Show newer

Good morning Resisters. I am in Branson this morning.

Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba doesn’t mince his words. There’s one item his country desperately needs to fend off Russia’s relentless missile attacks.

“Give us the damn Patriots,” he demanded. Originating in the United States, Patriot surface-to-air missiles are the best defense system to combat the ballistic missiles that have been raining down on Ukraine with increasing intensity in recent days.

@ukrainejournal

🔔 The number of the day is 150.

The russian occupiers have committed more than 150 gross violations of the operation of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant since the beginning of the large-scale invasion.

This was announced by the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Denys Shmyhal.

It will be recalled that due to russian shelling, the ZNPP went into emergency mode eight times: it started diesel generators to cool the reactors and avoid a disaster.

The enemy temporarily seized the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and has been engaged in nuclear blackmail for 754 days.

@ukrainejournal

💪On the approaches to Kyiv: a 21 year old Ukrainian fighter destroyed a cruise missile!

In the photo that went viral on all social networks, Oleksiy is a National Guardsman who shot down one of the cruise missiles that russia attacked Kyiv with this week.

He could hear it, then he saw it. He had only a couple of seconds to launch and hit the enemy iron.

They found the hero and asked him about the destruction of the russian cruise missile.

A very humble hero!
@ukrainejournal

Fabian Hoffmann on the role of "risk" in ongoing warfare and highlights the West's problematic approach to risk management.

ℹ️ The West's approach to supporting Ukraine, especially such key players as Germany and the USA, was to supply the necessary equipment while minimizing the risks of escalation.

ℹ️ These considerations were brought to the fore when discussing Taurus and ATACMS deliveries. Scholz and Biden have made it clear that they consider the risks associated with the supply of this type of weapons to be too significant.

ℹ️ The desire to eliminate risks for one's country and people is understandable. After all, this is the oath they took when they took office. However, this approach ignores important lessons from the history of the Cold War about how to deal with the crisis we are facing now.

ℹ️ In the current situation, there are no solutions without risks. This is the essence of the challenge we face in our relations with Russia. Decision makers must evaluate the risks they can or "should" take and those they should avoid. A categorical refusal to take risks is not a manifestation of leadership.

ℹ️ During the Cold War, Western leaders understood this. This is why the US, France and Britain ignored Khrushchev's ultimatum in 1958 to withdraw their troops from West Berlin, and why the US did not let Soviet tanks through at Checkpoint Charlie in 1961.

ℹ️ Those who made decisions were aware that this confrontation could turn into a military confrontation. However, they understood that it is impossible to give up prematurely. This would demonstrate a lack of determination and a penchant for blackmail, which would weaken future negotiating positions.

ℹ️ During the Cold War, there were several crises of this nature. These scenarios are called "risk competitions". This type of crisis involves the participation of at least two nuclear powers and tends to escalate until one of the parties gives in, leading to a de-escalation of the crisis.

ℹ️ Risk-based competition highlights the paradox of the nuclear age: to prevent nuclear conflict, you must signal to your counterpart that you are, in principle, willing to wage nuclear war and thus take some risk – even if neither side wants this result.

ℹ️ This logic influenced nuclear powers during the Cold War and remains very relevant today, as demonstrated by the war in Ukraine. Both NATO and Russia possess significant nuclear arsenals, making direct military confrontation virtually unthinkable.

ℹ️ And yet the West must convincingly demonstrate that it is not afraid of confrontation with Russia. An open display of risk aversion and fear of escalation could encourage aggressive behavior by Putin and facilitate Russian escalation, possibly also directly against NATO countries.

ℹ️ This is why the current position of Scholz and Biden is so unfortunate. They are right that an escalation caused by the supply of Taurus/ATACMS cannot be ruled out - just as, by the way, was the case with previous arms deliveries.

But the risks associated with supply must be carefully weighed against the risks associated with non-supply, and not just in a military sense.

ℹ️ The real damage from the refusal to supply Taurus/ATACMS can be seen primarily in the political consequences of this decision.

First, it will undermine the West's confidence in deterring Russia.

How can we convince Russia of our steadfast resolve when the crisis may escalate (as well as escalations in the future) with such apparent intolerance for such risks?

Second, it sends alarming signals to our Eastern European allies.

How can states bordering Russia trust their defense to countries that signal that they put their own security above all else?

ℹ️ In this context, it is not surprising that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland talks about the potential need for US allies to start their own nuclear weapons programs. Poland is using its nuclear latency to signal an urgent need for credible security commitments.

@ukrainejournal

FROM THE ANALYST
GOOD NEWS FOR UKRAINE

France has announced that it’s about to use emergency powers to requisition production facilities to manufacture weapons for itself and Ukraine.
The EU has granted €130m to Rheinmettal to improve factories for 155mm shell production in Spain, Romania, France and Germany.
The Czech government said that it has now been pledged enough money to increase the shell buying target from 800,000 to 1,500,000.
This has enabled the Ukrainian army to increase its artillery usage because it knows it’s getting new shells from other sources. The need to conserve for an emergency has been substantially reduced.
Interesting photos released showing how dispersed the Ukrainian building facilities are for the Bohdana Self Propelled Gun system. This makes it so much harder for the Russians to destroy production.
Ukrainian trainees returned to Warsaw from Suda Bay in Crete - a Greek/ NATO base where the Greek S300 were stationed. These are planned for transfer to Ukraine - having trained the operators it seems that transfer is already underway.
Russia admits that 10,000 Syrian volunteers in the Russian army basically vanished into the distance and haven’t been tracked down.
Russian artillery pieces since the invasion have fallen from 23,500 total in use and stored - only 4,500 are estimated to to be left operational. In addition the losses of SPG’s have forced the army to resort to older towed artillery.
Furthermore there is zero indication that Russia is building any kind of towed or self propelled artillery. Nor does it have spare barrels to refit worn guns with. They just don’t have enough of the precision equipment, the alloys or the capacity to do so.

NOT SUCH GOOD NEWS

Why is Russia using Starlink? How has this been allowed? Why is it Ukrainian systems are operating at half speed? Why have Russian systems not been turned off? WTF is Musk up to and why is he allowed to get away with it?

Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦!

@ukrainejournal

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.