks and they turn the engine on and drive them around on a regular basis. It’s a lot of work. But if you don’t do that, seals dry out, things start to rust in place, tires go flat, etc, etc, etc.
No way in hell Russia was doing the same to its arsenal.
MisterZ
23946
I thought this was a nice summary:
strategy
23947
Every once in a while, people question the commitment of Europe to the support of Ukraine. Here’s the Norwegian government putting such questions to rest on their part.
Basically, they’re committing politically (across the aisle) to support Ukraine with 15 bn NOK every year for the next 5 years. For comparison, the official numbers for support given to Ukraine since the start of the war amounts to ~8 bn NOK in civilian support and ~5 bn NOK in military support. So this is a major commitment. In addition, they’re committing to a program to help third world countries affected by the war to the tune of 5 bn NOK this year.
It would be nice ifthe EU would commit in a similar fashion so that this question could be closed completely (Of course there is the question of the US; of course, but nothing we can do about that - as Trump made clear in his four years).
KevinC
23948
You folks up north have been kicking ass, as have others (the Baltic nations, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, etc.). That sounds like quite the aid package. Must be nice living in a place with a mostly well-run government!
Fuck Orban, though. Hungary shouldn’t be in the EU or NATO at this point.
One of the challenges NATO faces in the post-Cold War world is dealing with members that sort of fall outside the original social/cultural framework that underlay the political/military focus of the alliance. That was a problem to a small extent during the Cold War, with Turkey, but it has become maybe the central issue today. A country like Hungary with its current leadership does not really fit in with the rest of the alliance; hell, it makes Poland look liberal sometimes. Yet what do you do? Even if NATO had a mechanism for booting members, which it does not seem to have, would you really want to push Hungary back into a close association with Russia, their only other real alternative?
Makes me worried too. Nowadays you can’t get elected in Poland with a pro-Russian agenda, even Euro-scepticism is probably a risky proposition. But a few years down the road when the current blunder is resolved and the current trend of deglobalization (at least some economists talk about it) what stops these isolationist processes? They’re strong even in USA and GB, countries that are basically on top of the world hierarchy and benefiting from it the most. Russia (and maybe China, though they seem to be more honest in their idea of sovereignty as in no one should care if the other country has death camps) will never not have money to fund destructive movements around the world, world leaders can always get a nice pension in a Russian state company even if Russian people are starving.
This sounds like your usual whining about the weakness of democracy which should sound cliche even in 1910, but oh well, can’t help thinking about it. At least this is much better than the world of constant nuclear blackmail I could envision earlier.
KevinC
23951
Maybe. I think it might be preferable than the fox having a friend inside the henhouse.
