Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

[Ego]

America literally went from spending 10+ years to talk the Koreans down from each others throats to gassing out and rolling over in less than 100 days. Truly an empire of all time.

 

[Fuck It We'll Do It Live]

Mothballed US F-16 Fighters Dispatched to Ukraine

The condition of the F-16s is unclear, but it is likely they will be used to provide spare parts to keep Ukraine’s fleet of donated aircraft serviceable or to act as ground decoys to confuse ongoing Russian airfield assaults.

Ammunition seen detonating after a Ukrainian drone strike in Saki, Crimea, where a Russian air base is located:

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

late and gay like the US's entry into those wars

Late in only sending Americans to the eurofaggot meat grinder, as America had been helping in rearm and feed the "Allies." Especially after the Dunkirk shitshow with the weapons and gear that was supposed to arm the U.S. Army. Which instead was shipped off to rearm England after the BEF left almost everything and the French behind in their escape.

 

[otherdispair]

Late in only sending Americans to the eurofaggot meat grinder, as America had been helping in rearm and feed the "Allies." Especially after the Dunkirk shitshow with the weapons and gear that was supposed to arm the U.S. Army. Which instead was shipped off to rearm England after the BEF left almost everything and the French behind in their escape.

so late and gay with extra steps

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

so late and gay with extra steps

America is not your fucking colony faggot.
Your attitude and opinion along with the rest of britfags is what lead to American WWII veterans to be right on they had fought on the wrong side. Since FDR had America allying up with the greater of two evils that is communist USSR.

 

[Gog & Magog]

764: slavic edition
NewLinesMag: Russia’s New Weapon: Child ‘Suicide Bombers’ Moscow’s intelligence services are recruiting civilians, including the young and vulnerable, to carry remotely detonated explosives | Archive
Jokes aside, I am aware Ukraine has done similar things in regard to recruiting, duping, and maybe blackmailing Russian citizens into doing their bidding, but sending literal children on suicide bombing runs is a new one I think.

 

[otherdispair]

America is not your fucking colony faggot.

And where did I say that?
I'm just pointing out that they where late and gay to both world wars.
Why are you getting so antsy over a historical fact?

but sending literal children on suicide bombing runs is a new one I think

well they are the most muslim country in Europe

 

[teriyakiburns]

More officials in the US are stating the US is done trying for a peace deal or won’t try mediating the process any longer.

Come on you orange faggot, go full retard and give Ukraine a nuke.

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

And where did I say that?

With the "late and gay" line and attitude.

I'm just pointing out that they where late and gay to both world wars.
Why are you getting so antsy over a historical fact?

WWI wasn't America's war beyond selling shit to the euros so they can continue to kill each other. England had to spend years propagandazing, breaking naval and espionage laws to get Wilson to have the United States enter the war.

 

[SBG]

Did anyone honestly expect a different result?

I would have figured they'd try the secondary tariffs first, spend a week letting that sink in, then if there still was little to no progress they'd slowly phase out their role as 'mediators'.

You still have guys like Graham pushing for those sanctions Trump threatened and never carried through with.

Also part of what they'd argued with the minerals deal was also that they'd use it as a major bargaining chip to pressure Russia. So they pretty much waited a day after the deal was signed to give up on it even mattering to them in the negotiations the way they'd been arguing.

It's like they're just flat out admitting they were lying about what they'd want in order to help Ukraine in the negotiations and lied about how hard they'd go at Russia if they wanted to continue the conflict. Which does happen in foreign policy, but you generally get more diplomatic language used to help protect the fantasy that the US would stand by its allies against our foes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5276424-graham-pushes-plan-to-sanction-russia-tariff-its-oil-customers/

Graham pushes plan to sanction Russia, tariff its oil customers​

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is pushing ahead with his plan to impose new sanctions on Russia and tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil, gas and uranium, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In an interview with the Journal, Graham said support for his bill crossed the 60-cosponsor threshold Wednesday, meaning it has enough votes. He told the outlet that by the end of the week, he would have at least 67 co-sponsors.


The current list of co-sponsors is an even bipartisan split.

Earlier this week, Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) called for her fellow Democratic senators to support the secondary sanctions on Russian goods as President Vladimir Putin “drags his feet” about ending the war with Ukraine.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and other top Republicans have also signed on to support the bill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) became a co-sponsor on Wednesday, the Journal reported.


Graham told the outlet that he hopes President Trump can secure a deal between Russia and Ukraine to end the war, saying, “We can’t let this go on forever.”

The South Carolina Republican said if a senator co-sponsors the bill, they are making a clear statement that “they see Russia as the greatest offender here.”

On Wednesday, the U.S. and Ukraine signed the long-awaited minerals deal, securing longer-term U.S. economic investment in the country by mining Ukraine’s raw earth minerals.


The agreement comes just days after Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and shared that he believes Putin could be stringing him along.

Trump has expressed increased annoyance with Putin as the ceasefire deal drags on and Russia continues to launch deadly strikes on Ukraine.

“It’s clear to me—and I think it’s becoming clear to President Trump—that the Russians are playing games,” Graham told the outlet.


In a Saturday post on X, Graham said he appreciated Trump’s efforts to end the war, but highlighted his bill as a way to push Russia toward a deal.

“The Senate stands ready to move in this direction and will do so overwhelmingly if Russia does not embrace an honorable, just and enduring peace,” Graham said.

If Russia refuses to agree to a peace deal or violates an agreement or later invades Ukraine, the bill proposes primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and other countries that support Russia.


It imposes a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from any country that purchases oil, gas, uranium and other goods from Russia.

Graham expressed confidence to the Journal about the bill’s support in the Senate in recent weeks.

“Attacking civilian populations, the arrogance that Russia has, that Putin has, it is taking a toll in the Senate,” he said.


The Hill has reached out to Graham’s office for more information.

Saw others talking about similar issues with Trump's threats on Iran of doing secondary tariffs on them. Which is supposedly already law that you basically choose whether you want to do business with Iran or the US. So he'd effectively be threatening to just do what's already US policy.

https://x.com/RichardMNephew/status/1918311851672154441

 

[otherdispair]

With the "late and gay" line and attitude.

WWI wasn't America's war beyond selling shit to the euros so they can continue to kill each other. England had to spend years propagandazing, breaking naval and espionage laws to get Wilson to have the United States enter the war.

So pointing out that the US joined those wars in the 3rd and second year of those wars means it's a colony?
It wasn't Americas war. But joining in the second half and then claiming you won it (all on your own) is late and gay.
I'm not claiming that the Europeans have a right to US intervention or the US had a duty to do so. Just that they where late and gay to the fight they base their modern national myth on.
Just as the russians where late and gay to the one they base their national myth on.

 

[Ghostse]

So pointing out that the US joined those wars in the 3rd and second year of those wars means it's a colony?
It wasn't Americas war. But joining in the second half and then claiming you won it (all on your own) is late and gay.
I'm not claiming that the Europeans have a right to US intervention or the US had a duty to do so. Just that they where late and gay to the fight they base their modern national myth on.
Just as the russians where late and gay to the one they base their national myth on.

How much of France was liberated before the US showed up to finish a fight eurofags started? Please remind me.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Oh fuck off with all of this dick waving.

 

[SneedingNFeeding]

Xitter

That was quick. I wonder how much of a ramp up will the new weapons packages be this year.

 

[SBG]

State department spokesman Tammy Bruce went on the Guy Benson show to clarify this story that they were "stepping back from its role in the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and Russia's war against Ukraine".

So she went on "clarifying" they got a mineral deal and that "this notion story that's going around that we're pulling back is not true", but that it's based in a statement that the secretary and she's mirrored in her briefing that the parties have to come to a solution to this issue.

And continued on to confirm that they're going to take their step back as mediator as people were reporting because the story about them doing that is completely true.

Also was on Fox News repeating the same talking points.

In tangentially related news, the chairman of the armed services committee is making statements of how they're annoyed with Trump's advisers for not wanting to increase defense spending as they want.



There's been talk of Trump's White House wanting to give up command of NATO, do away with bases in places like Japan, and so on, which has been annoying many of the defense hawks in congress. Somewhat significant since so many in congress support the notion of the US helping in these different regions to counter countries like China or Russia, and they've been bristling at the current White House's actions to neuter the US militarily.

(Story from March 18th if anyone interested)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-considers-giving-nato-command-exclusively-american-eisenho-rcna196503

Trump admin considers giving up NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower​

For nearly 75 years, it has been a distinctly American responsibility to have a four-star U.S. general oversee all NATO military operations in Europe — a command that began with then-World War II hero and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower.

But the Trump administration, according to two defense officials familiar with the planning and a Pentagon briefing reviewed by NBC News, is considering changing that.


The Pentagon is undertaking a significant restructuring of the U.S. military’s combatant commands and headquarters. And one of the plans under consideration, the two defense officials said, would involve the U.S. giving up the role of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe — known within military parlance as the SACEUR. The general now in this role, who also serves as the head of U.S. European Command, has been the primary commander overseeing support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. It is not clear how long such a reorganization could take, and it could by modified by the time it is complete. Congress could also weigh in, using the power of the purse should members oppose any aspect of the initiative.

Giving up SACEUR would, if nothing else, be a major symbolic shift in the balance of power in NATO, the alliance that has defined European security and peace since World War II.

“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, who served as SACEUR and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013, said in an email.

“It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back," he wrote. "We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”

Since Eisenhower inaugurated the position, it has been held by some of the country’s most prominent military leaders. In addition to Stavridis, they include Alexander Haig, who was also chief of staff to two presidents and secretary of state for a third; John Shalikashvili, who became chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Wesley Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

The proposed restructuring comes as the Trump administration has cut spending and staff across the federal government. And President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have made clear that the new administration wants European partners to take more responsibility for Europe’s defense. If the U.S. does give up SACEUR, the other NATO nations would likely have to choose among themselves which country would put forward the commander.

Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO members for not meeting a goal the alliance has set for the percentage of GDP each country should spend on defense. As NBC News previously reported, he is also considering a major policy shift under which the U.S. might not defend a fellow NATO member if it is attacked — a core tenet of the alliance — if the country doesn’t meet the defense spending threshold.

The timeline for the SACEUR move, if it does happen, is as yet undetermined. Army Gen. Chris Cavoli, the current SACEUR, is on a three-year tour due to end this summer.

Five of the military’s 11 combatant commands could be consolidated under the plan being discussed, the two defense officials familiar with the planning said.

The Defense Department did not reply to a request for comment.

The massive restructuring plan under consideration could also include two potential changes previously reported by NBC News: the consolidation of U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command into one command based in Stuttgart, Germany, as well as the shuttering of U.S. Southern Command headquarters in Florida in order to combine it with U.S. Northern Command.


Combining the commands would allow the military to save money by reducing staff with overlapping responsibilities, according to officials familiar with the planning. If all of the changes being considered are implemented, up to $270 million could be saved in the first year, according to a Pentagon briefing reviewed by NBC News. That savings would amount to roughly 0.03% of the Defense Department’s $850 billion annual budget.

A potential reorganization of this nature, being considered two months into the administration, appears to be motivated by cost-cutting, not a comprehensive new military strategy, said Ben Hodges, a retired Army three-star general who last served as the Army’s senior commander in Europe.

The contemplated moves in Europe may reduce American influence there, as the U.S. could lose some access to key naval and air bases in Italy, Germany, Poland and Spain — bases that benefit the U.S. by putting them closer to potential missions and giving them more influence with and access to regional military officials, not only its allies, Hodges said.

“When you start reducing capabilities of headquarters that do planning and intelligence — that only hurts us,” Hodges told NBC News. “What strategic analysis led them to want to do this? This has happened so early that this clearly smells like a cost-cutting thing than a strategic analysis.”


Combining the commands in Europe and Africa could be problematic because the regions are too massive and present myriad issues, Stavridis said in an email. They had been combined until Africa Command was created in 2007 under President George W. Bush for those reasons.

“Combining US European command and US Africa command into a single unit, creates a mega combatant command that really is too large for any single person to manage realistically,” he wrote. “Too many countries, too many people, too many disparate issues. When they were combined, before I was US European Command, there were two four-stars assigned to the command because of this. We are better off having these two commands separated and having high-quality individual four-star officers focused on leading each of them individually.”

But Stavridis, who is also the former commander of Southern Command, added that he believes combining Southern Command and Northern Command “makes a great deal of sense.”

“The span of control is smaller and the efficiencies gained are greater,” he said.

If the Pentagon does decide to combine AFRICOM and EUCOM into one command, it will be part of the justification for eliminating the SACEUR role, the two defense officials said, because overseeing an area that large is already a big enough job for one person without that person also overseeing NATO military operations.

Closing geographic commands introduces political risk, as some nations could feel the U.S. has deprioritized them. It also leaves combatant commanders with large geographic areas of responsibility that could make them more vulnerable, according to the Pentagon briefing that NBC News reviewed.

The cost-saving plans also include potentially moving hundreds of Pentagon-based Joint Staff employees to a military installation in Suffolk, Virginia. The Joint Staff is currently made up of eight directorates, or divisions, each with a different focus area.

J7, a Joint Staff Directorate that oversees Joint Force Development, training and education, could be eliminated entirely. While the military services — the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, the Space Force and the Coast Guard — are each responsible for their own training, that directorate is in charge of bringing the services together to train so they will be ready to integrate in a combat situation.

Roughly 375 civilians could be fired, primarily those working in plans, cyber and joint force development, according to the Pentagon briefing. The 350 military personnel working in J-7 would be reassigned.

Roughly half of the staff from five other directorates — manpower and personnel (J1), logistics (J4), strategy, plans and policy (J5), cyber (J6), and force structure, resources and assessment (J — would then move from the Pentagon to Suffolk.

The plan acknowledges some potential costs for moving people to a new location but assesses overall long-term savings of about $470 million over the next five years.

U.S. Space Command could also see its missile defense component command eliminated in the restructuring.

The Defense Department briefing argues that the missile defense mission is already fulfilled by the services and other combatant commands, and as a result can be eliminated without affecting operations. But the closures will likely involve a loss of expertise, the briefing warns.

Separate from the $270 million in cost-cutting, the U.S. is also likely to halt a planned expansion of U.S. Forces Japan, which would save about $1.18 billion.

The briefing reviewed by NBC News acknowledges that there is political risk with Japan in reversing that expansion and that it could result in reduced command and control west of the international dateline.

 

[Fuck It We'll Do It Live]

View attachment 7309671
Xitter

That was quick. I wonder how much of a ramp up will the new weapons packages be this year.

Excellent news; from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency official website:

Ukraine – F-16 Training and Sustainment > Defense Security Cooperation Agency > Congressional Notification Archive | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

 

[Least Concern]

More officials in the US are stating the US is done trying for a peace deal or won’t try mediating the process any longer.

This can be viewed pretty negatively, but if you wanted a positive spin to put on it, it's just the realization of the fact that Russia's and Ukraine's goals are so far apart (even in behind-the-scenes mediation) that there wasn't much point in holding mediation meetings anymore, so why waste resources trying?

Come to think of it, maybe "positive" isn't the right word.

 

[Ghostse]

View attachment 7309671
Xitter

That was quick. I wonder how much of a ramp up will the new weapons packages be this year.

The downside to Trump is he'll move fast and can pivot on a dime.
The upside to Trump is he'll move fast and can pivot on a dime.

This is a good sign, but its hardly ground breaking. Its not additional airframes*, its sustainment for what Ukraine already has.

*It might possibly include (effectively) replacement of the two F-16s that have been lost.

So she went on "clarifying" they got a mineral deal and that "this notion story that's going around that we're pulling back is not true", but that it's based in a statement that the secretary and she's mirrored in her briefing that the parties have to come to a solution to this issue.

The US is no longer doing a full-court press to get the two sides to sit down, but isn't withdrawing from interests in the conflict, but the US position is still they should stop killing each other.

C'mon son, I expected better of you. But maybe I shouldn't.

if you wanted a positive spin to put on it, it's just the realization of the fact that Russia's and Ukraine's goals are so far apart (even in behind-the-scenes mediation) that there wasn't much point in holding mediation meetings anymore, so why waste resources trying?

This. Neither side is ready to come to a peace the other side will find acceptable. Groundhog has seen his shadow, two more weeks of war (until Russia takes Kiev).

Saw others talking about similar issues with Trump's threats on Iran of doing secondary tariffs on them. Which is supposedly already law that you basically choose whether you want to do business with Iran or the US. So he'd effectively be threatening to just do what's already US policy.

Tl;dr: There are carve outs that allow limited, monitored transactions with Iran. And also allow, effectively, banks to maintain a separate, walled entity that only deals solely with Iran. There is more room for sanctions to get worse and for more entities to have to even further cut ties with Iran than they already have or get kicked off the global finance network. The US could say "walled off units that only touch Iran are no longer sufficient. And doing business with a bank that does business with Iran, even via a firewalled unit, is no longer good enough to keep you off the naughty list"

Come on you orange faggot, go full retard and give Ukraine a nuke.

Hell I doubt he need to gives them a nuke, just not toss them to the wolves when they reveal the ones they already have.

 

[SBG]

The US is no longer doing a full-court press to get the two sides to sit down, but isn't withdrawing from interests in the conflict, but the US position is still they should stop killing each other.

C'mon son, I expected better of you. But maybe I shouldn't.

One of those goofy situations where it might've been nicer if they didn't say much anything at all. Just not schedule more Russia or Ukraine meetings/calls and let things ride out without them rather than saying they're pulling themselves from talks.

 

[No. 7 cat]

The US aid just announced is hardly transformative in the sense of what it is, a few F-16 airframes and some small projects, but this does end the idea that the US will just leave Ukraine in lurch. Perhaps it might bounce Putin into making a reasonable offer regarding the pause peace that was under consideration, but realistically given that militarily unfit men are sent on every sort of jalopy to the front, and over 47 injured in drone attacks in Kharkiv (original link), this war is continuing for now.