Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Kaleredar]

If I had to guess, they are probably slow walking it until after the election because they know if they go too hard on it now, the Republicans will absolutely do everything in their power to torpedo any solid attempt at improving the situation. I assume that once the election is over and Kamala is behind the desk we'll see a much heavier hand come out as the risk of effective Republican shennanigans will be significantly lower.

Frankly that's more of a reason to allow it now. Let Ukraine do the damage they can and let the precedent for them using weapons further into Russia establish itself, both within the US and among other nations currently supplying aid to Ukraine.

Putin will make up whatever red line to bitch and moan about; that's all he ever does. If Trump is president again then he'll give whatever inane excuse about Putin's red lines to reduce or stop aid to Ukraine regardless of any action Ukraine takes between now and then. But it will be much more difficult for Trump to reign in weapons reach already being used (rather than just saying it can't ever happen,) and other countries will have zero reason to follow suit.

[PhaelixWW]

If I had to guess, they are probably slow walking it until after the election because they know if they go too hard on it now, the Republicans will absolutely do everything in their power to torpedo any solid attempt at improving the situation. I assume that once the election is over and Kamala is behind the desk we'll see a much heavier hand come out as the risk of effective Republican shennanigans will be significantly lower.

You'll notice that pretty much every other country has given the okay to use their military aid in Russia over the last couple of weeks, and since most of those countries usually follow the lead of the US, I'm guessing that the US specifically told them to go ahead. They're laying the groundwork so that it's less of a conspicuous change when they finally authorize the use of those weapons after the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly that's more of a reason to allow it now. Let Ukraine do the damage they can and let the precedent for them using weapons further into Russia establish itself, both within the US and among other nations currently supplying aid to Ukraine.

Nah. If Trump wins the election, it'll be worse for Ukraine than the loss of a few extra months of long-range weapons' use. It's better all around if the US doesn't endanger an election win for Harris with a possible escalation right now.

Even if Harris loses anyway, Biden can still make that authorization on November 6th and they'd have over two months to "establish the precedent" before the change of administration in late January.

[Kaleredar]

Nah. If Trump wins the election, it'll be worse for Ukraine than the loss of a few extra months of long-range weapons' use. It's better all around if the US doesn't endanger an election win for Harris with a possible escalation right now.

I don't get the sense that support for Ukraine is a particularly divisive issue among the general population, in that said support for Ukraine seems to be pretty high across the board.

All Trump can really whine about is "sending money to Ukraine" and "risk of escalation," both things he can't articulate into any actual words given he's Trump and both things that leave Trump with the unfortunate task of... trying to defend Russia. Something that absolutely will not sell to the American public at large.

[alach]

What they said recently was, it wasnt about worry of escalation, it was about availability and practicality.
They figure the cost of a million of a missile could be better spent elsewhere. The examples they used were; shorter ranged attacks in Crimea, helping the Ukranians develop their own long range weapons, and something else I forget. Also they said most the airfields the russians are launching the glide bombs from are hundreds and hundreds of miles away, well outside the striking distance of long range ATACMS.
Seems to make sense to me.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't get the sense that support for Ukraine is a particularly divisive issue among the general population, in that said support for Ukraine seems to be pretty high across the board.

There's a difference between support for aid in general and support for long-range strikes into Russian territory. Before the election, the GoP could try to stoke the fears of escalation and paint themselves as the party of responsible foreign policy. Even if that argument only sways a small amount of voters, it can have an impact on the election.

All Trump can really whine about is "sending money to Ukraine" and "risk of escalation," both things he can't articulate into any actual words given he's Trump and both things that leave Trump with the unfortunate task of... trying to defend Russia. Something that absolutely will not sell to the American public at large.

On the contrary. Trump could easily just refuse to sign any appropriations bill to send new aid to Ukraine. What would he care about popular opinion at that point, at the beginning of a second term?

[Kaleredar]

There's a difference between support for aid in general and support for long-range strikes into Russian territory. Before the election, the GoP could try to stoke the fears of escalation and paint themselves as the party of responsible foreign policy. Even if that argument only sways a small amount of voters, it can have an impact on the election.

I don't think the average American voter knows much minutia about what's going on in Ukraine beyond "Ukraine = good, Russia = bad." Hell, if you were to tell them "Biden is increasing the range of US weapons usage for Ukrainian strikes into Russia" they're less likely to have an opinion about what that means geopolitically and more likely to say something along the lines of "we weren't doing that already?"

On the contrary. Trump could easily just refuse to sign any appropriations bill to send new aid to Ukraine. What would he care about popular opinion at that point, at the beginning of a second term?

I meant as his "pushback" to the Biden administration increasing aid to Ukraine in the lead up to the election.

[PhaelixWW]

I don't think the average American voter...

You're ignoring the part where I said:

Even if that argument only sways a small amount of voters, it can have an impact on the election.

Hell, if you were to tell them "Biden is increasing the range of US weapons usage for Ukrainian strikes into Russia" they're less likely to have an opinion about what that means geopolitically and more likely to say something along the lines of "we weren't doing that already?"

Except that it won't just be Biden and the Democrats framing the narrative. There's going to be endless coverage of GoP "talking points" between now and the election. They'll be able to float any alternate narrative they want, and as long as it's not an outright lie, it'll have a potential impact on the borderline voters.

At least if it's an outright lie, it can be refuted simply. But the more you have to explain that their take is not entirely accurate and the more you have to justify the policy against open fearmongering, the harder it's going to be to sway those voters to your side.

I meant as his "pushback" to the Biden administration increasing aid to Ukraine in the lead up to the election.

He has a whole cadre of water-carriers working to help him get elected, though. He doesn't have to be able to articulate it well at rallies to stoke the flames that his minions create. And as long as he doesn't actually agree to another debate, he won't have to cover it himself in any nationally-televised way.

[alach]

More on the misinformation campaign and spying stuff;
US warns RT is directly involved in Russian intelligence operations

The U.S. State Department issued a press release on Sept. 13 saying that the Russian state-run media outlet RT is not just involved in spreading propaganda and misinformation, but is actively working with Russian intelligence to target countries across the world.

"We now know that RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities," the statement read.

"(RT) is also engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America."

The warning follows similar statements in recent weeks that Russia is planning information campaigns to sow division in U.S. society and undermine support for Ukraine in swing states during the upcoming presidential race. A U.S. official told Reuters that RT is attempting to push U.S. viewers toward voting for Donald Trump in the presidential election through a network of Western media personalities.

Its another reminder for folks to always check their sources carefully, but if an american presidential candidate cant even bother, whats the use.

[PhaelixWW]

Ukraine kicked off a new incursion into Russia a few days ago, a bit west of their original incursion. They likely mean to encircle some of the Russian troops engaging them on the western flank of the original incursion site.

[Benggaul]

Ukraine kicked off a new incursion into Russia a few days ago, a bit west of their original incursion. They likely mean to encircle some of the Russian troops engaging them on the western flank of the original incursion site.

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

[Sunseeker]

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

Among the military powers or distant foreign nations? Probably not. But theyre still dangerous for the neighbors.

[Iphie]

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

Look they're clearly not as dangerous as they like to appear, but they still have nukes of unknown state of usability, taking them not seriously is being a bit overconfident. As a resident of Finland I will NEVER underestimate them and I cannot imagine the Baltics or Poland will either.

[Kralljin]

Man, regardless of how this ultimately turns out I doubt anyone will be taking Russia's "military might" seriously anytime in the next several decades at a minimum.

Eh, let's not forget that Ukraine is still heavily reliant on Western Support, so if you're a bordering Nation that cannot take on Russia without outside Support, it might be an ugly affair in case the West let's Russia do its thing.

[Edge-]

Eh, let's not forget that Ukraine is still heavily reliant on Western Support, so if you're a bordering Nation that cannot take on Russia without outside Support, it might be an ugly affair in case the West let's Russia do its thing.

Of course they are - they're a tiny country that was formally reliant on Russia. They're not going to have the domestic arms and technological capabilities of a major military. And they're fighting with western support, but controlled western support and far from the full might of western powers. Which still makes their defense of their nation for two years and counting against a former world power impressive.

[Kralljin]

Of course they are - they're a tiny country that was formally reliant on Russia. They're not going to have the domestic arms and technological capabilities of a major military. And they're fighting with western support, but controlled western support and far from the full might of western powers. Which still makes their defense of their nation for two years and counting against a former world power impressive.

I don't disagree but i'd still be cautious as a neighbor state to not take "Russia's military Might" seriously anymore.
Point of fact, if you're relying on Western support, you're also at the mercy of its political whims and that this stuff gets to you in the first place.

And that also does not address that this is war has yet to be decided.

[Edge-]

I don't disagree but i'd still be cautious as a neighbor state to not take "Russia's military Might" seriously anymore.

Sure, there's no point in antagonizing but at the same time it's become clear that Russia's strongest military power is having bodies to throw into the meat grinder, really. They're still a very real threat to their neighbors who don't have, or aren't confident they could secure, western support (though supporting two wars would be tough for western powers, and more so for Russia), but not quite the threat they were viewed as a few years back.

Point of fact, if you're relying on Western support, you're also at the mercy of its political whims and that this stuff gets to you in the first place.

Sorta? I mean, once it ends the aid dries up and all that, but what can western nations force Ukraine to do? What would they want to force Ukraine to do? Ukraine has already expressed clearly an interest to be a part of western treaties and alliances already.

[Kralljin]

but not quite the threat they were viewed as a few years back.

Of course but the point of reference are neighbors of Russia, not what constitutes as a global, military power.

Sorta? I mean, once it ends the aid dries up and all that, but what can western nations force Ukraine to do? What would they want to force Ukraine to do? Ukraine has already expressed clearly an interest to be a part of western treaties and alliances already.

It has little to do with Ukraine because Ukraine is already in a war with Russia, but as a neighboring nation i would not put all my eggs into the "The west will help us out" basket.

This argument has little to do with Ukraine itself but more that not every nation surrounding Russia is a military powerhouse.

[Edge-]

This argument has little to do with Ukraine itself but more that not every nation surrounding Russia is a military powerhouse.

Sure, but it also speaks to the ongoing trend of Russia's former satellite nations realizing that western alliances and agreements seem to be more in their interests than a close relation ship with Russia.

I'm unsure how many other nations this would apply to, but I imagine if they invaded another neighbor that was leaning towards western powers that we'd see western support for that country as well. Very likely much reduced from what Ukraine has received of course, but well...Russia's capabilities would be reduced as well given their losses in Ukraine so far, too.

[Benggaul]

Eh, let's not forget that Ukraine is still heavily reliant on Western Support, so if you're a bordering Nation that cannot take on Russia without outside Support, it might be an ugly affair in case the West let's Russia do its thing.

Reliant on very restrained Western support which entails primarily equipment that has been outdated and overshadowed by more modern innovations. Sure, Russia is still "dangerous" to some of its neighbors--though probably not nearly as dangerous to those other neighbors as they might have been three years ago. And as we've seen if those other neighbors are given some hand-me-downs from the West they'll bleed Russia more than they can realistically afford. Somehow I don't think Russia will be eager to do another land grab for a very, very long time.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh, let's not forget that Ukraine is still heavily reliant on Western Support, so if you're a bordering Nation that cannot take on Russia without outside Support, it might be an ugly affair in case the West let's Russia do its thing.

Reliant on very restrained Western support which entails primarily equipment that has been outdated and overshadowed by more modern innovations. Sure, Russia is still "dangerous" to some of its neighbors--though probably not nearly as dangerous to those other neighbors as they might have been three years ago. And as we've seen if those other neighbors are given some hand-me-downs from the West they'll bleed Russia more than they can realistically afford. Somehow I don't think Russia will be eager to do another land grab for a very, very long time even if they ultimately manage to get what they want from Ukraine.

[Twdft]

Question for anyone with knowledge about Russian realms: are Russians still playing WoW or are any characters with Cyrillic names played by Ukrainians now?

Mythic+ season begins and this time I do not want to play with any Russians anymore. In Dragonflight I didn't make a fuss about them, I just got my Sunny out. But it seems Russian citizens are predominantly ok with the war so I won't group with any of them anymore.