A place for aggregated discussions of a possible conflict, it’s implications and effects, news updates and personal accounts if any. If the expected conflict kicks off, I will change the title but the function will stay the same.
US election weighs on Ukraine's frontline soldiers
Well, shit.
As she sweeps up broken glass outside her shop, Inna knows her country’s future is in the hands of Americans voting more than 5,000 miles away.
“We hope that the woman, Kamala Harris, will win and support us,” she says.
A Russian bomb had shattered her shop windows - a common occurrence in the city of Zaporizhzhia. There’s a 10-metre (32ft) wide crater in the middle of the road.
“Of course we are worried about the outcome [of the election],” she adds. “We want to defeat the enemy!”
For Ukraine to have a remote chance of doing that, it needs the help of the US.
It was here in 2023, on this south-eastern part of the front line, where Ukraine launched a counteroffensive it hoped would force out the Russian invaders.
Instead, after little to no progress, Ukraine’s ambitions have switched to survival. Missiles and glide bombs slam into towns and cities daily, and its soldiers weather constant Russian attacks.
While Democratic Vice-President Kamala Harris has suggested military aid would continue if she emerged the victor, her powers could be constrained by a Republican-run Congress. And the pipeline of military support, which so far totals more than $50bn, is looking less likely to be sustained under a second term for Donald Trump.
Whoever becomes the next US president will have a profound impact on Ukraine’s borders and everyone who lives within them.
The futures of Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon... just to name the most obvious cases... will be drastically altered by how things go in our election that is less than a week from now.
However bad Trump winning power again would be bad for us here, a great many people that don't even get a vote would suffer yet worse fates.
I wish this was something more people thought about before deciding not to vote.
The futures of Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon... just to name the most obvious cases... will be drastically altered by how things go in our election that is less than a week from now.
However bad Trump winning power again would be bad for us here, a great many people that don't even get a vote would suffer yet worse fates.
I wish this was something more people thought about before deciding not to vote.
Add Taiwan to that list.
::forehead slap:: Yeah, I shouldn't have forgotten them on a list of the most obvious ones.
If you are the head of whatever Taiwanese office of unthinkable contingencies, you are definitely researching ways to deliver a medium yield nuclear weapon to the Three Gorges Dam.
US is sending $425 million in military assistance to Ukraine
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon announced Friday it was sending an additional $425 million in military assistance to Ukraine as Kyiv prepares to face Russian forces augmented by more than 10,000 North Korean troops.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had said more aid was coming, and soon, during his visit to Kyiv last week. This aid package includes weapons that will be pulled from existing U.S. stockpiles, including air defense interceptors for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, munitions for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and 155 mm artillery, and armored vehicles and anti-tank weapons.
Ukraine’s eastern cities continue to face an onslaught of Russian missile strikes, including one on Kharkiv by a 500-kilogram (1,100-pound) glide bomb. The attack Thursday hit an apartment complex, killing three and injuring scores.
In addition, Ukraine is facing new uncertainty as waves of North Korean soldiers deployed to Russia have arrived near Ukraine’s border and are preparing to join the fight against Ukrainian troops in coming days.
Russia has increasingly used powerful glide bombs to pummel Ukrainian positions along the 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) line of contact and strike cities dozens of kilometers (miles) from the front line. Kharkiv, a city of 1.1 million, is about 30 kilometers (less than 20 miles) from the border.
The aid package announced Friday by the Pentagon brings the total amount of military assistance the U.S. has provided Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022 to $60.4 billion.
They're really just leaning on them with bodies, and they can just wait out the pain longer than Ukraine can.
At this point, a Ukrainian "win" is becoming increasingly remote, but yeah, if Donald wins, Ukraine will lose this war completely. Hell, even if Kamala wins, based on how the House/Senate end up, they're probably still not going to be in a strong position.
I used to think they could win. It's pretty clear now that the goal is survive.
Americans helping Ukraine’s war efforts say the US hasn’t done enough
KHARKIV, Ukraine (AP) — Each time U.S. philanthropist Amed Khan returns to Ukraine, he begins by offering condolences for those killed in the war since his last trip. Over the past two and a half years, his group has provided over $50 million in aid to civilians and soldiers fighting to survive Russia’s invasion.
Some of those are already dead.
For Khan, a U.S. government official turned philanthropist, those he supports are like family. He travels to meet them on the front lines and in war-torn cities. His closeness to those enduring the war also exposes him to the pain and loss they experience first-hand.
“When you’re involved with people directly, you feel the pain of war,” he says, moments after meeting a father who survived a bombing that killed his son.
Khan and many other Americans across the U.S. political spectrum who support Ukraine’s war effort, either through financial aid or voluntary combat, say the U.S. — Ukraine’s main ally — hasn’t done enough to help Ukraine defeat Russia. They doubt Tuesday’s U.S. elections will change that.
“Since the war began, the United States did manage to rally the allies to support Ukraine, but not in the way it should,” said Khan, who worked on the re-election campaign for then-President Bill Clinton in 1996.
“So my belief is that their strategy is not for Ukraine to necessarily win and for Russia to lose.”
He spoke to The Associated Press over the weekend in the eastern Kharkiv region, one of several stops on his planned route — all located along the front line.
The U.S. has provided over $59.5 billion in military aid since Russia invaded in 2022, yet many say Kyiv’s potential has often been stymied by American politics. Ukrainian officials say that promised weapons frequently arrive late.
Zelensky’s requests for an invitation to join NATO and permission to use Western-donated weapons to strike deeper into Russia have been met with caution by the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden over fears of escalation with a nuclear-armed Russia.
Biden’s vice president, the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, is likely to pursue a similar policy, while former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has repeatedly taken issue with U.S. aid to Ukraine and might seek to further limit military support, though he also has cited an undetailed plan to end the war quickly.
Meanwhile, Russia has succeeded in strengthening its alliances with Iran and North Korea, the latter reportedly sending troops to aid Russia’s fight.
“If the war escalates, then we’re in it … and we’re not even providing Ukraine enough to win,” another U.S. philanthropist, Howard G. Buffett, said during a recent visit to Ukraine, his 16th since the outbreak of the war. “And we’ve never had a strategy on how we’re going to defeat Russia,” Buffett said.
Buffett, a Republican and son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, focuses on humanitarian needs like infrastructure, agriculture, and demining, and his foundation has contributed about $800 million to Ukraine.
“If Ukraine is not successful, the rest of the democratic world is going to pay a high price,” Buffett told AP. “And the fact that we don’t all collectively understand that, see that, and act on it is going to be the biggest mistake of what will ever occur in my lifetime.”
Compelled by this same belief, one American volunteer flew to Poland in August to enlist in Ukraine’s international legion, after ruminating over the choice for about a year.
“I feel like the decision was harder than it should have been,” says the 35-year-old fighter, who asked to be identified by the call sign Smoky in keeping with Ukrainian military protocol. A former accountant with no military experience, he now serves in one of Ukraine’s units in eastern Kharkiv region.
Smoky, a father of two young daughters, says watching the impact of Russia’s invasion on Ukrainian families “weighed heavily” on him.
While the U.S. election campaign rages back home, Smoky says he’s glad to be “away from all that drama.” Instead he is focused on preparing for his first mission as an infantryman.
“We’re tying Ukraine’s hands with restrictions on using specific weapons,” he argues. “It feels like we’re just prolonging the war.”
Another 25-year-old volunteer fighter from Texas, with the call sign Dima, began a three-month commitment to fight in Ukraine in 2022, and that has since turned into a commitment of years.
A former Marine, he has seen some of the war’s fiercest battles, including the longest one for Bakhmut, after which he took his only break. When he flew back to meet his family and friends at home, nobody could relate to his experiences.
On top, “the U.S. is dealing with so many problems of our own right now,” he said.
“So they’re feeling like less inclined now to send more of our tax money here, which I understand,” he said. “But as an individual that’s been here since the beginning of the war, I see it is definitely needed.”
Khan, who now manages about 300 ongoing projects in Ukraine, urged his fellow U.S. citizens to focus on the lives shattered by the conflict in Ukraine, stressing that the war’s outcome could significantly affect global security.
Khan said he hopes the winner of the U.S. presidential election will “really, really spend more time understanding what’s happening here. I would urge whoever wins to do that and then try and seek a new way forward to end this war.”
In my town a house by the water flies a huge Trump flag and a huge Ukrainian flag.
I don't get it.
I mean, we interviewed a pro-Trump migrant today. People's brains are capable of some amazing shit.
So they’re feeling like less inclined now to send more of our tax money here, which I understand
We absolutely have to do a better job of educating Americans about how taxes AND this military aid work. This is money that has ALREADY BEEN SPENT to buy things, mostly from American contract companies, and is sitting around gathering dust. It actually saves money to get rid of it, because we're not spending resources to store and maintain this stuff. It has been years of this repeated bullshit and it is so annoying.
A tiny bit of levity:
A usually reliable source tells me that the North Korean soldiers who have deployed to Russia have never had unfettered access to the internet before. As a result, they are gorging on pornography.
Imagine if a sizable number of them desert.
You're on a slave contract to the Russians. Take whatever dopamine you can, when you can, because your life could be over in a hot second.
Zelenskyy just congratulated Trump on X for being elected as US president again. That’s basically like thanking one’s hangman.
And that’s the end of NATO. The world is a much more dangerous place this morning
Zelenskyy just congratulated Trump on X for being elected as US president again. That’s basically like thanking one’s hangman.
All the presidents are doing it. Might as well try to start on the right foot.
If Poland and Estonia don't have reliable ways of delivering 500kt or more to Moscow and Sochi at the moment, they better start working on it.
Looks like your relative will be coming home soon, I guess...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, right now, Warsaw and Kyiv are quietly discussing the possibility of a joint nuclear weapons project.
And that’s the end of NATO.
You can probably write off the western Pacific, too.
Paleocon wrote:And that’s the end of NATO.
You can probably write off the western Pacific, too.
Yup. If Taiwan doesn't yet have a reliable way of delivering 500+kt to a certain large public works project in Yichang China, you better believe they are jumpstarting a project to make it happen.
I am curious about China. China seems to have a hell of a lot more pushback than certainly Russia. Russia is favored while China is the enemy.
Not that either scenario is less fraught with world ending conflict.
Outside of China gobbling up Taiwan, I do feel like we can mark this date as when China becomes the lone super power. Even if we eventually course correct, who will trust us anymore?
This also might mark the gutting of presidential power. I can see many major departments paying lip service to the cheetoh in chief and then going their own way.
No chance for CHN to be superpower.
Economy too fragile. Not enough young people. Huge % of GDP going to domestic control. Energy importer. Natural resources for shit. Enemies too close. No ability to build real partnerships.
They are f*cked when Trump pulls out. (Uh...)
If you want to call it "success", actually, foreign policy under Biden was in fact effective in managing PRC's rise. Today's PRC is a husk of itself for the previous 25 years. It is probably one of the biggest achievements of his term but nobody really speaks of how it delayed (perhaps permanently) derailed PRC hegemony plans.
But with so many young people there having no economic prospects and the US having no cogent foreign policy AND being dragged into the Middle East by Israel for the next 4 years, it might embolden Xi to use the military apparatus he has been modernising for the past decade.
The downside was the global inflation which exploded with less cheap goods from PRC, the global food security crisis with UKR-RUS war (a function of less gas for fertiliser production AND less bread basket goods from UKR itself), an energy crisis borne from the UKR-RUS war, disrupted shipping in the Red Sea due to the Israeli-centric conflict.
Can you see the common theme? When humans blow things up and deliberately disrupt global supply chains that were effective in creating so much prosperity for many (even if much of it ended up concentrated in the hands of so few), prices go up.
I just want to point out that Poland, with or without Ukraine, has no reason to invest in a nuke program. They are too close to Russia and it's proxies. The infrastructure takes many years to set up, even decades. It's incredibly costly and presents huge security risks. They'd need to bring in all sorts of highly restricted materials and people with the right skills, and then deal with Russian counter-action (most likely covert) in the same way that Iran has. And Poland is a NATO member, so not only are they bound by agreements not to do this, but they are covered by NATO nukes.
Further, firing off a nuke in Ukraine will trigger the same response as firing off one in Russia, because the occupied areas are considered "Russian territory" in the weird Russian calculus of escalation. (Honestly, Ukraine needs nuclear deterrence against conventional forces *now*, not in 25 years...).
Nothing about that idea makes sense.
Germany's government has fallen. New elections by spring.
The silver lining is that Friedrich Merz, at the head of the opposition CDU (conservative party, which leading by a mile in the polls), is almost guaranteed to support Ukraine more readily (militarily) than the Olaf Scholz at the head of the SPD.
I just want to point out that Poland, with or without Ukraine, has no reason to invest in a nuke program. They are too close to Russia and it's proxies. The infrastructure takes many years to set up, even decades. It's incredibly costly and presents huge security risks. They'd need to bring in all sorts of highly restricted materials and people with the right skills, and then deal with Russian counter-action (most likely covert) in the same way that Iran has. And Poland is a NATO member, so not only are they bound by agreements not to do this, but they are covered by NATO nukes.
Further, firing off a nuke in Ukraine will trigger the same response as firing off one in Russia, because the occupied areas are considered "Russian territory" in the weird Russian calculus of escalation. (Honestly, Ukraine needs nuclear deterrence against conventional forces *now*, not in 25 years...).
Nothing about that idea makes sense.
You say that but Israel has a nuclear program despite being too close to, well, everyone. If North Korea could get access to restricted materials, it would surprise me if Poland would have much difficulty obtaining them. This would be particularly true if the United States were to suddenly decide it no longer wanted to take a leadership position in the prevention of nuclear proliferation. America is, in all too many ways, the keystone in this kind of international cooperation. And seeing as NATO is effectively a dead alliance now and there exists a very real possibility that they will need to go it alone, they have every incentive to and very few meaningful disincentives against starting a program of their own. They can't count on the Germans or the French. And the Americans have switched sides.
I mean, if Trump giving out nukes was covered under official acts...
NATO isn't dead... yet. Please calm down.
I'd love to see Biden move US troops into Ukraine before he is out of office and dare the Russians to move into their fields of fire. But something like that takes months to set up and he only has 2.
Pages